Proof of Trinity

[Asyncritus]

We allow for differing views around here. This post is rude.

Section 2: Specific Rules and Guidelines (the 'meat' of the ToS)
2.1: This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity (or declare that it is false) and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act

Edited by reba along with posts 428 & 483

 

[Randy]

He never dies.
He DID die. Remember?
Lu 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the spirit

1 Cor.15: 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:.

Yes, He is all that the Father is.
Jn.14.28"... I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

No, He has always been the Son.

Ps 2. 7 ¶ I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee

That human physical body died. Jesus didn't. The world would state He died. He lives by the Living Father and never dies just as those who belong to Jesus live by Him. God is the God of the Living. As in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

All the fullness of God dwells in Jesus. As is written He is the image of the Invisible God and elsewhere the exact representation of Gods being. (All that the Father is) In that context (God)

Firstborn of all creation. (A son before the world began.)

John the baptist knew/understood that Jesus came from above even before the 12.

The Father is greater then Jesus. Whose fullness do you think indwells the Son? There is only one God. As I read Jesus stated, "The Father was in Him", and in that context they are One.

I would state the Jesus who was (the Son) occupied the body that was prepared for Him. Jesus was not emptied of the Father.

Randy

 

[Randy]

The world doesn't care whether he died or not.

Paul did, and said the 'Christ died for our sins'. I don't quite know what else he could say to convince you that Jesus died. Here he is, trying again:

Ro 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Ro 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Ro 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
1Co 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;


He is talking about the RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, Randy. Here's the proof:

31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.



I asked you what you thought that meant. I don't see an explanation. Try again.


If He is the image, or exact representation of God, then He is not God.

A portrait of Ben Franklin is not Ben Franklin.



You're not listening.

Ps 89.26 He shall cry to Me, You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation!
27 Also I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.

Hadn't happened when the psalm was written, so 'before the world began' is totally wrong.

Also:
7 ¶ I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Which day?

The day of resurrection:

4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

And:
2 Sam 7.14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

So he hadn't been born yet, when 2 Sam was written.



John the Baptist also came from above. "There was a man sent from (by the side of, alongside) God whose name was John..."



True. And if that is true, then they cannot be equal.


Didn't you also read that the Father is in us?

I ask you again, what does 'fulness' mean? It is not a word we commonly use today, so the meaning is not really clear. What DO you think it means?

You are alluding to

Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

But you do err, not knowing the scriptures.

That passage is quoted from Ps. 40

6 ¶ Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,
8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

mine ears hast thou opened: = digged, or pierced

This is a reference to Exodus 21, where the servant who did not want to leave his master had his ear pierced, to declare his perpetual servitude to his master.

Look it up, and you'll see.

Here is Jesus (in Hebrews 10) declaring His perpetual servitude to His Father. There's nothing trinitarian about the verse. The exact opposite, in fact.

Just incidentally, a slave was regarded as a body, whose sole purpose was to do the will of his master. That's why the word is used here in Heb 10. Understand?

Jesus is made alive by the Spirit and He went and preached to the spirits in prison during those 3 days.- He never dies. The body died. Thats the context of Christ died...And as I already suggested to you God appointed His firstborn to the line of David: I also first-born do appoint him, Highest of the kings of the earth

I am not even sure of your position. Who do you say Jesus is? Do you believe Jesus was before the world began? Do you believe all the fullness of God is in Him? Do you believe the creation was created through Him? Do you believe Jesus is God?

Randy

 

[Randy]

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.


Post by reba

 

[Gregg]

All that the Father is (being)=>All the Fullness of God. All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Hence Paul's usage of fullness rather then born again.

I don't believe Jesus is the Living God. I believe Jesus is the Firstborn Son of the Living God with His own spirit. But the Living Father was pleased to have the His fullness dwell in Jesus. My assumption is as a Son Jesus has a beginning (before genesis/creation) and at that beginning the fullness was given. To me a Jesus apart from the Father has never and will never exist. In that Jesus is all that the Father is and in the framework of the Fathers will Jesus is God. Jesus wills the Holy Spirit acts. Jesus commands the angels obey. Jesus always does what pleases the Father whom He "Loves". The Father is Jesus's God and our God. The God of all. One God the Father, One Lord Jesus Christ, One Holy Spirit.

