Was the Trinity included in Jesus’ gospel?

[Jake]

I have read your post twice, I still have no idea how you came to this conclusion.

It IS true that a believer who has the indwelling Holy Spirit is NOT the Holy Spirit, but that itself DOES NOT mean that Christ is not God.


The old and new Testament carry the theme of Christ being God thru out the entire book. Read John 14.

I'ts sort of entertaining to see how non-tritarians try to piece meal the Bible in order to make their claim. When one reads the Bible from Gen - Rev, it's not hard to miss all the references to the trinity.
I have debated this enough to know, when people get to this point, only through the Holy Spirit can they be taught the truth and nothing I say, point to, etc will change their minds.

 

[John Zain]

A clear statement of Jesus being God would be (oddly enough) “He is God.â€
Some form of this clear statement should be repeated over and over throughout the NT
since it would certainly be new, essential information for the people of the Bible
and necessary for future Christians (John 17:3; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).

Jesus did not proclaim God’s truths clearly (He taught in parables)

“But without a parable He did not speak to them (the multitudes).
And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples.†Mark 4:34

“To you (disciples) it has been given to know the mysteries (secret-hidden
truths) of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables,
that ‘Seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.’ †Luke 8:10

And this ties in totally with why the other NT writers did not scream "Jesus is God" from the roof-tops.
God saw to it that these people followed the Holy Spirit in their writings.

So, there are dozens of verses teaching that God chooses His elect,
and hides spiritual truth from others.

1 Corinthians Chapter 1 is an incredible explanation of this business of
God taking delight in the non-elect seeing His gospel as "foolishness".

 

[teddy trueblood]

Hi, Pizzaguy,

In trying to keep my study of this scripture down to a reasonable length, I left out the examination of theotes which the KJV rendered “Godhead†in the Elizabethan English of 1611. In reality the word meant at that time “godhood“ or “divinity.â€

Even in modern English we see that
"Godhead" has various meanings in modern English besides that of "the nature of God esp. when regarded as triune." In Webster’s 3rd New International Dictionary (Unabridged) the #1 definition is "the quality or state of being divine" - 1962 ed.

"divine" ... 1a: of or relating to God: proceeding from God ... b: of or relating to a god: having the nature of a god .... 2a: devoted or addressed to God: religious, holy, sacred .... 3a: Supremely good or admirable ... b: having a sublime or inspired character" - Webst. 3rd New Int.

But the comparisons given of those having the fulness of God or Christ or anything else does not make them that with which they are filled. Even today someone “filled with the Devil†is certainly not actually the Devil! Jesus having the fulness of divinity does not make him God anymore than Christians who can be "filled with" God and receive the "fulness of" God are God.

You wrote: “The old and new Testament carry the theme of Christ being God thru out the entire book. Read John 14.â€

Most people are able to see themes in a long work such as the Bible whether they were really intended or not. But unless the elements of those themes are clearly stated (not merely interpreted), they are more often an effect of our own wishful reasoning than a result of real facts.

I don’t see a clear statement in John 14 declaring Jesus (or the Holy Spirit) to be God. Perhaps you can point out what I’m missing there.

 

[teddy trueblood]

In the past 21+ years I have butted heads with quite a few Oneness believer/teachers. The over all view I have continually received from them is the lack of using the complete Bible meaning that they draw on particular portions and simply ignore the rest and seem to refuse to study Jewish Customs of the period.

As mentioned there are several instances in the Gospels of the New Testament that couple with the Gospel of Isaiah to substantiate that the Christ, Jesus, was God and is God. My particular favorite of all is John 1:1-3. We all know that God spoke the Heavens and the Earth into existence and we all know and this passage confirms that nothing was created that was not created by Jesus, that would include every word of the Bible, His revelation of Himself to us.

God bless and I pray this does not become some silly girlish argument but will remain an intelligent conversation.

Hi, Taylor!

I'd be happy to discuss John 1:1c with you. I have a lot of information I'd like to share, much of it my own original examination of John's use of "God" and parallel constructions to that which he used at John 1:1c.

