I'm not a "trinitarian".
I'm God's son, through faith in Jesus Christ.
I'm not in to man made labels.
JLB
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
-
-
Wearing the right shoes, and properly clothed spiritually?
Join Elected By Him for a devotional on Ephesians 6:14-15
https://christianforums.net/threads/devotional-selecting-the-proper-shoes.109094/
Understanding the GodHead. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
- Thread starter reddogs
- Start date
I'm not a "trinitarian".
I'm God's son, through faith in Jesus Christ.
I'm not in to man made labels.
JLB
I answered with verses that refer to Jesus as God.
The answer is in understanding that Jesus, the Son of God, "BECAME" flesh; He became a man.
He was God (the Son) and then He became flesh.
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16
As a man, He rightly referred to God as His God.
That's my answer.
My Question to you -
Did God the Father become flesh, or did the Son become flesh?
JLB
Grailhunter
Member
Correct….
The term Trinity was coined early on in Christianity, but it had nothing to do with one God, one person, or one Deity formula.
The one God formula was strictly a Roman Catholic doctrine that was so unpopular that they had to enforce it upon pain of excommunication or death. But most of the Protestants were duped into believing the Catholic false beliefs of the one God formula for the Trinity and Original Sin.
The best argument against the one God formula are what the scriptures say and the over all theme and storyline of the Gospels.
Over a hundred scriptures prove the one God formula wrong.
Christ Himself explained the oneness of the Trinity in detail but I guess they think He is a liar.
It is a mistake to take a couple unexplained one liners that are incongruent with the rest of the scriptures and make it a belief. It is a wonder they do not believe that we have to hate our father and mother to be a Christian.
If you’re not confused about it, why did you argue against it previously using an argument that addresses Modalism, not Trinitarianism?
The foundations of the Trinity come directly from Scripture:
1. Monotheism - there was, is, and ever will be only one being that is God.
2. There are three divine persons.
3. The three persons are coequal and coternal.
That is the biblical revelation God has given of himself, hence the doctrine of the Trinity.
I’ll explain if you first address the logic of the two arguments I presented regarding 1 Cor 8:6.
Well, we can’t go around claiming three gods, that’s polytheism and stands in direct contradiction to what God himself says. That would be a very unbiblical, un-Christian thing to do.
I have yet to see a single one. Monotheism is absolutely foundational to Christianity.
A couple of one-liners? There is far more than a couple of one-liners. You need to study the Trinity. I remember you also making arguments against Modalism, thinking you were arguing against Trinitarianism. And, that, coming from a tritheist.
Why is it that pretty much every anti-Trinitarian in these forums doesn’t seem to even know what it is they so strongly argue against?
The wonder is that Jesus, a monotheistic Jew who affirmed the Shema, teaching there is only one God, repeatedly, could be so misunderstood that one actually believes he taught three gods.
I already had it explained to me by Trinitarian apologist .
As a man Jesus’ God was the Father only.
And I, as a man also, know of no other God then the same one Jesus knew as his God, the Father.
Well, there I go again.
Yes, making a fallacious argument again. That Jesus said the Father was his God in no way whatsoever means that Jesus is not also divine.
God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, according to Scripture.
It’s the argument of a Trinitarian apologist.
He said Jesus, as a man, has a God who is the Father.
Jesus was truly man.
If you also be truly man as Jesus, then don’t you think you ought to know, and have, the same God he does as truly man?
Well, there I go again. Call me the myth buster.
Again, fallacious. You’re begging the question by presuming Jesus is only a man. Jesus is truly God and truly man. Jesus always pointed the way to the Father, as he should have as a monotheistic Jew. But, again, that does not preclude him from also being divine.
Still aren’t going to address the logical arguments shown in 1 Cor 8:6? It’s ignoring that type of context that is continually going to lead you into error about who Jesus is.
What is fallacious is to say the only God Jesus knew does not preclude him from being that God.
Jesus would say, my God is my Father. He never said, my God is the Holy Spirit or my God is my God nature or my God is myself. No. The only God he knew was his Father.
