The Trinity?

[epaminondas]

The swamp of the unknown

We poor humans are in this great big swamp of the Universe about which we know very little. Most of us know only about our close environment and our own time. That's not surprising - that's all we have experience with.

To not fall into the quicksand of falsehood, we have to step only on the stepping stones of fact. Speculation is Satan's tool to lure the unwary into error. Stick with Biblical fact - that which is clear and unambiguous. They are the solid rock Jesus spoke about. Speculating about vague passages will surely lead us into error. This is why there are so many denominations, everyone convinced it is right and the others wrong. Speculation is dangerous.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Read the first chapter of Patriarchs and Prophets, and then see if you can find a way for a non-trinitarian view to fit into the view of the great controversy between Christ and Satan. I, for one, find it impossible.

And you ignore the many Bible passages that invalidate the trinitarian concept and go with Patriarchs and Prophets? I didn't know that Patriarchs and Prophets trumped the Bible. One learns every day.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Is it the Trinitarians' fault? The Bible says there is One God, but identifies 3 persons who are all God. The Bible clearly says Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

Quote a passage that clearly states, in so many words, that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are gods.

Of Jesus:

1. ESV | ýJn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ý2 He was in the beginning with God. ý3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

2. ESV | ýHeb 1:8 But of the Son he [God the Father] says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,

3. ESV | ýPhp 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, ý7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

Of the Holy Spirit:

1. ESV | ýAc 5:3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit .... You have not lied to man but to God.

2. Has the attributes of Deity

a. Omnipotence - distributes spiritual gifts "to each as He wills," 1 Cor 12:11

b. Omnipresence - ESV | ýPs 139:7 Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? ý8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! ý9 If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, ý10 even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.

c. Omniscience - ESV | ý1 Co 2:10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. ý11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

[Gordon1]

I didn't know that Patriarchs and Prophets trumped the Bible. One learns every day.

In fact these passages from Patriarchs & Prophets shed abundant light on the truth of the Godhead.

Here she establishes the foundation for the Conflict Series, in the very opening pages.

This truth is not dependent upon EGW, but revealed through closer examination of the Scripture passages quoted.

[Gordon1]

Originally Posted By: Gordon1

Hey Tony,

At one time Adventists were taught to beware of priests using the phrase:

"You can't understand that - it's a mystery".

Why did they stop?

The same phrase is now being repeated by Adventist teachers.

Some things are a mystery, but not those facts which God and Jesus both emphatically repeat.

Those are meant to be believed, studied and understood.

[Gordon1]

And where is a more confusing theory than the trinity dogma?

The central doctrine of Roman Catholicism, upon which all others are based, she claims.

This would include spiritualism, the immortal soul, Sunday sacredness, idol worship

and all matters of disorder & misrepresentation of the truth.

Perhaps that's why the Trinity doctrine was not accepted into Adventism until

the Dallas General Conference session in 1980.

[skyblue888]

Gordon, it is no mystery that the Bible teaches the doctrine of one God in three Persons but to understand how that can be is a deep mystery.

sky

[phkrause]

Here she establishes the foundation for the Conflict Series, in the very opening pages.

This truth is not dependent upon EGW, but revealed through closer examination of the Scripture passages quoted.

Exactly Gordon!! It seems one reason many don't care for EGW is because she opens up the Bible as never before and for all of us after, so that we can't say "Oh I just don't understand that passage!" She explains many things that without her books we'd really wonder what the heck is going on. If you look at some of the threads you can see my point! The scripture not being understood, but at the same time those same ones condemning EGW, so that they don't have to believe what she has to say about the reasons certain passages are hard to understand.

[Gibs]

The scripture only will stand for 2 persons in the Godhead and that is the Father and His Son born of Mary at Bethlehem.. Jesus Christ the Son of Mary and yet the Son of God was the second and there is no more, period!

Please read this verse, as Jesus states it and I believe Him without questionings!

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Easy one to fathom, God is Spirit and not another God or person. The Holy Spirit is the very person of God, Yahweh,YHWH.

The Father is the Head and Jesus is sure enough another person involved but at the same time must be realized it is the one and only God that dwells in Him, not another God.

He has forthright told us, joh 10:30 I and my Father are ONE!

Read verses 28,29, the context proves what kind of one, yes the numeral 1, stands alone! Yes one Substance! To see Jesus was to see the Father! Joh 14:9

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.

[o2bwise]

Quote:

Read the first chapter of Patriarchs and Prophets, and then see if you can find a way for a non-trinitarian view to fit into the view of the great controversy between Christ and Satan. I, for one, find it impossible.

