The Trinity....

[follower of Christ]

The Trinity

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
To show that Jesus IS God and to show that the Holy Spirit IS God and therefore the Trinity teaching is scriptural truth.

Supporting Evidence

1.0
Is Jesus God ?

Isaiah shows us exactly who Jesus is.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!
(Joh 20:28 MKJV)

If Jesus isnt His own person in the Godhead, then He must be a liar here because He shows that the FATHER knows the day and hour here, but the SON does not.

But concerning that day and the hour, no one knows, not the angels, those in Heaven, nor the Son, except the Father.
(Mark 13:32 LITV)

*IF* Jesus isnt His own person then He would HAVE to know the day and hour and thus He would be a LIAR for saying that ONLY His Father knew, NOT the Son.


1.5

For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
(Colossians 2:9 EMTV)


Godhead
G2320
θεÃ΀ηÂ
theotēs
Thayer Definition:
1) deity
1a) the state of being God, Godhead


G2320
θεÃ΀ηÂ
theotēs
theh-ot'-ace
From G2316; divinity (abstractly): - godhead.

REGARDLESS of how the word theotes was RENDERED, its MEANING and INTENT is 'divinity'...ie Jesus Christ is DIVINE...ie a DEITY....ie GOD.
If Jesus IS God yet Jesus does NOT KNOW the day and hour of His return but ONLY the Father does (aka GOD) then there MUST BE some DISTINCTION between them...even tho BOTH ARE God.


2.0
Is the Holy Spirit 'God' ?

Scripture shows that the Spirit of GOD came down upon Christ...

And having been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon Him.
(Mat 3:16 EMTV)

And Luke shows that this IS the Holy Spirit.

and the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came out of heaven, saying, "You are My beloved Son; in You I have found delight."
(Luk 3:22 EMTV)

Thus the evidence shows that the 'Spirit of God' and the 'Holy Spirit' are one and the same.

3.0
And here we tie it all together.

And having been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon Him. And behold, a voice came out of the heavens, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I have found delight."
(Matthew 3:16-17 EMTV)

1. Jesus, the Son who is called 'Mighty God' in Isaiah.
2. The Spirit descending in the form of a dove, who is the Spirit OF God.
3. The Father speaking from heaven, obvious enough.

 

[Vic C.]

Better! :D

 

[einstein]

The Trinity

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
To show that Jesus IS God and to show that the Holy Spirit IS God and therefore the Trinity teaching is scriptural truth.

Supporting Evidence

1.0
Is Jesus God ?

Isaiah shows us exactly who Jesus is.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

If you choose to argue the concept of the trinity from the Greek Testament- that's your prerogative. However, your quote from the Hebrew Bible is a poor proof text for the trinity. Not only is the verse used out of context, the translation you are using (and the one most commonly used by Christian apologists) is full of errors when compared to what the actual Hebrew states. :naughty

 

[Vic C.]

I'm a believer of a Triune Godhead myself, but I do admit that the verse is best translated as "father of the everlasting." That to me would indicate that while He is God, He's not the Father; a distinction that needs to be made in the Triune belief. He IS the Son, however. :amen

 

[follower of Christ]

If you choose to argue the concept of the trinity from the Greek Testament- that's your prerogative.

Yes...it is
And the scriptures confirm the concept.
So unless you can prove otherwise I'll continue to believe as I do.

However, your quote from the Hebrew Bible is a poor proof text for the trinity.
Not only is the verse used out of context, the translation you are using (and the one most commonly used by Christian apologists) is full of errors when compared to what the actual Hebrew states. :naughty

Huh.
He says it, but he doesnt offer a single thing to back it up.

As I said, unless you can PROVE otherwise I think I'll stick with the obvious facts from scripture on the matter

 

[follower of Christ]

I'm a believer of a Triune Godhead myself, but I do admit that the verse is best translated as "father of the everlasting." That to me would indicate that while He is God, He's not the Father;

However that part is meant it certainly wasnt 'out of context' as someone else claims.

Here is a comparison from a view versions

Isa 9:6

(ASV) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

(KJV) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

(KJV+) ForH3588 unto us a childH3206 is born,H3205 unto us a sonH1121 is given:H5414 and the governmentH4951 shall be uponH5921 his shoulder:H7926 and his nameH8034 shall beH1961 calledH7121 Wonderful,H6382 Counsellor,H3289 The mightyH1368 God,H410 The everlastingH5703 Father,H1 The PrinceH8269 of Peace.H7965

(LITV) For a Child is born; to us a Son is given; and the government is on His shoulder; and His name is called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

(MKJV) For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be on His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

(YLT) For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.