And furthermore, the only God his disciples knew was the one they wrote of in their letters to the churches.
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”
Do you see that?
Even the one they call Lord has both a God and a Father.
What does that mean?
It means the Lord has a Lord and Father.
If the disciple knew that their Lord has both a God and Father, then that One would be the only true God.
Yes, He did. I guess you missed it, when you ignored my question.
Try it again. From post number 56.
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. John 8:56-59
Question:
Why did the Jews pick up stones to stone Him?
Grailhunter
Member
It stands in contradiction to the Old Testament not the New Testament. In the Old Testament only Yahweh was worshipped Yahweh. He was the only God and there was no one like Him.
In the New Testament we worship….
God the Father Yahweh
God the Son Yeshua
God the Holy Spirit
Stand by LOL
And you think you have a lot of scriptures....lets see them.
I argue against false beliefs and the one God formula skews the meaning of a lot of scriptures.
That is funny....Yeshua was the Son of a God. And testified that Yahweh was His God.
Grailhunter
Member
Trinitarians will say that calling Jesus Lord means he is God.
So, how is it Lord(God) has a God?
What they are saying is God has a God.
“Blessed be the God and Father of our God (Lord)Jesus Christ”???
God has a God and Father? Nope.
Grailhunter
Member
You have a hocus pocus theology running in your head.
The one God formula for the Trinity skews the meaning of over a hundred scriptures and the storyline of the Gospels…
And then here are over a hundred scriptural reasons why the one God formula for the Trinity is false.
This is a topic that is easy to prove because it connects to so many scriptures, which will be referenced directly and or indirectly through this discussion as well as the obvious storyline of the Gospels. The topic as a whole is interesting because it involves the thoughts and beliefs of the Early Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils that eventually influenced Catholic and Protestant beliefs.
Most Christian denominations proclaim a belief in the Trinity, and its existence is certain, it is the details that vary. Some define the Trinity as three persons in one God, some turn the perspective around and believe that the Trinity is one God with three aspects. Some reduce the Trinity to a duo, the Holy Spirit merely being the projection of Yahweh or Yeshua’s spirit...not a God….a spirit, different in substance than Yahweh or Yeshua. Part of this was due to not giving the Holy Spirit a name.
Some definitions of the Trinity…
Baptist definition of the Trinity
We believe that there is one, and only one, living and true God and infinite, intelligent Spirit, the Maker and Supreme Ruler of Heaven and Earth
Catholics believe in one single God, who made Himself known to the world (revelation) as three separate persons: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit. This is known as the doctrine of the Trinity, and is a fundamental belief for all Catholics.
Pentecostal definition of the Trinity
The doctrine states that there is one God, a singular divine spirit with no distinction of persons….who manifests himself in many ways, including as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This stands in sharp contrast to the doctrine of three distinct, eternal persons posited by Trinitarian theology.
Then there are those that believe Yeshua is the “one” and only God... representing three aspects of God or even Christ being the God that created the Heavens and Earth. Which would pretty much invalidate the entire Old Testament and the Apostle’s Creed, where God the Father is the Creator, or even the concept of God being the Father.
Now this one God formula makes you wonder how God the Father fits in! Oddly enough, the “confusion factor” comes from a “qualifying condition” from the 4th century on, the thinking is if it makes no sense or cannot be understood, that is the qualifying factor that it is of God! This is an interesting topic in itself. Debates over what the Trinity meant, and or what it is, has continued throughout the centuries. The winning point always has been and is, that the Gospels clearly document the presence, actions, communications, and movements, of three persons (Gods). But the most commonly accepted doctrine of the Trinity, is that there are three persons in one God, called God, named God, as if the word God is a name. This is the larger intent and underlying reason for this doctrine of the Trinity, and that is to say “one God” not Gods. Because of this the reasons for and explanation of the errors with the one God formula for the Trinity starts with the removal of Yahweh’s name from the Old Testament. This was the event that set the stage for the one God formula and it started with the removal of God’s name from the Old Testament scriptures. That is to change the name of the Yahweh to God. Rather than “God” representing spiritual position, to change the word God to a proper name. At which point they could manipulate it very easily.
