Understanding the GodHead. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

[Butch5]

Sure.
"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased". (Matt. 3:16,17)

Note: The SON is in the water being baptized. The SPIRIT is descending from Heaven. The FATHER speaks from Heaven and says "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased". The THREE persons of the TRINITY are clearly shown.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”(Matt. 28:19,20).

This is a direct command from Jesus Christ. He clearly commands that we baptize in the NAME (not "names") of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Oneness Pentecostalists say that Jesus is alone God who has "expressed" himself three different ways. Then why doesn't Jesus command "Baptize them in my Name"? No---he clearly commands to baptize in the NAME of THREE PERSONS.

There are three mentioned here, but there is nothing that speaks of three persons being one God

 

[Free]

The context of the passage is Paul contrasting the many gods of the pagans with the one God of the Christians. Paul says there is one God, the Father. No matter how we understand stand the phrase 'one Lord Jesus Christ'. Jesus is precluded from being God because Paul states unequivocally that the one God is the Father.

And there is the breakdown in logic which I have been trying, to no avail, to get an anti-Trinitarian to address. If that is going to be your argument, then you must also acknowledge that the Father is unequivocally precluded from being Lord. If not, then you are not being logically consistent, applying logic only when it suits your position. Yet, we know that the Father is called Lord in many places.

As I have given several times already:

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

First, if "one God, the Father" precludes the Son from also being God, then it necessarily follows that "one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from also being Lord. It cannot be otherwise. That is basic logic and sound reasoning. Yet, we know that the Father is also Lord.

Second, if "from whom are all things" speaks of the Father's absolute existence, then it necessarily follows that "through whom are all things" speaks of the Son's absolute existence. Again, it cannot be otherwise and is basic logic and sound reasoning.

Yes, the passage certainly is about there being only one God, and in so showing that, Paul appears to appeal to Deut 6:4, but expanding on it to include the Son as Lord ("LORD").

Even Jesus said the Father is the only True God.

In the same way Paul does: in opposition to false gods; it does not preclude Jesus from being God. John's gospel, from start to finish, teaches us that Jesus is God in human flesh; two natures in one person.

If we understand Scripture any way that doesn't align with these statements we've got something wrong.

I agree.

How can we understand 'One Lord Jesus Christ.' In the ultimate sense the Father is the only Lord. Paul states this.

That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

And now not only do you have a contradiction, because your position on 1 Cor 8:6 necessarily precludes the Father from being Lord, but Christ is also called "Kings of kings and Lord of lords" twice. Of God:

Deu 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. (ESV)

Psa 136:3 Give thanks to the Lord of lords, for his steadfast love endures forever; (ESV)

1Ti 6:15 which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, (ESV)

Of Jesus:

Rev 17:14 They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.” (ESV)

Rev 19:16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. (ESV)

So, if "Lord of lords" is in an ultimate sense of the Father, then the Son, too, is spoken of as the Lord of lords in an ultimate sense.

Paul tells us that the Father is the only Lord of Lords.

So, Paul disagrees with John, then, is that what you're saying?

So why then does Paul say, 'One Lord Jesus Christ?'

Because Jesus is also God. Note that your argument ignores John's statements of Jesus also being the Lord of lords, as well as the second argument I've given regarding 1 Cor 8:6. That second argument also is seen in John 1:3, Col 1:16-17, and Heb 1:2:

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

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (ESV)

In each case, the argument is the same: if everything was created through or by the Son, then it necessarily follows that the Son cannot be something created. That is to say, there cannot be a time when the Son did not exist, otherwise each passage above is false. Therefore, he is a necessary being, which is God alone.

Further, John 1:3 is supported by John 1:10 and Heb 1:2 is supported by Heb 1:10-12, where the Father applies Psalm 102:25-27, a Psalm about Yahweh creating, to the Son.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. (ESV)

Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” (ESV)

Because all authority has been given to Him. God has delegated all authority to Jesus. As I've stated God said that His name is in His Messinger. Thus His Messenger stands in the place of God or the One Lord.