Youngs is the only one there that has any different rendering and even it would confirm just who Jesus actually is.
'everlasting Father' or 'Father of Eternity' or even "father of the everlasting", Jesus is VERY clearly a bit MORE than a mere human...Jesus IS God...which was the point

 

[Ret]

I'm a believer of a Triune Godhead myself, but I do admit that the verse is best translated as "father of the everlasting." That to me would indicate that while He is God, He's not the Father; a distinction that needs to be made in the Triune belief. He IS the Son, however. :amen

Vic C, agreed :amen .... More of Jesus words that indicate a FATHER - SON relationship.

Matthew 26:39 ...O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me:
nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. KJV (also v 42 & 44)

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. KJV

However, Jesus also says... John 10:30 I and my Father are one. KJV

So, what does it mean to be 'ONE'...? Illustration...

Romans 12:4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. KJV

 

[Nick]

I'm with you, follower of christ.

Another piece of scripture:

Acts 1:7-8

7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

And then a bit later on, in Acts 2 we know of the Pentacost, specifically verses 1-4:

1When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them.

 

[Paidion]

The argument FoC gave could be summed up as follows:

1. Jesus is God.
2. The Holy Spirit is God.
3. The Father is God.
4. Therefore the Trinity exists.

The argument seems to haves a fatal flaw. How is the word "God" being used?
Trinitarians affirm that there is only one God, and when they utter the word "God", they are referring to the Trinity. Trinitarians claim to be monotheists, since there is only one Trinity.

If FoC defines "God" as "the Trinity", let's see how the argument goes:

1. Jesus is the Trinity
2. The Holy Spirit is the Trinity.
3. The Father is the Trinity.
4. Therefore the Trinity exists.

Hmmm... That doesn't seem to work. So FoC must not mean "the Trinity". What else might FoC mean?
Maybe FoC means "the Father" as Jesus did when He prayed to the Father.

Jesus said:

This is lasting life that they may know You, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

He not only called His Father "the only true God", but by use of the word "and", He seemed to consider Himself to be something other than "the only true God".

In any case, let's see how FoC's argument goes if "God" is defined as "the Father".

1. Jesus is the Father.
2. The Holy Spirit is the Father.
3. The Father is the Father.
4. Therefore the Trinity exists.

Hmmmm... I don't think FoC defines "God" as "the Father", either. What then is FoC's definition of "God"? I have no idea. Please share your definition of "God", FoC.

 

[Nick]

Do you believe in the Trinity, Paidion?

 

[follower of Christ]

The argument FoC gave could be summed up as follows:
1. Jesus is God.
2. The Holy Spirit is God.
3. The Father is God.
4. Therefore the Trinity exists.
The argument seems to haves a fatal flaw.

Of course it does

How is the word "God" being used?
Trinitarians affirm that there is only one God, and when they utter the word "God", they are referring to the Trinity. Trinitarians claim to be monotheists, since there is only one Trinity.

When THREE distinction 'persons' are shown as BEING 'God', yet scripture shows that there is ONE God, I think the obvious conclusion is that there is definitely a 'trinity' concept present in the text...your agreement isnt required for the REST of us to see and believe it, Im afraid

If FoC defines "God" as "the Trinity", let's see how the argument goes:
1. Jesus is the Trinity
2. The Holy Spirit is the Trinity.
3. The Father is the Trinity.
4. Therefore the Trinity exists.

hmmm.
I think youd better stick to MY arguments that Ive actually made. YOUR version of them seems to be bit distorted.

My ACTUAL argument;
- Jesus is God
- The Spirit is God
- The Father is God
Since there is ONE God then these three BEING 'God' form a triune 'God'.

Hmmm... That doesn't seem to work.

No, YOUR twist of MY argument doesnt work...

So FoC must not mean "the Trinity". What else might FoC mean?
Maybe FoC means "the Father" as Jesus did when He prayed to the Father.

Thanks for proving my case for me.
That Jesus...aka 'the Mighty God'...prayed to the Father (aka God) the fact that 'God' is triune in nature is confirmed.
Again, your agreement isnt required.

Jesus said:
This is lasting life that they may know You, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
He not only called His Father "the only true God", but by use of the word "and", He seemed to consider Himself to be something other than "the only true God".

