How to defend the trinity!

[Grailhunter]

Which is not relevant as to whether or not it is true, correct?

I believe it is relevant. Because they came up with the doctrine to end disagreements

I have yet to see one.

Well that is not true because I have quoted a few but I will post them. Let me get through this barrage of questions first.

Not only do those not prove the Trinity false, the use of Father and Son to refer to two distinct persons proves the deity of Christ, thereby supporting the doctrine of the Trinity.

This whole statement is false. It refers to two distinct persons and Christ deity is because He is the Son of God the Father.

None of those prove the Trinity false. Context really matters.

Because you cannot read?

Do you know the doctrine of the Trinity states? I ask because your question here suggests that you don’t, as does your reference to “three Gods.”

Three Gods in "one"
I believe in another definition of the Trinity...Trinity, in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. Tri-unity....not Tri-one.

What does this have to with the Trinity? One person can either choose to sit on another person’s lap or stand beside them.

Humor.....Christ is a different God that sits in a different chair to the right of God the Father.

 

[Grailhunter]

Again, this suggests that you do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. I have found that that is most often why people think it is false.

I disagree, For God to give His beloved Son defines two person....one beloved by the other and God giving a different God...His son.

Again, these suggest you don’t understand the doctrine.

I think your objections suggest you do not understand the Truth.

 

[Grailhunter]

Free

The problem with the one God formula for the Trinty is that as a whole the scriptures as well as the storyline of the Gospels do not support the one God formula. The Gospels clearly show the Father and Son interacting throughout Christ’s ministry. The Church’s frustrations with the scriptures led them to actually adding verses to certain Bibles to clarify their point and add authority to their doctrine. The most well known of these forged scriptures is called “the Comma Johanneum Addition” which still appears in the King James Version.

The Comma Johanneum as it is referred to originated as a common literary explanation or formula for the one God Trinity. The first discussion of the Comma may have been around the 3rd century. Some mention a connection with some of the early Church Fathers, like Cyprian which debated the oneness concepts of the Trinity. It first appeared in written form during the 4th century in the Latin homily Liber Apologeticus, which was probably written by Priscillian of Avila. This theological formula was circulated from then on, but was not accepted, or at least was not quoted by most of the early Church Fathers in which there was a continual disagreement on the construct of the Trinity.

At some point this short summary of the Trinity made its way into the margin notes of some of the manuscripts that were written after the 5th century. Unlike other examples of popular margin notes that made their way into the scriptures, the Comma Johanneum found its way into the verses of the Bible by way of another avenue. After the early 16th century, the Byzantines began to recopy and retranslate the available Greek texts of the New Testament. At this point some of these copies became known as the “Textus Receptus.” ---Erasmus--- It was in some of these that the formula was added and then later included in some of the Bibles. Most notably the King James Version, which relied heavily on these texts. On the 2nd of June 1927, Pope Pius XI decreed that the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute. The updated " Nova Vulgata" edition of the Vulgate, published in 1979 as a result of the Second Vatican Council, does not include the Comma. In the Catholic study Bible I have that was printed around 1960 it includes a combination of these two scriptures, with a side note that explains that it is a re-phrasing of the scriptures by the Holy See, as it is his prerogative.

As it happened the Comma Johanneum Addition was much more than a re-translation, or an addition, but rather a replacement of the original scriptures with a theological statement. They kept the verse numbers in sequence so that it would not be as noticeable, but replaced the words.

The scriptures involved are 1st John 5:6-8. The original scriptures read as follows... (Quoting 6 through 8, so it can be read in context)

“6. This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. 7. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8. And it is the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”

This was replaced with what came to be called the Comma Johanneum Addition.

6: This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7: For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8: And there are three that bear witness in Earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

As one can see there is no chance that this is simply a different translation, but rather a removal of the scriptures and an insertion of a known theological statement for an intended purpose. Of course and again, there is no question that the Trinity exists, just that the Bible does not support the commonly explained formula or description of it. And this is the larger problem, if everybody changes the scriptures to what they believe, then we do not get an accurate reading of the Word of God, but instead a denominational sermon of beliefs. The Comma Johanneum Addition is a good illustration of the frustration that some had with trying to promote their beliefs and to what extent they would go to, to promote their beliefs above and over the Bible. This is not a unique observation but rather the opinion of many scholars and most of the well known reference material explains the Trinity as more of a doctrine than a biblical teaching.

For example:
The McKenzie Bible Dictionary explains it this way.... “The Trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God there are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly or formally a biblical belief.” Which hold true to the fact that the word Trinity does not occur in the Holy Bible.

Those that believe in the one God formula cling to a couple scriptures but there are so many scriptures that disagree with this formula directly or by circumstance. It does happen, people get fascinated by the "one liners" in the Bible and employ imagination to fill in the blanks...it is a good thing that they did not promote the scriptures about hating your mother and father and pretty much your wife and your whole family or the one that says that It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Or we would have a religion that only appealed to the poor and they would not consider Christianity unless they hated their mother and father LOL and their whole family.

