Proof of Trinity

[Free]

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.

A couple of points need to be made here:

1. It is impossible to read the Bible without interpreting it at some level.
2. It is impossible to correctly understand the Bible without interpreting it correctly.

As for emphasizing some verses over others and developing doctrines accordingly, that has precisely been my point the whole time. I have stated numerous times that this is precisely what the anti-trinitarians are doing and what the trinitarians are doing their best to avoid, which is why the doctrine of the Trinity makes the most sense.

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?

Maybe I don't then. What's the obvious?

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.

I can what?

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.

Scholars and their work have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one is Catholic. Nor do contradicting perspectives belong to them alone, not even close. If things they say are over ones head, there are dictionaries and commentaries to help out, not mention that many of them write for the layman, so there really is no excuse.

To not be interested in what scholars have to say is not only a completely unbiblical position, it says that one isn't interested in the truth. As a police officer, this should be self-evident.

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

Whose ranting? By anti-trinitarians I mean any who argue against the Trinity.

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".

Why?

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.

I used "argument" in the philosophical sense, which means having premises based on fact so that the conclusion will be true.

But you certainly aren't interested in facts or evidence. I gave you facts concerning the use of "one" in the OT, as it is used of God, which shows that your "primary problem" is not a problem at all. Not only did you completely ignore them, you continue to argue that your "primary problem" is a reason "why Trinitarianism should be regarded as questionable at best." And I should here point out that you don't care what scholars have to say.

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.

lol. I haven't seen her but I'm somewhat familiar with her completely fallacious arguments and those of KJVOism. That is actually what I had in mind when I mentioned such forums.

 

[Gregg]

Truths about the Person, Deity, and character of the LORD Jesus Christ can not be known by reason, understanding Hebrew and Greek grammar, or logical determinations - but by faith, a gift of God.

No one will realize faith by explanation, learn faith from another's teaching, touch faith through the senses or with the natural mind. Persuasion, opinion, and arguments will not convey faith to another man.

Faith is 'not of youselves; [it is] the gift of God" (Eph 2:8). The origin of faith is God.

The "author and perfecter of our faith" is Jesus (Heb 12:2); God who originated, sustains, and will bring to completion our faith.

- - -

"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter" (Pro 25:2).

 

[teddy trueblood]

Chessman #358 (in blue):

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?

I thought it would be obvious what I intended by "Trinitarian Bible." But for those who don't understand, I was referring to the vast majority of Bibles today which are financed, translated, edited, and published by Trinitarians.

The point of labeling them as such is that when trinitarians themselves disagree with a 'trinity-proof' scripture, the likelihood of that "proof" being acceptable is greatly reduced.

I use many translations, but in the end I try to verify by using NT Greek and OT Hebrew texts.

Is that the only comment you have about my two-part personal study?

 

[chessman]

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".

The Trinity does differentiate between God and Jesus. It makes these three truth claims (among the six), none of which conflict with John 17:1-3 (or any other Scripture).
Leg 1 = The Father Is God, God is The Father
Leg 2 = The Son is God, God is the Son
Base 1 = The Father is not the Son, The Son is not the Father

John 17:1 Jesus said these things, and lifting up his eyes to heaven he said, “Father, the hour has come! Glorify your Son… (Base 1)
3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you[The Father], remember that it is The Father who Jesus is talking to from verse 1], the only true God [L1], and Jesus Christ [L2], whom you have sent [B1]. 4 I have glorified you [B1 and L2 since only God deserves Glory] on earth by completing the work that you have given me [B1]to do. 5 And now, Father [B1], you glorify me [B1 and L2] at your side [B1 and L2] with the glory that I had at your side before the world existed [L2].

My point is, there’s nothing in John 17 that’s not compatible with the Trinity. In fact, if you think about the fact that this passage clearly says that it’s both The Father and The Son that are glorified, there's a whole other reason to beleive in The Trinity. Now granted, you will not find it in one verse. So what?