Too bad this isnt ALL of the relevant data, now isnt it paidon ? ;)

In any case, let's see how FoC's argument goes if "God" is defined as "the Father".
1. Jesus is the Father.
2. The Holy Spirit is the Father.
3. The Father is the Father.
4. Therefore the Trinity exists.

yet ANOTHER perversion of MY argument.
Again, since you seem unable to get it before...

My ACTUAL argument;
- Jesus is God
- The Spirit is God
- The Father is God
Since there is ONE God then these three BEING 'God' form a triune 'God'.

Hmmmm... I don't think FoC defines "God" as "the Father", either.

Ive given my definition taken from Gods word above.

What then is FoC's definition of "God"? I have no idea. Please share your definition of "God", FoC.

My ACTUAL argument;
- Jesus is God
- The Spirit is God
- The Father is God
Since there is ONE God then these three BEING 'God' form a triune 'God'.

Should I use crayons next time ?
Maybe that will help you to keep from DISTORTING MY statements ?

 

[Free]

The argument FoC gave could be summed up as follows:

1. Jesus is God.
2. The Holy Spirit is God.
3. The Father is God.
4. Therefore the Trinity exists.

The argument seems to haves a fatal flaw. How is the word "God" being used?
Trinitarians affirm that there is only one God, and when they utter the word "God", they are referring to the Trinity. Trinitarians claim to be monotheists, since there is only one Trinity.

Correction: "Trinitarians claim to be monotheists, since there is only one God.

If FoC defines "God" as "the Trinity", let's see how the argument goes:

1. Jesus is the Trinity
2. The Holy Spirit is the Trinity.
3. The Father is the Trinity.
4. Therefore the Trinity exists.

Hmmm... That doesn't seem to work. So FoC must not mean "the Trinity".

While God is triune that does not necessarily mean that the terms "God" and "Trinity" are interchangeable.

1. Jesus is God but God isn't Jesus.
2. The Holy Spirit is God but God isn't the Holy Spirit.
3. The Father is God but God isn't the Father.

 

[Paidion]

Correction: "Trinitarians claim to be monotheists, since there is only one God.

If that one God is not the Father, and is not the Trinity, then who is He?

 

[Vic C.]

Youngs is the only one there that has any different rendering and even it would confirm just who Jesus actually is.
'everlasting Father' or 'Father of Eternity' or even "father of the everlasting", Jesus is VERY clearly a bit MORE than a mere human...Jesus IS God...which was the point

Yes, I knew of Young's interpretation because I have studied and debated the Triune belief. However, I misquoted Young by saying everlasting instead of eternity.

 

[Free]

Correction: "Trinitarians claim to be monotheists, since there is only one God.

If that one God is not the Father, and is not the Trinity, then who is He?

Read the end of my previous post.

"In the beginning God...".

 

[follower of Christ]

Correction: "Trinitarians claim to be monotheists, since there is only one God.

If that one God is not the Father, and is not the Trinity, then who is He?

Word games.
Scripture shows that the Father IS God....and the Son IS God....and the Spirit IS God.
There is no getting around that fact, Im afraid and all these semantics games change nothing

 

[follower of Christ]

Youngs is the only one there that has any different rendering and even it would confirm just who Jesus actually is.
'everlasting Father' or 'Father of Eternity' or even "father of the everlasting", Jesus is VERY clearly a bit MORE than a mere human...Jesus IS God...which was the point

Yes, I knew of Young's interpretation because I have studied and debated the Triune belief. However, I misquoted Young by saying everlasting instead of eternity.

Im actually very careful not to go overboard with literal translations because they often do not capture the actual intent very well.
"Cool car' literally translated from English into Greek may not convey the intended idea to the Greek reader.
Youngs Literal is one I take with a grain of salt. I believe the other versions, including the KJV, are more likely to capture the actual intent in Isaiah concerning Jesus

 

[einstein]

I want to clarify my point. I am not stating that there are no suggestions of a triune deity in the Greek scriptures. I am merely stating that there is no such prooftext in the Hebrew Bible to support such a concept- in fact such a concept is antithetical to the Jewish concept of monotheism.

Isaiah 9 is often used by trinitarians to prove the Torah supports the idea of a trinity and that Jesus is God. All the translations previously provided are incorrect when one carefully analyzes the original Hebrew. There are two appropriate and grammatically correct translations of this verse.