Now, how can the above text be considered necessarily trinitarian when the third being in authority is Lucifer and the HS is not even mentioned?

She is plain...there was ONE with whom the Father counseled. One.

Blessings,

Tony

[o2bwise]

Gordon, it is no mystery that the Bible teaches the doctrine of one God in three Persons but to understand how that can be is a deep mystery.

Hi sky,

Well, there are those who do not believe it is "a deep mystery," rather that it is a fallacy, irrational, and untruth on the face of it.

I am curious...

Do you believe that each of the three persons have independent consciousness?

If yes, how do you define the word "one" in the term "one God?"

If no, what of the persons who lack independent conscious existence? And how do you define the word "person" given that it can refer to something that lacks independent consciousness?

Blessings,

Tony

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Of Jesus:

1. ESV | ýJn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ý2 He was in the beginning with God. ý3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

2. ESV | ýHeb 1:8 But of the Son he [God the Father] says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,

3. ESV | ýPhp 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, ý7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

Of the Holy Spirit:

1. ESV | ýAc 5:3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit .... You have not lied to man but to God.

2. Has the attributes of Deity

a. Omnipotence - distributes spiritual gifts "to each as He wills," 1 Cor 12:11

b. Omnipresence - ESV | ýPs 139:7 Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? ý8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! ý9 If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, ý10 even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.

c. Omniscience - ESV | ý1 Co 2:10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. ý11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

I've dealt with all these passages on this thread. It's too much to expect me to repeat myself over and over, endlessly. Read my previous posts. John 1:1 is a mistranslation. It represents Jesus as "a god." What better way to represent Jesus to pagans with many gods?

Not one of them says Jesus is the God or the Holy Spirit is the God.

[epaminondas]

Gordon, it is no mystery that the Bible teaches the doctrine of one God in three Persons but to understand how that can be is a deep mystery.

sky

If every bit of nonsense is designated "a deep mystery" to explain its inconsistencies, what is there that couldn't be declared acceptable?

[o2bwise]

Say epaminondas,

Kind'a curious why you did not reply to my post directed to you.

Tony

[John317]

Quote:

NIV84 |Php 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

This is a contentious passage expressed in very unclear wording. What is translated "grasped" really means seize. Follow the link. This is at least the third time I've said it on this thread and either included this link or copied and pasted the text. I am forced to conclude that trinitarians are slow learners.

We should allow the readers on the Forum to decide who the slow-learners are.

The following info has been posted a number of times before but it evidently needs to be posted again.

The Greek word may be translated in the passive or in the active. In the passive, it means something that is grasped or held on to. In the active, it means something to be stolen or seized by violence. See the standard Greek-English lexicons.

The context appears to require the passive, since it's unlikely that the Apostle is saying we ought to copy Christ because he didn't steal something. His message, rather, is that we should copy Christ because He left His position as God in order to come down to this earth and die for us.

If you choose to tranlate it as the Jehovah's Witnesses do, that's your prerogative, but it doesn't mean it's wrong to translate it as the ESV, the Common English and many others do.

"Though He was in the form of God, he did not consider being equal with God something to exploit. But he emptied himself, by taking the form of a slave and by becoming like human beings. When he found himself in the form of a human, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (Common English Bible)

[John317]

The central doctrine of Roman Catholicism, upon which all others are based, she claims.

This would include spiritualism, the immortal soul, Sunday sacredness, idol worship

and all matters of disorder & misrepresentation of the truth.

Should we get rid of a doctrine simply because Catholics teach or believe it?

Remember, Catholics also teach many things that are true.

The test, or standard, is not who teaches something but whether a teaching is supported by Scriptures.

[John317]

I am curious...

Do you believe that each of the three persons have independent consciousness?

The man Jesus of Nazareth certainly had an independent will and an independence consciousness. Christ was/is both God and man.

Originally Posted By: o2bwise

If yes, how do you define the word "one" in the term "one God?"

Didn't God say Adam and Eve were "one flesh"? Yet they were two independent persons, or two independent consciousnesses. Therefore, "one God" does not refer to a single consciousness, but rather it refers to one nature, character, and purpose.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Gordon1

The central doctrine of Roman Catholicism, upon which all others are based, she claims.

This would include spiritualism, the immortal soul, Sunday sacredness, idol worship

and all matters of disorder & misrepresentation of the truth.

Should we get rid of a doctrine simply because Catholics teach or believe it?

Remember, Catholics also teach many things that are true.

