Proof of Trinity

[chessman]

Some useful Definitions of Persons, Legs and Bases:
The Father = Person 1 (P1)
The Son = Person 2 (P2, Christ, Jesus, Jesus Christ, The Word, etc.)
The Holy Spirit = Person 3 (P3)
Trinity Statements from the Athanasian Creed
Leg 1 = The Father Is God, God is The Father
Leg 2 = The Son is God, God is the Son
Leg 3 = The Holy Spirit is God, God is the Holy Spirit
Base 1 = The Father is not the Son, The Son is not the Father
Base 2 = The Son is not the Holy Spirit, The Holy Spirit is not The Son
Base 3 = The Father is not the Holy Spirit, The Holy Spirit is not The Father
Someone that wanted to either support or provide Biblical evidence against any of these “legs” or “bases” (my terms) could reference which leg or which base it is they are providing Biblical evidence for/against. In this way, someone can speak coherently and consistent with (or against) exactly which portion of the Trinity Doctrine it is that is false/true.
For example: If you are arguing against Leg 2 (which is mostly what I’ve seen argued against in this thread so far), i.e. you believe Leg 2 is false, then post the Scripture (preferably with the translation used) that shows it to be false and state how it demonstrates Leg 2 is false.
For an example, one could use the creation argument in support L2. We could start out with Gen 1:1:

Genesis 1:1 (ESV) In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.​

Then let’s move to

Isaiah 45:18 (ESV) 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.​

Okay, the Middle Circle (God) of the shield has been established using just these two verses in the Bible:
1) There is One God (there is no other Lord (He is God))
Notice how neither the shield nor the legs or bases (i.e. the Athanasius Creed) says otherwise. Yet, you’ve seen it posted on this thread many times that the Trinity teaches there are multiple Gods. That’s just ridiculous. And Christians should know that it is a ridiculous argument.
2) He (God) is called “the Lord” in Isaiah.
3) God (the Lord) created the heavens and the Earth.
4) The Lord (God) spoke to Isaiah (thus says the Lord…Is 45:18 and in the 34 other passages in Isaiah where it’s recorded “Thus says the Lord”
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=thus says the lord&version=ESV&searchtype=phrase&spanbegin=29&spanend=29

Moving to the NT in Col 1:1-16 and speaking of “our Lord Jesus Christ” (v1) Paul says: 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Therefore, Col 1:16 is a L2 supporting passage since we know God created all things AND we also know our Lord Jesus Christ created all things (by, for and through Him).

Also in support of Personhood doctrines, we have Base 1 (B1) Col 1:3

We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,​

Note that Paul and many other Scriptures speak of the different “Persons” that are God.
P1=The Father, P2 = The Son= Jesus=Christ.

It is my opinion that the non-Trinitarians posting here have on several occasions misrepresented the Trinity Doctrine (either intentionally or because they simply do not understand it).

How about from now on, stating exactly which leg/base/person within the actual doctrine of the Trinity it is that’s so false and EXACTLY what Scriptures teach is.

Latest example of many misrepresentations/misunderstandings:

Here is the primary problem I have with Trinitarianism. I think it's a legitimate problem. God is presented in the Old Testament as one person. And many times in the New Testament as well, wherein Jesus differentiates himself, not just from the father, but from God (e.g., John 17:3).

Yet we actually have:

John 17:3 (LEB) Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. ​

There is not one word about Jesus differentiating Himself from God in John 17:3! A different Person than the Father, sure. That’s Trinitarian to the core. But Jesus, different than God. No way.

Now this is eternal life: that they know you[the father], the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you [the father] have sent.

So lets’ break this verse down logically via the shield:

Eternal life = that they know 1) you[the father], the only true God = L1 at its core.

And

Eternal life = that they know 2) .… Jesus Christ, whom you [the Father] have sent = B1 at its core.

If someone thinks John 17:3 is an anti-Trinitarian Scripture, they are just not thinking straight.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Jesse Stone wrote (#337) in blue:

"I would like to hear what non-Trinitarians on this site say about Titus 2:13 & 1 Peter 1:1."

Here is a part of my study of Sharp’s Rule (continued):

Of the many reasons invalidating Sharp’s Rule grammatically there are at least two of great importance - each of which is conclusive by itself.