1. For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the authority was placed on his shoulder, and (he) called his name- Wondrous Advisor, Mighty God (or Mighty Hero), Eternal Father, Ruler of Peace.

2. For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the authority was placed on his shoulder; and Wondrous Advisor, Mighty God, Eternal Father called his name, Ruler of Peace.

The verbs used by the prophet are past tense. He is describing an event which has transpired. Also the proper Hebrew translation does not contain the definitive article "THE" before the name/titles as is translated, for example in the KJB.

The KJB is inconsistent with its use of verbs especially if one compares similar usages in other parts of Bible. Take, for example the verb "vayikra" which properly translated is the active voice of the past tense and means "He/he called" or "He/he has called." Instead the KJB translated this erroneously as the passive voice of the future tense "will/shall be called" to give the misleading suggestions that Isaiah is referring to some future event.

There are 205 identical instances of the word "vayikra" in the Hebrew Bible including 4 in the Book of Isaiah at 9:5, 21:8,22:12,36:13. It is interesting to note in those 3 passages where there is no possibility of implying Christological intent, the KJB correctly translates the verb in the past tense- so why the future tense in 9:5? If you want one other obvious example outside of Isaiah just look at the first verse of the 3rd book of the Torah- Christians refer to this book as Leviticus while Jews call it "Vayikra" because that is the first word of the book. "vayikra adonai el moshe.." KJB- " And the Lord CALLED unto Moses..."

A correct translation from Hebrew indicates the prophet was referring to a contemporary individual and the events that are described in Isaiah 9/10 are in reference to Hezekiah and his role in maintaining the Davidic dynasty in the face of danger imposed by Sannheriv who beseiged Jerusalem at the time of Hezekiah's reign. More to come time permitting.

 

[follower of Christ]

I want to clarify my point. I am not stating that there are no suggestions of a triune deity in the Greek scriptures. I am merely stating that there is no such prooftext in the Hebrew Bible to support such a concept-

Actually there is. When one chooses to accept what is stated therein.

in fact such a concept is antithetical to the Jewish concept of monotheism.

No offense but the Jews werent exactly the most understanding bunch concerning the scriptures and the TRUE intent thereof.
Paul says that even then they had a veil over their eyes whenever they read the Law and that it was only taken away in Christ.

and not as Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the end of what was passing away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is removed in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. But whenever one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
(2 Corinthians 3:13-16 EMTV)

The Jewish understanding of 'God' isnt relevant to what scripture actually teaches.

Isaiah 9 is often used by trinitarians to prove the Torah supports the idea of a trinity and that Jesus is God.

And with good reason.

All the translations previously provided are incorrect when one carefully analyzes the original Hebrew.

Ah yes...the 'I dont like what it says so it wasnt rendered properly' deflection. Sorry, I pass
Maybe half of you here should have been around centuries ago to help our translators and God get it right

There are two appropriate and grammatically correct translations of this verse.

Do you have a degree in ancient Hebrew, friend ?

The verbs used by the prophet are past tense. He is describing an event which has transpired. Also the proper Hebrew translation does not contain the definitive article "THE" before the name/titles as is translated, for example in the KJB.The KJB is inconsistent with its use of verbs especially if one compares similar usages in other parts of Bible. Take, for example the verb "vayikra" which properly translated is the active voice of the past tense and means "He/he called" or "He/he has called." Instead the KJB translated this erroneously as the passive voice of the future tense "will/shall be called" to give the misleading suggestions that Isaiah is referring to some future event.

Irrelevant.
The passage is PROPHECY.
a LOT of prophecy in the OT is actually in the context of some other topic. The tense isnt relevant in this sort of case.

A correct translation from Hebrew indicates the prophet was referring to a contemporary individual and the events that are described in Isaiah 9/10 are in reference to Hezekiah and his role in maintaining the Davidic dynasty in the face of danger imposed by Sannheriv who beseiged Jerusalem at the time of Hezekiah's reign. More to come time permitting.

You seem to comprehend VERY little about how OT prophecy works.
MUCH of it IS in a specific context concerning CURRENT or PAST events then....thats how prophecy in the OT works much of the time.

 

[Free]

I am merely stating that there is no such prooftext in the Hebrew Bible to support such a concept- in fact such a concept is antithetical to the Jewish concept of monotheism.

I would argue against that but for the sake of argument I'll use that line of reasoning. The concept of a dead, and particularly resurrected, Messiah was not at all a Jewish belief either but further revelation revealed that that was indeed the case.