The Trinity?

[John317]

Are you saying that you will deny the most apparent meaning of hundreds of texts so that you may satisfy what seems to you the most apparent meaning of a small minority?

....

What is your rational justification for satisfying what seems the most apparent interpretation of an extremely small number of texts when to do so REQUIRES disallowing the most apparent interpretation of a great many???

The teaching of Scripture regarding the triune God does not require the disallowing of any Bible texts.

On the contrary, I've noticed that those who reject the Trinity doctrine often feel the need of rejecting Matt 28: 19. But jettisoning Matt 28: 19 doesn't help them. Truth is so strong in the Bible that getting rid of a few texts doesn't matter.

If a doctrine is true, it will not be necessary to reject any text in order for there to be perfect harmony.

[Gibs]

Matt 28:19 is not in any way troubling to the true views of the Godhead to me or any that I can see who hold there is no trinity.

Mt 20:19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

The Man Jesus died but Deity, the Father in Him of course not did not die as God cannot be killed! Man also can only kill the body but not the Spirit.

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]

...Jesus first says the Father is the only true God, and then goes on and claims to be a god himself, too.

Jesus nowhere claims to be "a god."

But will you agree that the Bible also calls Jesus Christ "God"?

[o2bwise]

Hi Gerry,

Quote:

What are the numerous texts that my understanding/interpretation of Jn 17:3 negate?

For starters, virtually every single text I provided in the long excerpt you quoted.

Every one!

Cheers,

Tony

[John317]

Matt 28:19 is not in any way troubling to the true views of the Godhead to me or any that I can see who hold there is no trinity.

How many divine Persons are being referred to in Matt 28: 19-- "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"?

Those three have a single name. What "name" is it referring to?

The Greek original leaves no doubt that they are three distinct persons and not two. Nor is it two persons, plus a third non-person.

[John317]

I never once said Jesus is not God.

In your view, is Christ less God than the Father?

[phkrause]

Sometimes I think I'm a jerk,,, well, sometimes it's true.

But then I see epaminondas post something and I feel better...

Club you have nothing to worry about, your not even close.

[o2bwise]

Hi John317,

Quote:

In your view, is Christ less God than the Father?

No. How can a literally born Son of God be less than His Father? Wouldn't God's process of begetting be perfect? Wouldn't His Son be of the same kind of essence that is His Father's?

John 5:18 NKJV

Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

Blessings,

Tony

[o2bwise]

I think it would be beneficial for some to read Lysimachus' posts, beginning here.

#612517 - 02/24/13 04:17 PM Re: The Trinity?

Really lays out a nice viewpoint, I think, including his sense of the HS.

Tony

[Guest]

I think it would be beneficial for some to read Lysimachus' three posts, beginning here.

#612517 - 02/24/13 04:17 PM Re: The Trinity?

Really lays out a nice viewpoint, I think, including his sense of the HS.

Tony

Thanks.

Also I just read your post #620871

[Gibs]

Originally Posted By: Gibs

Matt 28:19 is not in any way troubling to the true views of the Godhead to me or any that I can see who hold there is no trinity.

How many divine Persons are being referred to in Matt 28: 19-- "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"?

Those three have a single name. What "name" is it referring to?

The Greek original leaves no doubt that they are three distinct persons and not two. Nor is it two persons, plus a third non-person.

Mt 20:19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

No mention in that verse of 3 persons Godhead! There is but one God and Father of all!

The Deity in Jesus Christ was the Father in Him, not another God. Only the man the Deity dwelt in is another person.

When the sin problem is conquered then Jesus returns that Deity vested in Him and The Father is ALL IN ALL again!

Being born of a woman even though His Father was God did not make Him God. It made Him The Fathers only begotten Son and the Prince.

At birth however the Father was in Him in all fullness, and so God with us. Yahweh the Father with us in Jesus Christ!

He was THE GOD with us, the one and only God there is and ever will be!

Now Jesus tells us what His Father is, The Holy Spirit! God is a Spirit, He tells us and I believe Him!

Now!

Christ in you is the Father in you, read,

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

One God, One Spirit and Christ is that Spirit, that is what our Father is!

