Proof of Trinity

[Asyncritus]

This is a serious error in reasoning on your part. Even if it were true that there was "no incontrovertible reference to the trinity" in the other gospels, your very argument completely undermines the authority of John's gospel.

I thought that those 78 passages I cited was pretty strong proof of my willingness to listen carefully to what John's gospel really says. You are the one who is totally refusing to believe what he says so simply and plainly, especially at the end of the gospel:

John 20.

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Note, that He is the Son of God, not God in disguise, or God the Son.

So what are we really arguing about?

I think it is all about the pre-existence of Christ, a doctrine which I have several times shown you dies on the word 'conceived' in Luke's account of the birth of Christ.

That doctrine does not appear in the Old Testament, and for those who may not have seen my argument, here it is again:

Luke, a doctor, records this message from God through Gabriel:

1. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

To avoid any confusion, he goes on:

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Same Greek word.

Now if Jesus really existed in heaven as some sort of spirit being before His birth, then Mary COULD NOT have conceived Him.

He would have had to be engrafted, transplanted, implanted or some similar description. Most definitely not 'conceived'.

Mary would not be His mother, rather, a surrogate mother.

Jesus would have inherited NO HUMAN QUALITIES WHATSOEVER, having no human genes at all, as a ‘spirit-being’. All of which is entirely nonsense, according to scripture which says: Who was in ALL POINTS TEMPTED LIKE AS WE ARE.

But 'conceived' is the chosen word.

John the Baptist was not engrafted, implanted etc etc. He was conceived, just as Jesus was, with the difference that God was Jesus' Father.

So why is the word ‘conceived’ so deliberately used? By God Himself, who sent Gabriel to Mary? Answer, because that is precisely what happened.

At this point, I expect you to call upon the 'great mystery' of the doctrine of the trinity. Those things we refuse to understand because they contradict some fundamental tenet of the doctrine.

That is what I accused DI of being forced to do. The old fall-back position, the refuge of those who are faced with the flat contradiction of scripture and facts with their beliefs.

But you've had some time to think of a reply to this point, since the last time I brought it up. Has anything changed?

I strongly suggest you do a serious study on the gospels and learn their differences and their purposes. Regardless, the very use of the term "Son of God" refers to the deity of Jesus.

I have studied the gospels minutely for many years, Free. Don't try to bamboozle us with that implication of ignorance.

But the term 'Son' implies non-equality. Therefore, Son of God is an explicit statement that Jesus was/is inferior to, subordinate to, and everything else which flatly contradicts the 'equality' clause of the Athanasian and for all I know, the Nicene and other creeds, to which you are an involuntary (?) subscriber.

 

[Asyncritus]

Here, again, is another significant exegetical error. In no way whatsoever is Mark clarifying John's statement. Not a chance. Mark is clearly referring to the beginning of the "good news", while John, is clearly referring to Gen 1:1, to creation:

Hardly. This is just another of your assertions.

Tell you what. Let's assume that we were there at the time when John's gospel had not yet been written , but the first three were all that we had at the time. Would you ever have come up with the doctrines of the trinity and the pre-existence of Christ?

Why not try doing so as an exercise, and letting us see your results? I should be interested to see what proof of the trinity you can possibly come up with from the first 3 gospels.

 

[Asyncritus]

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.(ESV)

There are several things wrong with this, as you know only too well.

The word 'Word' is unjustifiably capitalised. As you surely know, the uncial manuscripts were all in capitals. Why then, is 'Word' capitalised? It should, consistently speaking, be : ‘word'. That simple act would have removed a great deal of this argument.

Second, the 'word was God' is a problematic translation. The definite article is absent from the word ‘God’, for a reason. What reason do you think that is? What is John trying to convey?

I'll tell you. He's trying to convey the message that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

How do you square that major point with trinitarian teaching? I personally can't see how.

He is using creation language - but in a very limited sense: he only refers to the separation of light and darkness. Where are the trees, dry land, birds, stars, and all the other things in Gen 1?

Omitted is the answer.

But why?

Because he is not discussing what happened in Gen 1,2. He is drawing a parallel between the Old Creation and the New Creation in Christ. That’s what this is all about.

The very context proves your argument to be false. Verse 1 is showing us who the Word is--that the Word has always existed, the Word was in intimate relationship with God, and that the Word was in fact also God.

I think you're wrong again. There is nothing to support that in Genesis 1 and 2. If so, where is it?

On the other hand, suppose he is talking about the New Creation of God in Christ.

Everything makes immediate sense.

In the beginning of the New Creation, the powerful and active agent was the word, the message which Christ brought.