1 Chronicles 29:11 To you, O Yahweh, is the greatness and the power and the splendor and the glory and the strength, for everything in the heavens and in the earth.
[Yahweh deserves glory for everything in Heavens and in the Earth, right? Yet in John 17 verses 4 and 5 Jesus is glorified on earth. Think about it.]

Psalm 8:5 And you made him a little lower than heavenly beings, and with glory and with majesty you crowned him. [L2]

Psalm 29:1 Ascribe to Yahweh, O sons of God, ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength.

Psalm 96:8 Ascribe to Yahweh the glory due his name; bring an offering and come into his courts.

Yet we have : 5 And now, Father, you glorify me at your side with the glory that I had at your side before the world existed. [L2]

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and took up residence among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the one and only from the Father, full of grace and truth. [L1, L2 and B1 all in one verse!]

Etc. Etc. ... all over the Bible.

Now, are there any Scriptures that prove L1, L2, or B1 wrong? I say no. Show me, if there are.

 

[WIP]

Truths about the Person, Deity, and character of the LORD Jesus Christ can not be known by reason, understanding Hebrew and Greek grammar, or logical determinations - but by faith, a gift of God.

No one will realize faith by explanation, learn faith from another's teaching, touch faith through the senses or with the natural mind. Persuasion, opinion, and arguments will not convey faith to another man.

Faith is 'not of youselves; [it is] the gift of God" (Eph 2:8). The origin of faith is God.

The "author and perfecter of our faith" is Jesus (Heb 12:2); God who originated, sustains, and will bring to completion our faith.

- - -

"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter" (Pro 25:2).

 

[chessman]

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?
, I was referring to the vast majority of Bibles today which are financed, translated, edited, and published by Trinitarians.

I use many translations, but in the end I try to verify by using NT Greek and OT Hebrew texts.

Is that the only comment you have about my two-part personal study?

Just to follow up on my question: "you say vast majority" are Trinitarian, what then is one/two in the minority of English translations that are published and acceptable to you?

No. No other comment or questions. I didn't really disagree with anything else in your analysis. I'm not quite sure how any if that disproves the Trinity, however.

 

[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.



Who sends the Spirit of God to indwell believers:

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

The Holy Spirit was received from the Father and is poured out in Jesus name. Its also the Father who would cut one off. (The gardener)

I don't know of another scripture that shows the angels of God during creation. I am not so sure there was great importance in that. Wasn't One enough? You asked, I provided, now you want more.

Acts 2

 

[teddy trueblood]

Just to follow up on my question: "you say vast majority" are Trinitarian, what then is one/two in the minority of English translations that are published and acceptable to you?

No. No other comment or questions. I didn't really disagree with anything else in your analysis. I'm not quite sure how any if that disproves the Trinity, however.

Perhaps you should look a little closer. The question by Jesse Stone (and Free, #338) was quoted for you:

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

The two-part study I posted (#340 and #342) showed the unlikelihood of these two scriptures (and other “Sharp constructions”) being trinity proofs.

 

[JohnD]

I presume you meant 1 Peter 1:2...

But these things must be take into consideration with the verses that DO in fact distinguish between the individuals of the Godhead.

John 14:26 (KJV)
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 (KJV)
26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Both the Father and Jesus send the Spirit. Therefore neither the Father or the Son are the Spirit.

Acts 5:3-4 (KJV)
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

Jesus calls the Father God, the Father calls Jesus God.

Hebrews 10:5-7 (KJV)
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Hebrews 1:8 (KJV)
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

So we can deduce this as a Trinitarian verse:

1 Peter 1:2 (KJV)
2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

 

[chessman]

teddy trueblood,

Just to follow up on my question: you say "vast majority" are Trinitarian, what then is one/two in the minority of English translations that are published and acceptable to you?

 

[teddy trueblood]

JohnD wrote:

"I presume you meant 1 Peter 1:2..."