If you are willing to discuss John 1:1 with me, perhaps we should do it on a one-to-one discussion. If done fairly and properly, it will end up being quite lengthy with just the two of us.

Sincerely,

Ted

 

[Free]

Hi, Taylor!

I'd be happy to discuss John 1:1c with you. I have a lot of information I'd like to share, much of it my own original examination of John's use of "God" and parallel constructions to that which he used at John 1:1c.

If you are willing to discuss John 1:1 with me, perhaps we should do it on a one-to-one discussion. If done fairly and properly, it will end up being quite lengthy with just the two of us.

Sincerely,

Ted

John's use of "God"? If he doesn't mean God, what else could he mean? The context of John 1:1-3 (and I would include vs 14) leaves very little room for an interpretation other than Jesus' eternal pre-existence, which also happens to be in perfect agreement with at least a couple of other NT passages.

 

[Mike]

Teddy, with all due respect, you're not the first member to march out a laundry list of "evidence" that Jesus was/is not God Incarnate, saying he arrived at this in the course of his own studies, and you won't be the last. The Divinity of Christ is the most fundamental tenet of the Christian faith. It was one thing to ask if it would be okay to discuss what you've learned about Trinitarianism. But then to launch a campaign to discredit the very most fundamental of Truths is taking it to another level.

I spent lengthy threads with a similar person a long time ago, all the while wondering why he would consider himself a Christian and reject this very thing. The prophecies of "Emmanuel", the fact that He was the only One to forgive sins and then commission His disciples to do the same, the fact that the Jewish leaders would be led to stone Him for His claims, and the scriptures (yes, John 1) that speak to his Divinity aren't enough. Okay. But, I'll never understand what moves such a person to claim Christianity.

I appreciate your zeal, but IMO it is displaced. It's also quite arrogant to profess that you will soundly defeat our belief in His Divinity with a water-tight case. I honestly don't mean to rail on you, but as Ecclesiastes says, nothing new under the sun.

 

[Free]

The Divinity of Christ is the most fundamental tenet of the Christian faith. It was one thing to ask if it would be okay to discuss what you've learned about Trinitarianism. But then to launch a campaign to discredit the very most fundamental of Truths is taking it to another level.

I spent lengthy threads with a similar person a long time ago, all the while wondering why he would consider himself a Christian and reject this very thing. The prophecies of "Emmanuel", the fact that He was the only One to forgive sins and then commission His disciples to do the same, the fact that the Jewish leaders would be led to stone Him for His claims, and the scriptures (yes, John 1) that speak to his Divinity aren't enough. Okay. But, I'll never understand what moves such a person to claim Christianity.

Well said Mike. I would argue that if Jesus isn't God, then there is either a limited salvation, salvation for very few, or we are each responsible for our own salvation. To put it another way, his sacrifice would have been woefully inadequate.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Teddy, with all due respect, you're not the first member to march out a laundry list of "evidence" that Jesus was/is not God Incarnate, saying he arrived at this in the course of his own studies, and you won't be the last. The Divinity of Christ is the most fundamental tenet of the Christian faith. It was one thing to ask if it would be okay to discuss what you've learned about Trinitarianism. But then to launch a campaign to discredit the very most fundamental of Truths is taking it to another level.

I spent lengthy threads with a similar person a long time ago, all the while wondering why he would consider himself a Christian and reject this very thing. The prophecies of "Emmanuel", the fact that He was the only One to forgive sins and then commission His disciples to do the same, the fact that the Jewish leaders would be led to stone Him for His claims, and the scriptures (yes, John 1) that speak to his Divinity aren't enough. Okay. But, I'll never understand what moves such a person to claim Christianity.

I appreciate your zeal, but IMO it is displaced. It's also quite arrogant to profess that you will soundly defeat our belief in His Divinity with a water-tight case. I honestly don't mean to rail on you, but as Ecclesiastes says, nothing new under the sun.

Hi, Mike.

I'm saddened by your attitude. I don't understand why I should be accused of arrogance. Where have I professed that I will soundly defeat your belief in the Divinity of Jesus? It is not my wish to harm or insult anyone. I strongly believe in a certain aspect of scripture and you strongly disagree. This particular knowledge leads to eternal life. So what is the problem with discussing everything that applies to the knowledge of who is God from clear scriptures? I could just as fairly argue that some others here are arrogant in their trinitarian 'laundry lists,' couldn't I?