(1) Prepositional Constructions (with phrases containing prepositions: “of God;” “in the Lord;” “God of...;” etc.) are known by all NT grammarians to cause uncertainty of article usage. That is, if a prepositional phrase (including genitives) is attached to a word, that word may sometimes have the article (“the”) and sometimes not have it -- without changing the intended meaning! (See A. T. Robertson, pp. 780, 790, 791; C. F. D. Moule, p. 117; J. H. Moulton, pp. 175, 179-180; et al.)

This means that the NT writers sometimes wrote, for example, “The God of me” (with article) and “_God of me” (without article) with exactly the same intended meaning. The definite article (“the”) is ambiguous in such cases.

Therefore any grammatical rules which depend on the presence or absence of the article in the NT Greek must not use as examples those scriptures which use a prepositional construction attached to a word (noun) in question if they are to be used honestly and properly.

But if you examine the 5 trinitarian “proofs” above, you will see that they all use such prepositional constructions: “of us” in (a) Titus 2:13 and (b) 2 Peter 1:1 is a “prepositional” genitive, and even “savior” itself is a genitive in both scriptures and literally means “of savior;” “Lord” in (c) 2 Thess. 1:12 is a genitive and literally means “of Lord” (as rendered in the Modern Language Bible; Living Bible; Good News Bible; Douay Version; New American Bible [1970 ed.]; and Barclay’s Daily Study Bible); “Christ” in (d)1 Tim. 5:21 is a genitive and literally means “of Christ” (as in the Good News Bible [& TEV]; New American Standard Bible; Modern Language Bible; Revised Standard Version; and New Revised Standard Version); and “God” in (e) Eph. 5:5 is a genitive and literally means “of God” (as in the King James Version; Revised Standard Version; New Revised Standard Version; Living Bible; New English Bible; Revised English Bible; Modern Language Bible; New American Bible (1970 & 1991); Douay Version; New International Version; Good News Bible; and Phillips translation).

Therefore all 5 Sharp’s “proofs” are invalid on the basis of 'prepositional' constructions alone!

(2) New Testament scholars, including noted trinitarian NT grammar experts, point out that the use of proper names (“John,” “Moses,” “Jesus,” etc.) also causes uncertain article usage in NT Greek. (A. T. Robertson, Grammar, p. 791, and Word Pictures, p. 46, Vol. iv; C. F. D. Moule, p. 115; J. H. Moulton [Turner], Vol. 3, pp. 165-167; et. al.)

So not only did the NT Bible writers sometimes use the article and sometimes not use the article with the very same intended meaning with the very same proper name (e.g. “the James” and “James”), but even when a proper name is used as an appositive, it also causes irregular article usage with the other associated nouns. - A.T. Robertson, Grammar, pp. 760, 791.

For example, when “Jesus” and “Christ” are in apposition to each other (“Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus”), they are nearly always (96% of the time - see SHARP study) written without the definite article in the writings of Paul regardless of “Sharp’s rule” or any other grammatical/syntactical consideration!

If we examine the first 4 of the 5 “proofs” above, we see that the proper name “Jesus” is used as an appositive with the word in question in each case! In other words, “Christ Jesus” is the appositive for “savior” in Titus 2:13. This means sometimes “savior” will have “the” with it in such a situation and sometimes it won’t (with no change in meaning). “Jesus Christ” is the appositive for “savior” in 2 Peter 1:1, and article usage (or non-usage) with “savior” in the original NT Greek in such circumstances is virtually meaningless. “Jesus Christ” is in apposition to (an appositive for) “Lord” in 2 Thess. 1:12. And “Jesus” is in apposition (at least) to “Christ” in 1 Tim. 5:21. These examples, therefore, are completely invalid as evidence for Jesus being God even if there were actually some validity to Sharp’s “Rule” with proper examples! And the 5th example, Eph. 5:5, is incredibly poor in context alone. Even extreme trinitarian A. T. Robertson has to admit that the “evidence” of Eph. 5:5 is doubtful - Word Pictures, Vol. 14, pp. 46 and 543. No objective person could accept it alone as real evidence of Jesus’ Godhood!

According to An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p. 109, at Titus 2:13, the sense "of the Great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ ... is possible in [New Testament] Greek even without the repetition [of the definite article before the second noun]."