He was the word in fleshly form – visible to all, fulfilling every prophetic word spoken by God. Therefore, the word made flesh.

He was the Beloved Son, who had perfectly obeyed His Father and had an intimate relationship with Him. He was pros theon. Did you know that? That is the Greek for ‘with God’. But pros has nothing to do with being ‘with’ someone.

Here’s Grimm Thayer’s Greek Lexicon: “with the accusative case (as here), denoting direction towards a thing, or position and state LOOKING TOWARDS A THING.”

So we can be a zillion miles away looking pros the North Star. We are most definitely NOT with the North Star, as you don’t seem to realise.

Jesus’ attitude was entirely orientated TOWARDS God His Father. His whole life was oriented that way. It most certainly does not mean that He was there in Gen 1 WITH God. I've read Gen 1 hundreds of times, and I see nothing there at all about Jesus being there. Can you?

He existed from the beginning of the new Creation. The New Creation was made by Him, and nothing in the New Creation could be made without Him.

To get into the New Creation, we have to be born again, not by the will of man ie a natural birth, but by the will of God, who calls us.

The context tells us that this is really the proper interpretation: because immediately after the introduction, John the Baptist is brought into the account. He was not that light (the light of the world), but bore witness to that Light. [You will notice that there is nothing about JTB in Gen 1 and 2.]

 

[Asyncritus]

Right there that does in your entire position, yet there is more. Not only does verse 3 bring in the context of creation, hence why your argument to Mark is false, it very clearly states that every single thing that has come into existence, came into existence through the Word. Therefore, the only logical conclusion, is that the Word existed in eternity past and is uncreated. This is in perfect agreement with verse 1 (and Col. 1:16-17 and 1 Cor 8:6, which has been pointed out to you before).

It is only the logical conclusion provided that you ignore the fact that this is the New Creation in Christ that is being described here.

Everything in Jn 1 1- 14 is non-literal, and not intended to be taken literally.

The word: is non-literal.

Flesh: refers to Jesus’ nature, not to literal skin and bones

Light is non-literal light, not photons

Darkness is non-literal darkness, not the absence of photons

In Him was light – is a totally non-literal statement

All things – does not mean every single thing that exists, because that includes God Himself, and of course, the colossal evils that have been and are in the world now

Sons of God – is not a literal description. How could it be?

With all these non-literal elements there staring you in the face, can you explain to us why we should take v1 literally?

You really need to read these passages with reference to the New Creation of God through Christ. Once you do that, all difficulties melt as ice before heat.

And prove what, exactly? You didn't prove anything by them, hence why it is prooftexting. Simply posting verses does not mean that you have said anything at all. You must explain how each one supposedly supports your position. Some may be self-explanatory but some may not. Besides, it has already been stated that there is nothing in those that disagree with the doctrine of the Trinity. If you think they do, the onus is you to prove it.

The proof has been set out in detail before you already. It’s now your turn to produce some refutation of what appears to be common sense.

At the top of this reply are points which clearly establish that Jesus is the Father’s inferior, and subordinate. That He was His subordinate, that He is His subordinate, and that He will continue to be so even at the end of the millennium.

So where is your case for so-called ‘equality’?

All those 78 passages which you are seeking to dismiss with a wave of the old theological wand demonstrate perfectly clearly that Jesus was inferior to His Father at the time John wrote.

God does not change. He never has. Why should we suppose that He has made an about turn and elevated Jesus to ‘equality’ with Himself? I can see no good reason, but perhaps you can, and it is up to you to demonstrate that this is so.

 

[Asyncritus]

I seriously can't believe that you would refer back to this verse, after I have already shown how it contradicted the very things you are saying. Of course, you haven't addressed the contradictions up to this point, so I won't hold my breath for an answer now.

I'll refer you back to my post #36

You had better believe it.

As I have shown, the passage (Php 2) states explicitly that Jesus did not grasp at equality with God. Therefore, it must be obvious that He did not have it, otherwise it would not have been mentioned. Your case is therefore in tatters at this point.

Here is your post. Note the unsupported claims that you make about my understanding:

There is just too much error in what you have stated that I don't have time for at the moment but, as has been pointed out, you have been very selective in the passages you have given.

UNSUPPORTED}

As such, everything you have stated is based on having taken all those passages out of context.

[UNSUPPORTED]

But what is most telling about how you approach Scripture, is what you have missed in your own post. Look at what you bolded in Deut 6:4, which itself says nothing about the nature of God but rather is just a statement of monotheism,

[JUST a statement of monotheism? Jesus obviously approves of monotheism as witness Mark 12. 28-31, already quoted above by myself]

and compared with 1 Cor 8:6. Not only that, look back at what I have already said about 1 Cor 8:6.