When God brought Jesus into the world God may have declared His parentage "today I have begotten you" but Jesus "was" long before that entrance into the world that was created through Him at the Fathers command and by the Fathers Will.

And the Holy Spirit that was poured out by Jesus (through whom all things came in in whom we live) was received from the Father, (From whom all things exist and for who we exist), And that which Jesus poured out was the Fathers promise "In the last days I will pour out My Spirit...." as Peter quoted to the crowd the words of the Lord as spoken by the prophet Joel.

Randy

I disagree; as Scripture claims that Jesus is the living God.

". . . because we have fixed our hope on [the living God], who is the Savior of all men, . ." (1Ti 4:10). Jesus is our Savior (2Tim 1:10, 1Jn 4:14, Tit 1:4; Tit 2:13 & 2Pet 1:1 [even our God and Savior]).

". . . that you should turn from these vain things to [a living God], WHO MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM" (Act 14:15). The Lord Jesus Christ is the Creator; the One who made heaven, earth, and sea (Jn 1:3, Col 1:16, Heb 1:2).

- - -

I also believe that the Father and the Son together are One God, co-eternal, the same Being, who have One Spirit in common.

 

[Gregg]

When we speak of Jesus the Messiah, we can not speak of Him without acknowledging that the Son of God and the Spirit of God dwells within Him, integral to His being; and so we rightly speak of Jesus Christ as God, LORD, Creator, the living God, eternal, Savior, the I Am, even as eternal Father.

His body of flesh was conceived at a point within time, a living physical body of flesh and blood. If that body existed eternally, perhaps we can not discern; and I am not willing to speculate. However, no speculation is required to belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God, and have always been so.

But it is good enough for me to know that Jesus, God in the flesh, shed His blood for my atonement to the Father, for the forgiveness and removal of my sin, to redeem me, to cover me that death would pass over, to cleans my entire being; in order that the holy, righteous, just, and loving God dwell in me.

 

[Free]

Grace

I don't know what you mean by 'hypostatic union'.

As far as I know, it does not appear in the scriptures, but is the product of that unhappy class of people who have nothing better to do that spin words to confuse and mislead the 'little ones' of the flock of God. I refer of course, to the theologians.

The scriptures are enough for anyone : they are able to make us 'wise unto salvation', to make us 'perfect', 'thoroughly furnished unto all good works'; (2 Tim 3.16).

The theologians, of course, once they get their mitts on anything resembling the simple truth, proceed to obfuscate, confuse, darken the simple counsels of God.

Everyone does this, including you. Don't think so highly of yourself.

I think I've said enough, with plenty of scripture to back me up, to show that Jesus is exactly what He said He was: no more, no less.

I am the Son of God.

I see nothing about 'hypostatic unions' in the NT. It is a theologians' construct, which has clearly bamboozled you into thinking that there is some merit in it.

I don't know, neither do I care, about who CARM may be. Sola scriptura is my war cry.

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them",

If you have a blizzard of passages to produce, which can gainsay what Jesus Himself says, I am prepared to listen.

Scripture yes. Theologians, NO.

You are not prepared to listen and have, in fact, shown the opposite to be the case--you dismiss the views of others without even bothering to address them, you have ignored or dismissed all Scriptures which show the Jesus is also God, have shown that you don't even understand what the doctrine of the Trinity states, and have set yourself and your interpretation of Scripture above all of that of Christianity and many thousands of Christians throughout history.

Perhaps you have said enough and this thread can die just like the last ones.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Free wrote to Asyncritus (blue):

“You are not prepared to listen and have, in fact, shown the opposite to be the case--you dismiss the views of others without even bothering to address them, you have ignored or dismissed all Scriptures which show the Jesus is also God, have shown that you don't even understand what the doctrine of the Trinity states, and have set yourself and your interpretation of Scripture above all of that of Christianity and many thousands of Christians throughout history.”

Why not start a new thread of scriptures “which show Jesus is also God”?

I (and probably a couple others) will answer them one by one IF YOU WILL PLEASE GIVE ONE AT A TIME AND ALLOW US TIME TO RESPOND BEFORE THE NEXT SCRIPTURE.

I’m sure there will be some I cannot answer, but I’m also sure that I will have an honest answer to almost all of them if you will just give us a chance to answer completely. It would be good if every one could see both sides of the question.