Famed British NT scholar and trinitarian clergyman Henry Alford wrote: "I would submit that [a translation which clearly differentiates God from Christ at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s [Paul’s] way of writing." - The Greek Testament, p. 421, Vol. 3.

* * * * *

So, although we can find such constructions as “the king and master of the slave” where the first noun (with the definite article, ‘the’) is the same person as the second noun (without the definite article), there is no grammatical reason that this must always be so. Such constructions as “the boy and girl” and “the President and Vice President” (found in Amendment XX [as ratified in 1933] of the Constitution of the United States of America), which refer to more than one individual, are just as grammatically correct in both English and NT Greek.

 

[teddy trueblood]

In looking at my last post, I see that I have a typo in the last long paragraph (beginning with "If we examine the first 4 of the 5 'proofs' above"). The reference should have read
"Word Pictures, Vol. 4, pp. 46 and 543."

 

[JohnD]

In looking at my last post, I see that I have a typo in the last long paragraph (beginning with "If we examine the first 4 of the 5 'proofs' above"). The reference should have read
"Word Pictures, Vol. 4, pp. 46 and 543."

Just hit "edit" and correct it in the text.

 

[Asyncritus]

Back to this 2nd premise in your “great argument”:

[...great diagrams....]
.

Just what is all this CM? Some kind of joke or what?

Does your faith depend on somebody's diagrams which may be, and probably are, completely irrelevant? Where do you see anything like this in the NT or OT?

 

[Asyncritus]

And you really have to be joking with this:

Yet we actually have:

John 17:3 (LEB) Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

There is not one word about Jesus differentiating Himself from God in John 17:3! A different Person than the Father, sure. That’s Trinitarian to the core. But Jesus, different than God. No way.

Did you miss the 'whom you have sent' bit?

Does that not indicate that Jesus is God's messenger and Servant? Isaiah said so, but I guess you may have missed that too. Let me remind you:

Isa. 42: 1 ¶ Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

Matthew confirms:

12. 17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

Joseph:

Ge 45:7 And God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance.

Moses:

Ex 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Ex 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

Nu 16:28 And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind.

Are these guys members of the trinity too? Or great servants of God?

Jesus says pretty much the same as Moses did:

Joh 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

No difference, huh?

 

[Asyncritus]

Jn 17.11 ¶ And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

And further:

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

So how many individuals are there in the trinity?

Isn't it obvious that He's not talking literally? But the sayings have to be spiritually discerned? I'm sure you can see that.

 

[gr8grace3]

Jn 17.11 ¶ And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

And further:

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

So how many individuals are there in the trinity?

Isn't it obvious that He's not talking literally? But the sayings have to be spiritually discerned? I'm sure you can see that.

Just curious and would like to see what you think.

If your interpretation is correct, How is my saying "Jesus is God" detrimental to my faith? If I believe Jesus is God, How is it going to hinder my faith?

If the trinity is a false doctrine, how is it detrimental to the christians life and walk?

 

[teddy trueblood]

gr8grace3 wrote (in blue):

If your interpretation is correct, How is my saying "Jesus is God" detrimental to my faith? If I believe Jesus is God, How is it going to hinder my faith?

If the trinity is a false doctrine, how is it detrimental to the christians life and walk?

I answered this in another discussion you started here:

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” - RSV.

2 Thess. 1:7-9 “…when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power” - NASB.

Notice what means eternal life and eternal destruction. I believe this essential knowledge of God and Jesus should be important enough. If we believe God is three persons and He isn't, or if we believe He is only one person and He isn't, we are, according to scripture, in deep "detriment."

We must worship Him in truth (John 4:24).

 

[Jesse Stone]

Free #338

I would like to hear what they have to say too, but getting a straight answer is proving difficult. Even one verse is enough, unless one wants to dismiss it, as many do, which then begins to undermine the authority of that text. As I have pointed out, Paul implies as much in Phil 2, Col 1, and 1 Cor 8, not to mention Rom 9:5 and the rest of Titus. I'm quite certain there are further passages but I don't have my resources in front of me at the moment.

Christians (as a whole) rarely give straight answers because they base everything on interpretations. That automatically makes things unnecessarily complex. But we must regard whatever attempt is made to be as straight as they can make it under the circumstances. Whether we agree or not.