What you said is wrong, and your dependence on trinitarian NT Wright is touching, if somewhat misplaced and incorrect, but that’s another story.

You posted: "The Jews are very important in this discussion. Jesus said 'Salvation is of the Jews'.

Therefore, we cannot, must not ignore or contradict their views of God.

And what was their view?

Very simple, and very simply stated in very many places:

Deut 6.4 ¶ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"

Notice that you even bolded "one LORD".

At the end of that very post, you finished with: "1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

Notice that you bolded "one God," but completely ignored that Jesus is said to be the "one Lord."

Which is it then? You have a serious contradiction here. Please clear it up. Not to mention that if "one God" is said to exclude Jesus from being God, the only logical conclusion is that "one Lord" excludes the Father from ever being Lord.

I’m afraid your ‘logical conclusions’ are usually wrong – because of your consistent failure to consider the direct context of the passages in question. So here:

1 Cor 8. 3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

4 ¶ As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

Notice? These are the polytheists, with their ‘gods’ many, and their ‘lords’ many. In Egypt, for example, there were dozens of gods, all served by various human ‘lords’ who owned bondslaves and land.

It is not so with us, he says.

There is but one God, the Father (monotheistic, Deut 6.4 being reiterated) and one ‘lord’ who serves the One God, and who own us, His bondslaves.

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

7 ¶ Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge (as you are demonstrating now)

But not only that, let's look at what Paul is actually saying--"there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things...

This refers to all created things, as per Gen 1

and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things."

As you don’t seem to know, that ‘by’ is really ‘through’. I like NET here, because it makes sense of the AV:

8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live.5

Notice, the ‘all things’ are ‘we’. The New Creation again, which seems to play no part in your theology. Does it play a part?

 

[Asyncritus]

If "all things" really means "all things," and I notice how often you like to say you take verses at face value, then, again, the only logical conclusion is that Jesus is not one of these "things." Indeed, just as "of whom are all things" speaks of the eternal pre-existence of the Father, so "by whom are all things" speaks of the eternal pre-existence of Jesus, or perhaps better, the Son.

You can see how you’re tying yourself up in knots.

You just need to do a bit of study with the Online Bible concordance, and you’ll soon see the vast array of referents of the term ‘all things’ in the Old Testament. It is no less so in the NT.

Mt 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Mt 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Mt 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

Mt 17:11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.

Mt 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Mt 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Mt 22:4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.

Mt 23:20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.

Mt 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

It is obvious from these passages, and there are another three dozen or so of them in the NT, which show clearly that you need to be careful in creating your understanding of what the words ‘all things’ are actually referring to.

Is it referring to the Old Creation (Gen 1). Or to the New Creation in Christ? Or something else?

Here’s a particularly relevant passage:

Eph 1.19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:

22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

'All things' here clearly refers to the church and its structures.

 

[Asyncritus]

Your position makes quite a mess of things as the verse you keep using to support your position actually completely does your position in. And you will notice that it is complete agreement with John 1:1-3.

Hardly, Free. As you have now seen, I suspect for the first time, some important phrases in the NT (like ‘all things’) don’t necessarily mean what you think they mean, and a review of your understanding is in order.

Some things worth noting:

1. Jesus was "in the form of God."

Can you elucidate the meaning of this phrase, please? Who else was in the ‘form of God’? And why is he brought into this discussion?

2 Yet, he "did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped," that is, something to be retained or forcibly held on to.

No, that is incorrect. It means something to be ‘snatched’, ‘robbed’, ‘thieved’

There seems to be more than a hint of violence in the use of this word. Moulton and Milligan in their Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament state that the LXX uses the same word in Ezk.22.25 of a lion’s prey.

Strong agrees. Now note the primary meanings:

1) the act of seizing, robbery

2) a thing seized or to be seized

2a) booty to deem anything a prize

2b) a thing to be seized upon or to be held fast, retained

Again, who else thought equality with God something to be seized, robbed, snatched? And why is he brought in here?

You have not answered the point, that if equality with God a thing to be snatched/robbed….THEN HE DIDN’T HAVE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. If He did, then why snatch at it?

No, He didn’t have it, and you are completely wrong about this.

2. He, Jesus, "made himself nothing." (emphasis added) It follows that a) he had the power to make himself nothing, b) if he became nothing, he had been "something," and that something was his being "in the form of God," or "being in very nature God" (NIV).

Again wrong. You really should read the Revised Version regularly, you know. It is the most accurate translation on the planet.

And what does the most accurate version on the planet say?

“He emptied himself”. RV

7 Instead He emptied Himself by assuming the form of a slave, HCSB

Your inability to recognise scriptural allusions hampers your understanding of passages such as this one.

