The Trinity

[Board]

Hawkman

Your last three statements are stated in such a way that they give the impression that you are closed minded. That you are no longer a seeker. That you know “The Truth”. That no matter what I say, if it disagrees with your preconceived “truth”, at most it will only be fodder for contention. If this is so, consider that this will not hinder a growth in Christ that is already ended. Nor will it hinder growth in the knowledge of a human Tradition.

Whatever is not revealed in Scripture, we do not need to know. And we do not need to become superstitious simply because there is an unknown. Nor do we have to seek a scientific solution to all unknown questions. So I’m with you to that extent. “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.” (Proverbs 3:5-6). “But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:” “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” If there is something we’re supposed to understand, whether about the nature of God or the thinking of God or about objective reality, God will teach us in His Son through His Holy Spirit. We don’t need to interpret the Bible and thus create stuff (like the Deity of Christ) that appears to be logical according to human logic and/or interpreted human lists of Trinitarian proof texts to know the that the Father is the One True God or that the Son of God is not the one true God (clearly and obviously stated in John 17:1-5).

How was Jesus able to hold all things together while a baby on earth or dead on the cross? These things are self evident. “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Philippians 2:5-8). Even if Jesus was God, he did not use that nature while on earth. His ministry was by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:16-4:1; Hebrews 9:14). So the question of how remains. The answer may be found in the fact that Hebrews 1:3 is a statement given after the era of Jesus’ life on earth. Only “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son” is a reference to his life on earth. “whom he hath appointed heir of all things,” is stated elsewhere as happening after he had accomplished all; but in the mind of God it already is an accomplished event. “by whom also he made the worlds;” certainly refers to the era before he was a man. I’ll let you think on these things.

 

[Board]

Free

In answer to previous posts.

Jesus Christ initially was completely of the same nature as his father. Spirit. Only later adding human or created nature to his Spirit nature. But this does not imply he must be eternal like his father. Nor mortal like his mother for that matter. What is revealed is that he could die. Something God can not do. That Jesus is a generated person reveals he had a beginning. Inherent in the word used. To say that Jesus is eternally generated is to redefine the word to mean something it does not mean. It is a redefining of Jesus Christ himself. It is what the Jews tried to do. Also consider that angels are of the same nature as God (Hebrews 1:7). Are they therefore also God? And that those who are in Christ will be like Christ or the same nature as Christ (1John 3:2). How many of them are God?

The numerous Biblical passages that state Jesus is God only do so interpretively and only to those who believe the interpretations. God as an eternal being has always been God. God was not Father until he generated the Son.

To one who understands the Bible as saying what it means and meaning what it says, to regard Revelations as conjecture is to also regard it as not being Scripture. The purpose of Scripture, including Revelations, is to reveal. So that, if Revelation is indeed Scripture, it must be possible to clearly understand what it reveals. Any idea that Revelations is a conjectural document is purely out of the mind of man. But it is true that Revelation has historically often been regarded as questionable by a great many Christians. Revelations is the only Scripture that the Eastern Orthodox will not read in their Liturgy. Conjecturally, the seven Spirits of God could mean anything to one who can not accept that they are as stated.

“Matt 18:26 is the only instance I can see where it is possibly used of reverence towards another person without a rebuke.” Not if one understands that the references to the worshipping of Jesus Christ are examples of the same thing. Trinitarians understand references of followers worshipping Jesus as worshipping him as God rather than as an authoritative teacher and/or the Messiah. And to them the term Son of God is equal to the term God the Son. Even though the context of the Old Testament religion belies such a practice of Worship. As a follower of the Old Testament and the God it portrays, Jesus would never have allowed himself to be worshipped as God. That he did allow worship is the primary evidence that his followers were not worshipping him as God. The idea that Jesus claimed to be equal to God originated with the Jews as an excuse to kill him. This Jewish claim was the precursor of the Trinitarian idea. Not paganism.

That the singular name of Matthew 28:19 is the person of God. Yes. It would have to be understood in that way by a Trinitarian. But consider that this passage is as Christocentric as the rest of the New Testament. Consider that the context concerns the Son. So that the singular name refers to the person of Jesus Christ, the New Testament center of the work of the three. And note the word “given”. Jesus as God would not need to be given authority. He would either exercise that authority or he would not.