The truth is that God the Father's name at one time appeared around 6,800 times in the Old Testament and He was adamant that He was the only one and no one like Him existed. There are a few words in the OT that refer to Yahweh, like EL and Elohim and at times they referred to locations or holy sites, but they are references not proper names, or they could not say or write them. On the other hand YHWH does refer to the proper name of God the Father and at one time it appeared over 6.800 times in the Old Testament.
The exact pronunciation of Yahweh name is debatable but from around 840 BC on, His name was represented by the Tetragrammaton….YHWH. Then during the Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible (The Septuagint, beginning around 280 BC) they removed the Tetragrammaton and replaced it with the words Lord or God or both. So then during the Ecumenical Councils they could argue that the Trinity was a functional unnamed trio in the Old Testament ….because God was now all their names!
So now the bumper sticker “IN GOD WE TRUST” can mean any god.
The word Trinity is not in the Bible but it was coined by early Christian writers but they did not define the Trinity as three Gods in one person or entity. So why and when was the doctrine of the one God Trinity proposed? The doctrine of the one God Trinity was created by the Ecumenical Councils to settle irreconcilable arguments within the Council on the nature of God the Father and God the Son. Irreconcilable but Emperor Constantine commanded an agreement on this issue.
In and out of the Council, Christians had differing beliefs regarding Yahweh and Yeshua. The big topic was about some seeing a big difference in the character and nature and actions of Yahweh and Yeshua. Which was one of the concerns of the Gnostics. Now modern Christians believe as the Ecumenical Councils and the Roman Catholics believed that Gnostics were heretics and preached false beliefs, and that was correct, but some Gnostic beliefs were gaining popularity with Christians towards the end of the 1st century and beyond. The Gnostics believed that the Old Testament God was either evil or insane. So they believed that Yeshua was the Creator God and God Almighty, essentially the only true God.
Now beliefs are ideas and do not necessary commitment to a particular religion as a whole. And some Gnostic beliefs or similar beliefs were accepted by some “mainstream” Christians. Part of this may have been because of the Gospel of John. John’s writings came out towards the end of the 1st century when Christians were thirsty for more information. Now John’s writings seemed to have a Gnostic flavor. Not that He condemned God the Father but promoted Christ as the Creator God and God Almighty. He also embraced the concept of the Logos which was a Greek belief from 6 centuries prior that described a universal knowledge.
The Ecumenical Councils saw Gnostic beliefs as a threat because it was so popular at the time, and of course the beliefs outlined in John’s writings where as Yeshua was the Creator God and God Almighty and these beliefs were popular with some within the Councils so this was some of the irreconcilable arguments within the Councils. On the other hand…..
“Some” being people in the council and outside of the council.
Some believed that Yahweh was the Creator God and some believed that Yeshua was the Creator God.
Some believed in a hierarchy, that God the Father was senior to God the Son.
Some saw a difference in the character of Yahweh and Yeshua, a difference in their nature and actions.
Some believed that because God the Father begot a Son that was a God, that was proof of two Gods.
These differences could not be resolved but Emperor Constantine insisted on an agreement, the one Church, one faith thing. But still the differences persisted. So the one God formula was developed…..with a whole slew theological terms to explain it, that are not in the scriptures. The reasoning was that if you imply that God is one person there cannot be a difference in character, nature, and substance and all events are attributed to that one person (God) The problem is the scriptures do not support this by direct explanation or even follow the storyline of events, particularly in the Gospels where Yahweh and Yeshua were interacting and referring to each other and referring to each other in different places. For example Christ said my Father in Heaven….Omnipresent? But Christ did not say, My Father everywhere, it is always My Father in Heaven.
So as it is….
The McKenzie Bible Dictionary explains it this way.... “The Trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God there are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly or formally a biblical belief.” Which hold true to the fact that the word Trinity does not occur in the Holy Bible.
But issuing the doctrine of the Trinity was not enough because Emperor Constantine believed that all of Christianity should be one belief….one Faith.
continued.....