How does one ‘empty a vessel’? Easy – by pouring out the contents. So how did Jesus pour out Himself? Simple:

Isa.53: 12 He hath poured out his soul unto death” and Paul now adds ‘even the death of the cross’.

Remember Paul said pretty much the same about himself:

2Ti 4:6 For I am now ready to be offered, (= to be poured out as a drink offering) and the time of my departure is at hand.

It is referring to the fact that Jesus poured out His Life in submission to His Father's will. Nothing more complicated than that.

Let me give you this assignment. How many references and allusions to Isa 53 can you find in this passage? Have a look, and we can compare notes.

4. His being made nothing is further explained as "taking the very nature of a servant,"

He is in fact, pointing out that Jesus fulfilled Isa 42: 1 “Behold my servant, whom I uphold…”

‘The form of a servant’ is very easy to understand. No need for heavy trinitarian overlarding. He was the Son of God – yet He chose to be a servant to those who needed help – and there were thousands – culminating in His washing the disciples’ feet, as you may recall.

As Paul says:

2Co 8:9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

 

[Asyncritus]

"being made in human likeness" and "being found in appearance as a man."

NET Bible: The theological point being made is that Christ looked just like other men, but he was not like other men (in that he was not sinful), though he was fully human.

That is the point being made. He LOOKED like other men, but was not – because He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth.

You note that even NET, that bunch of hardened trinitarians, recognises that Jesus was fully human. You, however, don’t, and that is the tragedy. If He was FULLY human, then where is there room for being God?

Remember, even now, He is described as ‘the MAN Christ Jesus’ 1 Tim 2.5

This supports the notion that he had been something, he had been "in very nature God."

1. He "being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death." Again, pretty self-explanatory.

You keep overlooking the point that He didn’t think that equality with God was a thing to be grasped. THEREFORE HE DIDN’T HAVE IT. He NEVER claimed or stated that He was God, and that is a point you cannot gainsay.

Why you deem it necessary to set Paul against what Christ Himself never said or claimed, is beyond me, and I think it a great pity.

And it must be pointed out that this is in perfect agreement with John 1:1-14, Col 1:16-17, and 1 Cor 8:6, among others. This passage in particular though is speaking of the humility of Jesus, who, although he was God, willingly submitted to the Father for the purpose of saving humankind.

You have now been shown the correct way to view those passages: a way which is in entire harmony with the stated purpose of John’s gospel, the distinction between the heathen gods and lords, and the proper interpretation of Php 2.

Again, I underline the simple and very fundamental fact that Jesus NEVER CLAIMED TO BE GOD. He invariably claimed to be the Son of MAN, and the SON of GOD. Why didn’t He claim to be God, if it was really true?

That is a striking fact which sinks any and all trinitarian claims.

 

[Asyncritus]

Indeed, if Jesus is not fully and truly God, we have no salvation.

This is the worst possible point you could have raised.

If Jesus was truly God, then He could not have sinned, because God cannot sin. It is impossible for Him to do so.

If Jesus could not have sinned, then He did not conquer sin. It presented no problem.

If He could not have sinned, then there was no victory over sin. There was no real sacrifice involved here. It cost nothing.

But we know that the exact opposite is true. He was in all points tempted, like as we are, yet without sin. If He was God, that is a totally untrue statement, because God cannot be tempted with evil.

He did no sin, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. He paid the huge, vile, price, to deliver us from death, and conquered sin completely. If He was God, He could not have sinned, and there was no conquest involved.

I’m sorry if you cannot see these absolutely stark facts, but facts they are, and they cannot change.

So I call on you to review your position in their light.

 

[Asyncritus]

Note to the other guys:

I'm sorry to have taken up such a huge amount of space, but Free wrote in detail, and I was duty bound to reply in kind.

I'll take up your point about the firstborn of all creation next, Eugene.

 

[mondar]

We affirm the functional subordination of Jesus Christ, you just wasted your time. Equal in one way, subordinate in another. No contradiction. Next.

You cannot be serious.

What is 'functional subordination'? Another of these meaningless and basically unscriptural theological constructs? Give us an example of what you mean, with scriptural support....(snip)....

Slave of Jesus, you have spoken right. You noticed a key flaw in what Asyncritus is saying and he does grasp what you are saying. He called it a "meaningless and basically unscriptural theological construct." Asycritus does not grasp the difference between the role of function that Jesus had when in the flesh, and the essence of his nature. I too have noticed Asyncritus has persistently quoted passages in which Christ served in the roll of a servant and was obedient to the will of the Father. Of course he is setting up a straw man because the doctrine of the trinity affirms that Jesus functioned in obedience to the Father and took upon himself the form of a servant. In fact what Asyncritus is saying does not actually deny the doctrine of the trinity, but rather affirms it. A part of the doctrine of the trinity is that there are three distinct persons within the trinity that are equal in attributes and essence (they are one being), but no equal in function and person (3 persons).