One verse ideas are rarely worth anything. When two verses say different things, it may be there's something being missed, or a misunderstanding regarding what is being said in one or both verses, or there's another verse that ties the two together. Or it may be a simple straightforward contradiction. There are obvious contradictions in the Bible. A few could be regarded as important. Christians interpret them, and believe the interpretations. Geisler and Archer pretty much have them all interpretively covered. They call them "difficulties". Which I find amusing. Christians also emphasize some verses over others and develop doctrines accordingly. I purposely try not to interpret the Bible. Can't do it with a straight face.

Jesse Stone said: ↑

Just read Isaiah.

I have. I use it all the time in discussions with Mormons

Well then you see what I'm talking about. Or can you deny the obvious?

Stone said: ↑

Here is the primary problem I have with Trinitarianism.

And here is precisely why we study what the scholars have to say because it actually is not at all self-evident.

You can.

If I was a Catholic, I might care what the Scholars have to say. I'm not and I don't. They present perspectives that contradict one another and usually way over my head. I'm just a small town cop. Mostly I give out parking tickets.

But that is precisely what the anti-trinitarians do

Anti-Trinitarians? A reference to Jehovah's Witnesses? I sometimes get that impression too. But a rant against them doesn't solve my problem.

Yes, I am a Protestant, for lack of a better term. By "orthodox Christian belief," I simply mean those biblical beliefs which have been held true throughout Christian history.

I'll refrain from asking you to name "those Biblical beliefs".

I believe God is triune not because of any historical evidence but simply because of what the Bible states. Personally I think there is room to question the Trinity or deity of Jesus without slandering him, but the problem comes when one is so adamant that he is not God, since this would be to state that he is not who the Bible reveals him to be. Of course, we should all be humble enough to be open to change and accept that we might wrong. In this case, as much as I am open to being wrong, I have yet to see one good argument as to why I shouldn't believe the Trinity to be true.

I'm not much for arguments. I prefer facts. But I think there are several reasons why Trinitarianism should be regarded as questionable at best. Certainly not an epitome essential doctrine. My primary problem being just one example.

There are forums I won't even bother with, such as fundamentalist Baptist. What's going on here? In what way? Do you mean do we try to be inclusive? Yes. Does it always work out? No. We've had some pretty militant persons in the past who have been very disruptive. Still get some from time to time. It really all depends on how disruptive persons are. Christians of different persuasions often just don't get along and some are better at fruitful, civil dialogue than others. And we've had more than just Christians here as well--atheists and Muslims, for example.

Now an Agnostic with Theistic leanings.

KJV Only Baptists. I once asked a well known KJV Only Baptist about the difference regarding Galatians 2:16 and similar verses between the KJV and modern versions. He actually sided with the modern versions. So much for KJV Onlyism. But I still think Gail Riplinger is a babe.

I'll try to be as undisruptive as possible. I'll start by not talking to Greg,

Don't worry, you'll get plenty of warning before we kick you out. ;)

Good to know.

 

[Randy]

The first part of Job 38:7 refers to literal stars, while the second half poetically amplifies the first. The phrase "sons of God" does not necessarily refer to angels as it is also used to describe men (Gen 6:2, Mat 5:9, Lk 20:36); so I take the second half of that verse to be a metaphor for stars giving off their light.

Job 38 states that inanimate creation does what God intended it to do; it has remained faithful to the purpose for which it was created - this contrasted to man who has not remained faithful to his Creator.




The Father and the Son have the same Spirit:

Father - "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you." (Rom 8:11, see Eph 3:16)

The Son - ". . . But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him." (Rom 8:9)

- - -


"Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" (Gal 4:6)

The first part of Job 38:7 refers to literal stars, while the second half poetically amplifies the first. The phrase "sons of God" does not necessarily refer to angels as it is also used to describe men (Gen 6:2, Mat 5:9, Lk 20:36); so I take the second half of that verse to be a metaphor for stars giving off their light.

Job 38 states that inanimate creation does what God intended it to do; it has remained faithful to the purpose for which it was created - this contrasted to man who has not remained faithful to his Creator.