Grailhunter
Member
So the effort of belief control began. This doctrine had to be forced on Christianity in that they would excommunicate or kill anyone that preached anything contrary to the one God Trinity, even to the point that one could not be a Christian or saved if they did not believe in the one God Trinity.
The term and concept of heresy came from the Edict of Roman Emperor Theodosius 380 AD and the Catholic Church adopted the term. And by the way the Catholic Church considered all Protestants heretics. A heretic would be excommunicated by the Church and since the Catholic Church was the state religion of the Roman Empire, heretics were considered enemies of the Empire and could be killed. And you can get into the list of heretics that were killed as time went on as well as the groups that believed differently than the Roman Catholic Church. And yes eventually there were wars between the Catholics and Protestants.
But, as with many of the official doctrines of man, what Rome proposed and what the regional churches and the people believed were many times different than the prescribed doctrines coming out of Rome. The one God formulas for the Trinity is abstract and incongruent. So many in that time period did not agree with the one God concept, and many believed in the authoritative position of God the Father. The one God formula was not true or accurate but it did shutdown the arguments by outlawing public objections….
The problem with these doctrines is that as a whole the scriptures as well as the storyline of the Gospels do not support the one God formula. The Gospels clearly show the Father and Son interacting throughout Christ’s ministry. The Church’s frustrations with the scriptures led them to actually adding verses to certain Bibles to clarify their point and add authority to their doctrine. The most well known of these forged scriptures is called “the Comma Johanneum Addition” which still appears in the King James Version.
The Comma Johanneum as it is referred to originated as a common literary explanation for the one God Trinity formula. The first discussion against the one God formula may have been around the 3rd century. Some mention a connection with some of the early Church Fathers, like Cyprian which debated the oneness concepts of the Trinity. It first appeared in written form during the 4th century in the Latin homily Liber Apologeticus, which was probably written by Priscillian of Avila. This theological formula was circulated from then on, but was not accepted, or at least was not quoted by most of the early Church Fathers in which there was a continual disagreement on the construct of the Trinity.
At some point this short summary of the Trinity made its way into the margin notes of some of the manuscripts that were written after the 5th century. Unlike other examples of popular margin notes that made their way into the scriptures, the Comma Johanneum found its way into the verses of the Bible by way of another avenue. After the early 16th century, the Byzantines began to recopy and retranslate the available Greek texts of the New Testament. At this point some of these copies became known as the “Textus Receptus.” ---Erasmus--- It was in some of these that the formula was added and then later included in some of the Bibles. Most notably the King James Version, which relied heavily on these texts. On the 2nd of June 1927, Pope Pius XI decreed that the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute. The updated " Nova Vulgata" edition of the Vulgate, published in 1979 as a result of the Second Vatican Council, does not include the Comma. In the Catholic study Bible I have that was printed around 1960 includes a combination of these two scriptures, with a side note that explains that it was a re-phrasing of the scriptures by the Holy See, as it was his prerogative. But as such are open to debate.
As it happened the Comma Johanneum Addition was much more than a re-translation, or an addition, but rather a replacement of the original scriptures with a theological statement. They kept the verse numbers in sequence so that it would not be as noticeable, but replaced the words.
The scriptures involved are 1st John 5:6-8. The original scriptures read as follows... (Quoting 6 through 8, so it can be read in context)
“6. This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. 7. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8. And it is the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”
This was replaced with what came to be called the Comma Johanneum Addition.
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, 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.
As one can see there is no chance that this is simply a different translation, but rather a removal of the scriptures and an insertion of a known theological statement for an intended purpose. Of course and again, there is no question that the Trinity exists, just that the Bible does not support the commonly explained formula or description of it. And this is the larger problem, if everybody changes the scriptures to what they believe, then we do not get an accurate reading of the Word of God, but instead a denominational sermon of beliefs. The Comma Johanneum Addition is a good illustration of the frustration that some had with trying to promote their beliefs and to what extent they would go to, to promote their beliefs above and over the Bible. This is not a unique observation but rather the opinion of many scholars and most of the well known reference material explains the Trinity as more of a doctrine than a biblical teaching.