I just want to say that I do not think you should drop your observation, but you should pursue it.

Colossians 2:9 for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,

 

[gr8grace3]

BIBLICAL EVIDENCE THAT GOD IS THREE PERSONS

1. The Doctrine Is Set Forth in the Old Testament.

A. The term elohim [ Gods ] is plural and it is used properly with plural forms of speech.

B. In Psalm 2:2, 6, there is a distinction between Jehovah and Messiah.

C. There are times when the angel of Jehovah is One other than Jehovah, and at other times He is Jehovah Himself.

D. The word Immanuel indicates that God the Father has entered the human race in the incarnation of His Son, who became flesh and dwelt among us.

E. The three primary names of Deity are directly ascribed to each of the three Persons of the Godhead: Jehovah, Elohim, Adonai.

Father:

called Elohim
called Jehovah

Son:

called el (Isa. 9:6)
called Jehovah (Ps. 68:18; Is. 6:1-3; 45:21)

Holy Spirit:

called Jehovah (Is. 11:2 cf. Judges. 15:14)
called Elohim (Ex. 31:3)

F. Three distinct Persons are indicated in the following verses:

2 Samuel 2, 3:
Isaiah 48:16
Is. 63:7-10

G. Three passages in which Deity is determined to be plural:

Genesis. 1:26 [ God = Elohim ]
Ecc. 12:1 [ Creator = Creators ]
Isa. 54:5 [ Maker = Makers ]

2. The Doctrine Is Set Forth in the New Testament.

A. The Trinity and the Names of God.

1) The Father is called God. (Gal. 1:1)

2) The Son is called God.

God. (Jn. 1:1 cf. 1:14)
the true God. (1 Jn. 5:20)
the blessed God. (Rom. 9:5)
the great God. (Tit. 2:13)

3) The Holy Spirit is called God. (Acts 5:3-9)

B. The Attributes of God and the Trinity.

1) The Triune Members of the Godhead Are Said to Be Eternal.

Father (Ps. 90:2)
Son (Micah 5:2; John 1:2; Rev. 1:8, 17)
Holy Spirit (Heb. 9:14)

2) The Triune Members of the Godhead Are Said to Be Omnipotent.

Father (1 Peter 1:5)
Son (2 Cor. 12:9)
Holy Spirit (Rom. 15:19)

3) The Triune Members of the Godhead Are Said to Be Omniscient.

Father (Jer. 17:10)
Son (Rev. 2:23)
Holy Spirit (I Cor. 2:11)

4) The Triune Members of the Godhead Are Said to Be Omnipresent.

Father (Jer. 23:24)
Christ (Matt. 18:20)
Holy Spirit (Ps. 139:7)

5) The Triune Members of the Godhead Are Said to Be Holy.

Father (Rev. 15:4)
Christ (Acts 3:14)
Holy Spirit, who is commonly presented in the Old Testament as “the Holy Spirit.”

6) The Triune Members of the Godhead Are Described as the Truth.

Father (John 7:28)
Christ (Rev. 3:7)
Holy Spirit (1 John 5:6)

7) The Triune Members of the Godhead Are Said to Be Benevolent.

Father (Rom. 2:4)
Christ (Eph. 5:25)
Holy Spirit (Neh. 9:20)

8) Communion or fellowship is also ascribed to each Person of the Trinity.

1 John 1:3
2 Cor. 13:14

C. The Works of God and the Trinity.

Each important work of God is separately ascribed to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. The thought is not so much that They acted as partners as that They acted individually in completing what They undertook to do.

1) The Creation of the universe is attributed to each Person of the Trinity individually. Their several works are combined in the statement that God (Elohim) is the Creator.

Father (Ps. 102:25)
Christ (Col. 1:16)
Holy Spirit (Gen. 1:2)

2) The creation of man was a creative act of the Triune God.

Gen. 2:7
Col. 1:16
Job 33:4)

In Isaiah 54:5 “your Maker,” though translated as a singular, is again a plural.

3) The Incarnation involved activity of all three Persons of the Trinity.

The first Person is properly addressed as “Father.”
The Holy Spirit generated the Son.
And the Son was the One who is bom (Luke 1:35; John 1:14).

4) The life and ministry of Christ offers extensive evidence of the interrelationship of the Trinity.