The Truth is, the Trinity is not the merging or mixing of three entities into one, like you would a cake mix, nor is it a three headed God. It is a condition and a reality that is beyond our understanding, but in loose terms.....I believe and define that there are three Gods in one Godhead, a Devine unity, but not one.

 

[Grailhunter]

Which exists simultaneously in an unexplainable spiritual condition of union, that allows for the sharing of traits, principles, powers and abilities, but prevents any possibility of disagreement. Still, this being true, they have their own individual presence, minds, wills, and characters. Three Gods that can sit side by side on three thrones. (I am not going to address spiritual thrones thing, it is just referenced that way in the Bible.) The Trinity makes sense, the scriptures that describe Them, make sense. The following discussion includes scriptures that speak of the Trinity as it is referenced in the Gospels. So we are going to put this in motion and as with reality and the truth, it will move through the story of Christ’s mission in the Gospels. The best example of the Trinity we have is how the three Gods interacted with each other during the Gospels. What they said to each other and about each other. Much of the proof comes from the lips of Christ Himself as He describes Himself and His Father as two persons in two different places. Father and Son. Keeping in mind that it is very important to Christianity that Christ is the Son of God the Father.

1. If Christ’s throne is on the right hand of God, He is not within God and that position although important is second to God the Father. Mark 16:19 “So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into Heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.”

2. If one had to leave before the other could come, as in the case of the Holy Spirit, this would suggest individuality.

3. If there is any conversation at all between the three entities; that would indicate some individuality.

4. If the conversation included a request, like Yeshua asking His Father to bypass the cup (so-to-speak); it indicates individuality and hierarchy.

5. If the conversation is in the form of a pray. For example; Our Father which art in Heaven.....But the Son was standing before them. This indicates individuality and hierarchy.

6. If one God refers to Himself or others refer to Him as the Father and the other God refers to Himself or others refer to Him as the Son; This indicates individuality and hierarchy. This is particularly significant because this is a self defined and self described definition by God Himself. God decided to define their positions as God the Father and God the Son. God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son….

It was God that chose to describe Himself as a Father, so we could understand our relationship with Him and His relationship with His Son, in human terms. There is a clear authoritative aspect associated with the Father. There is no possible way of mistaking this relationship as equal or the same person. Yeshua was the begotten Son of God. God did not begot Himself.

7. Again, for God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son...John 3:16 There is no part of this verse that suggest that He begot Himself, or sent Himself, or that his Son was Him. The meaning of the verse is that, it took a lot of love for God to offer His real Son as a sacrifice for the world. This verse is talking about two Gods. God the Father, gave His Son.

8. If a person can sin against one God worse than the other...as in the case of the un-pardonable sin. This indicates separation of some sort as well as a very special uniqueness in regard to the Holy Spirit.

9. If Yeshua said, “...the father is greater than I.” John 14:28 --- then this is proof of His understanding of individuality and hierarchy.

10. then He said, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good, but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." Matthew 19:27

11. Then he said, "And do not call anyone on earth your father, for One is your Father, He who is in Heaven. And do not be called leaders, for One is your Leader, that is, Christ." Matthew 23:9 This refers to Yahweh as Father and Christ as leader. Similar to other scriptures referring to Christ as the head of the Church.

12. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 1st Corinthians 11:3 This clearly defines hierarchal positions.

13. John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (How many ways does this prove two persons, in two places, God the Son referring to His Father as His God.)

14. There is not a single verse that would indicate or suggest that God the Father was crucified, or that they were crucified together, or that all three were crucified. Christ the God was crucified and ascended to His Father and took his place on a throne...at the right hand of His Father, His God, God Almighty. The storyline does not suggest that Christ is talking to Himself when He is talking to His Father.

15. Matthew 20:20….Mark 10:35…When asked by the mother of John and James if they could sit on the right and the left of Christ in the kingdom to come, One of the things Christ said to her (them) was “....this is not Mine to give....” This would indicate that it was someone else’s to give...another God...Not Himself and higher authority. This point is further exemplified by John 3:35 The Father loves the Son, and hath given all things into His hands. John 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come forth from God, and was going back to God; >>> Definitely defining two persons, giving and receiving occurs between two persons and so does coming from and going back to. These verses indicate hierarchy and individuality. God the Father had the authority to give, you will never see where Yeshua gave authority to His Father.

16. If the conversation includes an element of surprise, like when Yeshua was on the cross and asked His Father why He had forsaken Him. This would be strong evidence of individuality.

17. If the conversation indicates disparity of location and movement between the two deities, such as ascended to my Father, I came forth from the Father, or was sent by the Father, or because I go to the Father, this would all indicate individuality, hierarchy, and different location.

18. If one knows something that the other does not, like in Matt. 24:36 where Yeshua said, He did not know when the “end of the age” would occur, only the Father knew. This definitely indicates individuality and is conclusive proof that we are not talking about a single mind.

19. If the Son was sent by the Father. This indicates individuality and hierarchy of authority. One person sent somewhere by another. You will never read that Yeshua sent the Father anywhere.