I have produced very little in my "laundry list" and what I have has been respectfully submitted and basically ignored.

Sorry I upset you,

Ted

 

[theLords]

Ted, are you a Jehovah's Witness?

 

[teddy trueblood]

Ha Adonim,

I'm a staunch non-trinitarian. That's all I wish to discuss.

I was a trinitarian as a youth, but in my 30's I took on a challenge to prove exactly who the God that we are to worship in truth really is. After about 11 years of this study, I could no longer remain a trinitarian. So that is the real issue with me. Any church I may join would have to be non-trinitarian, but it is irrelevant to my discussions.

Sincerely,
Ted

 

[theLords]

Why don't you want to discuss it? Why not be open about it? Are you a Jehovah's Witness, Ted, yes or no? Don't you think you should be upfront about it if you are? Or say that you are not, if you indeed are not? Don't you think we here at Christianforums.net should know who we are talking to?

 

[teddy trueblood]

Why don't you want to discuss it? Why not be open about it? Are you a Jehovah's Witness, Ted, yes or no? Don't you think you should be upfront about it if you are? Or say that you are not, if you indeed are not? Don't you think we here at Christianforums.net should know who we are talking to?

I have told you in my last post who I am. I see no reason to side-track a discussion of essential knowledge because of personal matters.

I intend to discuss the knowledge of who God and Jesus are. I don’t intend to ask others about their personal matters.

Instead of going after my personal life, why not respond to the few questions I have asked (which still remain unanswered).

As I wrote in post #30 above:

The Jews rounded up some false witnesses to make up lies to obtain a death sentence for Jesus. Not even one of these [nor the Jewish authorities themselves] made a claim that he was God or equally God.

John summed up his whole Gospel by saying that it was written that we may believe "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." There is no mention in that summary of his entire Gospel of what would be the most important thing of all - that Jesus is God!

Jesus taught in synagogues and the temple. This would never happen if any of the authorities believed he claimed to be God (or that his followers believed such a thing).

After Jesus' death and for the remainder of that first century (at least), Jesus' followers taught in Jewish synagogues. Again, this would not have been allowed if there were any suspicion that these Christians believed Jesus to be God.

There is no clear, undisputed scripture plainly stating that Jesus is God. This should be (if true) just as important as telling us hundreds of times in clear, undisputed scriptures that the Father is God.

Further, Peter wrote that God does not want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9, NRSV). Also Jesus prayed that correct knowledge of God and Jesus is eternal life (John 17:3) and conversely, Paul wrote that those who do not know God and obey Jesus may be eternally destroyed (2 Thess. 1:8-9, NRSV).


Doesn’t it seem that if the knowledge of God is so important that it may mean one’s destruction that the God who wants no one to perish would make it as plain that Jesus (and the HS) is God (if true) as he has for the knowledge that the Father is God?

Sincerely,

Ted

 

[theLords]

I have told you in my last post who I am. I see no reason to side-track a discussion of essential knowledge because of personal matters.

I intend to discuss the knowledge of who God and Jesus are. I don’t intend to ask others about their personal matters.

Instead of going after my personal life, why not respond to the few questions I have asked (which still remain unanswered).

As I wrote in post #30 above:

The Jews rounded up some false witnesses to make up lies to obtain a death sentence for Jesus. Not even one of these [nor the Jewish authorities themselves] made a claim that he was God or equally God.

John summed up his whole Gospel by saying that it was written that we may believe "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." There is no mention in that summary of his entire Gospel of what would be the most important thing of all - that Jesus is God!

Jesus taught in synagogues and the temple. This would never happen if any of the authorities believed he claimed to be God (or that his followers believed such a thing).

After Jesus' death and for the remainder of that first century (at least), Jesus' followers taught in Jewish synagogues. Again, this would not have been allowed if there were any suspicion that these Christians believed Jesus to be God.