The test, or standard, is not who teaches something but whether a teaching is supported by Scriptures.

[Gerr]

Quote:

Of Jesus:

1. ESV | ýJn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ý2 He was in the beginning with God. ý3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

2. ESV | ýHeb 1:8 But of the Son he [God the Father] says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,

3. ESV | ýPhp 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, ý7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

Of the Holy Spirit:

1. ESV | ýAc 5:3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit .... You have not lied to man but to God.

2. Has the attributes of Deity

a. Omnipotence - distributes spiritual gifts "to each as He wills," 1 Cor 12:11

b. Omnipresence - ESV | ýPs 139:7 Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? ý8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! ý9 If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, ý10 even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.

c. Omniscience - ESV | ý1 Co 2:10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. ý11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

I've dealt with all these passages on this thread. It's too much to expect me to repeat myself over and over, endlessly. Read my previous posts. John 1:1 is a mistranslation. It represents Jesus as "a god." What better way to represent Jesus to pagans with many gods?

Not one of them says Jesus is the God or the Holy Spirit is the God.

You ask for clear Bible statements and these are provided. Then you call them mistranslations! I have over a dozen major translations that are pretty much in agreement. I can plainly see the original Greek in 3 different interlinears, and see your explanations are way off. That's why we have so many different churches. Too many ignore the plain words of Scripture!

[epaminondas]

Hi Tony,

Is this what you refer to?

Quote:

No, you do not understand my concept.

By creation process, I refer to HOW it operates in the created realm. And so beget while being a birthing process is a creation process when the event takes place in the created realm and is NOT a creation process when it takes place in the divine realm. In the divine realm, it is a DIVINE process.

THAT is the point of my response to Gerry.

I will not speculate on how a divine process works. I just believe.

I do not take HOW the process works in the created realm and assign that HOW to the divine. I have no problem taking the WHAT and applying it to both because we are told that the WHAT happened.

If you were to understand the concept I am trying to express, there is NO VENUE for discussing HOW the process operates in creation (with any limitations it may have) and than applying that HOW to the divine.

That to me is idolatry. It is right in that place.

It's like another noter said. Eve came from Adam's rib. The noter was not concerned with HOW. He just believed. Because it was God who orchestrated it.

It is in the HOW Ted.

When someone asks HOW it is God could beget (read: the WHAT) a Son without a mother involved (read: the HOW), he has gone where I will not.

He left the what, looked at the how in the created realm and thought to assign the how to the divine.

It's a bit heavy on speculation for my taste. Clearly, beyond a certain point we enter the unknown, like before the creation, a context with no time and no Universe - if that's not outside our knowledge and experience, we know everything. Obviously, we don't.

On the other hand, most likely God is not a verbal cripple and used the best words to describe things. Beget really implies some sort of creation.

Quote:

ACV: Colossians 1:15. who is an image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

In the Greek "firstborn" is nominative singular. Both "all" and "creation" are singular genitive - genitive is the possessive declension. It means something (firstborn) belongs to what is in the genitive (creation). If you say Stavros is the tallest of all Greeks, clearly, Stavros is also a Greek. Now if you say Bjorn is taller than all Greeks, clearly Bjorn is not a Greek. I don't know any Greek, but I'm sure Greek can express the distinction between these two situations, as well. That really makes it look as if Jesus was part of creation.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

context appears to require the passive

Quote:

If you choose to tranlate it as the Jehovah's Witnesses do, that's your prerogative, but it doesn't mean it's wrong to translate it as the ESV, the Common English and many others do.

First the "appears." And then you say it can be translated in more than one way, as indeed it has. In that case you can't take one way as the only way and base an argument on that one way. Because it's contentious, it should not be used, then.

[epaminondas]

How trinitarians operate

This applies to all reasoning, not just the trinity question;

all relevant facts + valid logic = valid conclusion

Often people have a stake in an invalid conclusion. They will then distort the above formula. Some will do this knowingly, others unknowingly. This distortion is known as "crooked thinking."

The first thing trinitarians do is what is known as "cherry picking." That means only taking facts that suit them into account. When it comes to the Bible, a fact is a Biblical statement. A trinitarian will never use "for us there is only one God, the Father" in his argument. Clearly that's relevant in deciding who is God. Of course, that's by far not the only Biblical statement they ignore. It is impossible to reach a valid conclusion without taking all relevant facts into account.