20. If Christ said, (John 5:30) “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” The statement regarding the will of the one Who sent Him, occurs in other verses. John 6:38 & 39 Matt 12:50. Then there is Mark 14:36 “And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.” This is a request from one person to another of higher authority and a designation of two separate wills... “not what I will, but what thou wilt.” The wills and minds of two Gods, clearly defined in words and actions with a clear show of respect from Son to Father agreeing to subject Himself to the will of the Father.

21. The Apostle’s Creed defines God the Father as the creator of Heaven and Earth....not Christ....not the Holy Spirit, and not the three of them.

22. And Christ said this while He walked the earth...But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 10:33 God the Father and God the Son. Two persons in two different places and the Son denying someone before His Father.

 

[Grailhunter]

23. “The My Father verses” are the most prevalent and best examples of Yeshua’s relationship with Yahweh. Over fifty times in the Gospels Yeshua refers to Yahweh as “My Father.” As far as understanding the interconnecting relationship between Yeshua and Yahweh these verses are very important to understand in content, context, and perspective. In most of these verses the differences between Yahweh and Yeshua are expressed, either by hierarchy, authority, interaction, will, mind, movement, communication, or physical location. In John 2:16, Yeshua indicates that the Temple is His Father’s house.....not His. Christ never indicates that the Temple belongs to Him, the temple belongs to another. Nor did Christ ever suggest that after He left they should worship Him in the Temple. In John 14:2 Christ tells of a place that would await the Apostles. He says, “In My Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.” Note that He is not saying, His house. In 14 of the “My Father” verses, Yeshua refers to Yahweh as the Father in Heaven, precisely written, “Father which is in Heaven.” In 7 of these verses He is referring to His Father in Heaven, worded “Father in Heaven.” So Christ was standing on Earth referring to God the Father in Heaven, two different places. In John 5:37 Christ says, “And the Father who sent Me, He has borne witness of Me. You have neither heard His voice at anytime, nor seen His form.” In this verse one should understand that it takes someone else to bare witness of another, and the voice and form they were hearing and seeing then, was not that of God the Father. He was not baring witness of Himself. In Matthew 18:10, where Christ was warning not to offend the “little ones”....Christ indicates that their Angels constantly behold the face of Yahweh...in Heaven. Now surely, there is an understanding of the concept of omni-presence, but if you notice, Christ is not saying, they behold My face, or Our faces. Throughout the storyline of the Gospel, Christ makes it clear that He and His Father are in two different places. Christ’s overall mission on Earth is to fulfill the will of God which is Yahweh....and He makes it clear that Yahweh, His Father sent Him. Yeshua never said in the Gospels that He sent Himself or came on His own behalf, or was doing His own will, or begot Himself. Over 40 times Christ says in the Gospels that His Father sent Him. This denotes the higher authority of the Father and that His Father is another person at a different place. In several verses Christ indicates that God the Father gives or appoints certain things to Him. To appoint or give is an indication of hierarchy, authority, and an indication of two positions, given and received. You will not find a scripture where Christ says He sent the Father somewhere, or that the Father was doing His will, or He gave authority to the Father, it is not His position to do any of that. Other examples, Christ would not say, I gave Myself, all things, nor would He say that He loved Himself. In John 10:17, Christ says, “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again.” The same is true of honor or glory. Honor is a heartfelt expression from one person to another. Christ does not honor Himself or love Himself. John 8:54, “If I honor myself, my honor is nothing: it is my Father that honoreth me; of whom ye say, that He is your God. All three of these expressions describe something happening from one...to... another.

Apostolic Perspective. There is a continual reference to Father and Son and a designation of Yahweh ad God the Father in Heaven while Christ was on earth. And if you look closely the scriptures refer to God as the Father and Christ as Lord in the same sentence. As in the benediction of some of books in the NT...2nd Corinthians, Ephesians, and Philippians.

1st Timothy 6:13
“I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate.”

Matthew 5:16
Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 5:48
Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 6:1
Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 7:11
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!

Matthew 7:21
Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

Matthew 10:32
Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 10:33
But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 12:50
For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.

Matthew 16:17
And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 18:10
See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 18:14
So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.

Matthew 18:19
Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 23:9
Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

Luke 2:49
And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” (Note again: His Father’s house, not His house, not Our house.)

 

[Grailhunter]