That doesn't preclude Christ from also being God.

 

[Free]

Paul said that God would judge the world through the man Jesus Christ. He didn't say God would judge the world through the God Jesus Christ. He said man. Note that this was after Christ's resurrection. After the resurrection Paul is calling Jesus a man. Not a God. That begs the question, how can man be God? But, Jesus is the one who forgives sins. He's the one who communicates God's words to man. He stands in the place and authority of God. Thus He can be called the One Lord. Again, this is in contrast to the many gods and lords of the pagans.

Paul said a lot things. In addition to the above passages, he said:

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (ESV)

This passage supports the concept called the Economic Trinity--that is, how the Trinity relates to each other in bringing out the salvation and redemption of creation. The Economic Trinity shows the difference in function between the Persons of the Trinity in the plan of redemption. However, a difference in function does not mean a difference in equality or nature.

Some important points to note about this passage:

1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1--" and the Word was God." The NIV has a clearer rendering of what is meant in verse 6: "being in very nature God." The Expositor's Greek Testament and M. R. Vincent (Word Studies in the New Testament) agree. That Paul is referring to the divinity of Christ is without question.

2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, he did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]." The meaning is that anything to do with the appearance of his glory as God had to be let go of or veiled in order for the completion of his humiliation, which was necessary for man's salvation. Again, the NIV brings out the meaning a bit better: "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."

3. He, being Jesus, emptied himself. It was he who did the emptying. In other words, he had to already exist in order to be able to be “emptied,” and he had to be sufficiently powerful to do it himself. That is, in contrast with his “taking the form of a servant,” he was something else. He had to be something or someone that was capable of emptying himself.

4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men"--this is what John 1:14 is speaking of. First, note that Paul is contrasting Jesus's "taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" with being in the "form of God." Second, the emptying of himself was accomplished by taking on human form. It’s a paradoxical emptying by addition; a limiting or veiling of his glory and power by becoming human. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind and, as God Incarnate, still maintained his full deity (since God can never cease to be God) in becoming truly and fully human.

5. Being found in "appearance as a man" (NIV)--as opposed to his having been in "the form of God." We know that he was truly human, so why would Paul suddenly say that Jesus was "found in appearance as a man"? Would that not imply that he existed previously, supporting verse 6, and indicate he wasn't a man before?

6. He "humbled himself by becoming obedient." This is exactly why he prays to the Father, does the Father's will, and only speaks what he hears. He subjected himself to the law of God and obeyed it perfectly, fulfilling it and becoming the sacrificial "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29, ESV).

The whole point of this passage is to show the humility of Christ, which we are to have (verses 1-5). There is no greater example of humility that could possibly be conceived than that of God coming to earth and taking on the form of one of his creatures. Hence, being that there are three divine persons within the Trinity, it was the second person, the Son, who came.

I also have yet to receive any response of substance to the above from any anti-Trinitarian. I need to make a separate thread with all the arguments that have so far been avoided or simply dismissed with the wave of a hand (not saying that that is what you are doing).

 

[Butch5]

Paul said a lot things. In addition to the above passages, he said:

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (ESV)

This passage supports the concept called the Economic Trinity--that is, how the Trinity relates to each other in bringing out the salvation and redemption of creation. The Economic Trinity shows the difference in function between the Persons of the Trinity in the plan of redemption. However, a difference in function does not mean a difference in equality or nature.

Some important points to note about this passage:

1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1--" and the Word was God." The NIV has a clearer rendering of what is meant in verse 6: "being in very nature God." The Expositor's Greek Testament and M. R. Vincent (Word Studies in the New Testament) agree. That Paul is referring to the divinity of Christ is without question.