 

[reba]

Sola Scripture ?

Rom_14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

Php_4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Mat_5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.


Time for a cooling off ....

 

[reba]

Hi Reba

No rudeness was intended. Apologies if you or Jack took that the wrong way.

I am possibly the staunchest supporter of Christianity that you are likely to meet on these pages, and no hostile act can be expected from me.

No sir you are in darkness, the darkness of the spiritaul world you have created for your self.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.


As to this site

This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity (or declare it false) and the basic tenets of our Faith is against the purpose of this site.

As a guest here you/we are to be respectful of the rules and the values listed in the TOS and SOF. You are not compelled to believe them just be respectful.

All members should be respectful of each other...

2.4: ... Do not make an inflammatory remark just to get a response. Address issues not personalities. Respect where people are in their spiritual walk, and respect all others in general. Respect where others are in their spiritual walk, do not disrupt the flow of discussion or act in a way that affects others negatively including when debating doctrinal issues, in the defense of the Christian faith, and in offering unwelcome spiritual advice.

 

[reba]

ar·gue
verb \ˈär-(ˌ)gyü\
: to give reasons for or against something : to say or write things in order to change someone's opinion about what is true, what should be done, etc.

: to cause (someone) to decide to do or not do something by giving reasons

: to disagree or fight by using angry words


1de·bate
noun \di-ˈbāt, dē-\
: a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something


A fine line but it is there...

 

[reba]

But according to the conditions of membership of this board, which you agreed to as a condition of your permission to post here, you do NOT have the right to violate the terms of service, nor to violate their statement of faith.​

No one has the right to violate the terms of the rules here.... Please do not call on staff then "take the law into your own hands"

 

[reba]

Most often this type of battle is handled in SACs ... When members seem so bent to ignore requests of moderation other methods may be applied.

Deletions will happen here shortly

 

[WIP]

Let's keep this discussion on topic and civil. Otherwise the alternative is inevitable.

 

[Gregg]

I can not sufficiently explain my own structure or being; how much less that of my Creator! It is difficult to understand that I have a spirit, a soul, and a body; that I am one sentient being having 3 components. I can not explain the fabric, vitality, or essence of their constitution. What is the separation of my soul and body, the division of my soul and spirit? I take it by faith that God created me, that He knows my innermost being, and that He will preserve me complete until His Coming.

As for who God is I take these Scriptures by faith without demanding an explanation from God, without putting the Lord Jesus Christ on trial, without questioning the testimony of the Holy Spirit:

"His name Immanuel" (Isa 1:14), "God with us" (Mat 1:23).
"and the Word was God" (John 1:1).
"My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28)
"Christ Jesus . . . existed in the form of God" (Phi 2:5-6).
". . . our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" (Titus 2:13).
"But of the Son . . . Your throne, O God, is forever" (Heb 1:8).

The Father, Son, and Spirit are One God; but the Son was sent to us to explain the Father and to provide for our atonement to God by, with, and through His own blood.

 

[Jesse Stone]

I would like to take this opportunity to present my primary problem with the Trinity for a final time on this forum. If no compelling answers are forthcoming this time, I will assume that no one on this forum knows any compelling answers. I will continue to be a non-Trinitarian until this matter is resolved to my own satisfaction. And I will continue to think that Christianity is a religion of man, not a religion of God. Why? Because its primary essential doctrine, the Trinity, from a non-Trinitarian perspective, is a false doctrine to be regarded as a doctrine of men. This will automatically bias extremists against me. But until this problem is resolved, I have no other choice but to follow what I see. Or follow a common idea, even among Protestants. That the Church is the authority. Which can only lead to Rome. And many Protestants converts to Catholicism have been thus led to Rome by their own admission.

Four things:

Presenting New Testament verses considered proofs for Trinitarianism is not a compelling answer. Proof texts are notorious for their ability to be interpreted in more than one way. And until my problem with the Trinity is resolved, they are indeed understood in a different way by me.

Using the ad hominem argument that I simply don't want to know the truth is unwarranted, unwanted, and unappreciated.

Saying that one is not saved or in darkness because one is a non-Trinitarian is a simple bias of an extremist mind that leads to nowhere. Certainly doesn't lead to discussion or argument as defined by Administrator Reba.

