Debating the Trinity

[Der Alte]

I have studied 'trinity' for many many years now. I have found NO information that 'trinity' existed until the late fourth century.

I appreciate this false, irrelevant opinion.

Clement of Alexandria [a.d. 153-193-217.] The Stromata, Or Miscellanies. Book V. Chap. XIV
So that when he says, “Around the king of all, all things are, and because of Him are all things; and he [or that] is the cause of all good things; and around the second are the things second in order; and around the third, the third,” I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.
Tertullian [a.d. 145-220] Against Marcion VII. Against Praxeas. Chapter II
As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; (see The Apology, ch. xxi.) not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the
Origen [a.d. 185-230-254.] De Principiis. Book I. Chap. III.
2. From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, i.e., by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the unbegotten God the Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the Holy Spirit.​

the first use of the word was 'not' according to the 'doctrine' that exists NOW. The first mention of the 'term' was in reference to the attributes of 'God'. The Son or the Holy Spirit weren't even mentioned.
So the 'idea' that 'trinity' came into existence in 180 AD? Not even close.

Once again I appreciate this false, irrelevant opinion.

But let us pretend that 'trinity' did come into existence in 180 AD. Why did it take God or His Son to reveal this 'truth' 180 years ''after'' the death of the Son?
Twelve were chosen to reveal Christ to the 'world'. Does it make any kind of sense that Christ didn't reveal 'trinity' to them?
But instead, both Father and Son waited 180 years 'after' the Son came to reveal Himself and His Father to the world to reveal that they were part of a 'trinity'.

Logical fallacy argument from silence. How many years after God chose His people did He reveal His son to them and how was He received by those people?

Makes no sense to me.

Irrelevant. The cross was foolishness to those who were perishing.

Yet we DO KNOW that there had been 'many religions', including Greek and Roman religions, that worshiped 'multi part' God's.

We know no such thing! If you can, please name one pagan religion which had a "multi part" god and which might have influenced the Christian Trinity? I do not know of any pagan religion which had a trinity of deities of even a triad of deities. A triad being three deities supposedly functioning together affecting the affairs of mankind.

When God revealed Himself to the Hebrews, He revealed Himself as 'one God'. No other Gods beside Him. The Hebrews worshiped God as 'singular'. Uncompounded.
Now, if God, when He revealed Himself was 'plural instead of singular', why didn't he reveal Himself as such?

8. R. Samuel b. Nahman said in R. Jonathan's name: When Moses was engaged in writing the Torah, he had to write the work of each day. When he came to the verse, AND GOD SAID: LET us MAKE MAN, etc., he said: 'Sovereign of the Universe! Why dost Thou furnish an
excuse to heretics?'[sup]1[/sup] 'Write,' replied He; 'whoever wishes to err may err.’
[sup]1[/sup] For maintaining a plurality of gods.
R. Simlai said: Wherever you find a point [apparently] supporting the heretics, you find the refutation at its side. They asked him again: 'What is meant by, AND GOD SAID: LET us MAKE MAN?' 'Read what follows,' replied he: 'not, "And gods created (wa-yibre'u) man" is written here, but "And God created wa-yibra" (Gen. I, 27). When they went out his disciples said to him : ' Them you have dismissed with a mere makeshift, but how will you answer us?'
Midrash Rabbah Genesis I Translated Into English With Notes, Glossary And Indices
Under The Editorship Of Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman, B.A., Ph.D.​

You can 'say' that the word God itself is offered as a 'plural'. But without an explanation, that is meaningless.

I prefer evidence rather than unsupported opinion. The plural elohim has been explained many times.

So why didn't God reveal Himself as 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit' from the 'beginning' if this IS His very nature? Why wait for thousands and thousands of years to reveal this?

If 'trinity' is truth, then it would seem that God deceived those He revealed Himself to in the beginning.
And if the Son was 'the God of creation', then Moses and those that he taught were deceived. For there is no mention of 'the Son' in the first five books of the Torah.