You folks sure have helped me to help many others to see the truth of this. For that I say thanks.

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.

[Gibs]

Originally Posted By: Gibs

Matt 28:19 is not in any way troubling to the true views of the Godhead to me or any that I can see who hold there is no trinity.

How many divine Persons are being referred to in Matt 28: 19-- "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"?

Those three have a single name. What "name" is it referring to?

The Greek original leaves no doubt that they are three distinct persons and not two. Nor is it two persons, plus a third non-person.

Mt 20:19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

No mention of 3 Deities. There again is but one. Yahweh the Father, who was the Deity in Jesus Christ.

Then the Holy Spirit Jesus tells us is what The Father is.

Jesus was the second person but not another God as it was the Father in Him that is the Deity.

Then we find when it is all done then The Father will be ALL IN ALL aagin!

[Ted Oplinger]

Ummmmm.....Gibs, you might want to go get your eyes checked.

I can read it correctly, even without my specs on - and without enlarging the font size.

The verse referenced is Matthew 28:19, NOT Matthew 20:19.

Blessings,

[Gerr]

Hi Gerry,

Quote:

What are the numerous texts that my understanding/interpretation of Jn 17:3 negate?

For starters, virtually every single text I provided in the long excerpt you quoted.

Every one!

Cheers,

Tony

HUH?

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Methinks if one performed a statistical analysis where 100,000 people were polled on how to interpret the above two examples, 99% would not interpret them in the way I posed. And those that would, would have some kind of mental malady, such as schizophrenia.

I've pointed something similar out to Gerry. No other trinitarian supports him in his contention. For a while he was quiet on this one, but now he's back with it. If one thing is certain, it's that poor Gerry will never learn. He's one l short of a horse.

There is absolutely no doubt that what is in the Bible stating that the Father is the only God (no, they're not Earthly life forms obeying the laws of taxonomy where the child is of the same species as the parents) and Jesus is junior in rank to the Father, is vastly more definite than the vague texts trinitarians bend to fit their agenda.

Ignorance is bigger than all of us. Therefore the trinity, and other stupid ideas, will always exist.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Club you have nothing to worry about, your not even close.

It's really "you're." I must be doing something right that all the inerudite find me so intolerable.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

I think it would be beneficial for some to read Lysimachus' posts, beginning here.

Really lays out a nice viewpoint, I think, including his sense of the HS.

I did that. You're right, it's a viewpoint. What he believes is not clear, except that everybody is wrong. He uses very few scriptural references and even fewer clear, unambiguous ones to make his case. But words, that's something he's not short of. He even had to split his post into three parts. So many words are in by far the most cases a compensation for a poor case.

Quote:

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

Even going back to the Greek, we find that Jesus is here designated as belonging to creation. As John3:17 (why not 17:3?) pointed out, a few trinitarians have bent it to the firstborn "over" all creation, which is not right. This really makes Jesus part of creation - it's in the Bible. Oh, no, they say, Jesus was not created, he was begotten. What's begotten? Nobody knows. It's a magic word, part of the toolbox of the trinitarians.

So, here we have a Father who was not responsible for the existence of His Son. Why don't they ponder small, hard problems like the previous sentence? Why a Father-Son relationship if it really is a twin brother one? Why is this not addressed?

There are only a few things we can get out of the Bible on this question that are beyond any doubt:

• The Father is God of all, even of Jesus - Jesus said so
• The Father is the only true God - Jesus said so
• The Father is greater than all - John 10:29 and John 14:28
• Even when all is said and done, Jesus will be subservient to the Father - 1 Corinthians 15:28
• The relationship between the Father and Jesus is a father-son relationship - does anyone want to count how many times that's stated in the New Testament?
• Jesus was 100% in the service of his Father. Anyone has any problems with this?
• The Holy Spirit does the bidding of both the Father and Jesus. Want any passages to substantiate that? John 14:26 and John 15:26.
• The Bible says less about the Holy Spirit than about the Father and Jesus, leaving the Holy Spirit as the least well described of the three. Speculation can't clear this up.
• Colossians 1:15 clearly says Jesus belongs to creation, but is the greatest of all creation. No prizes for the right answer as to who created Jesus - why, his Father.

