The Trinity?

[epaminondas]

Equality among the members of the trinity is one of the essential pillars of the trinitarian dogma. One of the passages most frequently quoted to support equality between Jesus and the Father is this:

Quote:

WEBME: Philippians 2:6. who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Now the Greek word for the "thing to be grasped" phrase is harpagmon. It's used only once in the Bible - this instance. So, what does it mean?

Quote:

Cognate: 725 harpagmós – to seize, especially by an open display of force

It's root word means:

Quote:

the act of seizing or the thing seized

So what's the difference between "seize" and "grasp?" Both from dictionary.com

Quote:

seize

/siz/

verb (used with object)

1. to take hold of suddenly or forcibly; grasp: to seize a weapon.

2. to grasp mentally; understand clearly and completely: to seize an idea.

3. to take possession of by force or at will: to seize enemy ships.

4. to take possession or control of as if by suddenly laying hold: Panic seized the crowd.

5. to take possession of by legal authority; confiscate: to seize smuggled goods.

Quote:

grasp

/græsp, grɑsp/

verb (used with object)

1. to seize and hold by or as if by clasping with the fingers or arms.

2. to seize upon; hold firmly.

In short, ones seizes something one doesn't already have and one grasps something either in the sense of clinging onto something one already has or one seizes it and then hangs on to it.

It appears "seize" is a better fit for the Greek word - see the quote from the Cognate. Therefore a true meaning of this verse would most likely be Jesus did not want to seize equality with the Father with force, as Satan wanted to do, but instead moved to a lower plane, becoming a human.

Now ask yourself, doesn't this look like intentional mistranslation?

Using this passage to establish equality between Jesus and the Father is therefore grasping at a straw. But such is the nature of arguments in support of the trinity.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Is Jesus Christ denying His deity? Is He saying that He is a false god?

Jesus never claimed to be God. Surely he would have clearly stated something so important and not have used the roundabout ways trinitarians claim he used to establish that fact.

When Jesus asked his disciples who they said he was and Peter answered that Jesus was the Son of God, did Jesus say "no, no, no, Peter. You are wrong. I am God!" There was an excellent opportunity to put things straight.

When the Jews in John 10:33 accused Jesus of claiming to be God, he corrected them in verse 36 and said he had claimed to be "the Son of God." Why would Jesus do this if he was God?

Surely you must see the frailness of the trinitarian arguments and the strong Biblical statements nullifying the precepts of the trinity. This is so obvious.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Everything the Bible says about the Father, it also says about the Son.

The Son said the Father was greater than him (the Son) and that his (the Son's) God was the Father. Does the Bible say this about the Father?

[epaminondas]

So it is quite evident that a "certain" kind of Bible understanding leads to the belief that:

1) Trinity is not Biblical and

2) The ordination of women is not Biblical

Correct. But it's not a "certain" kind of Bible understanding. It's reading the Bible as it is. It's not endless blah-blahing about this hot-air concept or that. It's sticking with Biblical facts. It's not claiming things in the Bible do not say what they seem to say, but say what they don't seem to say (that's the height of theological learning).

Unfortunately this won't get better. Theology is out of favour and attracts only second rate minds nowadays. Seminaries are often near empty. This bodes well for the trinity.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

You could make the same argument about the Bible, because both anti-Trinitarians and Trinitarians use the Bible in support of their views, do they not?

Neither of them use the total Bible as support because there is a lot in the Bible not addressing this topic. The parts unitarians use are clear and solid as opposed to the vague and contentious parts the trinitarians use. If Ellen White said things equally in support and equally against the trinity, she was ambivalent and not to be trusted.

Ellen White claimed, among other things, that the pig is in some way important in the spread of Leprosy. The pig is known not to be a vector of Leprosy. The Armadillo is. It is known she made obvious mistakes. Therefore I take what she says with more than a pinch of salt and don't study her.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

I have not read much of this thread but that exchange above appears to "say it all".

The idea that Christians differ in Bible doctrine being proof that "God did not express Himself clearly in the Bible" and the supposed proof being "because the Bible says things that have been interepreted both ways" - demonstrates the failing point in the argument against the triune God of the Bible.

We are left then to conclude in favor of the Bible teaching in Col 1 that "in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead" and Christ said that "HE" the Holy Spirit "when HE comes will guide you into all truth for HE will speak of Me" John 16 and this is what Christ offers as a "ANOTHER Comforter" John 14 - another teacher and guide such as was Christ to the disciples!

Ellen White said clearly - the Holy Spirit is "THE THIRD PERSON of the Godhead" and this is such a pointed statement that not once do you see it promoted by those who deny the Bible teaching on the Triune Godhead to make their case - no not even once.

It just does not get any simpler and easier than that.

in Christ,

Bob

You will believe in the trinity no matter what.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Why did I find it so uncomfortable to pray to the Holy Spirit if the HS is a person?

Maybe because Jesus said you should pray to the Father - our Father who is in heaven...

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Good!

I admire you, John317 for persevering in discussion on subjects like the Tri-Une character and Being of God. It must be very exhausting, and very frustrating to speak into ears that hearing, sit too high in their heads to listen.