God is His Father as Christ addressed Him
And Christ was filled with the Spirit.

5) The death of Christ on the cross.

Christ recognized that His death was fulfilling the will of the Father (Ps. 22:15; cf. Rom. 8:32)
It was the Father who loved the world so much that He gave His Son (John 3:16).
Christ is also said to have laid down His own life (John 10:18; Gal. 2:20).
Christ is said to have offered Himself to God “ through the eternal Spirit” (Heb. 9:14)

6) The resurrection of Christ also involved each Person of the Trinity.

Father (Acts 2:24)
Son (John 10:18)
Holy Spirit (Heb. 2:11; Jude 1)

7) The resurrection of all mankind is also related to the work of the Trinity.

the Father and the Son (John 5:21)
the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:11)

8) The inspiration of the Scriptures is also attributed to each Person of the Trinity though the emphasis is on the role of the Holy Spirit.

2 Tim. 3:16
1 Peter 1:10-11
2 Peter 1:21

9) A minister of the Gospel receives his authority from the Trinity

Acts 20:28
2 Cor. 3:5-6
1 Tim. 1: 12

10) The indwelling presence of God. is also an indwelling of all three Persons of the Trinity.

Eph. 4:6
Col. 1:27; cf. 1 Cor. 6:19
In John 14 all three Persons of the Trinity are promised the believer. (John 14:17, 23)

11) The work of sanctification involves the Trinity (1 Cor. 6:11; ??????

12) The believer is given safekeeping by each member of the Trinity.

John 10:29 cf. v. 28
Rom. 8:34
Eph. 4:30

D. The Worship of the God and the Trinity.

All created intelligences are appointed to render worship to God, and their worship includes the Triune Godhead.

1) Angels worship the Godhead.

Isa. 6:3
Rev. 4:8

2) Saints worship the Triune Godhead.

John 16:23-24
Eph. 6:18

3) In the benedictions.

Numbers 6:24-26
2 Cor. 13:14

 

[Free]

Jesus called the Father the One true God. Jesus stated "Father into your hands I commit My Spirit"

Your theology doesn't hold to One God. I need not consider the quality of Jesus's Spirit because what I see is that as long as Jesus "was" the fulness Of God has been in Him. Which as I stated based on what Jesus stated was sometime before the world began.

Jesus is the Firstborn and not God. He is all that the Father is (God) because of the Fullness that was pleased to dwell in Him. I read John (Father in Son) and I see again God defined Jesus's being.

About the Son:
He also says, "In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. (Genesis) Ref:Creation as defined by scripture.

However the fullness in the Son is the Father therefore the Father created through the Son. Jesus had a hand in what the Father did.

It is also written:
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

"My" theology, which is trinitarian theology, most certainly holds to one God. To say otherwise is to not understand what the doctrine of the Trinity is about. As for the rest, you continue to ignore the passages and arguments presented, preferring instead to pit Scripture against Scripture, which simply is not the way to go about gaining a proper biblical understanding of a matter. You did not even attempt to address the points I made or the passages presented but instead posted passages which are in full agreement with the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Free]

You really ought to produce these 'many passages proving the deity of Jesus'.

I have done so and yet you still continue to ignore them. There is nothing to discuss if you continue to ignore those passages which prove your position to be in error.

In my opinion, aligned with volumes of passages from the epistles and gospels, there is no doubt that He was human. Here are a handful:


First, God's explicit declaration concerning Himself:


Nu 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

And? Not only are you missing the point of the verse, there is nothing there that proves the Trinity false. This is a total misapplication of Scripture. God is uncreated, so of course he "is not a man" nor "the son of man," but that is not the point of the verse, is it?

Jesus, on the other hand, is extremely and equally specific on the point:


He IS the son of man. A multitude of references proves this.

Therefore, Jesus was not God.

And by this reasoning, since he also claims to be the Son of God, Jesus was also God.

We should be in full agreement here.

I could, of course, go on quoting such passages, but that should be enough to establish once for all that He is Son of Man, and bears human nature - which is entirely opposed to the divine nature.

Thereby leaving you with a huge problem.

You continue to completely ignore those passages which very clearly show he has a divine nature. The problem is yours, not mine. Quote all the passages you like, there will not be one that opposes the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Free]

He is equally emphatic in stating that He is the Son of God. Even His enemies agree on the point.

And his claiming to be the Son of God is a claim to deity, to being equal to the Father. So, yes, his enemies agreed and tried to kill him for blasphemy:

Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."
Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (ESV)

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one."
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?"
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God." (ESV)

Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, does He say He was God.