I'm sure they meant 2 Peter 1:1 which along with Titus 2:13 are the most-used of the Sharp's constructions by Trinitarians.

 

[teddy trueblood]

teddy trueblood,

I don't accept any translation as perfectly accurate. As I already pointed out, I use many Bibles, but double check their accuracy by using the NT Greek OT Hebrew texts.

 

[Gregg]

The Holy Spirit was received from the Father and is poured out in Jesus name. Its also the Father who would cut one off. (The gardener)

I don't know of another scripture that shows the angels of God during creation. I am not so sure there was great importance in that. Wasn't One enough? You asked, I provided, now you want more.

Acts 2

Its like a Lays potato chip, you can't have just one. We should believe a testimony of two or more to form a belief or proof.

You believe that the plural 'us' and 'our' in "Let us make man in our image" accounts of angels being present at the creation of man. I say that isn't so, that the Bible does not state that angels were yet created when God made man; but rather the plural 'us' and 'our' refer to Father, Son, and their Spirit.

The Father sends the Spirit (Jn 14:16, 26), and the Son sends the same Spirit (Jn 15:26, 16:7); as the Son and the Father are One God having the same Spirit.

 

[Jesse Stone]

Free #361

A couple of points need to be made here:

1. It is impossible to read the Bible without interpreting it at some level.
2. It is impossible to correctly understand the Bible without interpreting it correctly.

The formula for Relativism, feet planted firmly in mid air. The basis for Christian denominationalism.

As for emphasizing some verses over others and developing doctrines accordingly, that has precisely been my point the whole time. I have stated numerous times that this is precisely what the anti-trinitarians are doing and what the trinitarians are doing their best to avoid, which is why the doctrine of the Trinity makes the most sense.

Trinitarians need to try harder. As do non-Trinitarians.

Maybe I don't then. What's the obvious?

My primary problem.

I can what?

Deny the problem.

Scholars and their work have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one is Catholic.

I don't think I said that.

Nor do contradicting perspectives belong to them alone, not even close.

Don't think I said that either.

If things they say are over ones head, there are dictionaries and commentaries to help out, not mention that many of them write for the layman, so there really is no excuse.

Written by scholars.

To not be interested in what scholars have to say is not only a completely unbiblical position, it says that one isn't interested in the truth. As a police officer, this should be self-evident.

Unbiblical? Jesus didn't think much of the scholars of his day. Even at 12 he knew more than they did. Paul was a scholar. Called it dung and gave it up to gain Christ.

Scholarly writings aren't the word of God. Certain writings of Catholic Scholars are to Catholics, which is why I used them as an example. Protestants think like Catholics more than they know.

Scholarly writings are for the religion. The Bible is for the truth.

Whose ranting? By anti-trinitarians I mean any who argue against the Trinity.

Including me?

Jesse said:

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

Free asked?

Why?

This thread is about the Trinity.

I used "argument" in the philosophical sense, which means having premises based on fact so that the conclusion will be true.

Not working very well, is it? Denominationally speaking.

The facts are true. Premises are rarely true, nor are the conclusions based on them. Premises are more often based on presuppositions than facts. I prefer just the facts. That's the coply thing to do.

But you certainly aren't interested in facts or evidence.

Shrug.

I gave you facts concerning the use of "one" in the OT, as it is used of God, which shows that your "primary problem" is not a problem at all. Not only did you completely ignore them, you continue to argue that your "primary problem" is a reason "why Trinitarianism should be regarded as questionable at best."

The use of the word "one" isn't the problem.

And I should here point out that you don't care what scholars have to say.

I don't.

lol. I haven't seen her but I'm somewhat familiar with her completely fallacious arguments and those of KJVOism. That is actually what I had in mind when I mentioned such forums.

Thought so.

 

[Jesse Stone]

Chessman #364

I'm sure you mean well. But your system is unnecessarily complex. I'd prefer you speak plainly.