The beginning of John 1 refers to the beginning of Genesis 1. One of the many things about which I disagree with Christianity is regarding that Genesis 1 refers to the beginning of the creation of all things. Satan the Serpent already existed by this time. The same Hebrew word translated as Heaven in Genesis 1:1 obviously refers to the atmosphere around the earth in Genesis 1:28. The context of Genesis 1 shows that this also refers to that same atmosphere in Genesis 1:1. Because that context is the creations of God on the earth.

For the Trinitarian, the emphasis of John 1:1 is on Logos as a person. Specifically of Jesus Christ. What if Logos is used here in the way it is used in the rest John? A reference to an idea given voice. Isn’t that what Jesus did? Give voice to what his Father told him to say and to do? That would make Logos the common thinking of Father and Son. And in that sense the Son as the representative of the thought of God (the source) is the Logos of God on earth.

If progressive revelation referred to something before revealed made clearer, there would be no problem. But the idea of the Trinity is far from a past revelation clarified. The Old Testament revelation, even by God Himself, is that of a God that is a singular person. The Trinitarian God can in no way be regarded as a singular person. A singular God yes, but not a singular person. The Trinitarian God is a totally different God from the one revealed in the Old Testament. And I contend that the Trinitarian God is a totally different God from the one revealed in the New Testament. Indeed, the Biblical God is different from the Gods revealed among the Protestantized (and thus Christianized) non-Trinitarians as well. With the proceeding Holy Spirit being a force instead of a person. And a Son that is just a man or an angel, either way just a created being. Including the Modalists (and the Jesus Only idea) wherein the three persons are regarded as different modes of the one God who is one person. Even the non-Trinitarians are hard pressed to make sense of their ideas apart from the idea of progressive revelation.

When the “Christian” Bible was initially compiled, it was determined that the Old Testament is to be a part of that Bible. To the New Testament writers, the Old Testament was the only Scripture. It was the source for all that they claimed, and they quoted it constantly. They did this following the example of Jesus Christ. To think that the New Testament writers were revealing new truth in a progressive fashion is to think that the Old Testament was insufficient, indeed, inaccurate. It also gives credence to the thinking that progressive revelation continued after the last writing of the New Testament was written. This is the thinking of both the eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Not to mention the Protestant influenced Holiness/Pentecostal Movements. The problem for the Evangelical Protestant is that this is also the thinking that accompanied the development of Trinitarianism. Basing doctrine on the Bible alone is not a part of that historical thinking. If you are a Protestant, you really need to take a longer look at Christian history and the Christian Faith as it developed in Christian history. The history of the development of Trinitarianism reveals that progressive revelation did not end with the New Testament. And among the current Christian educated, that progressive revelation is ongoing. Even the renowned John MacArthur, a notable Biblicist, has acknowledged that he is a Calvinist. The most obvious of the Protestant doctrinal standards that is based on progressive revelation. When I was still a Trinitarian, the choice to follow the teachings of an unrepentant murderer (John Calvin) or the teachings of the Historic Roman Catholic Church was an easy choice to make. And before the moderators remove that statement as slander, I ask that they consider the historical fact that Calvin instigated the burning at the stake of Michael Servetus for denying the Trinity. And there is no record of Calvin ever repenting of his complicity in that event. It is comparable to Paul standing by while the Jews stoned Stephen. The difference being that Paul repented.

 

[Board]

Free

“Trinitarian thinking revealing "the Old Testament God to be conjecture"?”

Since two different God’s are being presented, one of the two revelations must be conjecture, indeed, must be false. If Trinitarianism is true, then the Old Testament God (presented clearly as a singular person) must be conjecture. I believe that it is Trinitarianism that is the conjecture.

“Especially as one realizes that Jesus Christ believed in the Old Testament God 400 years prior to the beginning of the development of the Trinitarian God.”

Begging the question: A form of circular reasoning. An argument wherein premises assume the truth of the conclusion.

The development of Trinitarianism began with the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The fourth century. Certainly there were individuals who believed in the deity of Christ prior to that time. But the real development of that idea into the Trinity did not begin until it was authoritatively stated in that Council. Jesus walked the earth in the first century. That is 400 years prior to the Council of Nicaea. Surely you agree that he believed in the Old Testament God. The Old Testament God is stated by Hebrew individuals and by God Himself through the Old Testament writers as being a singular person. That should not be, but probably is, questionable to a Trinitarian. But it is the fact of the case. As clearly evidenced especially by God’s use of singular pronouns with reference to himself. So no. I do not think I am guilty of the fallacy you propose.