Now the term Trinity was coined early on in post biblical Christian writings but the one God formula or definition was not in those writings. Nor the theological terms of the Catholic Church to explain it…..
Equality: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal in the Holy Trinity
Incarnation: Only the Son became incarnate as Jesus Christ
Coeternality: The Son is coeternal with the Father and begotten from his same substance
The Son is completely divine, or homoousion tō Patri, which means "of one substance with the Father"
The council drew up the Nicene Creed, which states that the Son is of the same substance as God the Father
Those that believe in the one God formula cling to a couple scriptures but there are so many scriptures that disagree with this formula directly or by circumstance or congruency of the Gospel storyline. It does happen, people get fascinated by the "one liners" in the Bible and employ imagination to fill in the blanks...it is a good thing that they did not promote the scriptures about hating your mother and father and pretty much your wife and your whole family (Luke 14:46) or the scriptures that says that It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (Matt. 19:24) Or we would have a religion that only appealed to the poor and they would not consider Christianity unless they hated their mother and father and their whole family. LOL
The Truth is, the Trinity is not the merging or mixing of three entities into one, like you would a cake mix, nor is it a three headed God. It is a condition and a reality that is beyond our understanding, but in loose terms.....I believe and define that there are three Gods in one Godhead, a Devine unity, but not one.
Which exists simultaneously in an unexplainable spiritual condition of union, that allows for the sharing of traits, principles, powers and abilities, but prevents any possibility of disagreement. Still, this being true, they have their own individual presence, minds, wills, and characters. Three Gods that can sit side by side on three thrones. (I am not going to address spiritual thrones thing, it is just referenced that way in the Bible.) The Trinity makes sense, the scriptures that describe Them, make sense. The following discussion includes scriptures that speak of the Trinity as it is referenced in the Gospels. So we are going to put this in motion and as with reality and the truth, it will move through the story of Christ’s mission in the Gospels. The best example of the Trinity we have is how the three Gods interacted with each other during the Gospels. What they said to each other and about each other. Much of the proof comes from the lips of Christ Himself as He describes Himself and His Father as two persons in two different places as well as the communication between the two. Keeping in mind that it is very important to Christianity that Christ is the Son of God the Father.
Now for reasoning and scriptures….
1. If Christ’s throne is on the right hand of God, He is not within God and that position although important is second to God the Father. Mark 16:19 “So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into Heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.”
2. If one had to leave before the other could come, as in the case of the Holy Spirit, this would suggest individuality. John 16:7
3. If there is any conversation at all between the three entities; that would indicate some individuality.
4. If the conversation included a request, like Yeshua asking His Father to bypass the cup (so-to-speak); it indicates individuality and hierarchy.
continued
The term and concept of heresy came from the Edict of Roman Emperor Theodosius 380 AD and the Catholic Church adopted the term. And by the way the Catholic Church considered all Protestants heretics. A heretic would be excommunicated by the Church and since the Catholic Church was the state religion of the Roman Empire, heretics were considered enemies of the Empire and could be killed. And you can get into the list of heretics that were killed as time went on as well as the groups that believed differently than the Roman Catholic Church. And yes eventually there were wars between the Catholics and Protestants.
But, as with many of the official doctrines of man, what Rome proposed and what the regional churches and the people believed were many times different than the prescribed doctrines coming out of Rome. The one God formulas for the Trinity is abstract and incongruent. So many in that time period did not agree with the one God concept, and many believed in the authoritative position of God the Father. The one God formula was not true or accurate but it did shutdown the arguments by outlawing public objections….
The problem with these doctrines is that as a whole the scriptures as well as the storyline of the Gospels do not support the one God formula. The Gospels clearly show the Father and Son interacting throughout Christ’s ministry. The Church’s frustrations with the scriptures led them to actually adding verses to certain Bibles to clarify their point and add authority to their doctrine. The most well known of these forged scriptures is called “the Comma Johanneum Addition” which still appears in the King James Version.