Irrelevant! Logical fallacy, "argument from silence." Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I take that back, Moses was informed that in the future one 'greater than himself' would come and instead of the 'law' being written on stone, at that point, God's laws would be written upon men's hearts.
But this 'person' was not identified 'as God'. Just one 'greater than Moses'.
So, why didn't God reveal 'trinity' when first revealing Himself? For if one is 'three persons in one God', yet is revealed as 'singular', that's really not 'revealing oneself' now is it?

More irrelevant argument from silence.

And then there is 'Christ' Himself. Who did Christ reveal Himself to BE?

What happened when Jesus only identified Himself as the Son of God?" Was Jesus readily accepted by the people He was sent to save? Knowing what did happen to Jesus, what would have happened if Jesus had openly proclaimed He was God? At the very least He would have been considered insane and almost certainly would have been stoned.

Over and over and over again He 'stated' that He is the SON of God. And He stated that He was 'sent by God', His Father. And He stated that the Father is 'greater' than the Son.

Philippians 2:6-9

And then we have this:

Ephesians 1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ
Wow. THE God and Father of Jesus Christ.
Could it be offered any clearer? THE God and Father of Jesus Christ.
Not God the Father. But THE God and Father.
So this clearly affirms what Christ Himself offered. That God is His Father. Christ is the 'begotten Son of God'. Not 'God the Son'. But merely the Son of God. Big difference. And clearly if 'begotten', there was a 'time before' being 'begotten'. There was a 'time before the Son' existed.

Wrong! John 17:5. John 3:13, John 6:38, John 6:51
The word translated "only begotten" is monogenes. Monos being only. The second part of the word is derived from γίνομαι/ginomai which is a prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be (“gen” -erate), that is, (reflexively) to become (come into being)" The root word is never translated born or begotten.

So the question is: How could God truly reveal Himself if He is 'three persons' in 'one God', yet NOT reveal this? How was He 'truly' revealed to the Hebrews if not revealed in 'truth'?
That would be like me trying to say that I 'truly' revealed myself as Mike. When in truth that is 'just a name'. That is NOT 'who I am'.
If God 'truly' revealed Himself to the Hebrews, then there is 'no trinity' in truth. For God revealed no such thing to His 'chosen people'.
Nor did Christ reveal 'trinity' to His people.

Logical fallacy "argument from silence."

The Romans introduced 'trinity' almost four hundred years AFTER Romans crucified God's Son.

There was no Roman anything to introduce the Trinity or anything else until 1075. And the Trinity was written about by the early church about 800 years earlier.

Yet all that were chosen to 'establish' Christ's Church were Jews. ALL the apostles were JEWS. And not a single apostle spoke of this 'trinity'. Or at least not a WORD is recorded of them 'speaking of trinity'.
Blessings,
MEC

Logical fallacy, "argument from silence" Thank you for this unsupported irrelevant opinion.

 

[Der Alte]

The 'trinity' first mentioned in writing was NOT 'the trinity' that exists as doctrine NOW. And the first mention, even admitted by the Catholic Church, was in 180 AD. And this 'mention' was NOT the 'trinity' doctrine that exists now.

Repeating the same empty assertion does not make it any more true than the first time. Please show me some credible, verifiable, historical evidence?

But let us pretend that it was in 100 AD. This is still many many years AFTER the death of Christ and His apostles.
Why would God wait till years after the death of His Son to reveal this to the Romans? Those that nailed His Son to the cross?

Repeating your logical fallacy, argument from silence.

And you are wrong. The absence of evidence most often IS evidence. That God revealed Himself as singular to the Hebrews/Jews is pretty compelling evidence when we consider that 'trinity' wasn't 'discovered' for thousands of years AFTER God revealed Himself to the Hebrews/Jews.

You ignored the evidence I posted in my previous post that the Jews understood the plural pronouns and verbs to be exactly that "plural."

And what kind of deception is that? To reveal Himself as 'singular', no other Gods beside Him. And then, thousands of years later reveal that this isn't REALLY the 'truth', for God is NOT singular but actually 'three gods in ONE'.

If you are going to discuss the Trinity I would suggest that learn what it actually is. I do not know of any Trinitarian who believes in three gods.

The Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Greeks and the Romans ALL had 'multi part gods' that they worshiped. The elite Romans worshiped a 'three in one god' that they called: "Mithra". And this 'religion' came from the Persians.