 

[CherubRam]

Free

“Trinitarian thinking revealing "the Old Testament God to be conjecture"?”

Since two different God’s are being presented, one of the two revelations must be conjecture, indeed, must be false. If Trinitarianism is true, then the Old Testament God (presented clearly as a singular person) must be conjecture. I believe that it is Trinitarianism that is the conjecture.

“Especially as one realizes that Jesus Christ believed in the Old Testament God 400 years prior to the beginning of the development of the Trinitarian God.”

Begging the question: A form of circular reasoning. An argument wherein premises assume the truth of the conclusion.

The development of Trinitarianism began with the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The fourth century. Certainly there were individuals who believed in the deity of Christ prior to that time. But the real development of that idea into the Trinity did not begin until it was authoritatively stated in that Council. Jesus walked the earth in the first century. That is 400 years prior to the Council of Nicaea. Surely you agree that he believed in the Old Testament God. The Old Testament God is stated by Hebrew individuals and by God Himself through the Old Testament writers as being a singular person. That should not be, but probably is, questionable to a Trinitarian. But it is the fact of the case. As clearly evidenced especially by God’s use of singular pronouns with reference to himself. So no. I do not think I am guilty of the fallacy you propose.

Yahwah the maker of all things 2

Ecclesiastes 11:5
As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things.

Isaiah 44:24
“This is what (the Lord / Yahwah) says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am (the Lord / Yahwah,) the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself,

Jeremiah 10:16
He who is the Portion of Jacob is not like these, for he is the Maker of all things, including Israel, the people of his inheritance— (the Lord / Yahwah) Almighty is his name.

Jeremiah 51:19
He who is the Portion of Jacob is not like these, for he is the Maker of all things, including the people of his inheritance— (the Lord / Yahwah) Almighty is his name.

1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came

Ephesians 3:9
and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.

Revelation 4:11
“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”


Yahshua said:
Matthew 19:4
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’

Mark 10:6
“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’

Mark 13:19
because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.


The head of Christ is God
1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.



So why is there scriptures that make Yahshua equal to Yahwah?

Pope is God on Earth
April 30, 1922, Pope Pius XI said, “You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on Earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am god on Earth.” Revelation Four Views, A Parallel Commentary. pg 288

“God Himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priest, and either not to pardon or to pardon according as they refuse or give absolution.---The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it.” Dignities and Duties of the Priest, Vol 12, pg 27.

“The Pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ.” Decretal De Translot Espiscop Cap

Pope Nicholas I declared: "the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man."
Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para

"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh."
Catholic National, July 1895

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty"
Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894



Yahwah the Holy Spirit is in Yahshua.
John 14:10
Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

John 14:11
Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.

Acts 2:22
“Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him…



Daniel 7:25
He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.

1798-1260=538
538 A.D. The Transition from Roman Empire to Holy Roman Empire.

General Berthier entered Rome unopposed on February 10, 1798, and, proclaiming a Roman Republic, demanded of the Pope the renunciation of his temporal power.
Upon his refusal he was taken prisoner, and on February 20 was escorted from the Vatican to Siena, and thence to the Certosa near Florence. The French declaration of war against Tuscany led to his removal (he was escorted by the Spaniard Pedro Gómez Labrador, Marquis of Labrador) by way of Parma, Piacenza, Turin and Grenoble to the citadel of Valence, the chief town of Drôme where he died six weeks after his arrival, on August 29, 1799, having then reigned longer than any Pope.

“The Pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ.” Decretal De Translot Espiscop Cap

2 Thessalonians 2:4
He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

 

[hawkman]

Board​

Member
From Las Vegas Gender Male
Christian No

Before I go any further with this I need to know if you are a Christian or not ?

Because you said this .

If there is something we’re supposed to understand, whether about the nature of God or the thinking of God or about objective reality, God will teach us in His Son through His Holy Spirit.

Is God teaching you through the Holy Spirit ?

 

[Randy]

Can a woman be pregnant and not pregnant at the same time?

It should be clear to all that the eternal life found in the Son is the Father. His Deity without limit. They are indeed one. (His spirit + the Fathers Deity) =>A like to like begotten Son.
Col 1:19
John 6:57

A more appropriate question is can a being that has no beginning be "from" another?

The answer you object to was given to me from above. I am one who asks things of my Lord despite objections from others, JW'S, not meaning you.