One weighs facts against the subject under investigation to see if they are relevant. E.g., if one wants to know the seniority relationship between Jesus and the Father, Jesus saying "the Father is greater than I" is 100% relevant because it addresses the subject under investigation in one, clear statement. What trinitarians now do is use Biblical statements only very tenuously related, and therefore of low weight, to the subject under investigation and then drawing an invalid conclusion from that. "The Father and I are one" does not nearly mean Jesus is God or equal to the Father. Furthermore, when other clear, valid explanations are available they insist that a Biblical statement should be interpreted in only their way. Obviously, a passage that can be interpreted in more than one way can't be used by either side.

Quote:

ACV: Acts Chapter 5

[3] But Peter said, Ananias, why did Satan fill thy heart for thee to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back from the price of the land?

[4] While it remained, did it not remain to thee? And after it was sold, it was in thine authority. Why is it that thou have placed this matter in thy heart? Thou have not lied to men, but to God.

Obviously, if one lies to God's (or anyone's) emissary, one lies to whoever sent the emissary. Furthermore, will the Bible be so roundabout about telling one an important fact, like the Holy Spirit is God, it that were true? This, too detracts from the Biblical statement's weight when considering this subject under investigation.

Trinitarians have been at it for more than a thousand years. In 1552 a Catholic, Desiderius Erasmus, included the following in John 5:7

Quote:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Now this was in most Bible translations up to 1881, including the King James version. It is still in the Modern King James version, but has been dropped from most other translations. Even the Roman Catholics dropped it from their 1979 Vulgate. Doug Batchelor still used it recently. When I alerted him to the fact that it was a well-known addition, he defended it.

John 5:7 containing the additional text not found in older Greek manuscripts, is the only example I know of where what has no textual foundation has been added to the Bible to the benefit of the trinitarians. All trinitarians should know this is a passage even the Roman Catholics, since 1979, don't use any more. So why do some of them still use it? Other passages have been wrongly translated (John 1:1) and others, in most translations, translated in such a way as to benefit the trinitarian message, even when there are legitimate alternative translations, used in some translations. I'm thinking of the "I am" passage.

So passages that are not even supposed to be in the Bible, passages that have clearly been wrongly translated and passages that can have other legitimate readings are all passages with a low weight. The same goes for passages only, at most, tenuously relevant to the subject under investigation.

The next thing trinitarians do is to use invalid logic. One form of invalid logic is when the conclusion is already established and the facts are at hand, the logic is bent to link the facts to the conclusion. This often happens when the facts are of a low weight or poor quality for what one wants them to say. E.g.

Quote:

ASV: Philippians 2:6. who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,

is taken to read as "Jesus is equal with the Father." Never mind the fact that another translation of the same is

Quote:

ACV: Philippians Chapter 2 [6] who, existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God something to seize and hold.

So, in short, to support their idea of a trinity, trinitarians

• cherry pick, ignoring clear Biblical facts destroying essential concepts of their dogma
• come to conclusions valid logic wouldn't bring them to from the Biblical statements they use to base their conclusion on
• use only low quality or low weight Biblical statements not nearly able to support their assertions - this is because they are only tenuously linked to what they have to support or can be read in other ways or are mistranslations
• totally ignore weaknesses in their arguments pointed out to them - they'll keep using those weak arguments as if nobody ever pointed out genuine weaknesses in them

We shouldn't blame them too much, there is no way the trinity dogma can survive, otherwise.

[Gerr]

I am curious...

Do you believe that each of the three persons have independent consciousness?

Read the description of each in Scripture and you will find that that is exactly what it teaches, i.e. each have independent consciousness.

Quote:

If yes, how do you define the word "one" in the term "one God?"

This has been dealt with several times in this thread - Adam & Eve are to be "one"; believers are to be "one".

[Gerr]

You'd have to do more cherry picking and dancing through more hoops to avoid the Trinitarian conclusion.

[epaminondas]

"I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)

(Christ & the Father)

"That they may be one as we are." (John 17:22)

(The disciples, Christ & the Father)

"That they may all be one;

as thou Father, art in me,

and I in thee,

that they also may be one in us:

that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." (John 17:21)

(Future believers, current disciples, Christ & the Father)

ALL ONE.

Not one body, but one spirit, one way of thinking.

"The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either.

They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person.

It is thus that God and Christ are One."

(Ministry of Healing 422, also 8 Testimonies 269)

Absolutely. It's so clear, it should not even need saying. "We/they are one" is an idiomatic expression. It exists in English and most likely a host of other languages. Obviously it existed in Biblical Greek, as well. It does not mean the entities involved are really one entity, a composite entity or equal in status.