The trinity dogma belongs to speculation, which is so much hot air. Can you believe it, a whole paradigm built on hot air and the hoi polloi cheer and throw their sweaty night caps into the air and subscribe to it heart and soul. It's almost funny.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Jesus nowhere claims to be "a god."

But will you agree that the Bible also calls Jesus Christ "God"?

You see, like all trinitarians you are sneaky here. The Greek doesn't make any distinction between upper and lower case letters and it's doubtful that the Hebrew does. By writing "God" you imply that Jesus is called the one true God. You know that the word god which may have been applied to Jesus is the same as in Psalm 82 where it's applied to even humans. Even Jesus himself remarked on that:

Quote:

ACV: John Chapter 10

[34] Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods?

[35] If he designated those men gods, for whom the word of God came to be (and the scripture cannot be broken),

[36] whom the Father made holy and sent into the world, do ye say, Thou blaspheme, because I said, I am the Son of God?

Was there ever a better opportunity for Jesus to clear up his godly status than here? The Jews had accused him of calling himself God and said so clearly:

Quote:

ACV: John 10:33. The Jews answered him, saying, We stone thee not about a good work, but about blasphemy, and because thou, being a man, make thyself God.

Now why did Jesus correct them here and said he had called himself "the Son of God" and not "God?" Doesn't make sense if Jesus were God, does it?

You have no chance - the Bible is on my side as can be clearly seen. I don't distort the Bible, I leave the passages as they are. I don't have fanciful interpretations of obscure passages to make a point. You know what the judgment of any competent, intelligent and honest court will be on this matter.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

BTW, here's another one. What did Thomas mean when he said to Christ, ESV | Jn 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

It's really simple: this is an excellent example where English (and some other languages) fail. In fact, Biblical Greek was better than English here. Here is the verbatim Greek translation. You will see that Thomas is supposed to have said "the lord of me and the God of me."

Granville Sharp's sixth rule says that where one gets a "the + noun + and the + noun" construction in Greek, two persons are indicated. Granvilles Sharp's first rule says that where one gets a "the + noun + and + noun" construction in Greek, one person is indicated. This is taken to be authoritarian.

Therefore, Thomas was invoking two "persons." If I use exactly the same English construction and say "my father and my mother" you will know that I'm talking of two persons. So, one can't really say the English translation is erroneous. The same expression in Greek is just more accurate and clearly shows whether one or two persons are meant. To be fair, in English one can mostly see it from the context, as one knows if the two nouns indicate the same or different persons. It's just in cases like this, where there can be doubt, that English doesn't cut the mustard. This is a godsend to trinitarians who always choose to understand things in one way - the trintiarian way.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Maybe try this one:

ESV | 2 Pe 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Here is both verse one and two from the KJV:

Quote:

2 Peter 1:

1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

You will see the KJV gives it a different spin - two persons. 2 Peter 1:1 is recognized as problematic to translate - do some research. 2 Peter 1:2 is not. Therefore, as the clear verse so clearly identifies two persons, most people think it would not make sense to have them as one person in the first verse and two in the second verse. Except if Peter was on drugs.

And to be fair, Tony really quoted many passages and you quoted just one, and a problematic one at that. Go back to his post. Do you really think your one problematic passage is triumphant over all his passages which say differently? Go and count them. You will agree that his passages just overwhelm your one problematic passage. If you can't see this...

[Gerr]

Hi John317,

Quote:

In your view, is Christ less God than the Father?

No. How can a literally born Son of God be less than His Father? Wouldn't God's process of begetting be perfect? Wouldn't His Son be of the same kind of essence that is His Father's?

So then, you don't believe in a triune God but believe in two Gods? What would be the term, diune or biune or would that be duone, God?

[Gerr]

Quote:

Maybe try this one:

ESV | 2 Pe 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Here is both verse one and two from the KJV:

Quote:

2 Peter 1:

1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

You will see the KJV gives it a different spin - two persons. 2 Peter 1:1 is recognized as problematic to translate - do some research. 2 Peter 1:2 is not. Therefore, as the clear verse so clearly identifies two persons, most people think it would not make sense to have them as one person in the first verse and two in the second verse. Except if Peter was on drugs.