3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you[The Father], remember that it is The Father who Jesus is talking to from verse

The father who is "the only true God".

I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (John 17:4-5)

Pronouns clearly distinguish whose glory belongs to whom.

My point is, there’s nothing in John 17 that’s not compatible with the Trinity.

Interpretively speaking.

In fact, if you think about the fact that this passage clearly says that it’s both The Father and The Son that are glorified, there's a whole other reason to beleive in The Trinity.

"And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint–heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8:17)

Are the sufferers God?

Now granted, you will not find it in one verse. So what?

One verse constitutes a doctrine for some.

1 Chronicles 29:11 To you, O Yahweh, is the greatness and the power and the splendor and the glory and the strength, for everything in the heavens and in the earth.

[Yahweh deserves glory for everything in Heavens and in the Earth, right?]

"Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all." (1 Chronicles 29:11 KJV)

Depends on whose translation and interpretation you're using.

Yet in John 17 verses 4 and 5 Jesus is glorified on earth. Think about it.]

"I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (John 17:4-5)

Seems like you're reading between the lines.

Now, are there any Scriptures that prove L1, L2, or B1 wrong? I say no. Show me, if there are.

Whatever L1, L2, B1 are.

Don't have to. I'm not the one who believes them. It's your responsibility to show them right. Then, if addressed to me, it's my responsibility to either agree or show why I think they're wrong.


Do you understand my primary problem with Trinitarianism?

 

[Randy]

Its like a Lays potato chip, you can't have just one. We should believe a testimony of two or more to form a belief or proof.

You believe that the plural 'us' and 'our' in "Let us make man in our image" accounts of angels being present at the creation of man. I say that isn't so, that the Bible does not state that angels were yet created when God made man; but rather the plural 'us' and 'our' refer to Father, Son, and their Spirit.

The Father sends the Spirit (Jn 14:16, 26), and the Son sends the same Spirit (Jn 15:26, 16:7); as the Son and the Father are One God having the same Spirit.

Jesus's authority is not in question. But the Spirit was received from the Father as Peter stated. The promise was from the Father as Jesus stated.

Randy

 

[Free]

1. It is impossible to read the Bible without interpreting it at some level.
2. It is impossible to correctly understand the Bible without interpreting it correctly.

The formula for Relativism, feet planted firmly in mid air. The basis for Christian denominationalism.

Not at all a formula for Relativism. Quite the opposite. But my points stand. Quite noticeable that you didn't even try to address them.

As for emphasizing some verses over others and developing doctrines accordingly, that has precisely been my point the whole time. I have stated numerous times that this is precisely what the anti-trinitarians are doing and what the trinitarians are doing their best to avoid, which is why the doctrine of the Trinity makes the most sense.

Trinitarians need to try harder. As do non-Trinitarians.

Anyone who gives just a casual glance at this thread can see that it isn't for a lack of effort on the trinitarians part. It's rather hard when anti-trinitarians dismiss arguments without even attempting to answer them.

My primary problem.

Deny the problem.

Why don't restate your problem then without playing these games.

Scholars and their work have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one is Catholic.

I don't think I said that.

You definitely implied it: "If I was a Catholic, I might care what the Scholars have to say. I'm not and I don't."

Nor do contradicting perspectives belong to them alone, not even close.

Don't think I said that either.

You certainly did: "They present perspectives that contradict one another and usually way over my head."

If things they say are over ones head, there are dictionaries and commentaries to help out, not mention that many of them write for the layman, so there really is no excuse.

Written by scholars.

Yes. And? Again, it all goes to show that you are not actually interested in the truth.

To not be interested in what scholars have to say is not only a completely unbiblical position, it says that one isn't interested in the truth. As a police officer, this should be self-evident.

Unbiblical? Jesus didn't think much of the scholars of his day. Even at 12 he knew more than they did. Paul was a scholar. Called it dung and gave it up to gain Christ.