The True concept of “oneness” is really not a matter of arithmetic. In modern times we are all about numbers, but a modern first grader would know more about numbers than most of the people of antiquity. The concept of one had a symbology in this time period, not just the literal one, but also the concept of “unity.” The word “one” in regard to relationships can also mean solidarity. Again, in relation to the Trinity it is the unity and the solidarity, in mind, in heart, and in spirit between Yahweh, Yeshua, and the Holy Spirit. God the Father gives us in Genesis 2:24 an idea of how the concept of two people being one can be applied; “For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” Yeshua reiterates this concept in Mathew 19:5 & 6 and Mark 10:8, specifically saying, “And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.” Certainly everyone understands that husbands and wives do not merge to be one physical human, nor do they lose their character. They certainly join physically but they are not absorbed into one person, even though the condition of solidarity may exist between them. So in that case the word one is not denoting “the number one” or the singularity of the two persons in the marriage. Beyond what is listed in the examples above, in the New Testament Yeshua gives us a clearer explanation of this concept of one. Speaking to God the Father (He is not talking to Himself) Yeshua says this about the concept of one...John 17:21 “that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.” Because Yeshua says “just as” this is an exactness, a duplication of a condition that we can achieve, and He states that this condition of “oneness” can apply to us, but it has nothing to do with absorption or singularity, but rather a condition of spiritual union and solidarity between God and us. The next verse further defines this by describing a unity with Christ that would cause the same condition with us as it did with them, a condition of perfection. Again, not talking to Himself, in John 17:23 “I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me.” In this context millions of people could be made one...one being a abstract concept of one, but a more literal meaning of unity, solidarity, and perfection and even a “body” that is considered one....the body of Christ or the body of the Church being one. And then, the next verse is probably one of the best verses to put this oneness concept into perspective. The leading verses are speaking of the works of the Holy Spirit and then ends with this explanation. 1st Corinthians 12:11-13 “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.”

The same is true of the Godhead, in this case three, but if there would have been a hundred named Gods that talked with each other and did all the above, the Church would have labeled them one in order to get their theology to work. Certainly multiple persons in one God is a difficult concept, but the more persons the more difficult the concept becomes. If there would have been eight, sixty, or a hundred persons it would have been a concept near to impossible to convey. Tri-unity is difficult enough, but sixty-unity would have been intolerable and unacceptable. But as it was, three aspects of one god was a common scenario in Pagan beliefs, the triple goddess is a good example. The multiple aspects of God was within their mythology and made their conversions comfortable but made matters more confusing for everyone else. The one God formula and changing Yahweh's name to God literally changes the meaning of hundreds of scriptures, maybe over a thousand.

The one God formula for the Trinity did not occur for several centuries but the first documented time the word Trinity was used in relations to Christianity was written in the second century. (Now, the definitions that follow are not that hard to lookup and for anyone that is truly interested, I recommend it.) The Greek word used for Trinity was Τριάς, meaning "a set of three." The only meaning of one in this word was that it was one set of three. As time went on and the Church’s definition for the word Trinity changed, the next word for Trinity came from two Latin words. Trinitas, meaning, "the number three” and Unitas, meaning, unity; state of being one or undivided · sameness, uniformity · agreement, concord.

 

[Grailhunter]

Latin is not a biblical language. Latin is a very “loose” language, it has a few meanings. Within the meaning of this word the Church could fit its new definition. The English word for Trinity, in the Webster’s Dictionary references Old French and Latin, and I quote..... “1. a set of three persons or things that form a unit. 2. in Christian theology, the union of three divine persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in one Godhead.” end quote..... Which is exactly the definition of the Trinity.

The biblical testament of the authority of the Father has always been a thorn in the side of the Church’s doctrine of the Trinity, because hands down, the Old Testament and Christ Himself testified clearly and definitively, of the authority of the Father, over a hundred times, dozens of these coming from Christ Himself. In the Old Testament Yahweh makes it clear that He is singular God. He never functions as a trio, and specially indicates that He is the only one and no one like Him. There are zero suggestions of a Godhead in the Old Testament. Yahweh never suggested that there is a Godhead. There are zero suggestions that Yahweh recognized any other entity but Himself. There are zero suggestions that He recognized any name as a Deity other than Himself. No accounts in Old Testament of Yahweh conversing with Yeshua, no discussion defined between the two. There is One God in the religion of the Jews. You shall have no other Gods before me. There is zero evidence of God having a Son in the Old Testament. If a Jew started praying to another named God they would have been stoned.

In the New Testament Christ could have added to the wonder of His relationship by explaining how God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit sit on one throne. Omni presence is the catch all for a lot of this to explain away the truth. If you had to add a note to all the scriptures that I have presented....Note: This scripture does not mean this, it mean this or that....you would fill our Bible with these notes and this should really be a red flag.... This is pretty much what the Jehovah's Witnesses had to do....until they just wrote their own Bible. The concept of these three Gods doing all this but being one is not explained in the Bible as the omni-presence feature of God.

The facts and the bottom line is, Christ is the Son of the Almighty God. Christ called Him His Father and in three scriptures Christ called the Father, His God.
Yahweh---God Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and mankind. Father and God to Yeshua.
Yeshua---A full-fledged God, The Son of God Almighty, Messiah and Savior
The unnamed God referred to as the Holy Spirit, a full-fledged God.
Helper, guide, nurture, teacher, wisdom. Because the Holy Spirit was not named and given the designation of Spirit, people think the Holy Spirit is different in substance than Yahweh and Yeshua....but no scripture suggests that.

So that is it, truth for you. While those that believe in the one God formula cling to a couple scriptures, I have provided hundreds that the Trinity is made up of three Gods, unique and distinct.