Yes, the KJV gives the idea of 2 different persons because of "our". But if you insist on using the KJV, then you should also accept its version in this passage:

KJV 1900 | ‎1 Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Quote:

And to be fair, Tony really quoted many passages and you quoted just one, and a problematic one at that. Go back to his post. Do you really think your one problematic passage is triumphant over all his passages which say differently? Go and count them. You will agree that his passages just overwhelm your one problematic passage. If you can't see this...

Here are more texts. Are they talking about two different persons?

ESV | ‎2 Pe 1:11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

ESV | ‎2 Pe 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

ESV | ‎2 Pe 3:2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles,

ESV | ‎2 Pe 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

You may also want to add this to your list of guys on drugs and BS champions with stupid ideas.

The source of God’s saving righteousness is Jesus Christ. The Greek construction here is particularly interesting. It literally reads “the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (dikaiosynē tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou). The grammar clearly indicates that Jesus Christ is called “God” in this verse. The structure of the clause accords with the famous rule of G. Sharp, that when two singular nouns, which are not proper nouns, fall under the same article, they refer to the same entity. The phrase used here fits every part of this definition. If Peter wanted to distinguish Jesus Christ from the Father, he would have inserted an article before the noun “Savior.” The pronoun “our” also indicates that only one person is referred to here.

Schreiner, T. R. (2003). Vol. 37: 1, 2 Peter, Jude. The New American Commentary (286–287). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

[Gerr]

Quote:

BTW, here's another one. What did Thomas mean when he said to Christ, ESV | Jn 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

It's really simple: this is an excellent example where English (and some other languages) fail. In fact, Biblical Greek was better than English here. Here is the verbatim Greek translation. You will see that Thomas is supposed to have said "the lord of me and the God of me."

Granville Sharp's sixth rule says that where one gets a "the + noun + and the + noun" construction in Greek, two persons are indicated. Granvilles Sharp's first rule says that where one gets a "the + noun + and + noun" construction in Greek, one person is indicated. This is taken to be authoritarian.

Therefore, Thomas was invoking two "persons." If I use exactly the same English construction and say "my father and my mother" you will know that I'm talking of two persons. So, one can't really say the English translation is erroneous. The same expression in Greek is just more accurate and clearly shows whether one or two persons are meant. To be fair, in English one can mostly see it from the context, as one knows if the two nouns indicate the same or different persons. It's just in cases like this, where there can be doubt, that English doesn't cut the mustard. This is a godsend to trinitarians who always choose to understand things in one way - the trintiarian way.

And how do non-Trinitarians understand? Another way!!!

And just how many persons was Thomas talking to?

[Gibs]

OK, "ONE", what Thomas finally came to realize was the fact here was his Redeemer and also the Supreme almighty one, as he knew his Redeemer had to be God, the one and only! You see at that time there was no trinitarians among the true belivers.

That didn't come in for many years past Thomas's time! Paul had taught them well of who the Father and Redeemer was. That is in Jesus Christ the fullness of the Father dwelt in Him. And Jesus stated to Philip, "you've seen me you've seen the Father.

"I and my Father are one!" And the context in the two verses before make it for sure, the numeral 1, ONE!

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]

How can a literally born Son of God be less than His Father? Wouldn't God's process of begetting be perfect? Wouldn't His Son be of the same kind of essence that is His Father's?

But where do you find proof that the pre-incarnate Christ was literally the Son of God?

Is "Son of God" necessarily referring to a literal "son" and to a literal "father"?

Have you read what Uriah Smith wrote about this?

Uriah Smith believed "evolution of deity" took place and that this evolution stopped with the existence of Christ in heaven.

Smith wrote, "With the Son, the evolution of deity, as deity, ceased. All else, of things animate or inanimate, has come in by creation of the Father and the Son-- the Father the antecedent cause, the Son the acting agent through whom all has been wrought" (Looking Unto Jesus, 1898, page 13).

In 1865, Smith wrote, "Not the beginner, but the beginning, of the creation, the first created being, dating his existence far back before any other created being or thing, next to the self-existent and eternal God" (Thoughts On the Revelation, 1865, page 59).