Every time he claims to be the Son of God, he claims deity. Not to mention what he says in John 8:58:

Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?"
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
Joh 8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (ESV)

"I am" being the Greek equivalent of the God telling Moses he was the "I Am." The Jews recognized this and once again picked up stones to stone him for blasphemy.

Now, can you account for that simple fact? That Jesus NEVER claims, ANYWHERE, to be God?

I have just shown otherwise.

If He was God, then this would have been the place to say so:


At this point in the argument, if He really was God, He should have shouted out: You’re right! I am God.

But does He do any such thing? No. Here's what He said:



So you're back to square one - in deep trouble.

No, no trouble. Who are you to say what Jesus should have said? He said what he said. He continually spoke in parables and mystery, often so that he would not be understood.

Jesus, and I repeat, NOWHERE says that He is God, or even God the Son. Not even here, when He had the most perfect opportunity to do so.

Instead, He repeats the claim, which we all know, that he is the SON OF GOD.

I have shown these arguments to be false.

Given all this proof absolute that Jesus is the Son of God, Son of Man, then where do you go from there?

Nowhere. I have no need to.

 

[Free]

I thought that those 78 passages I cited was pretty strong proof of my willingness to listen carefully to what John's gospel really says. You are the one who is totally refusing to believe what he says so simply and plainly, especially at the end of the gospel:

On the contrary, if you don't even understand John's prologue, you won't understand the rest of his gospel.

That doctrine does not appear in the Old Testament, and for those who may not have seen my argument, here it is again:

Luke, a doctor, records this message from God through Gabriel:

1. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

To avoid any confusion, he goes on:

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Same Greek word.

Now if Jesus really existed in heaven as some sort of spirit being before His birth, then Mary COULD NOT have conceived Him.

Based on what, exactly? Because you say so? This is a completely baseless assertion for which you cannot provide proof.

He would have had to be engrafted, transplanted, implanted or some similar description. Most definitely not 'conceived'.

Mary would not be His mother, rather, a surrogate mother.

Jesus would have inherited NO HUMAN QUALITIES WHATSOEVER, having no human genes at all, as a ‘spirit-being’. All of which is entirely nonsense, according to scripture which says: Who was in ALL POINTS TEMPTED LIKE AS WE ARE.

Complete and utter conjecture.

But 'conceived' is the chosen word.

John the Baptist was not engrafted, implanted etc etc. He was conceived, just as Jesus was, with the difference that God was Jesus' Father.

So why is the word ‘conceived’ so deliberately used? By God Himself, who sent Gabriel to Mary? Answer, because that is precisely what happened.

I and every other trinitarian have absolutely no issue with the use of 'conceive'. It is only through your unsupported, and indeed unsupportable, presuppositions that you think conceive means God could not have taken on human flesh, being born as a human, being both truly God and truly man. Again, this is precisely what Phil 2 shows.

So, when we look at your argument, it completely falls apart. You want to believe that God, the Father, miraculously conceived within Mary but at the same time can't believe that that which is conceived could be God, the Son, himself? You want to believe that it is possible for God to cause Mary to conceive but that it is impossible for him to enter into time himself? What grounds do you have for this? It is quite rational to see that if God caused Mary to conceive, that that which was conceived was both God and man. Hence, Son of God and Son of Man.

Notice what Isaiah says:

Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (ESV)

Hard to not notice that the "child is born" but the "son is given."

At this point, I expect you to call upon the 'great mystery' of the doctrine of the trinity. Those things we refuse to understand because they contradict some fundamental tenet of the doctrine.

Well, the Incarnation is the greatest mystery in Christianity, of course, but that in no way means that there is some contradiction. That would be an error in reasoning.

But the term 'Son' implies non-equality. Therefore, Son of God is an explicit statement that Jesus was/is inferior to, subordinate to, and everything else which flatly contradicts the 'equality' clause of the Athanasian and for all I know, the Nicene and other creeds, to which you are an involuntary (?) subscriber.

Because you say so? Have you noticed that throughout Scripture men are very often referred to as "the son of [...]"? Do you know that they were identified by who their father was? Does the subordination of a son to a father mean that the son is inferior in nature?

So, no, the term son does not at all imply inequality. As one can see when reading the gospels, "Son of God" has some significant implications. I have always asked non-trinitarians to do a study on every instance where "Son of God" appears and then report on what they find, but none ever has (perhaps one).

 

[jasoncran]

I have never heard one argued into belief of the trinity. I speak from first hand knowledge as no man convinced me that god was a triune being. He simply said he was and I believed it.

 

[Free]

Here, again, is another significant exegetical error. In no way whatsoever is Mark clarifying John's statement. Not a chance. Mark is clearly referring to the beginning of the "good news", while John, is clearly referring to Gen 1:1, to creation:

Hardly. This is just another of your assertions.