Total nonsense! The only thing true in this paragraph is the last sentence. The Mithra cult did originate in Persia but only the name was the same in the Roman version. Virtually nothing is known about the Roman Mithra cult. The Roman Mithra cult left no written records. The only evidence they left were grottoes with paintings and sculptures. One scholar wrote a book with his "interpretation" of the paintings/sculptures which has been rejected by more recent scholars.
There is NO, ZERO, NONE credible, verifiable, historical evidence that the "Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Greeks and the Romans" or any other culture had a "three part god,""a multi-part god""a trinity or a triad of deities.

You can certainly argue against the evidence. But the evidence is there regardless of your possible arguments.

You have not provided any evidence, only your unsupported opinion.

Your attempts to 'say' that my information is invalid is irrelevant to the 'truth'. And the truth is that I am not 'biased' by a 'doctrine'. I have no reason to alter the truth in order to validate it. But you have shown over and over that you DO feel obligated to offer 'biased' info in order to defend a doctrine you have been persuaded to embrace. I have no such affinity.

When you make the same empty assertions over and over without providing any evidence I have no choice but to conclude that you are biased.

I have simply studied what evidence that exists and find 'trinity' to be nothing other than 'man made doctrine' that was NEVER taught by God, His Son or the apostles.

What I think you have "studied" are various websites which appear to support your assumptions/presuppositions.

And your attempt to try and deny the existence of the Catholic Church as that formed by Constantine is ridiculous.
Regardless of 'when' the Roman Catholic Church became the OFFICIAL name of the 'church in Rome' is irrelevant to the TRUTH. You are trying to mince words in an attempt to discredit what I offer. To those that KNOW the truth, you attempts are an effort in futility. The Catholic Church is THE 'church' that was formed in Rome by the emperor Constantine. That the addition of the word 'Roman' was added until hundreds of years later is irrelevant to it's existence and it's doctrines. When someone mentions the 'church fathers', in truth, those that they are labeling as such are 'fathers' of the Catholic Church. They are certainly not fathers of Christ's 'church'.

Wrong! More internet misinformation. Constantine did not form any church anywhere and he was never the leader of a church anywhere. And if you had studied credible evidence you would have learned that Constantine was an Arian, similar to modern JWs, not a Trinitarian, if he was going to force anything on the church it would have been his Arian views. And he moved his capital to Constantinople in 330 AD.

And it's kind of funny. Most of those labeled 'church fathers' were labeled as heretics as well.
Blessings,
MEC

More false internet misinformation. Of the ECF I quoted only one was ever called a heretic, Tertullian, after he became a montanist. His pre-Montanistt writings which I quoted were never considered heretical. I suggest you read some real history.

 

[WisdomandLove]

Wrong again! You said that when Irenaeus said "He that is begotten of God is God." he didn't mean God but divine. Which OBTW is begging the question.

This says almost exactly what I said about begging the question. But your link confuses "circular reasoning" with "begging the question."

Evidence? Documentation? Substantiation?

Once again you have not shown anything. All you have done is repeat your empty assertions.

"Wrong! The Trinity was written about as early as 180 AD and it was alluded to even earlier.
Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202.] Against Heresies. Book IV Chap. XX
12. Thus also did Rahab the harlot, while condemning herself, inasmuch as she was a Gentile, guilty of all sins, nevertheless receive the three spies,71 who were spying out all the land, and hid them at her home; [which three were] doubtless [a type of] the Father and the Son, together with the Holy Spirit"​

You do know the meaning of "alluded to" don't you?

I see you are a dab hand with Trinitarian vocabulary. I was most impressed by your command of words such as “wrong, irrelevant and logical fallacy." It’s truly amazing and beggars belief. I was even tempted myself to employ the brash and in your face use of "wrong!" but I had to exorcise that spirit not because it’s evil per se, but because it’s not expedient. The link as provided by Butch 5 is right on regarding the examples of "begging the question." You are simply mistaken in saying that the link confuses "circular reasoning" with "begging the question." In fact, “begging the question” is almost indistinguishable from and is similar to “circular reasoning,” where the conclusion is exactly the same as the premise. A question has been begged only if the question has been asked before in the same discussion, and then a conclusion is reached on a related matter without the question having been answered. If someone said, “The fact that we believe smoking marijuana should be legal means that it is a valid form of free expression. And since it’s free expression, it shouldn’t be banned”, that would be begging the question.