It's clear that you need further understanding of things the Bible says. Good thing you aren't a cop; you would make a bad one. You really haven't thought through the problems with this position.

Scholarly writings aren't the word of God. Certain writings of Catholic Scholars are to Catholics, which is why I used them as an example. Protestants think like Catholics more than they know.

No one has said that scholarly writings are the word of God.

Scholarly writings are for the religion. The Bible is for the truth.

It may sound right but it's wrong. Now that, is a recipe for Relativism.

Including me?

The more you have posted, yes, it would include you. You are not here to find the truth of the matter. You have your mind made up and are unwilling to engage in a reasonable discussion of what the Bible says.

I used "argument" in the philosophical sense, which means having premises based on fact so that the conclusion will be true.

The facts are true. Premises are rarely true, nor are the conclusions based on them. Premises are more often based on presuppositions than facts. I prefer just the facts. That's the coply thing to do.

Facts are always open to interpretation due to bias. The philosophical argument is necessary to wade through the nonsense and come to a reasonable conclusion. But I have already shown that you are not really interested in facts.

The use of the word "one" isn't the problem.

Then what is it?

And I should here point out that you don't care what scholars have to say.

I don't.

Which supports my assertion that you are not actually interested in facts.

The below is a copy of something I already said to Free on this verse:

In Old Testament times people were saved by calling on Jehovah or God. The Messiah had not yet come. Since the Ascension of Jesus the Messiah people are to call on Jesus. Not just unbelievers to be saved (Romans 10:9), but also believers, to whom Jesus is the head of each church (local) and of the Body (universal), as Paul said and for the reason he gave in Philippians 2:8-11 (see 1 Corinthians 1:2).

The correct translation of Romans 10:9 is not "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Jehovah".

And I responded. It shows why you need to learn how to properly interpret Scripture and understand the significance of context, especially when such a parallel is being made. While no one is saying that Rom 10:9 is translated incorrectly, the fact that Paul refers to an OT passage which speaks of calling on the name of Yahweh for salvation, means that he is saying that fulfillment is found in confessing "Jesus is Lord". Paul is showing that the two statements, "confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord " and "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved," are saying the same thing.

 

[Asyncritus]

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.

Edited per Rule 2.4 SAC

 

[Asyncritus]

Jesse Stone said: ↑
Free said:
If things they say are over ones head, there are dictionaries and commentaries to help out, not mention that many of them write for the layman, so there really is no excuse.

Written by scholars.

Yes. And? Again, it all goes to show that you are not actually interested in the truth.

That is not the correct conclusion. The proper one is: he is not interested in what the scholars say.

I agree with Jesse on this Free.

What did Jesus say about the scholars of His day?Let them alone. They be blind leaders of the blind'. The 'tradition of the elders' comes in for some stick too. Those are the scholars of the day.

Scholars aren't worth the paper they write on. Doubt that?

Look at the catholic church's doctrines and practices. How did they get there? Led by their scholars.

Ditto for the anglican church.

Scholars lead them anywhere and everywhere.

Stick to the scriptures. Its a lot safer and more sensible.

 

[Free]

That is not the correct conclusion. The proper one is: he is not interested in what the scholars say.

I agree with Jesse on this Free.

What did Jesus say about the scholars of His day?Let them alone. They be blind leaders of the blind'. The 'tradition of the elders' comes in for some stick too. Those are the scholars of the day.

Scholars aren't worth the paper they write on. Doubt that?

Look at the catholic church's doctrines and practices. How did they get there? Led by their scholars.

Ditto for the anglican church.

Scholars lead them anywhere and everywhere.

Stick to the scriptures. Its a lot safer and more sensible.

I know you agree with Jesse on this but the naivety, fallaciousness, and arrogance of such a position is utterly astounding, which I have shown in past threads. Anyways, it's not worth discussing in this thread but it explains why people can't understand how to better interpret Scripture and why they end up with erroneous doctrine.