The Father and the Son have the same Spirit:

Father - "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you." (Rom 8:11, see Eph 3:16)

The Son - ". . . But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him." (Rom 8:9)

- - -


"Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" (Gal 4:6)

First - I believe the fullness of God dwells (given not born or made) in the Son and in that Jesus is God just not on His own. The Father is in the Son and in that they are One. I believe in the Father and the Spirit of the Sovereign Lord or Holy Spirit or Spirit of Truth.

I gave you scripture that states the Sons of God sang with joy while God laid the foundations of the earth. You rejected the plain meaning because you don't believe angels preexisted Genesis. You are free to do that but living beings "sing" with "joy" just as they did when the Christ Child entered this world.

As in acts it is written about the gift the "Father" promised. The Holy Spirit was sent in Jesus name by God. Hence I have the Spirit of Christ in me. But it is the One Holy Spirit as One God in all. In us the Spirit conveys the will of Jesus. Jesus never refers to the HS as His Spirit. The Father does. As in I shall place my Spirit on Him and He (Jesus) shall proclaim justice to the nations. Jesus- "The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is upon me..." And in regard to us the Father is the gardner and Jesus is our true vine. Just as Jesus lives by the Living Father and never dies we Live By Jesus. Jesus was granted authority to have life in Himself and to give life to whoever He pleases. He was granted authority to forgive sin. He was given a name above all others by His God and Our God. So if you want to believe He always was and always was God you are free to do so but I would state you are mistaken. Again Jesus lives by the "Living FATHER" not on His Own because He has always been the Son and the fullness was given. To me is Jesus God will always be a yes and no depending on the context. No - He has always been the Son - Yes - He is all that the Father is.

Jesus has His own spirit. That spirit can not be God. (HS) or you would have 2 Gods. But again Jesus is not apart from the Father. "The fullness was pleased to dwell IN Him"

Jesus is who His God ordained Him to be. Everything Jesus has was given to Him by the Father even His own words proclaim that truth. Reads like a Son to me. One who was given glory by the Father. In fact we baptize in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit as three bear witness. The Holy Spirit speaks from what He hears as in those that listen to the Father and learn from Him go to the Son. As is written "they will all be taught by God"




Randy

 

[Asyncritus]

Just curious and would like to see what you think.

If your interpretation is correct, How is my saying "Jesus is God" detrimental to my faith? If I believe Jesus is God, How is it going to hinder my faith?

If the trinity is a false doctrine, how is it detrimental to the christians life and walk?

We should be most concerned with the protocols of heaven - because, as God says, I the Lord thy God am a jealous God. My glory will I not give to another: and other words like that.

He will be worshipped in the way He will be worshipped, and in no other. The arrangements in the tabernacle, and their exactness which He ordained tell us this. Remember Uzzah and the man picking up sticks on the sabbath day? They defied the heavenly protocols, and died for it.

And in the NT, we have exactly the same thing: There is no other name under heaven whereby we may be saved. Only one way to God: I am the way, the truth and the life, says Jesus. Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu and whoever else cannot save us.

There is only one saving name.That's the heavenly protocol.

All of which leads me to this: that if the Father is the Only True God, and He is, it is extremely dangerous for anyone to put someone else on a par with Him in defiance of the heavenly protocols. 'My glory will not give to another' is His most serious declaration on the subject.

He has exalted His Son to His right hand, as far and as high as He could do, and there is no place higher than that, except replacing God on His own throne - which the trinity seeks to do.

Jesus, says Paul, did not snatch at equality with God. Adam did, and we're paying the price.

If He didn't snatch at equality with God, then it was possible for Him to do so, and just as importantly, He didn't have it. He is now seated at the right hand of God, our High Priest, and the mediator of the New Covenant: new agreement between God and us. The go-between if you like.

It is impossible to over-exaggerate the exaltation Jesus has received from His Father. But to say that He is EQUAL TO His Father, is a deadly serious mistake.

God has exalted Him. God has raised Him up. God has set Him above the angels. God has given Him the name that is above every (human) name.

He is the High Priest - and no High Priest was ever equal to the God he served.

We need to recognise and acknowledge the Giver of those honours. And any believer who seeks to place Jesus on an equality with God, which He never sought, and which He strenuously denied while He was here, is wandering off the path of truth. And as Jesus said, we must worship the Father in spirit and in truth.