Compelling answers must be compelling to me. That they are compelling to the person responding is irrelevant. In that until they become compelling to me, they simply aren't compelling to me. And I will try to clarify why they aren't compelling to me. I say this because some seem to think that if I reject their "standard" answers, I have no interest in an answer. Standard answers can only be given by one denomination regarding their denominational standard. Such standards mean nothing to any other denomination, unless they happen to agree with them. Catholicism has standard answers that must be accepted as fact. How many Protestants accept all of their standard answers?

Now to the matter at hand.

First common Old Testament verses brought up by Trinitarians.

Elohim translated God is a plural noun.

Elohim is a plural noun translated in the singular whenever it refers to God. By Jews and Christians alike. This implies that the plurality of the noun is not understood literally and must be understood to refer to something other than a plurality of persons. And I add that Elohim is not a name. it refers to a kind of being. A supreme being. Like human refers to a kind of being.

"Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah" (Deuteronomy 6:4 ASV)

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." (Deuteronomy 6:4 NIV)

Whether translated as one or is one, it is a reference to Jehovah (or LORD) as one, not God. This God's name is Jehovah. The emphasis is that there is only one Jehovah. Not that there is only one God. God states he is one God elsewhere.

and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them. (Exodus 6:3 ASV)

And that God is? The God of Israel. The God with whom Israel has to do. No other Gods or Jehovahs need apply. And Israel is to:

"love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." (Deuteronomy 6:5 ASV)

Jehovah is a distinct God with a distinct name among the Gods of the nations around Israel. Israel is his chosen people from whom he demands complete loyalty. That is all that is being stated here,

the "us" quadrilogy

The four "us" verses, one in particular, is emphasized by Trinitarians as a reference to the Trinity.

"Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me." (Isaiah 6:8)

This passage can be eliminated because the context (vs. 2-3) states that angels were present. But we would do well to observe and remember that God uses both a plural and a personal pronoun in this verse.

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever (Genesis 3:22)

Here we have the same situation as in the previous verse. In that angels are mentioned in context (v. 24). and there is this same mixture of usage of plural and personal pronouns.

Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. (Genesis 11:7)

The immediate context does not mention who the other persons are. So it is two out of four wherein the persons are not all described. So I look to a slightly wider context and think that God had his entourage of angels with him. As in Genesis 3:22. Which eliminates this verse from consideration.

"26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:26-27 KJV)

And that leaves these verses. In this case I look forward to Genesis 3:22, and see no reason to assume that God did not have his entourage with him at this point also. If Satan is to be regarded as an angel, I only need to look as far as Genesis 3:1 and think that the angels were present at the creation of man. This is a presumption on my part. But a good one I think. No less so than presuming that no one other than God was present.

Remember the usage of both plural and personal pronouns in the other three verses. In v. 26 plural pronouns are used. In v. 27 suddenly plural pronouns change into personal pronouns. When the idea is presented - plural pronouns. When the idea is executed - personal pronouns. This gives me the impression that God himself is creator. And he had help in creating. We know for instance that Jesus was there. That creation was THROUGH him, not BY him. That creation was THROUGH instead of BY suggests to me that Jesus is not God. But that too is just a presumption. Even though the logic is sound. To me. Certainly not to a Trinitarian.

My primary problem with Trinitarianism is that in all Old Testament references other than the four mentioned, God refers to himself by personal pronouns. That suggests to me that God is just one person, rather than two or more. That the unique God (only one God) with a unique name (Jehovah, or however one wishes to understand it in English, including LORD) is only one person.

 

[Jack Hectorman]

`
I greatly enjoyed reading this thread, and very much appreciate all the efforts made by Trinitarians to present, uphold, and defend the Blessed Trinity. There were
many outstanding posts that were a blessing to me. To many to list them all, but I will mention Free's excellent posts that I took note of and read carefully, they were posts
36, 68, 72, 94, 95, 96, 115, 127, 128, and 135 ... some had only a few words but they all made excellent and true points.

Often times we find the greatest blessings in the back pages of a thread. Some folks live exclusively on the front page of threads, I guess because they're looking for
"something new." Not me. Often the best posts are in the back pages.