On the other hand, these biblical proofs of the authority of God the Father in no way conflict with beliefs regarding the Trinity. In the Old Testament it is easy to see that Yahweh proclaims Himself as the ultimate authority and does not define Himself as a trio. In the New Testament after Yahweh begets a Son, His Son repeatedly attests to the authority of the Father. A numerical count of the three Gods occur as the Gospels progress, but descriptions or discussions regarding the trio of Gods does not occur until after Christ ascends to Heaven, and rightly so, the trio did not form until He ascended to Heaven. At which time, God the Father still holds the positional authority as God Almighty. In relation to each other the Bible assigns them positional seniority as we would understand the relationship of Father and Son....more or less the chain of command...But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and head of woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1st Corinthians 11:3

Then from our perspective they have equal authority over us. Then in relation to the salvation of humanity, Christ has all authority. To put this in simple terms it would be like delegating authority to complete a task, but Yahweh is still chairman of the board in Heaven. The Truth makes sense. The Shield of the Trinity is still compatible as a representation of the Godhead, in that God in center represents that spiritual unity, while there is a God called Yahweh, a God called Yeshua, and a God called the Holy Spirit. And at the same time the representation makes it clear the Yahweh is not Yeshua and neither are the Holy Spirit. Three individual Gods that are in accord. But still I see people scratching their heads over it.

 

[Alfred Persson]

I believe in being God taught-Spirit taught-no need for the theshiva of the Academia-the gospel is for the common people-not professors and intellectuals.

Act 19:9 But when some unbelievers in the shul were being hardened and were disobeying, speaking Chillul Hashem of the Derech Hashem before the multitude, Rav Sha'ul withdrew from them. Rav Sha'ul took the Moshiach's talmidim and yom yom was saying shiurim in the [Messianic] yeshiva of Tyrannus.


1Co_1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

1Co_1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

1Co_1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

1Co_1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

1Co_3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

1Co_3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

1Co_3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

1Co_3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

1Co_4:10 We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.

1Co_6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

J.

And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. (1 Cor. 12:28 NKJ)

I converted from JWs to Christ, so the first thing after being born again was to learn Christian doctrine from major Systematic Theologians Lous Berkhof, William Shedd (difficult to understand), GC Berkouwer, Henry Thiessen (plain English), Gustav Oehler. The Holy Spirit does guide me into all truth, and He used these teachers to accomplish that.

What I often regret is the path I took after being born again. I sailed on ships, had a small business. If I could redo it, I'd likely work my way through a Bible College or Seminary. I think overall I would have profited Christ much more than I did. I wasted a lot of precious time on secular pursuits.

God the Holy Spirit works through the Scriptures, and Teachers He gave the Church who teach the Scriptures. That isn't wisdom of the world. I don't disparage our schools of learning, evidently neither did Paul. In the text you cite, he continued to lecture in the Bible School of Tyrannus.

Here's something to ponder. Paul wrote most of the NT. The other Apostles didn't have his Training, he was a student of Gamaliel of the school of Hillel:

"I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers' law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today. (Acts 22:3 NKJ)

That shows in Paul's letters, as the video you shared revealed about the Holy Trinity. Things like grace, faith, etc are discussed in Jewish Tradition. There is bad with the good, but the good is called "treasure" by Christ:

52 Then He said to them, "Therefore every scribe instructed concerning the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old." (Matt. 13:52 NKJ)

Paul is that scribe, brining treasure from the School of Hillel, Jewish Tradition. Many in the early Church were converted Pharisees like Paul. When God wanted the "meat of His truth" made known and written down, He converted Paul who was immersed in Rabbinic Thought and Argumentation.

Just something to ponder. There is wisdom in a multitude of counselors.

 

[Johann!@#]

And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. (1 Cor. 12:28 NKJ)

12:28 "God has appointed" This is an AORIST MIDDLE INDICATIVE. This is theologically parallel to 1 Cor. 12:18.

"church"
See Special Topic: Church (ekklēsia)

"apostles"
The Greek term is from one of the Greek VERBS "to send." It was used by the rabbis for someone sent as an official representative of another. In the Gospel of John it takes on the implication of Jesus the Messiah who was sent by God. The Sent One sends His followers (cf. John 20:21). See Special Topic: Send.

Originally this referred to the Twelve, but later it was used of others:-But remember Alfred Persson-We do not sent ourselves.

Barnabas (cf. Acts 14:4,14)
Andronicus and Junia (cf. Rom. 16:7)
Apollos (cf. 1 Cor. 4:9)
James the half brother of Jesus (cf. Gal. 1:19)
Epaphroditus (cf. Phil. 2:25
Silas and Timothy (cf. 1 Thess. 2:6)
The gift is mentioned in Eph. 4:11 as an ongoing gift.

"prophets"
See Special Topic: Prophecy (NT) and Special Topic: Prophecy (OT)

"teachers"
This gift is mentioned in Acts 13:1 in combination with prophecy, but in Eph. 4:11 it is linked with pastors. In 2 Tim. 1:11 Paul says he is a preacher, apostle, and a teacher. Here it seems to stand independent as it does in Rom. 12:7. It is also discussed separately in James 3:1ff. This implies that these leadership gifts can be combined in different ways in different believers to meet the need of the church in that day or area. Each of these gifted leaders proclaimed the same gospel, but with different emphases.