Assertion? Hardly. John 1:1-3 is referring back to Gen 1:1, not Mark.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.(ESV)

There are several things wrong with this, as you know only too well.

The word 'Word' is unjustifiably capitalised. As you surely know, the uncial manuscripts were all in capitals. Why then, is 'Word' capitalised? It should, consistently speaking, be : ‘word'. That simple act would have removed a great deal of this argument.

Actually, no. This is a completely insignificant point. It is who the word is that is important. It is completely irrelevant as to whether or not the word is capitalized, although I suspect that grammatically it is correct to capitalize it.

Second, the 'word was God' is a problematic translation. The definite article is absent from the word ‘God’, for a reason. What reason do you think that is? What is John trying to convey?

I'll tell you. He's trying to convey the message that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

Because you say so? How does this show that John was merely saying that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God"? Please show us. After you do that, I'll address the translation and show that John had little choice but that he is precisely saying what I am.

He is using creation language - but in a very limited sense: he only refers to the separation of light and darkness. Where are the trees, dry land, birds, stars, and all the other things in Gen 1?

Omitted is the answer.

But why?

Because he is not discussing what happened in Gen 1,2. He is drawing a parallel between the Old Creation and the New Creation in Christ. That’s what this is all about.

Not at all. And I never said he is discussing what happened in Gen 1 and 2. Again, the whole point of John 1:1-3 is to show who the Word is. And John is clearly stating that in the beginning, that is, as per Genesis, the beginning of creation, the Word was already in existence. This has nothing to do with whether or not John was using creation language, he was simply pointing back to that moment in time when creation began. And verse 3 supports this.

The very context proves your argument to be false. Verse 1 is showing us who the Word is--that the Word has always existed, the Word was in intimate relationship with God, and that the Word was in fact also God.

I think you're wrong again. There is nothing to support that in Genesis 1 and 2. If so, where is it?

I have not once said that John is referring to Gen 1 and 2. I stated that he is referring back to Gen 1:1.

You "think [I'm] wrong again." Based on what, exactly? John is saying that the Word and God are in intimate, personal relationship. That is what the Greek shows. I'm not interested in what you think. I'm interested in what the Bible says.

On the other hand, suppose he is talking about the New Creation of God in Christ.

Everything makes immediate sense.

In the beginning of the New Creation, the powerful and active agent was the word, the message which Christ brought.

No, now everything makes no sense. That is clearly not what John is saying. I have shown this to be the case.

He was the Beloved Son, who had perfectly obeyed His Father and had an intimate relationship with Him. He was pros theon. Did you know that? That is the Greek for ‘with God’. But pros has nothing to do with being ‘with’ someone.

Here’s Grimm Thayer’s Greek Lexicon: “with the accusative case (as here), denoting direction towards a thing, or position and state LOOKING TOWARDS A THING.”

So we can be a zillion miles away looking pros the North Star. We are most definitely NOT with the North Star, as you don’t seem to realise.

And here we have a perfect example of the problem of people referring to lexicons without having an actual knowledge of Greek. Lexicons are useful for the unlearned in Greek to see what possible meanings there are, but they should not be used as though one now has a definite answer. Leave that for those who actually know Greek.

From Vincent's Word Studies:

"Was with God (ἦν πὸς τὸν Θεὸν)

Anglo-Saxon vers., mid Gode. Wyc., at God. With (πρός) does not convey the full meaning, that there is no single English word which will give it better. The preposition πρός, which, with the accusative case, denotes motion towards, or direction, is also often used in the New Testament in the sense of with; and that not merely as being near or beside, but as a living union and communion; implying the active notion of intercourse. Thus: “Are not his sisters here with us” (πρὸς ἡμᾶς), i.e., in social relations with us (Mar_6:3; Mat_13:56). “How long shall I be with you” (πρὸς ὑμᾶς, Mar_9:16). “I sat daily with you” (Mat_26:55). “To be present with the Lord” (πρὸς τὸν Κύριον, 2Co_5:8). “Abide and winter with you” (1Co_16:6). “The eternal life which was with the Father” (πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, 1Jo_1:2). Thus John's statement is that the divine Word not only abode with the Father from all eternity, but was in the living, active relation of communion with Him."

 

[Free]

I have never heard one argued into belief of the trinity. I speak from first hand knowledge as no man convinced me that god was a triune being. He simply said he was and I believed it.

Quite right, Jason.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Isaiah 43:11;
"I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior", and again in verse 15, "I am the Lord, your Holy One, Israel's creator, Your King".
Jesus is Savior, Creator, and King.
How can one deny Him being God?