He is Gods firstborn. This interpretation/understanding I have from Him. Otherwise I might be stating what you state.
Colossians 1
New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

I also understand from above the Son who was, His spirit, was in the body prepared for Him.

Luke 23:46
New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition​

Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, ‘Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.’ Having said this, he breathed his last.

 

[Free]

It should be clear to all that the eternal life found in the Son is the Father. His Deity without limit. They are indeed one. (His spirit + the Fathers Deity) =>A like to like begotten Son.
Col 1:19
John 6:57

A more appropriate question is can a being that has no beginning be "from" another?

It's a simple question: Can a woman be both pregnant and not pregnant at the same time?

The answer you object to was given to me from above. I am one who asks things of my Lord despite objections from others, JW'S, not meaning you.

Therein lies the problem.

He is Gods firstborn. This interpretation/understanding I have from Him. Otherwise I might be stating what you state.
Colossians 1
New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Firstborn simply means being in the position of preeminence as one who is firstborn. It doesn't mean he was actually born or didn't exist at some point, as that would contradict the context, namely, vvs 16-17.

 

[Randy]

It's a simple question: Can a woman be both pregnant and not pregnant at the same time?


Therein lies the problem.


Firstborn simply means being in the position of preeminence as one who is firstborn. It doesn't mean he was actually born or didn't exist at some point, as that would contradict the context, namely, vvs 16-17.

Begotten "from" the Father alone before all worlds but with no beginning.
I agree in part.

I cannot unknow what I know from judgements given by my Lord.
All the fullness of God was pleased to dwell in Him and He is all that the Father is.

So I will let this subject drop at this point.

 

[for_his_glory]

I don't know where else to put this post. But I need an answer before I proceed.

The denotation of the term “Christian” has come to belong exclusively to a particular religion that is called specifically Christianity. The foundational doctrine of Christianity has been since the 4th century, and is to the present day, the Trinity. It is a doctrine that was developed into a specific doctrinal definition. So then, while there is a broad definition of Christianity, Christianity proper is composed only of those denominations and individuals that adhere to the specific doctrinal definition. A person such as myself who does not believe in that specific doctrinal definition should not, indeed can not, call himself a Christian in any proper sense of the word. Even though I believe that the Bible is the word of God, that Jesus Christ was resurrected and today sits at the right hand of God, that Jesus Christ is the only way to God, and that salvation is in Jesus Christ alone. The similarities thus named are few since the Jesus Christ of Trinitarianism and the Jesus Christ of personal understanding are two entirely different individuals. I do not belong to any particular group, having met no one who believes as I do. I can not call myself a Unitarian since that denotation also has been usurped by a specific group that believes that Jesus Christ is merely a man and defines the term “Son of God” accordingly. I believe that Jesus Christ as the Son of God is a generated person (e.g. begotten) adding human nature to his person afterward. Thus Jesus Christ is not just a man. As a generated person, Jesus Christ has a beginning and thus can not be God, who is a different eternal individual commonly called Father by Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is a person, but also has a beginning. I also note that all presently existing non-Trinitarian groups have their source in Protestantism and are fundamentally Protestant. I’m not one to waste my time. What was to me once a very free forum (CARM) decided to change what I stated or remove it altogether claiming that what I stated was against their forum in some way or another. No other non-Trinitarian was treated this way. They made up stuff and I simply left not wanting to waste my time. But they showed the true colors of the Moderator who did this and Matt Slick who stood behind him. It is a brand of Evangelical Christianity that I’ve detested every time I’ve ran into it. My question is: would you want me to be a part of this forum believing as I do?

I can certainly identify not calling yourself a Christian for the fact that that word is just thrown around willy nilly anymore without much thought of what a true Christian is to be. I would rather call myself a Spiritually born again child of God indwelled with the Holy Spirit.

Like wondering said, you are more than welcome here at CF and we only ask that you be opened to discuss any differences within how each of us understand scripture and to comply with the Terms of Service (ToS) that you agreed upon when you became a member.

The Trinity is a hard subject to understand for how it is taught in so many ways that can be confusing to us. Here is my study I wrote on the Trinity and hope it can help.

1. God is Spirit, John 4:24, not flesh and blood and in the OT either spoke directly to the prophets or by angels and also various objects like a burning bush or an ass for example. Between the OT and NT God was silent towards Israel as when they returned to Israel from the Babylonian captivity they came back as merchants and not shepherds as they were disobedient to God going after other gods, Book of Malachi.