There is no clear, undisputed scripture plainly stating that Jesus is God. This should be (if true) just as important as telling us hundreds of times in clear, undisputed scriptures that the Father is God.

Further, Peter wrote that God does not want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9, NRSV). Also Jesus prayed that correct knowledge of God and Jesus is eternal life (John 17:3) and conversely, Paul wrote that those who do not know God and obey Jesus may be eternally destroyed (2 Thess. 1:8-9, NRSV).


Doesn’t it seem that if the knowledge of God is so important that it may mean one’s destruction that the God who wants no one to perish would make it as plain that Jesus (and the HS) is God (if true) as he has for the knowledge that the Father is God?

Sincerely,

Ted

The fact that you refuse to be honest about such information is troublesome. Only those with something to hide, are dishonest. All I'm asking for is your honesty, are you, yes or no, a Jehovah's Witness? Simple, yes or no, that is all. Are you a Jehovah's Witness, yes or no? It's not like I'm asking you about your sex life, I'm simply asking you if you are a Jehovah's Witness. Why scuttle around the issue? Why hide behind words? Why not be honest about it? If you are, you are, if you are not, you are not. No biggie.

 

[Mike]

Hi, Mike.

I'm saddened by your attitude. I don't understand why I should be accused of arrogance.

If I have an attitude, I'd like to think that it's a righteous attitude. The Name of Jesus is the most important thing in my life, and when I see people attempt to remove Him from His Throne, I get upset. Then there's the aspect that you have joined a Biblical Christian discussion board with an agenda to vehemently argue that Jesus is not fully God. I believe that's arrogance in and of itself. I can understand that you see those opposing you as arrogant in their faith, but you took it upon yourself to join and convince us that a core tenet of our belief is not true. That's pretty bold.

If you came here and said, "This is what I'm seeing in scripture... What do you think?" or had the approach to discuss it, I would have been all in. But, what I saw was, "Trinitarians are wrong. Jesus is NOT God. Here's why...".

BTW, if I were a JW and convinced of my faith, I would want everyone to know who I was. If I joined another religion's discussion board and someone asked me if I was a Christian, you could be certain I would give a resounding...

YES!!!
​

 

[teddy trueblood]

I have told you in my last post who I am. I see no reason to side-track a discussion of essential knowledge because of personal matters.

I intend to discuss the knowledge of who God and Jesus are. I don’t intend to ask others about their personal matters.

Instead of going after my personal life, why not respond to the few questions I have asked (which still remain unanswered).

As I wrote in post #30 above:

The Jews rounded up some false witnesses to make up lies to obtain a death sentence for Jesus. Not even one of these [nor the Jewish authorities themselves] made a claim that he was God or equally God.

John summed up his whole Gospel by saying that it was written that we may believe "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." There is no mention in that summary of his entire Gospel of what would be the most important thing of all - that Jesus is God!

Jesus taught in synagogues and the temple. This would never happen if any of the authorities believed he claimed to be God (or that his followers believed such a thing).

After Jesus' death and for the remainder of that first century (at least), Jesus' followers taught in Jewish synagogues. Again, this would not have been allowed if there were any suspicion that these Christians believed Jesus to be God.

There is no clear, undisputed scripture plainly stating that Jesus is God. This should be (if true) just as important as telling us hundreds of times in clear, undisputed scriptures that the Father is God.

Further, Peter wrote that God does not want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9, NRSV). Also Jesus prayed that correct knowledge of God and Jesus is eternal life (John 17:3) and conversely, Paul wrote that those who do not know God and obey Jesus may be eternally destroyed (2 Thess. 1:8-9, NRSV).


Doesn’t it seem that if the knowledge of God is so important that it may mean one’s destruction that the God who wants no one to perish would make it as plain that Jesus (and the HS) is God (if true) as he has for the knowledge that the Father is God?

Sincerely,

Ted

Call me whatever you want (you're off to a good start already), but how about actually discussing the important issue at hand?

No one has replied to the simple questions asked above (repeatedly).

Why?

Is there anyone here who is willing to properly discuss trinity vs. non-trinity?