 

[Der Alte]

I see you are a dab hand with Trinitarian vocabulary. I was most impressed by your command of words such as “wrong, irrelevant and logical fallacy." It’s truly amazing and beggars belief. I was even tempted myself to employ the brash and in your face use of "wrong!" but I had to exorcise that spirit not because it’s evil per se, but because it’s not expedient. The link as provided by Butch 5 is right on regarding the examples of "begging the question." You are simply mistaken in saying that the link confuses "circular reasoning" with "begging the question." In fact, “begging the question” is almost indistinguishable from and is similar to “circular reasoning,” where the conclusion is exactly the same as the premise. A question has been begged only if the question has been asked before in the same discussion, and then a conclusion is reached on a related matter without the question having been answered. If someone said, “The fact that we believe smoking marijuana should be legal means that it is a valid form of free expression. And since it’s free expression, it shouldn’t be banned”, that would be begging the question.

I rarely say anything that I can't back up.

Begging the Question (also called Petitio Principii, this term is sometimes used interchangeably with Circular Reasoning): If writers assume as evidence for their argument the very conclusion they are attempting to prove, they engage in the fallacy of begging the question. The most common form of this fallacy is when the first claim is initially loaded with the very conclusion one has yet to prove. For instance, suppose a particular student group states, "Useless courses like English 101 should be dropped from the college's curriculum." The members of the student group then immediately move on in the argument, illustrating that spending money on a useless course is something nobody wants. Yes, we all agree that spending money on useless courses is a bad thing. However, those students never did prove that English 101 was itself a useless course--they merely "begged the question" and moved on to the next "safe" part of the argument, skipping over the part that's the real controversy, the heart of the matter, the most important component. Begging the question is often hidden in the form of a complex question (see below).
Circular Reasoning is closely related to begging the question. Often the writers using this fallacy word take one idea and phrase it in two statements. The assertions differ sufficiently to obscure the fact that that the same proposition occurs as both a premise and a conclusion. The speaker or author then tries to "prove" his or her assertion by merely repeating it in different words. Richard Whately wrote in Elements of Logic (London 1826): “To allow every man unbounded freedom of speech must always be on the whole, advantageous to the state; for it is highly conducive to the interest of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments.” Obviously the premise is not logically irrelevant to the conclusion, for if the premise is true the conclusion must also be true. It is, however, logically irrelevant in proving the conclusion. In the example, the author is repeating the same point in different words, and then attempting to "prove" the first assertion with the second one. A more complex but equally fallacious type of circular reasoning is to create a circular chain of reasoning like this one: "God exists." "How do you know that God exists?" "The Bible says so." "Why should I believe the Bible?" "Because it's the inspired word of God." If we draw this out as a chart, it looks like this:
[see link for chart]
The so-called "final proof" relies on unproven evidence set forth initially as the subject of debate. Basically, the argument goes in an endless circle, with each step of the argument relying on a previous one, which in turn relies on the first argument yet to be proven. Surely God deserves a more intelligible argument than the circular reasoning proposed in this example!
Carson Newman U. English Dept.
​

 

[WisdomandLove]

I rarely say anything that I can't back up.