"miracles"
Notice in 1 Cor. 12:9 and 10 this gift is mentioned twice, here but once.
Miracles were a way to confirm the gospel. They are prominent in the Gospels and Acts and mentioned in the Apostolic letters. They are still common in areas where the gospel is new.

"healings"
This gift functions both to reveal the love of God and confirm the gospel. The question is not does God still heal, but why some and not others? James 5:13-18 give further guidelines about how this should be dealt with in a local church. In James it is a ministry of the local elders, not a spiritual gift.

Special Topic: Healing

NASB, NKJV   "helps"
NRSV   "forms of assistance"
TEV   "power to. . .help others"
NJB   "helpful acts"

This term is used of "helpful deeds." It is a general term and may refer to the regular ministry of deacons (cf. Phil. 1:1 and M. R. Vincent, Word Studies, vol. 2, p. 793).

Special Topic: Deacons

NASB, NKJV   "administrations"
NRSV   "forms of leadership"
TEV   "those who are given the power. . .to direct them"
NJB   "the gifts of. . .guidance"
This term was originally used of a ship's pilot (cf. Acts 27:11; Rev. 18:17). It was used metaphorically for church leaders who function as guides. This is the ability to lead others to accomplish spiritual tasks.

A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures In Greek New Testament, vol. 4, says that "helps" refers to the work of deacons helping the poor and sick and that "administrations" refers to the work of bishops/elders/pastors, pp. 173-174.

"various kinds of tongues" See note at 1 Cor. 12:10.

Special Topic: Speaking in Tongues

12:29-30 This series of questions all begin with a NEGATIVE PARTICLE (i.e., mē), which denotes that the questions expect a "no" answer.

This is an important passage in refuting the theological overstatement that "tongues" is a gift for every believer, a sort of confirming sign of salvation and/or a special mark of true spirituality. It is a valid gift, but not for everyone. The other extreme is to reject "tongues" as passing away in the Apostolic era. This is also a theological overstatement (cf. 1 Cor. 14:39).

The whole point of this chapter is that there is one body, but many parts. No one part (i.e., gift) is pre-imminent.

12:31a
NASB, NIV   "But earnestly desire the greater gifts"
NKJV   "But earnestly desire the best gifts"
NRSV   "But strive for the greater gifts"
TEV   "Set your hearts, then, on the more important gifts"
NJB   "Set your mind on the higher gifts"
This is either

a PRESENT ACTIVE INDICATIVE (i.e., a statement of fact)
PRESENT ACTIVE IMPERATIVE (i.e., a continuing command)
W. Randolph Tate, Biblical Interpretation, prefers the INDICATIVE, "you are striving for the better gifts," as another of Paul's sarcastic comments (p. 22).

The second part of this verse should go with chapter 13. The greater gifts would refer to

faith, hope, and love of 1 Cor. 13:13, with love being greatest
the gifts which edify the whole body, 1 Cor. 14:1ff, which would be preaching and teaching (cf. 1 Cor. 12:28)
This admonition seems to refer to the church as a whole, not the individual. Focusing on the individual is a common western predisposition. The focus of this chapter is corporate. The church should ask the Spirit for more of His giftedness (i.e., believers) that proclaims the gospel and builds up the body.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

This is a study guide commentary, which means that you are responsible for your own interpretation of the Bible. Each of us must walk in the light we have. You, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit are priority in interpretation. You must not relinquish this to a commentator.

These discussion questions are provided to help you think through the major issues of this section of the book. They are meant to be thought-provoking, not definitive.

Why was there such a problem over spiritual gifts at Corinth?
When does the believer receive his/her spiritual gift? Does everyone have one?
Can one have more than one spiritual gift? Can one ever choose his/her gift?
What is the purpose of spiritual gifts?

Agree?
Johann.

 

[Johann!@#]

I converted from JWs to Christ, so the first thing after being born again was to learn Christian doctrine from major Systematic Theologians Lous Berkhof, William Shedd (difficult to understand), GC Berkouwer, Henry Thiessen (plain English), Gustav Oehler. The Holy Spirit does guide me into all truth, and He used these teachers to accomplish that.

What I often regret is the path I took after being born again. I sailed on ships, had a small business. If I could redo it, I'd likely work my way through a Bible College or Seminary. I think overall I would have profited Christ much more than I did. I wasted a lot of precious time on secular pursuits.

We had a similar experience-up until about 3 years ago I "stumbled" upon Utley-and since then had to unlearn what I have learned-and the MORE I know the LESS I know. I was in an outreach ministry called The Ark in Durban-same as David Wilkerson.
The Holy Spirit, like you, is guiding me through this Texas Baptist minister-unknown by most-to help me gain a deeper appreciation and love for our Lord Jesus Christ.
God bless Alfred Persson -we are in a race-our eyes on Jesus Christ.
Johann.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Free

The problem with the one God formula for the Trinty is that as a whole the scriptures as well as the storyline of the Gospels do not support the one God formula. The Gospels clearly show the Father and Son interacting throughout Christ’s ministry.

The problem with your statement about the "one God formula"? It's a deduction from an invalid premise, Christ's relationship with His Father as Incarnate man is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent to the question "is Infinite Spirit subsisting in Three Divine Persons."