 

[stovebolts]

Jesus did not proclaim God’s truths clearly (He taught in parables)

“But without a parable He did not speak to them (the multitudes).
And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples.” Mark 4:34

“To you (disciples) it has been given to know the mysteries (secret-hidden
truths) of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables,
that ‘Seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.’ ” Luke 8:10

And this ties in totally with why the other NT writers did not scream "Jesus is God" from the roof-tops.
God saw to it that these people followed the Holy Spirit in their writings.

So, there are dozens of verses teaching that God chooses His elect,
and hides spiritual truth from others.

1 Corinthians Chapter 1 is an incredible explanation of this business of
God taking delight in the non-elect seeing His gospel as "foolishness".

NO offence, but I don't think Jesus was teaching in the above parables anything about his diety let alone the elect...

First off, the parables above are Kingdom parables where Judgment language from the Major's is mentioned, and rightly so. However, it is much more than that because Jesus is saying that the Kingdom has come in an unexpected way, and that the Kingdom is present among the evil that is still around.

The Jews were expecting the Messiah to be a great military leader, much in the way we expect to view Jesus on his second coming. Jesus assured them that Judgment day was still coming... but it had not come yet, and the Kingdom was present and active.

To use those parables to support the Trinity is a gross mis-use of the main intent which Jesus was tryign to convey.

Just had to say that...

Perhaps a bible study on these parables is in order?...

God bless :waving

 

[stovebolts]

The debate over the Trinity has been going on for well over a thousand years and it's not going to be won today either.

History shows us that the Coptics didn't find an interest in the idea of the Trinity, while the Orthodox and Roman Catholic's disputed over the format of the trinity in the form of a triangle, or an upside down triangle.

About the best we can do is present our views on scriptures, and respect our fellow brother for where they are at. If it gets too heated, we need to learn to kick the dust off our heels and continue on.



Grace and Peace.

 

[Free]

Call me whatever you want (you're off to a good start already), but how about actually discussing the important issue at hand?

No one has replied to the simple questions asked above (repeatedly).

Why?

Is there anyone here who is willing to properly discuss trinity vs. non-trinity?

Doesn’t it seem that if the knowledge of God is so important that it may mean one’s destruction that the God who wants no one to perish would make it as plain that Jesus (and the HS) is God (if true) as he has for the knowledge that the Father is God?

I don't think it was necessary for Jesus to explicitly say so but he did imply it. The writers of the NT do make it much more clear.

 

[John Zain]

NO offence, but I don't think Jesus was teaching in the above parables anything about his diety let alone the elect ... To use those parables to support the Trinity is a gross mis-use of the main intent which Jesus was
trying to convey.

I'd sure like to know where and when I said this, 'cause I sure don't believe it.

Now, while I'm here ...

I'm a most solid believer in the Trinity.
But, I seem to have forgotten: Why did Jesus have to be God to pay for our sins?
All I can see now is that God had to produce a sinless human to die in our place.
The Holy Spirit performed the function of being Jesus' Father, and Jesus
(not having our sin nature) was able to live without sin for 33 years.
Hence, God had Himself the perfect sinless blood sacrifice as atonement for our sins.

What am I missing here, what have I forgotten, etc.?
Where does it say that Messiah-Redeemer-Savior had to be God?

 

[teddy trueblood]

I'd sure like to know where and when I said this, 'cause I sure don't believe it.

Now, while I'm here ...

I'm a most solid believer in the Trinity.
But, I seem to have forgotten: Why did Jesus have to be God to pay for our sins?
All I can see now is that God had to produce a sinless human to die in our place.
The Holy Spirit performed the function of being Jesus' Father, and Jesus
(not having our sin nature) was able to live without sin for 33 years.
Hence, God had Himself the perfect sinless blood sacrifice as atonement for our sins.

What am I missing here, what have I forgotten, etc.?
Where does it say that Messiah-Redeemer-Savior had to be God?

Absolutely correct! Not only is there no scripture showing that the Messiah was to be God (quite the opposite actually, e.g., Micah 5:2-4), but the Jews never understood the Messiah to be God or equal somehow to God.

Any perfect person sent by God who remained faithful could have been sacrificed for Adamic sin.