Begging the Question (also called Petitio Principii, this term is sometimes used interchangeably with Circular Reasoning): If writers assume as evidence for their argument the very conclusion they are attempting to prove, they engage in the fallacy of begging the question. The most common form of this fallacy is when the first claim is initially loaded with the very conclusion one has yet to prove. For instance, suppose a particular student group states, "Useless courses like English 101 should be dropped from the college's curriculum." The members of the student group then immediately move on in the argument, illustrating that spending money on a useless course is something nobody wants. Yes, we all agree that spending money on useless courses is a bad thing. However, those students never did prove that English 101 was itself a useless course--they merely "begged the question" and moved on to the next "safe" part of the argument, skipping over the part that's the real controversy, the heart of the matter, the most important component. Begging the question is often hidden in the form of a complex question (see below).
Circular Reasoning is closely related to begging the question. Often the writers using this fallacy word take one idea and phrase it in two statements. The assertions differ sufficiently to obscure the fact that that the same proposition occurs as both a premise and a conclusion. The speaker or author then tries to "prove" his or her assertion by merely repeating it in different words. Richard Whately wrote in Elements of Logic (London 1826): “To allow every man unbounded freedom of speech must always be on the whole, advantageous to the state; for it is highly conducive to the interest of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments.” Obviously the premise is not logically irrelevant to the conclusion, for if the premise is true the conclusion must also be true. It is, however, logically irrelevant in proving the conclusion. In the example, the author is repeating the same point in different words, and then attempting to "prove" the first assertion with the second one. A more complex but equally fallacious type of circular reasoning is to create a circular chain of reasoning like this one: "God exists." "How do you know that God exists?" "The Bible says so." "Why should I believe the Bible?" "Because it's the inspired word of God." If we draw this out as a chart, it looks like this:
[see link for chart]
The so-called "final proof" relies on unproven evidence set forth initially as the subject of debate. Basically, the argument goes in an endless circle, with each step of the argument relying on a previous one, which in turn relies on the first argument yet to be proven. Surely God deserves a more intelligible argument than the circular reasoning proposed in this example!
Carson Newman U. English Dept.
​

 

[WisdomandLove]

You are not backing up anything at all. In fact, you are showing and emphasizing you were sadly mistaken.

In your reply #263 to Butch 5 dated 4 Nov. 2016,
You said:
"But your link confuses "circular reasoning" with "begging the question."

Contrary to the above, your quote says:
Begging the Question (also called Petitio Principii, this term is sometimes used interchangeably with Circular Reasoning).

Continuing with your quote in short:
If writers assume as evidence for their argument the very conclusion they are attempting to prove, they engage in the fallacy of begging the question. The most common form of this fallacy is when the first claim is initially loaded with the very conclusion one has yet to prove.

I pointed out to you in my post #268 that your above statement in #263 is incorrect.
My reply says:
In fact, “begging the question” is almost indistinguishable from and is similar to “circular reasoning,” where the conclusion is exactly the same as the premise.

This agrees with your quotation above but BOTH DISAGREE with your original reply #263 to Butch 5. You do not have to put on spectacles to see that. It's crystal clear.

Continuation of my reply:
A question has been begged only if the question has been asked before in the same discussion, and then a conclusion is reached on a related matter without the question having been answered. If someone said, “The fact that we believe smoking marijuana should be legal means that it is a valid form of free expression. And since it’s free expression, it shouldn’t be banned”, that would be begging the question.

The rest of my statement as above, waxes warm with your quotation on "begging the question." But let me reiterated, both my reply and your quotation demonstrate that the statement in your original post #263 is erroneous. You can use any tricky tack you wish but you cannot change the fact and wriggle out of the truth.

 

[miknik5]

GOD is before all these myths and these myths are more the result of Satan who also knew the true things of GOD from the beginnnng.

And instead of providing the TRUTH Satan offered bits and pieces and portions and distortions of the truth to superstitious men

 

[miknik5]

The nicene council and the creedal beliefs came about because men born of the SPIRIT had to put into words (for men not born of the SPIRIT) explaining their reconciled relationship to THE FATHER, THROUGH THE SON and BY THE HOLY SPIRIT and they would not and could not remove from that equation the very ONE who is the reason for the restored relationship with THE FATHER

Too many "false teachers" were suggesting other images of CHRIST, thereby denying the TRUTH that HE came forth from HOD and this is the TRUTH which makes us clean in the eyes of GOD (we have truly believed that we came forth from GOD

The CHURCH fathers had more an eye on baby believers being influenced by things that went against the TRUTH and men separating what could not be and should not be separated

 

[WisdomandLove]