2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, he did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]." The meaning is that anything to do with the appearance of his glory as God had to be let go of or veiled in order for the completion of his humiliation, which was necessary for man's salvation. Again, the NIV brings out the meaning a bit better: "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."

3. He, being Jesus, emptied himself. It was he who did the emptying. In other words, he had to already exist in order to be able to be “emptied,” and he had to be sufficiently powerful to do it himself. That is, in contrast with his “taking the form of a servant,” he was something else. He had to be something or someone that was capable of emptying himself.

4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men"--this is what John 1:14 is speaking of. First, note that Paul is contrasting Jesus's "taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" with being in the "form of God." Second, the emptying of himself was accomplished by taking on human form. It’s a paradoxical emptying by addition; a limiting or veiling of his glory and power by becoming human. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind and, as God Incarnate, still maintained his full deity (since God can never cease to be God) in becoming truly and fully human.

5. Being found in "appearance as a man" (NIV)--as opposed to his having been in "the form of God." We know that he was truly human, so why would Paul suddenly say that Jesus was "found in appearance as a man"? Would that not imply that he existed previously, supporting verse 6, and indicate he wasn't a man before?

6. He "humbled himself by becoming obedient." This is exactly why he prays to the Father, does the Father's will, and only speaks what he hears. He subjected himself to the law of God and obeyed it perfectly, fulfilling it and becoming the sacrificial "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29, ESV).

The whole point of this passage is to show the humility of Christ, which we are to have (verses 1-5). There is no greater example of humility that could possibly be conceived than that of God coming to earth and taking on the form of one of his creatures. Hence, being that there are three divine persons within the Trinity, it was the second person, the Son, who came.

I also have yet to receive any response of substance to the above from any anti-Trinitarian. I need to make a separate thread with all the arguments that have so far been avoided or simply dismissed with the wave of a hand (not saying that that is what you are doing).

Paul did say a lot. However, as I pointed out, if our understanding of Scriotures disagrees with Jesus and Paul, it's us who are wrong, not them. The Trinity doctrine disagrees with Both Jesus and Paul.

Number 4 is a logical fallacy. However, this is making my point, being in the form of God. So, He was in the form of someone else. Thus, He was a different being. So we have two different being here. One was in the form of God and emptied Himself. What did He emptHimself of. The form of God. He took on the form of man. If He took on the form of man He is not in the form of God.

When He took on the form of man, He is man. The Scriptures tell us that Christ was tempted in all ways as we are. The Scriptures also tell us that God cannot be tempted. That means that either Paul is wrong or the doctrine is wrong. If Christ was both God and man then He couldn't be tempted. It would also make Paul's other statement wrong. He said that Christ was made in all ways like His brethren. Either Paul is wrong or all humans are both God and man.

 

[Fish153]

There are three mentioned here, but there is nothing that speaks of three persons being one God

I don't mean to be sarcastic, but how do you want Matt. 3:16,17 to end? "and by this we know that God is a God in three persons?" It doesn't have to "speak" about three persons being God---it CLEARLY shows it. Just as Matthew 28:19 as commanded by Jesus to use when baptizing ("Baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit") clearly shows that Jesus Himself is stating there are three persons in one God, and each of those persons is involved in our salvation.

 

[Butch5]

I don't mean to be sarcastic, but how do you want Matt. 3:16,17 to end? "and by this we know that God is a God in three persons?" It doesn't have to "speak" about three persons being God---it CLEARLY shows it. Just as Matthew 28:19 as commanded by Jesus to use when baptizing ("Baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit") clearly shows that Jesus Himself is stating there are three persons in one God, and each of those persons is involved in our salvation.

It doesn't. You're reading that into the text because it's what you already believe. Nothing in the Bible says there is one God in three persons. That idea comes from the 5th century. It's found in the Athanasian Creed. Not the Bible.

 

[Free]

Paul did say a lot. However, as I pointed out, if our understanding of Scriotures disagrees with Jesus and Paul, it's us who are wrong, not them. The Trinity doctrine disagrees with Both Jesus and Paul.