My wife and I were viewing a David Foster music DVD the other night and Foster remarked that in the music business, "They say you're only as good as your last three minutes." I took that to mean the audience wants above all to stay entertained and they forget all the good music you presented to them earlier in the show, and instead focus ONLY on
what is happening right now in front of them. Many people are like that in threads, they neglect all the really good material that is "back there" and try to feast ONLY on the "new" stuff [but is it really new? .../grin]

Thank the Lord for well thought out doctrinal posts. They do not go unnoticed or unappreciated.

I doubt we will ever know, in this life, exactly who or how many people has read our better posts, and has been helped by
what they read, anyway in light of that thought ...

... here are two very encouraging Bible verses for us to "sticky note" on our PC monitor: Isaiah 55:10-11 (as we write posts).

Cheers.

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

 

[Gregg]

I would like to take this opportunity to present my primary problem with the Trinity for a final time on this forum. If no compelling answers are forthcoming this time, I will assume that no one on this forum knows any compelling answers. I will continue to be a non-Trinitarian until this matter is resolved to my own satisfaction. And I will continue to think that Christianity is a religion of man, not a religion of God. Why? Because its primary essential doctrine, the Trinity, from a non-Trinitarian perspective, is a false doctrine to be regarded as a doctrine of men. This will automatically bias extremists against me. But until this problem is resolved, I have no other choice but to follow what I see. Or follow a common idea, even among Protestants. That the Church is the authority. Which can only lead to Rome. And many Protestants converts to Catholicism have been thus led to Rome by their own admission.

Four things:

Presenting New Testament verses considered proofs for Trinitarianism is not a compelling answer. Proof texts are notorious for their ability to be interpreted in more than one way. And until my problem with the Trinity is resolved, they are indeed understood in a different way by me.

Using the ad hominem argument that I simply don't want to know the truth is unwarranted, unwanted, and unappreciated.

Saying that one is not saved or in darkness because one is a non-Trinitarian is a simple bias of an extremist mind that leads to nowhere. Certainly doesn't lead to discussion or argument as defined by Administrator Reba.

Compelling answers must be compelling to me. That they are compelling to the person responding is irrelevant. In that until they become compelling to me, they simply aren't compelling to me. And I will try to clarify why they aren't compelling to me. I say this because some seem to think that if I reject their "standard" answers, I have no interest in an answer. Standard answers can only be given by one denomination regarding their denominational standard. Such standards mean nothing to any other denomination, unless they happen to agree with them. Catholicism has standard answers that must be accepted as fact. How many Protestants accept all of their standard answers?

Now to the matter at hand.

First common Old Testament verses brought up by Trinitarians.



Elohim is a plural noun translated in the singular whenever it refers to God. By Jews and Christians alike. This implies that the plurality of the noun is not understood literally and must be understood to refer to something other than a plurality of persons. And I add that Elohim is not a name. it refers to a kind of being. A supreme being. Like human refers to a kind of being.



Whether translated as one or is one, it is a reference to Jehovah (or LORD) as one, not God. This God's name is Jehovah. The emphasis is that there is only one Jehovah. Not that there is only one God. God states he is one God elsewhere.



And that God is? The God of Israel. The God with whom Israel has to do. No other Gods or Jehovahs need apply. And Israel is to:



Jehovah is a distinct God with a distinct name among the Gods of the nations around Israel. Israel is his chosen people from whom he demands complete loyalty. That is all that is being stated here,



The four "us" verses, one in particular, is emphasized by Trinitarians as a reference to the Trinity.



This passage can be eliminated because the context (vs. 2-3) states that angels were present. But we would do well to observe and remember that God uses both a plural and a personal pronoun in this verse.



Here we have the same situation as in the previous verse. In that angels are mentioned in context (v. 24). and there is this same mixture of usage of plural and personal pronouns.



The immediate context does not mention who the other persons are. So it is two out of four wherein the persons are not all described. So I look to a slightly wider context and think that God had his entourage of angels with him. As in Genesis 3:22. Which eliminates this verse from consideration.



And that leaves these verses. In this case I look forward to Genesis 3:22, and see no reason to assume that God did not have his entourage with him at this point also. If Satan is to be regarded as an angel, I only need to look as far as Genesis 3:1 and think that the angels were present at the creation of man. This is a presumption on my part. But a good one I think. No less so than presuming that no one other than God was present.