The Comma Johanneum as it is referred to originated as a common literary explanation for the one God Trinity formula. The first discussion against the one God formula may have been around the 3rd century. Some mention a connection with some of the early Church Fathers, like Cyprian which debated the oneness concepts of the Trinity. It first appeared in written form during the 4th century in the Latin homily Liber Apologeticus, which was probably written by Priscillian of Avila. This theological formula was circulated from then on, but was not accepted, or at least was not quoted by most of the early Church Fathers in which there was a continual disagreement on the construct of the Trinity.
At some point this short summary of the Trinity made its way into the margin notes of some of the manuscripts that were written after the 5th century. Unlike other examples of popular margin notes that made their way into the scriptures, the Comma Johanneum found its way into the verses of the Bible by way of another avenue. After the early 16th century, the Byzantines began to recopy and retranslate the available Greek texts of the New Testament. At this point some of these copies became known as the “Textus Receptus.” ---Erasmus--- It was in some of these that the formula was added and then later included in some of the Bibles. Most notably the King James Version, which relied heavily on these texts. On the 2nd of June 1927, Pope Pius XI decreed that the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute. The updated " Nova Vulgata" edition of the Vulgate, published in 1979 as a result of the Second Vatican Council, does not include the Comma. In the Catholic study Bible I have that was printed around 1960 includes a combination of these two scriptures, with a side note that explains that it was a re-phrasing of the scriptures by the Holy See, as it was his prerogative. But as such are open to debate.
As it happened the Comma Johanneum Addition was much more than a re-translation, or an addition, but rather a replacement of the original scriptures with a theological statement. They kept the verse numbers in sequence so that it would not be as noticeable, but replaced the words.
The scriptures involved are 1st John 5:6-8. The original scriptures read as follows... (Quoting 6 through 8, so it can be read in context)
“6. This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. 7. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8. And it is the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”
This was replaced with what came to be called the Comma Johanneum Addition.
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, 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.
As one can see there is no chance that this is simply a different translation, but rather a removal of the scriptures and an insertion of a known theological statement for an intended purpose. Of course and again, there is no question that the Trinity exists, just that the Bible does not support the commonly explained formula or description of it. And this is the larger problem, if everybody changes the scriptures to what they believe, then we do not get an accurate reading of the Word of God, but instead a denominational sermon of beliefs. The Comma Johanneum Addition is a good illustration of the frustration that some had with trying to promote their beliefs and to what extent they would go to, to promote their beliefs above and over the Bible. This is not a unique observation but rather the opinion of many scholars and most of the well known reference material explains the Trinity as more of a doctrine than a biblical teaching.
Now the term Trinity was coined early on in post biblical Christian writings but the one God formula or definition was not in those writings. Nor the theological terms of the Catholic Church to explain it…..
Equality: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal in the Holy Trinity
Incarnation: Only the Son became incarnate as Jesus Christ
Coeternality: The Son is coeternal with the Father and begotten from his same substance
The Son is completely divine, or homoousion tō Patri, which means "of one substance with the Father"
The council drew up the Nicene Creed, which states that the Son is of the same substance as God the Father
Those that believe in the one God formula cling to a couple scriptures but there are so many scriptures that disagree with this formula directly or by circumstance or congruency of the Gospel storyline. It does happen, people get fascinated by the "one liners" in the Bible and employ imagination to fill in the blanks...it is a good thing that they did not promote the scriptures about hating your mother and father and pretty much your wife and your whole family (Luke 14:46) or the scriptures that says that It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (Matt. 19:24) Or we would have a religion that only appealed to the poor and they would not consider Christianity unless they hated their mother and father and their whole family. LOL
The Truth is, the Trinity is not the merging or mixing of three entities into one, like you would a cake mix, nor is it a three headed God. It is a condition and a reality that is beyond our understanding, but in loose terms.....I believe and define that there are three Gods in one Godhead, a Devine unity, but not one.