It fully agrees, as both of my posts show.

Number 4 is a logical fallacy.

How, exactly?

However, this is making my point, being in the form of God. So, He was in the form of someone else. Thus, He was a different being. So we have two different being here. One was in the form of God and emptied Himself. What did He emptHimself of. The form of God. He took on the form of man. If He took on the form of man He is not in the form of God.

Not at all. First, you're not reading close enough. Paul tells us exactly what he means by "emptied himself"--"by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." It is a paradoxical emptying by adding human nature--"emptied himself, by taking." As such, there is nothing to suggest that he completely set aside his divine nature. That brings me to point two: God cannot cease to be God; that is a logical impossibility. So, we cannot conclude that he ceased to be "in the form of God."

There is also nothing to suggest that he cannot be both in the form of God and in the form of man. And what does "form" mean?

So, what does morphe mean? I'm glad you asked:

"Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character. Thus it is distinguished from σχῆμα fashion, comprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable. Μορφή form is identified with the essence of a person or thing: σχῆμα fashion is an accident which may change without affecting the form. For the manner in which this difference is developed in the kindred verbs, see on Matt. 17:2.

As applied here to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself. We have no word which can convey this meaning, nor is it possible for us to formulate the reality. Form inevitably carries with it to us the idea of shape. It is conceivable that the essential personality of God may express itself in a mode apprehensible by the perception of pure spiritual intelligences; but the mode itself is neither apprehensible nor conceivable by human minds.

This mode of expression, this setting of the divine essence, is not identical with the essence itself, but is identified with it, as its natural and appropriate expression, answering to it in every particular. It is the perfect expression of a perfect essence. It is not something imposed from without, but something which proceeds from the very depth of the perfect being, and into which that being perfectly unfolds, as light from fire. To say, then, that Christ was in the form of God, is to say that He existed as essentially one with God. The expression of deity through human nature (ver. 7) thus has its background in the expression of deity as deity in the eternal ages of God's being. Whatever the mode of this expression, it marked the being of Christ in the eternity before creation. As the form of God was identified with the being of God, so Christ, being in the form of God, was identified with the being, nature, and personality of God." (M. R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, p. 878).


Also, as Kenneth Wuest's Word Studies in the Greek New Testaments states:

"Thus the Greek word for "form" refers to that outward expression which a person gives of his inmost nature. This expression is not assumed from the outside, but proceeds directly from within. To illustrate: "I went to a tennis match yesterday. The winning player's form was excellent." We mean by that, that the outward expression he gave of his inward ability to play tennis, was excellent. The expression in this case took the form of the rhythmic, graceful, swift, and coordinated movements of his body and its members.

Our Lord was in the form of God. The word "God" is without the definite article in the Greek text, and therefore refers to the divine essence. Thus, our Lord's outward expression of His inmost being was as to its nature the expression of the divine essence of Deity. Since that outward expression which this word "form" speaks of, comes from and is truly representative of the inward being, it follows that our Lord as to His nature is the possessor of the divine essence of Deity, and being that, it also necessarily follows that He is absolute Deity Himself, a co-participant with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit in that divine essence which constitutes God, God.

The time at which the apostle says our Lord gave expression to His essential nature, that of Deity, was previous to His coming to earth to become incarnate as the man Christ Jesus. But Paul, by the use of the Greek word translated "being," informs his Greek readers that our Lord's possession of the divine essence did not cease to be a fact when He came to earth to assume human form. The Greek word is not the simple verb of being, but a word that speaks of an antecedent condition protracted into the present. That is, our Lord gave expression to the essence of Deity which He possesses, not only before He became Man, but also after becoming man, for He was doing so at the time this Philippian epistle was being written." (vol. 2, pp. 62-63)


Also, according to Eerdmans The Expositor's Greek Testament:

"He means, of course, in the strictest sense that the pre-existing Christ was Divine. For μ. [μορφή] always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it." (vol 3, p. 436)

When He took on the form of man, He is man. The Scriptures tell us that Christ was tempted in all ways as we are.