Christ's Father/Son relationship confirms the doctrine the Persons are Separate and Distinct, even though the Divine Essence they share is the same.

I recommend you learn some of the rules of informal logic. One thing I learned well from the JWs, you can have a form of logic that seems right, but the end of it is death because its premises are often fallacies.

There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death. (Prov. 14:12 NKJ)

 

[Grailhunter]

The problem with your statement about the "one God formula"? It's a deduction from an invalid premise, Christ's relationship with His Father as Incarnate man is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent to the question "is Infinite Spirit subsisting in Three Divine Persons."

Christ's Father/Son relationship confirms the doctrine the Persons are Separate and Distinct, even though the Divine Essence they share is the same.

I recommend you learn some of the rules of informal logic. One thing I learned well from the JWs, you can have a form of logic that seems right, but the end of it is death because its premises are often fallacies.

There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death. (Prov. 14:12 NKJ)

Father God and Son God....notice the and....these designations were defined by God.
I am well verse with logic, it you were, you would understand what I wrote.
You have to deny a lot of scriptures and the storyline to think that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit equals one.
That is a long write up with a lot of scriptures. I recommend that you study them hard.

 

[Free]

Lots of questions....Monotheism....no. I believe in
God the Father…Yahweh…God Almighty…Creator of Heaven and Earth.
God the Son…Yeshua…the Son of God…Messiah…Savior.
The Holy Spirit…the unnamed God…helper…guide… teacher… strengthener. Pretty much along the lines of the Apostle’s Creed.

You deny the Trinity and monotheism. Do you believe in polytheism or Modalism? If Jesus is God the Son and the Holy Spirit is God, then who is Yahweh?

I believe rapture is discussed in the scriptures....

But the word isn’t in the Bible.

I believe it is relevant. Because they came up with the doctrine to end disagreements

But the truth of the Trinity isn’t based on who developed the doctrine but on what the Bible says. The disagreements had to end, as who God is is of vital importance.

This whole statement is false. It refers to two distinct persons and Christ deity is because He is the Son of God the Father.

Interesting. You restated what I said but call my statement false.

Because you cannot read?

These sorts of questions and statements violate the ToS. As I said, it’s because context is king. Phil 2:5-8 is key, as are John 1:1-18 and Col 1:16-17. Verses that speak of Jesus’s humanity cannot trump those of his deity or vice versa. It all forms the context of who Jesus is and must all be made sense of as a whole.

Three Gods in "one"

No, that would be a straw man.

I believe in another definition of the Trinity...Trinity, in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. Tri-unity....not Tri-one.

Humor.....Christ is a different God that sits in a different chair to the right of God the Father.

So, polytheism it is. Yet, the Bible repeatedly asserts that there is only one God.

 

[Grailhunter]

You deny the Trinity and monotheism. Do you believe in polytheism or Modalism? If Jesus is God the Son and the Holy Spirit is God, then who is Yahweh?

Funny question.
As I said before, I believe in…
God the Father…Yahweh…God Almighty…Creator of Heaven and Earth and Adam and Eve.
God the Son…Yeshua…the Son of God…Messiah…Savior.
The Holy Spirit…the unnamed God…helper…guide… teacher… strengthener.
Pretty much along the lines of the Apostles Creed.

Even though the word Trinity is not in the scriptures, I do believe in the Trinity as described by the scriptures. Tri-unity...Not Tri-one.

 

[Grailhunter]

These sorts of questions and statements violate the ToS. As I said, it’s because context is king. Phil 2:5-8 is key, as are John 1:1-18 and Col 1:16-17. Verses that speak of Jesus’s humanity cannot trump those of his deity or vice versa. It all forms the context of who Jesus is and must all be made sense of as a whole.

The scriptures define all that clearly....you just have to read them.

 

[Grailhunter]

So, polytheism it is. Yet, the Bible repeatedly asserts that there is only one God.

Not really the storyline of the Gospels show Yahweh and Yeshua interacting in different ways as individuals. Then you have the way Yeshua refers to His Father.....God the Father knew when the end would come and Yeshua did not...When the mother of James and John asked that her two sons may sit, one at Your right side and one at Your left side......Christ answered...But the places at My right side and at My left side are not Mine to give. The Son ascends to the Father…. Just few of many instances. Separate presence and separate minds, one loves the other they are not loving themselves.....They have conversations....they are not talking to themselves....it is all in the write up.

polytheism? How many names are there.....understand a God with three aspects is strictly Pagan.

 

[Johann!@#]

Not really the storyline of the Gospels show Yahweh and Yeshua interacting in different ways as individuals. Then you have the way Yeshua refers to His Father.....God the Father knew when the end would come and Yeshua did not...When the mother of James and John asked that her two sons may sit, one at Your right side and one at Your left side......Christ answered...But the places at My right side and at My left side are not Mine to give. The Son ascends to the Father…. Just few of many instances. Separate presence and separate minds, one loves the other they are not loving themselves.....They have conversations....they are not talking to themselves....it is all in the write up.

polytheism? How many names are there.....understand a God with three aspects is strictly Pagan.