SO MANY PROTESTANT saints are there who have masterly reasoned on God who is One in Three Persons, and on Christ's Divinity. But irks who don't know the first things of how to handle the Sword of the Word, will always storm their own straw-dog-trinities with great bravado and fanfare.

Gerhard, jy maak my skaam on Afrikaans te wees.

[Gibs]

If God is 3 persons, then you would have 3 Gods. That won't stand to scripture,

Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[phkrause]

Quote:

Is Jesus Christ denying His deity? Is He saying that He is a false god?

Jesus never claimed to be God. Surely he would have clearly stated something so important and not have used the roundabout ways trinitarians claim he used to establish that fact.

Than why did Jesus say to his disciples that if you've seen me you've seen the father?

[BobRyan]

It is evident that "a certain kind of Bible understanding" leads to the Belief that the Ten Commandments are still applicable to mankind today, that the 7th day is the Sabbath, that the earth and all life on it was created in a literal 7 day week and that the Sabbath is on Saturday not Sunday. I t also leads to the understanding that Christ was born of a virgin and rose bodily from the dead and that man is not immortal.

How "instructive".

in Christ,

Bob

[Gibs]

Johann,

I am absolutely anti-trinity, and in no way have I ever rejected that a woman should not be ordained.

To me that is God's business, it is my business to recognize that He has. EGW was one and there may have been some since, but not here in my locale that I've heard.

If Christ dwells within, in just a few minutes into the meat of the presentation they give, one can see and know of whom they are.

Some are truly not converted yet, but got into it merely to make a living.

I studied with a young man for a bit who was studying to be a priest and that was his object, to get into something that would be an easy "good" life for him.

Men hold ordination services, but not in most cases to recognize God has sent them but ordain of themselves which is worthless. Ordained to suit the their theology or of the church which is faulty.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[John317]

John317: if you can cite where you explained how the HS is a person when the Bible and Ellen White each say the counsel was made among TWO.

The fact that the counsel of peace was made between the Father and Christ is no evidence that the Holy Spirit is not a divine person and a part of the eternal Godhead. Ellen White says without question that the Holy Spirit is a part of the eternal Godhead and that He is a person and that He feels pity for humanity and that He gave Himself to the working out of the plan of redemption.

Matt 28: 19, among others, proves that the Holy Spirit is a person as much as the Father and Christ are persons. Ellen White unmistakably supports this in the following paragraphs:

Quote:

The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit gave Themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption. In order fully to carry out this plan, it was decided that Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, should give Himself an offering for sin. What line can measure the depth of this love? God would make it impossible for man to say that He could have done more. With Christ He gave all the resources of heaven, that nothing might be wanting in the plan for man's uplifting. Here is love--the contemplation of which should fill the soul with inexpressible gratitude! {CH 222, 223}

Notice in this quote, Ellen White defines the "eternal Godhead" as being comprised of "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost":

Quote:

The eternal Godhead--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost--is involved in the action required to make assurance to the human agent, . . . confederating the heavenly powers with the human that man may become, through heavenly efficiency, partakers of the divine nature and workers together with Christ. {UL 148.4}

--Manuscript 45, May 14, 1904, "That They All May Be One." {UL 148.5}

Quote:

The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour. There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers --the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ.-- Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, pp. 62, 63. (1905) {Ev 615.1}

Quote:

There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ.-- Evangelism, p. 615. {7ABC 441, 442}

Quote:

Those who have by baptism given to God a pledge of their faith in Christ, and their death to the old life of sin, have entered into covenant relation with God. The three powers of the Godhead, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are pledged to be their strength and their efficiency in their new life in Christ Jesus. {AUCR, October 7, 1907 par. 9}

Quote:

The rite of baptism is administered in the name of the Father, and of Son, and of the Holy Ghost. These three great powers of heaven pledge themselves to be the efficiency of all who submit to this ordinance, and who faithfully keep the vow they then make. Ms 78, 1905, pp. 3-5. ("A Message to Believers," undated.)Also 6 MR #347

[John317]

Philippians 2:6. who, existing in the form of God, didnt consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Now the Greek word for the "thing to be grasped" phrase is harpagmon. It's used only once in the Bible - this instance. So, what does it mean?

Quote:

Cognate: 725 harpagmós to seize, especially by an open display of force

It's root word means:

Quote:

the act of seizing or the thing seized

....It appears "seize" is a better fit for the Greek word - see the quote from the Cognate. Therefore a true meaning of this verse would most likely be Jesus did not want to seize equality with the Father with force, as Satan wanted to do, but instead moved to a lower plane, becoming a human.

Now ask yourself, doesn't this look like intentional mistranslation?

Using this passage to establish equality between Jesus and the Father is therefore grasping at a straw. But such is the nature of arguments in support of the Trinity.

You make the same poor argument that can be found thousands of times in the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Let's look more closely at the argument.

For one thing, it would mean that Paul is saying Jesus is our example because He chose not to be a thief. He refused to steal. Is that why Christ is our example? Of course not.

Actually, Paul is saying that Jesus is our example because He chose to give up His position as God in heaven and descend to the level of a servant.

See Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testatment Words, page 887, under "Prize." There it is explained that the passive sense gives the following sense: "Who though He was subsisting in the essentail form of God, yet did not regard His being on an equality of glory and majesty with God as a prize and a treasure to be held fast, but emptied himself thereof."

The verse plainly tells us that Christ was in the form of God. "Form" means that Christ was actually God. It doesn't mean Christ merely appeared to be God but was not really God. Notice that it also says that Christ took the form of a human being, by which it means that Christ was really a human. It isn't saying Christ merely appeared to be human but was not actually human.

So Paul is saying that Christ is our example in that He gave up a position that was equal with God the Father in order to die for our sins. We are asked to imitate Him in His unselfishness, not because He refused to steal something that wasn't His, but because He refused to stay in heaven as God while humanity perished.

[joeb]

So Paul is saying that Christ is our example in that He gave up a position that was equal with God the Father in order to die for our sins. We are asked to imitate Him in His unselfishness, not because He refused to steal something that wasn't His, but because He refused to stay in heaven as God while humanity perished.

Absolutely. No other argument makes sense in the light of why Christ was here on earth.

[Gibs]

And would add this verse to consider,

Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[BobRyan]

The verse plainly tells us that Christ was in the form of God. "Form" means that Christ was actually God. It doesn't mean Christ merely appeared to be God but was not really God. Notice that it also says that Christ took the form of a human being, by which it means that Christ was really a human. It isn't saying Christ merely appeared to be human but was not actually human.

So Paul is saying that Christ is our example in that He gave up a position that was equal with God the Father in order to die for our sins. We are asked to imitate Him in His unselfishness, not because He refused to steal something that wasn't His, but because He refused to stay in heaven as God while humanity perished.

Indeed - the text says HE was in the form of God - and then was in the FORM of Man.

If one is going to claim that "in the FORM of God" is NOT God then they are left with "in the FORM of man" being NOT MAN.

The JW argument always falls apart at that point.

in Christ,

Bob

[joeb]

And would add this verse to consider,

Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

How do you get from that verse to your position on the nature of Christ? I really don't see how it is possible. This is the incarnated Christ speaking. Of course He came forth from His Heavenly Father.... No other truthful statement from Him is possible.

[epaminondas]

Than why did Jesus say to his disciples that if you've seen me you've seen the father?

For the same reason my mother used to say that if you've seen one circus (big tent, animals, high wire artists) you've seen them all.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

The verse plainly tells us that Christ was in the form of God. "Form" means that Christ was actually God.

What a stretch! On such rests the trinitarian concept.

[phkrause]

For the same reason my mother used to say that if you've seen one circus (big tent, animals, high wire artists) you've seen them all.

So now your comparing Jesus and his Father to the circus?? But I guess in a sense your right!! Jesus and his Father are one, in there love for humanity and would love it, if all could be saved.

[epaminondas]

You make the same poor argument that can be found thousands of times in the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Let's look more closely at the argument.

For one thing, it would mean that Paul is saying Jesus is our example because He chose not to be a thief. He refused to steal. Is that why Christ is our example? Of course not.

Actually, Paul is saying that Jesus is our example because He chose to give up His position as God in heaven and descend to the level of a servant.

See Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testatment Words, page 887, under "Prize." There it is explained that the passive sense gives the following sense: "Who though He was subsisting in the essentail form of God, yet did not regard His being on an equality of glory and majesty with God as a prize and a treasure to be held fast, but emptied himself thereof."

The verse plainly tells us that Christ was in the form of God. "Form" means that Christ was actually God. It doesn't mean Christ merely appeared to be God but was not really God. Notice that it also says that Christ took the form of a human being, by which it means that Christ was really a human. It isn't saying Christ merely appeared to be human but was not actually human.

So Paul is saying that Christ is our example in that He gave up a position that was equal with God the Father in order to die for our sins. We are asked to imitate Him in His unselfishness, not because He refused to steal something that wasn't His, but because He refused to stay in heaven as God while humanity perished.

[epaminondas]

Trump this, trinitarians

Quote:

WEBME: John 17:3. This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Yeshua the Messiah.

Even a moron will know that a direct Biblical statement trumps one that relies on a deduction - a deduction may be wrong. So, don't even try that.

Also, John 17:3 is not alone in direct Biblical statements negating essential concepts of the trinity.

Oh, yes. To trump John 17:3 you'll also have to pull its teeth, figuratively speaking. You can't leave it alive and well, coming back to bite you at any time.

I'm waiting...

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Does the Bible teach Sunday-sacredness? No.

There are millions of Sunday worshipers who'll disagree with you. You know which Biblical passages they'll quote. One favourite is

Quote:

WEBME: Colossians 2:16. Let no one therefore judge you in eating, or in drinking, or with respect to a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath day,

If one then points out to them that in verse 17 it says that the things in verse 16 refer to things "a shadow of things to come" and that they should go back and examine the seventh day Sabbath to see if it points forward or backward (it clearly points backward to the preceding creation and therefore is clearly not intended in verse 16), it rolls off them like John 17:3 rolls off a trinitarian.

[Gibs]

Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.