2. Jesus being the very Spirit of God before the foundation of the world as He and the Father are one was prophesied by the Prophets in the OT and spoken of by John the baptist in the NT as John being the forerunner of Christ calling all to repent. As foretold Christ did come as the word of God made flesh (skin, bone, blood) to be that light that shines in darkness. He came as redeemer Savior through Gods grace as Christ is our faith that all can repent of their sins and have eternal life with the Father to all who will believe in Him as Lord and Savior. John 1:1-4; 1 Peter 1:13-21

3. After the sacrifice of Christ God raised Him from the grave and as He had to ascend back up to heaven the promise was that He would never leave us or forsake us as when He ascended He sent down the Holy Spirit (Spirit of God) to indwell all who will believe in Christ and His finished works on the cross. In the OT Gods Spirit fell on them for a time and purpose under heaven. Now we are indwelled with that power and authority through Gods grace that the Holy Spirit now works in us and through us teaching all things God wants us to learn. All three are Spiritual and Spiritual awakenings in us to know the will of God and walk in His statures. John 16:7-15

Ephesians 4: 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit as all three coequal Gods Spirit.

Jesus being the right arm of God who knew no sin. Isaiah 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Jesus is the word of God. John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

Jesus is word, light and life that is God come in the flesh. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

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

Just like the word Trinity you are not going to find the exact words "God Holy Spirit" written in scripture, but scripture explains there is only one God, not three, as God exist in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All three are each God, meaning equal in power, nature and attributes and worthy of the same praise. This doesn't mean there are three gods as there is only one true God. It also doesn't mean that these are different forms of God as each is its own person. It's hard to wrap our heads around this as we can not fully understand God.

The Holy Spirit appears in both the OT and NT. In Genesis 1:2 the Spirt of God was hovering over the waters. In Genesis 1:26 Let us make mankind in our image. The word "us" means God, Son Jesus and Holy Spirit (Trinity=3) all being before the creation of the world.

The Holy Spirit has power and emotions and is active among His people. Isaiah 63:10 But they rebelled, and vexed his Holy Spirit (God Holy Spirit). Nehemiah 9:20 Thou gavest also thy good spirit to instruct them, (God Holy Spirit). Now under the dispensation of God's grace we have God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit dwelling in us as we are all one in Him and He in us through that of the Spiritual rebirth from above, John 3:5-7; Acts chapter 2; 1 John 4:12-17.


Scriptures that reference Jesus being referred to as God:
John 1:1-14; John 10:30; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8, 9; 1 John 5:7, 8, 20; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 3:17; 13:14; Isaiah 9:6; 44:6; Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:23; 28:19; John 14:16, 17; Genesis 1:1, 2 (cross reference John 1:1-14); 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 1:15-17; John 14:9-11; Philippians 2:5-8; Rev 1:8

Scriptures that reference the Holy Spirit as being God:
Psalms 139:7, 8; John 14:17; 16:13; Isaiah 40:13; 1 Corinthians 2:10, 11; Zechariah 4:6; Luke 1:35; Ephesians 4:4-6; Romans 5:5; 1 Corinthians 6:19; Ephesians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; Titus 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21; Jude 1:20

 

[GodsGrace]

To Wondering:



When I was a Trinitarian, I was in the habit of being “pushy” about what I believed at the time. After that era ended I learned to present the truth as Jesus did. He rarely pushed, he merely presented and let the Jews interpretively misunderstand what he was saying. Which gives the impression that most of what he said was not for the Jews, but rather for all the believers through the ages. Christians are Biblical interpreters just as the Jews were. Complete with extra-Biblical ideas and Traditions. It is an exercise in futility to claim to a Christian that I no longer interpret the Bible. They believe that everyone interprets the Bible because they do and the idea of not interpreting is a foreign idea to them. Initially, I would sometimes get upset by the blindness of Christians regarding things that seemed so obvious to me as a non-Trinitarian. Then finally I realized upon a study of John that the Jews were the same way. And that the first century Jews eventually divided into two. Represented today by modern Judaism as one line and Christianity as the other.



