Trinity proof verses

[Eriugena]

Looking for clear Trinity proof verses to use against oneness modalist trinity deniers who attack very heavily ...

I can only echo ViaCrucis: "There's no perfect Trinity proof text that's going to magically make heretics stop being heretics"

I know oneness groups attack 1 John 5:7 ... saying that it was added, but this is not true from my research that verse goes back to the 200's ...

Are you sure, because I think that would be something of a breakthrough?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Looking for clear Trinity proof verses to use against oneness modalist trinity deniers who attack very heavily, I use 1 John 5:7 and Matthew 3:16-17 but other than that I struggle to find a perfect verse to use that will silence the anti-trinity crowd. When you read the NT I see the trinity everywhere but as for a certain verse that can prove to the Oneness groups it is hard to find.

I know oneness groups attack 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." saying that it was added, but this is not true from my research that verse goes back to the 200's it was not added later. I believe the Bible is the perfect word of God without error. But Oneness crowd seems to have an answer for any verse I give it is difficult to prove the Trinity to these people

You kind of need to experience the trinity form of "oneness" as expressed in John 17. People who are not born again by the Holy Spirit have no parable, so modalism is the closest they'll get.

 

[concretecamper]

Looking for clear Trinity proof verses to use against oneness modalist trinity deniers who attack very heavily, I use 1 John 5:7 and Matthew 3:16-17 but other than that I struggle to find a perfect verse to use that will silence the anti-trinity crowd. When you read the NT I see the trinity everywhere but as for a certain verse that can prove to the Oneness groups it is hard to find.

I know oneness groups attack 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." saying that it was added, but this is not true from my research that verse goes back to the 200's it was not added later. I believe the Bible is the perfect word of God without error. But Oneness crowd seems to have an answer for any verse I give it is difficult to prove the Trinity to these people

The belief in the doctrine of the Trinity is by faith. You cannot find scripture that will give you an explanation beyond a reasonable doubt.

The best you can find is that The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all referred to God, but what Christians believe about the Trinity is much more than that.

 

[Fervent]

Trinity is a composite doctrine, rather than one being drawn from explicit statements. So rather than looking to prove the doctrine as a whole, how about breaking it down to its elements? Can you think of verses that show Jesus is God? And the Father is God? And the Holy Spirit is God? Great! Next step is to demonstrate that the Father is not Jesus, Jesus is not the Holy Spirit, and the Father is not the Holy Spirit. So what does that leave us with? Either multiplicity in God, or multiple gods. So then comes the Shema.

Though as others have noted, you'll never be able to demonstrate it to some people's satisfaction and even if you do leave them without an answer they'll more likely respond in anger than recognizing what you are saying.

 

[concretecamper]

Next step is to demonstrate that the Father is not Jesus, Jesus is not the Holy Spirit, and the Father is not the Holy Spirit

All of which cannot be proven by using scripture alone.

Belief in the doctrine of the Trinity relies on faith.

 

[Fervent]

All of which cannot be proven by using scripture alone.

Belief in the doctrine of the Trinity relies on faith.

Muslims, Jews, and JWs don't seem to have any problem demonstrating that Jesus is not the Father using scripture alone.

 

[concretecamper]

Muslims, Jews, and JWs don't seem to have any problem demonstrating that Jesus is not the Father using scripture alone.

Jesus is not the Father. There are those on this board that claim to be bible believing Christians who believe in Modalism based on what is written in scripture.

Scripture alone is inadequate to explain the Doctrine of the Trinity

 

[Fervent]

Jesus is not the Father. There are those on this board that claim to be bible believing Christians who believe in Modalism based on what is written in scripture.

Scripture alone is inadequate to explain the Doctrine of the Trinity

So you claim, but as I pointed out non-Christians have no problem finding verses that clearly show that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are not the same thing. So the problem is not "scripture alone," as Scripture is sufficient for demonstrating such things. Scripture was sufficient for the council of Nicea to come to their definition, so when did it cease being sufficient?

 

[Clare73]

Jesus is not the Father. There are those on this board that claim to be bible believing Christians who believe in Modalism based on what is written in scripture.

Scripture alone is inadequate to explain the Doctrine of the Trinity

It is adequate to demonstrate three separate divine persons in the one God.

 

[concretecamper]

So you claim, but as I pointed out non-Christians have no problem finding verses that clearly show that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are not the same thing

If you think that simply saying the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is what describes to the Trinity, then I suggest more study.

 

[concretecamper]

It is adequate to demonstrate three separate divine persons in the one God.

Tell the JW's that, and the countless other self proclaimed bible Christians on this forum that believe in Modalism.

You don't need to convince me, convince them. If this is your answer, then I suspect you will not convince them.