Remember the usage of both plural and personal pronouns in the other three verses. In v. 26 plural pronouns are used. In v. 27 suddenly plural pronouns change into personal pronouns. When the idea is presented - plural pronouns. When the idea is executed - personal pronouns. This gives me the impression that God himself is creator. And he had help in creating. We know for instance that Jesus was there. That creation was THROUGH him, not BY him. That creation was THROUGH instead of BY suggests to me that Jesus is not God. But that too is just a presumption. Even though the logic is sound. To me. Certainly not to a Trinitarian.

My primary problem with Trinitarianism is that in all Old Testament references other than the four mentioned, God refers to himself by personal pronouns. That suggests to me that God is just one person, rather than two or more. That the unique God (only one God) with a unique name (Jehovah, or however one wishes to understand it in English, including LORD) is only one person.

Before you leave this discussion, I have a couple of questions.

- Do you believe in the God of Abraham, that He is God?
- Do you acknowledge the historical account of the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

 

[gr8grace3]

I would like to take this opportunity to present my primary problem with the Trinity for a final time on this forum. If no compelling answers are forthcoming this time, I will assume that no one on this forum knows any compelling answers. I will continue to be a non-Trinitarian until this matter is resolved to my own satisfaction. And I will continue to think that Christianity is a religion of man, not a religion of God. Why? Because its primary essential doctrine, the Trinity, from a non-Trinitarian perspective, is a false doctrine to be regarded as a doctrine of men. This will automatically bias extremists against me. But until this problem is resolved, I have no other choice but to follow what I see. Or follow a common idea, even among Protestants. That the Church is the authority. Which can only lead to Rome. And many Protestants converts to Catholicism have been thus led to Rome by their own admission.

Four things:

Presenting New Testament verses considered proofs for Trinitarianism is not a compelling answer. Proof texts are notorious for their ability to be interpreted in more than one way. And until my problem with the Trinity is resolved, they are indeed understood in a different way by me.

Using the ad hominem argument that I simply don't want to know the truth is unwarranted, unwanted, and unappreciated.

Saying that one is not saved or in darkness because one is a non-Trinitarian is a simple bias of an extremist mind that leads to nowhere. Certainly doesn't lead to discussion or argument as defined by Administrator Reba.

Compelling answers must be compelling to me. That they are compelling to the person responding is irrelevant. In that until they become compelling to me, they simply aren't compelling to me. And I will try to clarify why they aren't compelling to me. I say this because some seem to think that if I reject their "standard" answers, I have no interest in an answer. Standard answers can only be given by one denomination regarding their denominational standard. Such standards mean nothing to any other denomination, unless they happen to agree with them. Catholicism has standard answers that must be accepted as fact. How many Protestants accept all of their standard answers?

Now to the matter at hand.

First common Old Testament verses brought up by Trinitarians.



Elohim is a plural noun translated in the singular whenever it refers to God. By Jews and Christians alike. This implies that the plurality of the noun is not understood literally and must be understood to refer to something other than a plurality of persons. And I add that Elohim is not a name. it refers to a kind of being. A supreme being. Like human refers to a kind of being.



Whether translated as one or is one, it is a reference to Jehovah (or LORD) as one, not God. This God's name is Jehovah. The emphasis is that there is only one Jehovah. Not that there is only one God. God states he is one God elsewhere.



And that God is? The God of Israel. The God with whom Israel has to do. No other Gods or Jehovahs need apply. And Israel is to:



Jehovah is a distinct God with a distinct name among the Gods of the nations around Israel. Israel is his chosen people from whom he demands complete loyalty. That is all that is being stated here,



The four "us" verses, one in particular, is emphasized by Trinitarians as a reference to the Trinity.



This passage can be eliminated because the context (vs. 2-3) states that angels were present. But we would do well to observe and remember that God uses both a plural and a personal pronoun in this verse.



Here we have the same situation as in the previous verse. In that angels are mentioned in context (v. 24). and there is this same mixture of usage of plural and personal pronouns.



The immediate context does not mention who the other persons are. So it is two out of four wherein the persons are not all described. So I look to a slightly wider context and think that God had his entourage of angels with him. As in Genesis 3:22. Which eliminates this verse from consideration.