One problem I have had with Christians is that due to their practice of interpretation they redefine Biblical words. “Only begotten” is one of those instances. It is one Greek word composed of two. The first part means “alone” implying unique. The second part, “begotten”, means when a person is involved “to be born”. It is easy to see if the how the word is used in the New Testament is followed. That is why I say that Jesus did not initially have a created nature, but was a generated being with a beginning. And if he had a beginning, he can not be God. If memory serves, the Christian answer to that is that Jesus is eternally born or begotten. Which doesn’t really answer the problem since it really makes no sense and is against the meaning and use of the word. It was unreasonable ideas such as this that started me on my quest to understand the Trinity better and eventually to reject it. So then, I agree with the Trinitarians against the Unitarians that Jesus did have an existence prior to his time on earth. But it is not an idea that leads me to think he is God, as it does the Trinitarians.



Regarding Matthew 28:16-20 Actually contains two ideas foundational to Trinitarians. Worship and Baptism. Jesus himself uses the word worship to refer to human acts of reverence toward humans (Matthew 18:26). The instance of Baptism includes the singular name of the three - Father, Son, and Spirit; I can understand the interpretation, but I now realize it is just that, an interpretation. Salvation is not just the result of Jesus. It is a unified affair wherein the Father, the Son, and the Spirit have a part. Note that the name is singular. Referring to this unity of action. Note also the “give”. All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” Why would a God or person of God need to be “given” power? Why would a God or person of God not already have this power? The fact remains that Jesus says it was given to him. Trinitarians can’t say that this refers to just his human nature. It is nowhere implied as such. And it is against the Trinitarian idea that one can not separate the two natures (Divine and human) of Jesus Christ.



The central purpose of the New Testament is to reveal that the Messiah has come in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It is no different in these last few verses of Matthew. The center is Jesus Christ. The one name is Jesus, who is the Christ or Messiah, the Son of God (cf., Acts 2:38). For in that one name is eternal life (cf., John 3:14-18). Does that in any way imply that salvation is totally of Jesus Christ alone? Not at all. As is clearly revealed in all of the New Testament, though salvation is in Jesus Christ, salvation is not of Jesus Christ alone (cf., 1Corinthians 1:27-31; Romans 8:1-17). One is baptized into the death of Jesus Christ for a reason (cf., Romans 6:1-7). Does that exclude the work of the Father or of the Holy Ghost? Not according to the New Testament.

Board,
You didn't tag me in, I just fell upon this.
Will reply tomorrow morning.

You didn't tag in hawkman
Either.

Use the REPLY button at the lower right hand corner or tag the other poster by using the @
Key and the name,with no space.

 

[CherubRam]

A Trinity fact.
When a council of bishops convened by the Emperor Constantine in (280–337 AD) he decreed that the Father and Son were homoousios (same substance or essence.)

Christian trinity theology of that creed is rooted in the terminology of Augustine's, "On the Trinity." (published about 415 AD) It was about this time when it was determined that the Holy Spirit is a third person.

 

[CherubRam]

1 Timothy 3:16 Holman bible foot note. Other mss read God
1 Timothy 3:16 NIV foot note. Some manuscripts God

1 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version)
16Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He(a) appeared in a body,(b)
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

Footnotes:
a. 1 Timothy 3:16 Some manuscripts God
b. 1 Timothy 3:16 Or in the flesh

 

[CherubRam]

1 John 3:16 In this we have known the charity of God, because he hath laid down his life for us:...

The words (of God) are not in the original text of 1 John 3:16, but have been added.

 

[CherubRam]

NIV 1 John 5
6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[See a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

1 John 5:8
​

New International Version

8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.​

NIV Footnotes:
a.1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)

KJV 1 John 5:6
This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the truth. 7And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.

1 John 5:7 implicitly states that all THREE are ONE.

This is the only verse in the Bible that explicitly states that all three persons are one.
Unfortunately, it was added to that verse.
No earlier version includes that last phrase about them being one.

The first 2 additions of Erasmus' master Greek text did not have this.
Stunica (a Catholic authority) demanded that he include the phrase.
Erasmus told Stunica that if he could provide one Greek manuscript with that phrase, he would include it.
But no Greek manuscripts up to that time had it.
Only Latin manuscripts had it. So Stunica had a Greek manuscript made up from the Latin and forced Erasmus to include it.

In 1514, before Erasmus had even begun to edit his text, but its publication was delayed until 1522, until permission of Pope Leo X had finally been obtained for it.

"The supreme Pontiff Leo X, Our Most Holy Father in Christ and Lord, desiring to favour this undertaking, sent from the apostolic library."