He was.

The Scriptures also tell us that God cannot be tempted.

He can't.

That means that either Paul is wrong or the doctrine is wrong. If Christ was both God and man then He couldn't be tempted.

That is a false dichotomy as it makes certain assumptions about what it would like for God to be in human flesh, to have two natures in one person. It also makes certain assumptions about what it means to be tempted and what it means that "God cannot be tempted." There is no error, no contradiction when things are rightly understood.

It would also make Paul's other statement wrong. He said that Christ was made in all ways like His brethren. Either Paul is wrong or all humans are both God and man.

Not at all. Again, a proper understanding of the above will sort this out.

 

[Fish153]

It doesn't. You're reading that into the text because it's what you already believe. Nothing in the Bible says there is one God in three persons. That idea comes from the 5th century. It's found in the Athanasian Creed. Not the Bible.

Butch---- of course--you are entitled to believe what you want to believe also. I just kind of wonder why the powerful Seraphim of God say this continously before God's throne:
“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty;
the whole earth is full of his glory.” (Isaiah 6)

Why do they say "holy" three times? Why not Holy, Holy or holy, holy, holy, holy? Why did (3) men visit Abraham at his tent before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? it's interesting he bows down to all three and says "Lord" and then feeds all (3) of them the exact same meal. I realize that two of them go on into Sodom and they are angels. But it is interesting that there are three persons--are they representing a Biblical truth? Things like this make me wonder. Probably just coincidence though.

 

[Butch5]

Butch---- of course--you are entitled to believe what you want to believe also. I just kind of wonder why the powerful Seraphim of God say this continously before God's throne:
“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty;
the whole earth is full of his glory.” (Isaiah 6)

Why do they say "holy" three times? Why not Holy, Holy or holy, holy, holy, holy? Why did (3) men visit Abraham at his tent before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? it's interesting he bows down to all three and says "Lord" and then feeds all (3) of them the exact same meal. I realize that two of them go on into Sodom and they are angels. But it is interesting that there are three persons--are they representing a Biblical truth? Things like this make me wonder. Probably just coincidence though.

People find all.kinds things in the Bible to draw inferences from. The question iis, what does the Bible teach? The Shema says there is one God, Jesus and Paul both say there is one true God. That begs the question, where did Christians come up with the idea of three. Paul said there is one God and he names Him, the Father. He didn't say there is one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That's three Gods.

I know people will deny it, but in really it is three Gods. If there are three persons who are fully God there are three Gods. It doesn't matter how much one denies it, there three Gods.

So, Paul says there is one God, the Father. The doctrine says there is one God, the Fsther, Son, and Holy Spirit. Who are we going to believe?

 

[Grailhunter]

People find all.kinds things in the Bible to draw inferences from. The question iis, what does the Bible teach? The Shema says there is one God, Jesus and Paul both say there is one true God. That begs the question, where did Christians come up with the idea of three. Paul said there is one God and he names Him, the Father. He didn't say there is one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That's three Gods.

I know people will deny it, but in really it is three Gods. If there are three persons who are fully God there are three Gods. It doesn't matter how much one denies it, there three Gods.

So, Paul says there is one God, the Father. The doctrine says there is one God, the Fsther, Son, and Holy Spirit. Who are we going to believe?

How many scriptures do you need to prove the one God formula is wrong. I usually say there are over 100 scriptures that prove the one God formula for the Trinity wrong. But if you count these types of scriptures and the “My Father” scriptures it is closer to 200. And some these scriptures say My Father in Heaven which indicate a different person in a different place.

These scriptures below prove that the Apostles were united in the belief that there is a difference between God the Father and God the Son….in that they refer to the Father as God and the Son as Lord.