Truth does matter.

Trinitarians have killed many who did not accept the doctrine. Isaac Newton had to hide his rejection of the doctrine, for fear of persecution. I could name many others too.

But a tree is known by its fruits, and I personally have no wish to associate myself with a tree which could bear such fruits.

I don't know if that answers your question. It is a question of doing the right thing, in the way He has ordained.

 

[Randy]

We should be most concerned with the protocols of heaven - because, as God says, I the Lord thy God am a jealous God. My glory will I not give to another: and other words like that.

He will be worshipped in the way He will be worshipped, and in no other. The arrangements in the tabernacle, and their exactness which He ordained tell us this. Remember Uzzah and the man picking up sticks on the sabbath day? They defied the heavenly protocols, and died for it.

And in the NT, we have exactly the same thing: There is no other name under heaven whereby we may be saved. Only one way to God: I am the way, the truth and the life, says Jesus. Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu and whoever else cannot save us.

There is only one saving name.That's the heavenly protocol.

All of which leads me to this: that if the Father is the Only True God, and He is, it is extremely dangerous for anyone to put someone else on a par with Him in defiance of the heavenly protocols. 'My glory will not give to another' is His most serious declaration on the subject.

He has exalted His Son to His right hand, as far and as high as He could do, and there is no place higher than that, except replacing God on His own throne - which the trinity seeks to do.

Jesus, says Paul, did not snatch at equality with God. Adam did, and we're paying the price.

If He didn't snatch at equality with God, then it was possible for Him to do so, and just as importantly, He didn't have it. He is now seated at the right hand of God, our High Priest, and the mediator of the New Covenant: new agreement between God and us. The go-between if you like.

It is impossible to over-exaggerate the exaltation Jesus has received from His Father. But to say that He is EQUAL TO His Father, is a deadly serious mistake.

God has exalted Him. God has raised Him up. God has set Him above the angels. God has given Him the name that is above every (human) name.

He is the High Priest - and no High Priest was ever equal to the God he served.

We need to recognise and acknowledge the Giver of those honours. And any believer who seeks to place Jesus on an equality with God, which He never sought, and which He strenuously denied while He was here, is wandering off the path of truth. And as Jesus said, we must worship the Father in spirit and in truth.

Truth does matter.

Trinitarians have killed many who did not accept the doctrine. Isaac Newton had to hide his rejection of the doctrine, for fear of persecution. I could name many others too.

But a tree is known by its fruits, and I personally have no wish to associate myself with a tree which could bear such fruits.

I don't know if that answers your question. It is a question of doing the right thing, in the way He has ordained.

No one who belongs to Jesus would murder in this age or the one to come. Those that walk in the light remain in Him. (Jesus) as in "Love One Another" God is Love. History does show in any religion when church and state are one hypocrisy reigns. But a good tree doesn't bear bad fruit. No murderer has eternal life.

Randy

 

[Gregg]

I gave you scripture that states the Sons of God sang with joy while God laid the foundations of the earth. You rejected the plain meaning because you don't believe angels preexisted Genesis. You are free to do that but living beings "sing" with "joy" just as they did when the Christ Child entered this world.Randy

Show me another Scripture that supports your interpretation of Job 38:7, that angels were present when God created man. I would consider your view if you could supply more than one Scripture reference.

Jesus has His own spirit. That spirit can not be God. (HS) or you would have 2 Gods. But again Jesus is not apart from the Father. "The fullness was pleased to dwell IN Him"

Who sends the Spirit of God to indwell believers:

the Father (Jn 14:16, 26)
or
the Son (Jn 15:26, 16:7)?

 

[chessman]

There is only one saving name.That's the heavenly protocol.

yet you previously have said about Ex 3:13-14

No CM. You really ought to read that verse in its context. As Teddy has pointed out, it's not really a name of God,

And ignored my question to you about this verse which I will ask again:

But just so I’m sure.
Are you saying there is literally no name for God given here in Ex 3:13? That’s your position?

and prefered to insult my posts, rather than answering my simple question.

Just what is all this CM? Some kind of joke or what?