Which exists simultaneously in an unexplainable spiritual condition of union, that allows for the sharing of traits, principles, powers and abilities, but prevents any possibility of disagreement. Still, this being true, they have their own individual presence, minds, wills, and characters. Three Gods that can sit side by side on three thrones. (I am not going to address spiritual thrones thing, it is just referenced that way in the Bible.) The Trinity makes sense, the scriptures that describe Them, make sense. The following discussion includes scriptures that speak of the Trinity as it is referenced in the Gospels. So we are going to put this in motion and as with reality and the truth, it will move through the story of Christ’s mission in the Gospels. The best example of the Trinity we have is how the three Gods interacted with each other during the Gospels. What they said to each other and about each other. Much of the proof comes from the lips of Christ Himself as He describes Himself and His Father as two persons in two different places as well as the communication between the two. Keeping in mind that it is very important to Christianity that Christ is the Son of God the Father.
Now for reasoning and scriptures….
1. If Christ’s throne is on the right hand of God, He is not within God and that position although important is second to God the Father. Mark 16:19 “So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into Heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.”
2. If one had to leave before the other could come, as in the case of the Holy Spirit, this would suggest individuality. John 16:7
3. If there is any conversation at all between the three entities; that would indicate some individuality.
4. If the conversation included a request, like Yeshua asking His Father to bypass the cup (so-to-speak); it indicates individuality and hierarchy.
continued
Grailhunter
Member
Matthew 26:36-46
5. If the conversation is in the form of a pray. For example; Our Father which art in Heaven.....But the Son was standing before them. This indicates individuality and hierarchy.
6. If one God refers to Himself or others refer to Him as the Father and the other God refers to Himself or others refer to Him as the Son; This indicates individuality and hierarchy. This is particularly significant because this is a self defined and self described definition by God Himself. God decided to define their positions as God the Father and God the Son. God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son…. John 3:16
It was God that chose to describe Himself as a Father, so we could understand our relationship with Him and His relationship with His Son, in human terms. There is a clear authoritative aspect associated with the Father. There is no possible way of mistaking this relationship as equal or the same person. Yeshua was the begotten Son of God. God did not begot Himself.
7. Again, for God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son...John 3:16 There is no part of this verse that suggest that He begot Himself, or sent Himself, or that his Son was Him. The meaning of the verse is that, it took a lot of love for God to offer His real Son as a sacrifice for the world. This verse is talking about two Gods. God the Father and God the Son.
8. If a person can sin against one God worse than the other...as in the case of the un-pardonable sin. This indicates separation of some sort as well as a very special uniqueness in regard to the Holy Spirit. Matthew 12:30-32
9. When Yeshua said, “...the father is greater than I.” John 14:28 --- then this is proof of His understanding of individuality and hierarchy.
10. Then he said, "And do not call anyone on earth your father, for One is your Father, He who is in Heaven. And do not be called leaders, for One is your Leader, that is, Christ." Matthew 23:9-10 This refers to Yahweh as Father and Christ as leader. Similar to other scriptures referring to Christ as the head of the Church.
11. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 1st Corinthians 11:3 This clearly defines hierarchal positions.
12. John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (How many ways does this prove two persons, in two places, God the Son referring to His Father as His God.) Matt. 27:46, Mark 15:34, John 20:17
13. There is not a single verse that would indicate or suggest that God the Father was crucified, or that They were crucified together, or that all three were crucified. Christ the God was crucified and ascended to His Father and took his place on a throne...at the right hand of His Father, His God, God Almighty. The storyline does not suggest that Christ is talking to Himself when He is talking to His Father.
14. Matthew 20:20….Mark 10:35…When asked by the mother of John and James if they could sit on the right and the left of Christ in the kingdom to come, One of the things Christ said to her (them) was “....this is not Mine to give....” This would indicate that it was someone else’s to give...another God...Not Himself and higher authority. This point is further exemplified by John 3:35 The Father loves the Son, and hath given all things into His hands. John 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come forth from God, and was going back to God; >>> Definitely defining two persons, giving and receiving occurs between two persons and so does coming from and going back to. These verses indicate hierarchy and individuality. God the Father had the authority to give, you will never see where Yeshua gave authority to His Father.