 

[Clare73]

Tell the JW's that, and the countless other self proclaimed bible Christians on this forum that believe in Modalism.

You don't need to convince me, convince them. If this is your answer, then I suspect you will not convince them.

I'm not sure they even understand modalism.

 

[Andrewn]

Tell the JW's that, and the countless other self proclaimed bible Christians on this forum that believe in Modalism.

Often, I find the problem not to be JW's or Oneness Pentecostals but rather garden-variety Christians (mostly Evangelicals) whose understanding of the Trinity leans toward Tritheism.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Johannine Comma is, in fact, an interpolation. John never wrote it, and no one before the late middle-ages was ever known to quote from it.

Actually we don’t know that St. John did not write the Comma Johanneum, and also, even if he didn’t, it doesn’t matter, because it is at a minimum a correct gloss on the text and most Christians regard it as canonical.

 

[The Liturgist]

P

Can you post that ? In English ?
Thanks.

Isaiah 9:5-6 LXX:
⁵For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. His name will be called the Angel of Great Counsel, for I shall bring peace upon the rulers, peace and health by Him. ⁶Great shall be His government, and of His peace there is no end. His peace shall be upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order and establish it with righteousness and judgment, from that time forward and unto ages of ages. The zeal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.“

Excerpt from: "The Orthodox Study Bible: Ancient Christianity Speaks to Today's World" by Thomas Nelson.

This is one of those rare cases, like Psalms 1:12 , where the Masoretic preserves a Christological reading absent from the Septuagint. Usually its the other way around.

Personally I would prefer a blending of the different extant versions of the Old Testament to maximize the Christological content and ensure the text quoted in the New Testament, for example, 1 Enoch in Jude, is present in the Old, so that the interests of the Church would be best served. It is not well served when I as a minister have to remain familiar with five different major recensions of the Old Testament in five languages, and four recensions of the New Testament in two languages.

 

[Jonaitis]

Actually we don’t know that St. John did not write the Comma Johanneum, and also, even if he didn’t, it doesn’t matter, because it is at a minimum a correct gloss on the text and most Christians regard it as canonical.

It is out of character with John's point. I think that's important if we desire to retain the original meaning of the Scriptures.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

P

Isaiah 9:5-6 LXX:
⁵For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. His name will be called the Angel of Great Counsel, for I shall bring peace upon the rulers, peace and health by Him. ⁶Great shall be His government, and of His peace there is no end. His peace shall be upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order and establish it with righteousness and judgment, from that time forward and unto ages of ages. The zeal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.“

Excerpt from: "The Orthodox Study Bible: Ancient Christianity Speaks to Today's World" by Thomas Nelson.

This is one of those rare cases, like Psalms 1:12 , where the Masoretic preserves a Christological reading absent from the Septuagint. Usually its the other way around.

Personally I would prefer a blending of the different extant versions of the Old Testament to maximize the Christological content and ensure the text quoted in the New Testament, for example, 1 Enoch in Jude, is present in the Old, so that the interests of the Church would be best served. It is not well served when I as a minister have to remain familiar with five different major recensions of the Old Testament in five languages, and four recensions of the New Testament in two languages.

What are your thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls version?

(5) Because a child shall be born to us and a son is given to us and the government shall
be upon

24. his shoulders and he shall be called wonderful, counsellor, mighty God, everlasting father the prince of peace. (6) Of
the increase

25. of his government [&waw&} and his peace there shall be no end. upon the throne of David and over his kingdom to
order it and to establish it

26. in judgement and in righteousness from and until eternity, The zeal of YHWH of Hosts will perform this.

 

[concretecamper]

I'm not sure they even understand modalism.

Similarly, those who deny Mary as the mother of God don't understand nestorianism

 

[Clare73]

" To be deep in History is to cease to be protestant"...Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman.

Keeping in mind that to be deep in Scripture is what matters. . .

 

[Fervent]

If you think that simply saying the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is what describes to the Trinity, then I suggest more study.

Convenient you ignored the latter half of that post, especially since it addresses your false objection. The Nicene-Constantinople definition is a sufficient understanding of the Trinity, so the question is how they arrived at their definition. Either it was an innovation, and the JWs are correct in their criticism of it being "invented" by Nicea, or they drew on Apostolic tradition and determined from it alone that Trinity is the what has always been taught by the faith if not in name then in substance. So what source did they use for Apostolic tradition? What in addition to our written Apostolic tradition found in the NT? If there is some critical source of Apostolic tradition necessary in addition to the ordinary canon to establish something as fundamental as Trinity, why was it not included in the canon and where can it be publically read? If what we have in canon was sufficient then, how and when did it cease being sufficient?