I cannot speak for anyone else reading/participating here, but I can speak for myself; It is not wise to take to heart any teaching/instruction from someone that has so often contradicted himself within the various statements within your posts (like "There is only one saving name for God" versus the Scripture that tells us God's name is "not really a name".) and simply resorts to insults within your 'evidence' against the Trinity.

As for Scripture:

Ex 3:13-14 (ESV) 13 Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”​

Rev 22 (ESV)

Jesus Is Coming

6 And he said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place.”
7 “And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.”


10 And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. 11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.”
12 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”​

Did you miss the 'whom you have sent' bit?

No I didn’t miss it. Which is why I commented on it. I said about it, the same thing the Trinitarian Doctrine says about it:

Base 1 = The Father is not the Son, The Son is not the Father ...
Eternal life = that they know … Jesus Christ, whom you [the Father] have sent = B1 at its core.

about it.

But obviously you missed that bit and don't care to answer my relavent question and prefer insulting people.

 

[Gregg]

I'll try to be as undisruptive as possible. I'll start by not talking to Greg,

Jesse,

I was less than kind. Consider forgiving my inappropriate tone.

 

[Asyncritus]

yet you previously have said about Ex 3:13-14
And ignored my question to you about this verse which I will ask again:
and prefered to insult my posts, rather than answering my simple question.

I'm sorry if you think I'm insulting you. I'm not.

Those diagrams you put up seem absurd to me, totally self-contradictory, and the concoction of someone with a very curious sense of logic. Sorry, but that's what I think.

I cannot speak for anyone else reading/participating here, but I can speak for myself; It is not wise to take to heart any teaching/instruction from someone that has so often contradicted himself within the various statements within your posts (like "There is only one saving name for God"

I thought you knew something about the scripture which states plainly - and refers to Jesus - here it is in full:

Acts 4.10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

This is the name of Jesus.

I did not say 'name for God'. Here's the proof. You simply failed to read what I said correctly, and added your own little bit. I'm not going to insist on an apology for the misrepresentation, but you really should be more careful.

There is no other name under heaven whereby we may be saved. Only one way to God: I am the way, the truth and the life, says Jesus.
Asyncritus

versus the Scripture that tells us God's name is "not really a name".) and simply resorts to insults within your 'evidence' against the Trinity.

My evidence against the trinity cannot be gainsaid. When are you going to try to answer it? To repeat:

The GREAT PROBLEM

1God cannot sin
2 Jesus could
3 God cannot be tempted with evil
4 Jesus was tempted with evil, just as we are, yet without sin.

Therefore Jesus could not be God, and God could not be Jesus.

Seems pretty simple and clear to me.

No I didn’t miss it. Which is why I commented on it. I said about it, the same thing the Trinitarian Doctrine says about it:

Your comment, and trinitarian doctrine cannot account for what is said in Jn 17.3

I expounded it fairly clearly (I thought), and you have not, or probably cannot, reply to the argument created by the passage.

The Father SENT ME. I have shown you, with scriptural examples, what that means as far as trinitarian doctrine of equality is concerned. How about trying to gainsay that material?

But obviously you missed that bit and don't care to answer my relavent question and prefer insulting people.

I really hope that you don't think I'm insulting you. That is not my intention, and if I have inadvertently done so, I apologise to you unconditionally.

It is your position that is being subjected to severe questioning, and its inconsistency on so many fronts. As I said to Bill, I realise that this is a very sensitive subject, and people are likely to get upset about it.

I assure you that it is not my intention to upset anybody: merely to speak the truth about the matter as I see it.

 

[chessman]

For example, examine the following trinitarian Bible’s renderings of these “Sharp’s Constructions”:
2 Thess. 1:12 - KJV; KJIIV; NASB; NAB (1970); MLB; LB; GNB; RSV; NRSV; NIV.
Eph. 5:5 - KJV; KJIIV; RSV; NRSV; LB; MLB; NIV; NEB; REB; GNB; TEV; NAB (‘70,‘91).
2 Tim. 4:1 - most trinitarian Bibles.
1 Tim. 6:13 - all trinitarian Bibles.
These many respected Bibles, translated by expert trinitarian New Testament scholars, clearly disregard Sharp’s “Rule” at these (and other) places and show two persons being spoken of!
Notice Eph. 5:5, for example. Most trinitarian Bibles translate this example of Sharp’s Construction: “in the kingdom of Christ and of God” - KJV; KJ21; NRSV; RSV; NIV; NEB; REB; NAB; Douay; MLB; LB; GNB; TEV; The Amplified Bible; Third Millenium Bible; New Living Translation; New Century Version; God’s Word; Holman Christian Standard Bible; Wesley’s New Testament; Phillips; and the Webster Bible. This is not the way it would be translated if the two descriptions were of the same person! (At the very least it would be rendered more literally as “the kingdom of the Christ and God.”) Instead it clearly shows two persons!
Also, 1 Tim. 6:13 is translated in trinitarian Bibles