This also answers the question of the belief they had about one true God. Not that Yeshua was not a God but God the Father was unique in that He is God Supreme, God Almighty and the Creator God….no one like Him. So they referred to the Father as God and the Son as Lord.

testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. Act 20:21

Therefore, having been justified by faith, 1we have bpeace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, Romans 5:1

And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. Romans 5:11

that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Roman 15:6

But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 1st Corinthians 15:57

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 2nd Corinthians 1:3

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. 2nd Corinthians 11:31

Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, Galatians 1:3

But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Galatians 6:14

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, Ephesians 1:3

that cthe God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, dmay give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, Ephesians 1:17

For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Ephesians 3:14

giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Ephesians 5:20

We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, Colossians 1:3

remembering without ceasing your work of faith, labor of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the sight of our God and Father, 1st Thessalonians 1:3

Now may our God and Father Himself, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way to you. 1st Thessalonians 3:11

so that He may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints. 1st Thessalonians 3:13

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1st Thessalonians 5:23

in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2nd Thessalonians 1:8

that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and you in Him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. 2nd Thessalonians 1:12

Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, 2nd Thessalonians 2:16

Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Hebrews 13:20

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 1st Peter 1:3

keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. Jude 1:21

 

[Butch5]

How many scriptures do you need to prove the one God formula is wrong. I usually say there are over 100 scriptures that prove the one God formula for the Trinity wrong. But if you count these types of scriptures and the “My Father” scriptures it is closer to 200. And some these scriptures say My Father in Heaven which indicate a different person in a different place.

These scriptures below prove that the Apostles were united in the belief that there is a difference between God the Father and God the Son….in that they refer to the Father as God and the Son as Lord.

This also answers the question of the belief they had about one true God. Not that Yeshua was not a God but God the Father was unique in that He is God Supreme, God Almighty and the Creator God….no one like Him. So they referred to the Father as God and the Son as Lord.

testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. Act 20:21

Therefore, having been justified by faith, 1we have bpeace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, Romans 5:1

And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. Romans 5:11

that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Roman 15:6

But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 1st Corinthians 15:57

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 2nd Corinthians 1:3

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. 2nd Corinthians 11:31

Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, Galatians 1:3

But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Galatians 6:14

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, Ephesians 1:3

that cthe God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, dmay give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, Ephesians 1:17

For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Ephesians 3:14

giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Ephesians 5:20

We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, Colossians 1:3

remembering without ceasing your work of faith, labor of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the sight of our God and Father, 1st Thessalonians 1:3

Now may our God and Father Himself, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way to you. 1st Thessalonians 3:11

so that He may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints. 1st Thessalonians 3:13

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1st Thessalonians 5:23

in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2nd Thessalonians 1:8

that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and you in Him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. 2nd Thessalonians 1:12

Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, 2nd Thessalonians 2:16

Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Hebrews 13:20

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 1st Peter 1:3

keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. Jude 1:21

There are a lot of passages that show the Father is the true God. Two suffice for me Paul saying, one God the Father and Jesus saying the Father is the only True God. These two statements are straight forward. There's no need for an inference. Anything that disagrees with these is wrong.

 

[Runningman]

Sure.
"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased". (Matt. 3:16,17)

Note: The SON is in the water being baptized. The SPIRIT is descending from Heaven. The FATHER speaks from Heaven and says "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased". The THREE persons of the TRINITY are clearly shown.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”(Matt. 28:19,20).

This is a direct command from Jesus Christ. He clearly commands that we baptize in the NAME (not "names") of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (One God made up of three persons). Oneness Pentecostalists say that Jesus is alone God who has "expressed" himself three different ways. Then why doesn't Jesus command "Baptize them in my Name"? No---he clearly commands to baptize in the NAME of THREE PERSONS.

What's your workaround for the below verses?

Acts 10
37That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 38How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

 

[Fish153]

What's your workaround for the below verses?