And that leaves these verses. In this case I look forward to Genesis 3:22, and see no reason to assume that God did not have his entourage with him at this point also. If Satan is to be regarded as an angel, I only need to look as far as Genesis 3:1 and think that the angels were present at the creation of man. This is a presumption on my part. But a good one I think. No less so than presuming that no one other than God was present.

Remember the usage of both plural and personal pronouns in the other three verses. In v. 26 plural pronouns are used. In v. 27 suddenly plural pronouns change into personal pronouns. When the idea is presented - plural pronouns. When the idea is executed - personal pronouns. This gives me the impression that God himself is creator. And he had help in creating. We know for instance that Jesus was there. That creation was THROUGH him, not BY him. That creation was THROUGH instead of BY suggests to me that Jesus is not God. But that too is just a presumption. Even though the logic is sound. To me. Certainly not to a Trinitarian.

My primary problem with Trinitarianism is that in all Old Testament references other than the four mentioned, God refers to himself by personal pronouns. That suggests to me that God is just one person, rather than two or more. That the unique God (only one God) with a unique name (Jehovah, or however one wishes to understand it in English, including LORD) is only one person.

Just one point in your list of struggles with the trinity.

THROUGH Him but not BY Him...... Colossians 1:16-17~~16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Jesse, hang in there. The trinity is a revealed doctrine, the Spirit reveals it to one who has the Spirit. If you truly are an unbeliever and not a christian, you sure are digging in! You need to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for your salvation and then you will receive His Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity will make sense to you then. Keep searching Friend. Jesus says,"Come to me"

 

[teddy trueblood]

By Grace (#499) to Jesse Stone:

"Just one point in your list of struggles with the trinity.

THROUGH Him but not BY Him...... Colossians 1:16-17~~16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

The Greek word in question is en (ἐν). Most often this is translated “in.” But there are other meanings for this word.

Young’s Analytical Concordance tells us that en (or ἐν) may be rendered into English as ‘in,’ ‘by,’ ‘with,’ ‘through,’ etc. – ‘Index-Lexicon to the New Testament,’ Eerdmans Publ., 1978 printing.

W. E. Vine tells us the ‘instrumental’ use of the NT Greek word en (or ἐν) is often intended to mean ‘with’ and ‘by means of.’ (“Through” is equivalent to ‘by means of.’ E.g., “God gave the law through Moses“ or “God gave the Law by means of Moses.”)

Thayer agrees with this meaning of ἐν (en):

“d. of the instrument or means by or with which anything is accomplished …, where we say with, by means of, by (through)” – p. 210, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House, 1984 printing

Strong’s shows ‘through’ as one of the meanings of en in the KJV:

Ro. 3:7; 6:23 (and many more) KJV - Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon Press, 1974 printing.

The New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible shows us that the NASB has rendered en as ‘through’ 18 times. - pp. 1267, 1268 and p. 1648, Holman Bible Publishers, 1981.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology discusses en encroaching on the territory of dia (‘through’) in some situations (p. 1190) and specifically mentions en as an “Agency or instrumentality” in one of its meanings when used in the phrase “in (en) Christ.” It cites 2 Cor. 3:14 as an example: “The veil is not lifted because only through Christ is it removed”. - Vol. 3, p. 1192.

Nigel Turner:

“c) en appears to approximate dia ‘through’ in Gal. 1:16 (to reveal his Son ‘through me’), 1 Cor. 4:6 (learn ‘through us’). 2 Cor. 13:3 (to speak ‘through me’), 1 Tim. 1:16 (to show ‘through me’), Heb. 1:1 (‘through’ the prophets).” - The Bible Translator 10/3 (July 1959), pp. 113-120.

This explains why at Col. 1:16, for example, ‘For in [en] him all things were created,’ as found in NRSV, RSV, ASV, NIV, etc. is also properly translated ‘For through him…’ (GNB; MLB;AT; NLT; C.B.Williams; and Phillips), and ‘For by Him…’ (NIV; KJV; NKJV; BBE; MKJV; Webster; Darby;Moffatt; & Barclay).

The last part of this same verse further confirms this proper rendering of the instrumental en of the first part. Yes, “For through or by means of (ἐν) him all things were created” (Col. 1:16a) is made certain by the concluding clause: “All things were created through [dia] him….” (Col. 1:16c) – NKJV.