15. If the conversation includes an element of surprise, like when Yeshua was on the cross and asked His Father why He had forsaken Him. This would be strong evidence of individuality. Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:4
16. If the conversation indicates disparity of location and movement between the two deities, such as ascended to my Father, I came forth from the Father, or was sent by the Father, or because I go to the Father, this would all indicate individuality, hierarchy, and different location.
17. If one knows something that the other does not, like in Matt. 24:36 where Yeshua said, He did not know when the “end of the age” would occur, only the Father knew. This definitely indicates individuality and is conclusive proof that we are not talking about a single mind.
18. If the Son was sent by the Father. This indicates individuality and hierarchy of authority. One person sent somewhere by another. You will never read that Yeshua sent the Father anywhere.
continued....
5. If the conversation is in the form of a pray. For example; Our Father which art in Heaven.....But the Son was standing before them. This indicates individuality and hierarchy.
6. If one God refers to Himself or others refer to Him as the Father and the other God refers to Himself or others refer to Him as the Son; This indicates individuality and hierarchy. This is particularly significant because this is a self defined and self described definition by God Himself. God decided to define their positions as God the Father and God the Son. God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son…. John 3:16
It was God that chose to describe Himself as a Father, so we could understand our relationship with Him and His relationship with His Son, in human terms. There is a clear authoritative aspect associated with the Father. There is no possible way of mistaking this relationship as equal or the same person. Yeshua was the begotten Son of God. God did not begot Himself.
7. Again, for God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son...John 3:16 There is no part of this verse that suggest that He begot Himself, or sent Himself, or that his Son was Him. The meaning of the verse is that, it took a lot of love for God to offer His real Son as a sacrifice for the world. This verse is talking about two Gods. God the Father and God the Son.
8. If a person can sin against one God worse than the other...as in the case of the un-pardonable sin. This indicates separation of some sort as well as a very special uniqueness in regard to the Holy Spirit. Matthew 12:30-32
9. When Yeshua said, “...the father is greater than I.” John 14:28 --- then this is proof of His understanding of individuality and hierarchy.
10. Then he said, "And do not call anyone on earth your father, for One is your Father, He who is in Heaven. And do not be called leaders, for One is your Leader, that is, Christ." Matthew 23:9-10 This refers to Yahweh as Father and Christ as leader. Similar to other scriptures referring to Christ as the head of the Church.
11. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 1st Corinthians 11:3 This clearly defines hierarchal positions.
12. John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (How many ways does this prove two persons, in two places, God the Son referring to His Father as His God.) Matt. 27:46, Mark 15:34, John 20:17
13. There is not a single verse that would indicate or suggest that God the Father was crucified, or that They were crucified together, or that all three were crucified. Christ the God was crucified and ascended to His Father and took his place on a throne...at the right hand of His Father, His God, God Almighty. The storyline does not suggest that Christ is talking to Himself when He is talking to His Father.
14. Matthew 20:20….Mark 10:35…When asked by the mother of John and James if they could sit on the right and the left of Christ in the kingdom to come, One of the things Christ said to her (them) was “....this is not Mine to give....” This would indicate that it was someone else’s to give...another God...Not Himself and higher authority. This point is further exemplified by John 3:35 The Father loves the Son, and hath given all things into His hands. John 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come forth from God, and was going back to God; >>> Definitely defining two persons, giving and receiving occurs between two persons and so does coming from and going back to. These verses indicate hierarchy and individuality. God the Father had the authority to give, you will never see where Yeshua gave authority to His Father.
15. If the conversation includes an element of surprise, like when Yeshua was on the cross and asked His Father why He had forsaken Him. This would be strong evidence of individuality. Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:4
16. If the conversation indicates disparity of location and movement between the two deities, such as ascended to my Father, I came forth from the Father, or was sent by the Father, or because I go to the Father, this would all indicate individuality, hierarchy, and different location.
17. If one knows something that the other does not, like in Matt. 24:36 where Yeshua said, He did not know when the “end of the age” would occur, only the Father knew. This definitely indicates individuality and is conclusive proof that we are not talking about a single mind.
18. If the Son was sent by the Father. This indicates individuality and hierarchy of authority. One person sent somewhere by another. You will never read that Yeshua sent the Father anywhere.
continued....