Acts 10
37That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 38How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

I'm not sure what you mean by "workaround". Can you clarify what you mean a bit more? Are you asking why Jesus was annointed with the Holy Spirit? Is that your question?

 

[LeviR]

What's your workaround for the below verses?

Acts 10
37That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 38How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

Supposedly, God = Father, Son, Holy Spirit = One God

God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit
= 3 Gods

In the same way,
God number one = Father
God number two = Son
God number three = Holy Spirit
= 3 Gods

In the same way,
God person 1 = Father
God person 2 = Son
God person 3 = Holy Spirit
= 3 Gods

Many Trinitarians have caught on to this obvious contradiction and can actually see it.
They therefore have attempted to change the language so they don’t have to sound like an idiot when explaining their God.
Unsuccessfully, I might add.

The ones who stick to the obvious contradiction, I suppose don’t see it. And if they do, maybe they hope others don’t?

The RCC knows it’s an obvious contradiction, that’s why they call it an “impenetrable paradox”. But still believe it.

All their “Proof texts” is basically an attempt to explain why they believe an impenetrable paradox.

An impenetrable paradox cannot be proved. It can only be believed if one so desires.
If he desires to believe something that cannot be proved, he cannot be convinced otherwise.

 

[Free]

Any further misrepresentations of the doctrine of the Trinity will result in removal from this discussion.

 

[LeviR]

There are a lot of passages that show the Father is the true God. Two suffice for me Paul saying, one God the Father and Jesus saying the Father is the only True God. These two statements are straight forward. There's no need for an inference. Anything that disagrees with these is wrong.

Supposedly, the Father alone being true God does not eliminate the Son alone being true God or the Holy Spirit alone being true God .
It would however eliminate the banana in your pocket from alone being true God.

 

[LeviR]

Paul did say a lot. However, as I pointed out, if our understanding of Scriotures disagrees with Jesus and Paul, it's us who are wrong, not them. The Trinity doctrine disagrees with Both Jesus and Paul.

Number 4 is a logical fallacy. However, this is making my point, being in the form of God. So, He was in the form of someone else. Thus, He was a different being. So we have two different being here. One was in the form of God and emptied Himself. What did He emptHimself of. The form of God. He took on the form of man. If He took on the form of man He is not in the form of God.

When He took on the form of man, He is man. The Scriptures tell us that Christ was tempted in all ways as we are. The Scriptures also tell us that God cannot be tempted. That means that either Paul is wrong or the doctrine is wrong. If Christ was both God and man then He couldn't be tempted. It would also make Paul's other statement wrong. He said that Christ was made in all ways like His brethren. Either Paul is wrong or all humans are both God and man.

Jas 3:9 - Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

Phl 2:5 - Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Phl 2:6 - Who, being in the form (similitude) of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Phl 2:7 - But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form (similitude) of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Phl 2:8 - And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

A man in the image and similitude of God might say he were therefore equal with God.
But if he make himself of no reputation, and appear as a servant, being made like all other men, and being found as such, he would humble himself and be obedient to the true God.

 

[Runningman]

I'm not sure what you mean by "workaround". Can you clarify what you mean a bit more? Are you asking why Jesus was annointed with the Holy Spirit? Is that your question?

It doesn't match what you said. The book of Acts calls Jesus a man through whom God Himself worked, not that Jesus is God acting as God. Jesus didn't have his Holy Spirit anointing and empowerment until after after coming out of the water of his baptism. That is problematic for the theory that Jesus is inherently God when in demonstration he isn't.

 

[Runningman]

Supposedly, the Father alone being true God does not eliminate the Son alone being true God or the Holy Spirit alone being true God .
It would however eliminate the banana in your pocket from alone being true God.

For what Jesus said in John 17:3 to be true, there can't be any exceptions to it. Personally, that's one of the main reasons I believe the Father is the only true God. It's as simple as that for me.