This claim seems to have been accepted by all at that time.
In view of its inclusion in the Clementine edition of the Latin Vulgate (1592), in 1897 the Holy Office in Rome, a high ecclesiastical congregation, made an authoritative pronouncement, approved and confirmed by Pope Leo XIII, that it is not safe to deny that this verse is an authentic part of St. John's Epistle."

 

[CherubRam]

The creed that came out of the Counsel of Nicea in 325 AD did not explicate the Trinity. It simply proclaimed the divinity of Christ, rejecting Arianism.

There was no resolution on who the Holy Spirit is. That notion would not arise again until the Counsel of Constantinople in 381 AD.

Basilius, also known as Basil, bishop of Caesarea. In the later 3rd century AD, formulated ideas as to what the Holy Spirit was. This was mainly in reaction to Arius who was his enemy doctrinally. Basil and others such as Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa were encouraged to develop ideas to combat the idea of Arianism. The person who encouraged them was Athanasius who hated Arianism and wanted it done away with.

 

[CherubRam]

Philo introduced the idea of a trinity to the Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria.
Philo did not equate the three members of his trinity. He wrote that “the middle person of the three,” was Yahweh, the Father of the Universe, who is uncreated and unbegotten. God, the Father of the Universe was accompanied by two “body-guards”: the creative power and the royal power. God being greater than them. These ideas of Philo made a great impact on Christianity.

 

[CherubRam]

In the early 4th century, Lactantius (born 240 A.D. died 320 A.D.) wrote: “He {Jesus} taught that God is one {person} and that He {the Father} alone ought to be adored, nor did He {Jesus} ever call himself God.” Lactantius did not recognize a Trinity. He emphasized that Jesus is an “improperly called god,” and must not be worshipped as God.

 

[CherubRam]

Trinity
In the fourth-century, Marcellus of Ancyra declared that the idea of the Godhead existing as three hypostases came from Plato, through the teachings of Valentinus. Valentinus is quoted as teaching that God is three, three prosopa (persons) called the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit:

These men also taught three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. It was believed he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but he was discovered to have taken this from Hermes and Plato.

Valentinus (also spelled Valentinius) (c.100 - c.160) was known as a early Christian Gnostic Theologian.

 

[CherubRam]

Comments by scholars.
Historical proofs as to the way the trinitarian doctrine effected the pure doctrine of the disciples.

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism.

Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form changed by the [Catholic] church."

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the exact words of Jesus, but a later liturgical addition."

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:
"The Trinity is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs, The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch in (AD 180), (The term Trinity) is not found in Scripture."
"The chief Trinitarian text in the New Testament is the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19. This late post-resurrection saying, is not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the New Testament, it has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion. Eusebius,s text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates.
Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew, this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus.
It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit."

The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
"Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61.
Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed." page 435.

The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:
"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637,
Under "Baptism," says: "Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus."

New Revised Standard Version: In regards to Matthew 28:19.
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity."

James Moffett's New Testament Translation:
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of
baptizing "in the name of Jesus." Acts 1:5.

Tom Harpur:
Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The
formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and
we know from the evidence available that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus
alone.
It is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and then was changed to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published:
"The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal addition."

The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal addition. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."

 

[CherubRam]

Theology of the New Testament:
By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact that the verse Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confesses to very plainly. "As to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in
which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says. According to the last passage, [the apocryphal Catholic Didache] suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," later changed to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit."
Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church:
By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," although those words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all baptisms fitted this rule." Dr Hall further, states: "More common and perhaps more ancient was the simple, "In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ." This practice was known among Marcionites
and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate ("On rebaptism") shows."
The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1, Prolegomena 1: The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337. "There is
little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the middle of the first century in the circles represented by the Pauline Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second century. The problem is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the analysis of the synoptic Gospels and Acts.
The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:
The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the
New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."
A History of The Christian Church:
1953 by Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University. On page 95 we see the historical facts again declared. "With the early disciples generally baptism was "in the name of Jesus Christ." There is no mention of baptism in the name of
the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early, (but not the original) however. It underlies the Apostles' Creed, and the practice recorded (*or interpolated) in the Teaching, (or the Didache) and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century
retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257)."
Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.
"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to that eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all
things whatsover I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.
Eusebius was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as “the Father of Church History.” Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings, and Matthew 28:19 is one of them. He never quotes it as it is today in our modern Bibles, but he always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.” For example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:
But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went to all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”
And again, in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:
What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke these words to his followers, and fulfilled it by that event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.”