In this post, you mention something called a “Trinitarian Bible” five times.

A Wikipedia search of “Trinitarian Bible” yields: The page ""Trinitarian bible"" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created,

A google search yields no better explanation of this phrase either. Which is rather amazing since most of the time you can even misspell a search phrase and still find websites than have similarly misspelled your search phrase out of the millions of webpages out there.

The Free Dictionary yields: Phrase not found in the Dictionary and Encyclopedia. Please try the words separately: trinitarian bible

Now there are wiki pages/information about the following phrases:
1. Protestant Bible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Bible
2. Catholic bible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Bible
3. “Christian bible” just sends you to a Bible page (even though the URL is named wiki/Christian_Bible). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_bible
4. and I'm sure others

None of these pages even have the word “trinity”, “Trinitarian”, etc. on them.

By the way, www.trinitarianbible.com , .org, .net, etc. are all available (which is amazing, if you think about it!). You should jump on it and purchase these URL domain names. www.bible.com, etc. are all taken.

By what commonly accepted educational resource’s definition/explanation are you using for your definition of what constitutes a “Trinitarian Bible”? Or are you simply coining a new phrase here and unilaterally calling the following list of translations “Trinitarian Bibles”, because you think they are written by a bunch of erroneous “Trinitarians” following after Sharp’s error?
- KJV; KJIIV; NASB; NAB (1970); MLB; LB; GNB; RSV; NRSV; NIV.
- KJV; KJIIV; RSV; NRSV; LB; MLB; NIV; NEB; REB; GNB; TEV; NAB (‘70,‘91).

Is there a translation that you prefer, because the above list sure is long and represents a lot of perspectives and knowledge of Greek/Hebrew to try to argue for/against them all.

What English translation do you use, if any?

 

[Chopper]

Dear Brother Gregg, we have many Christians at all levels of growth in their knowledge of our Lord, and from many different doctrines of thought on any given scripture. Unless someone comes preaching absolute heresy as a troll attempting to create division we attempt to address their dissimilar thinking.

Our statement of Faith - We believe that there is only one God, who is eternal and immutable, and manifests Himself in three distinct Persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. – I have known Jesus only doctrine Christians; should we help them?

And then - ChristianForums.net desires to serve non-Christians, seeking answers to questions about Christianity, by sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ so they too may acquire the hope, joy, and peace that come from fellowship with the saving grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

I certainly invite other moderators here to add their thoughts as I haven't had the opportunity to read all the replies that may be offensive. Thanks for your concern Gregg.

We have two excellent posts. I agree 100% with Gregg's #328 post and 100% what you posted here Eugene. IMO, there should be a balance between the two. What Gregg posted are my thoughts in that certain Truths about our blessed Elohiym should not be phrased as to defame and slander, as Gregg put it, His Holy, Almighty Name. Where slander is directed to Elohiym, His displeasure is sure to follow.

 

[Jesse Stone]

chessman #341

Jesse Stone said: ↑

Here is the primary problem I have with Trinitarianism. I think it's a legitimate problem. God is presented in the Old Testament as one person. And many times in the New Testament as well, wherein Jesus differentiates himself, not just from the father, but from God (e.g., John 17:3).

Yet we actually have:

John 17:3 (LEB) Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

There is not one word about Jesus differentiating Himself from God in John 17:3! A different Person than the Father, sure. That’s Trinitarian to the core. But Jesus, different than God. No way.

Now this is eternal life: that they know you[the father], the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you [the father] have sent.

The conjunction "and" might be a good reason to assume that one is to differentiate between "the only true God" and "Jesus Christ whom you have sent".