 

[Grailhunter]

Can’t see the forest for the trees.
Who was saved in the first century?
What did they know?
The details of the scriptures can distract from the simplicity of Salvation.
I always say that you can write everything anybody needs to know about Salvation on a 3X5 card.

Consider who Paul was converting.
No Bibles….would not matter….most of them could not read….
The letters of Paul would not make any sense to them even if they could read….Christian Greek changed the definitions of Greek words because the Greek language did not have words or concepts to align with Christian beliefs. You probably know this but a simple example is the word sin….to the Pagans sin meant you missed your target….no religious or moral implications. Then the context of words….Prostitutes were good thing….fun, orgies were a party. Morals were more or less an alien concept to Pagans. So morals had to be taught to them by word of mouth.

And the Word sounded good to them and the Christian concept of love meant a better more stable society….This was important. There were aspects of the Christian religion that was familiar to them….3 Gods and the Savior was the product of a God impregnating a woman….a God born of a woman was familiar to them. God the Father sent God the Son to saves them and show them the Way to Heaven. And Christianity was about a personal relationship with the Gods of Christianity, Yahweh….Yeshua …and the Holy Spirit. Pagan mythology did not have a personal relationship with their gods.

From there they were taught about Heaven and the Way to get there. Have faith in Yeshua as a God and savior, repent of your past lives and be baptized. Love God and love one another with a righteous love. Do on to others as you wish to be done to you. Assemble with Christians and offer up worship to the Lord. Be good and do good.

I think we can fit that on a 3X5 card. The Christian faith was simple and it was taught to a simple people and many were saved with a simple message? The Way to live and the Way to Heaven. So how many were saved with that message in the 1st century? Tens of thousands, millions? And the message became known as the Good News….the Gospel ….and the religion became to known as the Way.

Today we have the Bible and a lot more information….but not until the 16th century. From the Bible we have a lot of detailed ideas and theological concepts expressed by Paul and or his disciples which makes up about 75% of the New Testament. But it should not distract from the simple and original message of Salvation. Again it should not distract from the simple and original message of Salvation.

Can’t see the forest for the trees. The focus should have remained with the simple message. But people focused on the details and raised their importance over the simple message….and it was the details that they could not agree on and it caused violent atrocities and wars among Christians and it split Christianity into tens of thousands of denominations.

Best advise….stay true to the simple message and be tolerant to other Christian beliefs…..within reason. Love other Christians and assemble with them and worship the Lord, the church is a community, be part of it.

Take it from someone that has spent most of his life learning from formal education in one way or another in 5 countries. I know theology and the languages backwards and forwards and from different perspectives. But most of what I know, did not save me or anyone else….the simple message saves, the rest is details to ponder on….not to be used to splinter the Christian faith….not to be used to hate someone.

Grailhunter, the Johnny Appleseed of Truth
Love God and one another.
Be good and do good.

P.S. I am big on churches and I worship with several denominations. Theologians generally do not pick a denomination because they have too many false beliefs in their theology. The single most common error is beliefs in man-made sins. But I over look those errors to stand and worship with them. I do not debate religion at church….maybe drop a few seeds.

For example here I debate against the false belief of the one God formula for the Trinity on the forum. But most of the denominations I worship with believe in the one God formula….but it does not matter to me because Salvation is not dependent on whether people believe in the one God formula or the 3 God formula for the Trinity. The one God formula for the Trinity skews the meaning of over a hundred scriptures, but that is their choice. But there are denominations that I do not deal with because their beliefs can send them to Hell….like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, OSAS, and such.

Freedom of religion so I am only interested in telling Christians the truth, from there it is up to God if they believe….Does everybody deserve to know the truth or understand the scriptures….I do not know and I do not care. My ministry is not about belief control…. Too much stress. Ask a preacher if it stresses him out if his congregation does not believe what he preaches. Instead I am only concerned with truth regardless of what it is.