Is the Trinity something that was made up in the New Testament? Something that only Christians have ever believed in? In this video we investigate the early Jewish sources which pre-date the destruction of the Second Temple, as well as a rabbinic-produced Hebrew work, 3 Enoch, to uncover how it used to be kosher to believe in multiple persons in the one God, and to believe in the possibility of incarnation - that God can take on physical form.

Just to add additional information-not here to engage.
J.

 

[Free]

I disagree, For God to give His beloved Son defines two person....one beloved by the other and God giving a different God...His son.

I fully agree with your statement, as it is in full agreement with the doctrine of the Trinity.

You previously stated: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life....Not gave His beloved self."

I replied: "Again, this suggests that you do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. I have found that that is most often why people think it is false."

To say that God gave his Son and "His beloved self," suggests a lack of understanding of the Trinity. That is an argument against Modalism, not Trinitarianism, and that is where your disagreements lies.

I think your objections suggest you do not understand the Truth.

Yet, what you have presented of the Trinity so far is a straw man, based on Modalism, not scripture.

Free

The problem with the one God formula for the Trinty is that as a whole the scriptures as well as the storyline of the Gospels do not support the one God formula.

The Bible unequivocally and consistently states that there is only one God, not three as you believe. The Bible is thoroughly monotheistic regarding there being one true God. That is precisely why the doctrine of the Trinity came to be discovered in the Bible.

There are three basic foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity, as given in scripture:

Foundation one: There is only one God.
Foundation two: There are three divine persons.
Foundation three (which follows from the first two): The persons are coequal and coeternal.
(From James R. White's, The Forgotten Trinity.)

These are all clearly given in the Bible and what we must take into account in coming to an understanding of the nature of God.

The Gospels clearly show the Father and Son interacting throughout Christ’s ministry.

Exactly. This is one of the reasons why the doctrine of the Trinity best takes this into account. Polytheism is unbiblical.

The Church’s frustrations with the scriptures led them to actually adding verses to certain Bibles to clarify their point and add authority to their doctrine.

You say "verses," plural. Which verses?

The most well known of these forged scriptures is called “the Comma Johanneum Addition” which still appears in the King James Version.

The Comma Johanneum as it is referred to originated as a common literary explanation or formula for the one God Trinity.

I am well aware of the history and reject that verse as a late addition, although it doesn't actually disagree with nature of God as given in the Bible.

For example:
The McKenzie Bible Dictionary explains it this way.... “The Trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God there are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly or formally a biblical belief.” Which hold true to the fact that the word Trinity does not occur in the Holy Bible.

Yet, the foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity have been in extant writings since the second century. That it took until the 4th century to come up with a formal definition should surprise no one, given the complexity which requires much formal discussion. And until Christianity was accepted as a legitimate religion, the church faced persecution. Then came the need to define the nature of Christ, which naturally leads to defining the nature of God. That the word Trinity does not appear in the Bible is a non-issue.

Those that believe in the one God formula cling to a couple scriptures but there are so many scriptures that disagree with this formula directly or by circumstance.

On the contrary, there are numerous scriptures that all must be taken into account.

The Truth is, the Trinity is not the merging or mixing of three entities into one, like you would a cake mix, nor is it a three headed God.

Of course not. Each person is truly and fully God, yet they are of one nature, one substance, and remain eternally distinct.

It is a condition and a reality that is beyond our understanding, but in loose terms....

Which is the Trinity. Polytheism, on the other hand, is fully within our understanding.

I believe and define that there are three Gods in one Godhead, a Devine unity, but not one.

But this is polytheism, which God himself adamantly denies:

Deu 4:35 To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him.

Deu 32:39 "'See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.

Isa 42:8 I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.

Isa 43:10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.
Isa 43:11 I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior.

Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.
…
Isa 44:8 Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any."
...
Isa 44:24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: "I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,
Isa 45:6 that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.
...
Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other.
...
Isa 45:21 Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.
Isa 45:22 "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

Isa 46:9 remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,

Isa 48:12 "Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last.
Isa 48:13 My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together.

It's a curious thing that God himself says he is the only God, yet you say he isn't. I had asked, but I don't think you answered: Who is Yahweh?

 

[Grailhunter]

You previously stated: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life....Not gave His beloved self."

I replied: "Again, this suggests that you do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. I have found that that is most often why people think it is false."

To say that God gave his Son and "His beloved self," suggests a lack of understanding of the Trinity. That is an argument against Modalism, not Trinitarianism, and that is where your disagreements lies.

Not His beloved self.
If you have your own definition of the Trinity, lets hear it.

 

[Grailhunter]

Yet, what you have presented of the Trinity so far is a straw man, based on Modalism, not scripture.

Well of course I disagree.

The Bible unequivocally and consistently states that there is only one God, not three as you believe. The Bible is thoroughly monotheistic regarding there being one true God. That is precisely why the doctrine of the Trinity came to be discovered in the Bible.

Well again I disagree. One true God...1. Yahweh God the Father 2. Yeshua God the Son 3. God the Holy Spirit = 3 Shock shock