It seems bad enough to say God is a person, but to say God is three persons (Greek hypostases), sounds worse. Those formal dogmatic definitions of the Trinity which insist that God is Trinitarian in essence; that the Son is an eternal Logos or ‘place of Forms’ somehow generated from the Father and that the three ‘persons’ of the Divine Being are related in love to one another, while yet somehow being the same being, without possessing different properties from one another, seems to me to be neither licensed by the Bible nor compatible with the stress on the mystery and ineffability of the divine which is so stressed in orthodox theology. One can take these philosophical constructs as imaginative insights into the divine, prompted by reflection and prayer within the Christian tradition. As such, they have great value; but something goes wrong when they are claimed, as they sometimes are, to give a correct description of what the divine being is in itself. These are symbols of infinity and not copies of divine reality; and to say that perhaps preserves the true intent of the orthodox theologians as well as reminding one that they are concerned with spiritual understanding, not with a rather arid form of Greek metaphysics. Therefore what we call God is beyond every category that the mind can develop. God is the ultimate reality that the human mind can embrace and it never does so except partially. The Trinitarian word for that is, 'Father', the source, the originator of all that is. We also experience God as the ultimate depth of meaning that is within. That is what the symbol 'Holy Spirit' stands for. Finally, we experience God coming to us from other lives and most especially through the life of the one we call Christ. That is what the symbol 'Son' stands for.

 

[miknik5]

It seems bad enough to say God is a person, but to say God is three persons (Greek hypostases), sounds worse. Those formal dogmatic definitions of the Trinity which insist that God is Trinitarian in essence; that the Son is an eternal Logos or ‘place of Forms’ somehow generated from the Father and that the three ‘persons’ of the Divine Being are related in love to one another, while yet somehow being the same being, without possessing different properties from one another, seems to me to be neither licensed by the Bible nor compatible with the stress on the mystery and ineffability of the divine which is so stressed in orthodox theology. One can take these philosophical constructs as imaginative insights into the divine, prompted by reflection and prayer within the Christian tradition. As such, they have great value; but something goes wrong when they are claimed, as they sometimes are, to give a correct description of what the divine being is in itself. These are symbols of infinity and not copies of divine reality; and to say that perhaps preserves the true intent of the orthodox theologians as well as reminding one that they are concerned with spiritual understanding, not with a rather arid form of Greek metaphysics. Therefore what we call God is beyond every category that the mind can develop. God is the ultimate reality that the human mind can embrace and it never does so except partially. The Trinitarian word for that is, 'Father', the source, the originator of all that is. We also experience God as the ultimate depth of meaning that is within. That is what the symbol 'Holy Spirit' stands for. Finally, we experience God coming to us from other lives and most especially through the life of the one we call Christ. That is what the symbol 'Son' stands for.

Can you communicate to all men the TRUTH of GOD without including the TRUTH of THE SON?

How would you explain the incarnation?

 

[Der Alte]

Der Alter,
I spent about two hours last week listing many of the 'multi part gods' of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans...............
And then at one point I came to the realization: He is going to find some means of denying every bit of this. So what is the point?
So I'm not going to post it. You are contrary to ANY evidence that does not FIT what you have 'bought in' to believing. You make it perfectly clear that you couldn't care less about 'evidence'. In fact, you will DENY clear and precise evidence in order to 'hang on' to your 'beliefs'.
So it's pretty useless to even discuss this matter with you. For you will NOT discuss it based on the EVIDENCE. You will ONLY defend it with whatever means you can 'make up'.

Ah yes the old I have lots of evidence but you won't accept/believe it so I'm not posting it. dodge.

It is clear that you place YOUR faith in 'men'. For it was 'men' that created 'trinity'. It is NOT in the Bible nor was it EVER taught by Christ or His apostles. These statements are not only evidence, they are FACTS. We have recorded the very 'history' of 'trinity'. The word was never even MENTIONED until almost two hundred years AFTER the death of Christ. Many, many years AFTER the deaths of the apostles that WARNED us that people would come along LATER and introduce 'damnable heresy'. False doctrines. And if 'trinity' isn't one of them, what do YOU call it? For it is certainly contrary to all that was taught by Christ and His apostles.

Irrelevant. That a particular English word does not occur in the scriptures. The word homosexual does not occur in the scripture but men having sex with men is most certainly forbidden in the scripture, both Old and New Testament. You used the word "Bible" a few times in this post but that word never occurs in the scriptures.

You and others attempt to 'go back' now and try to find bits and pieces that FIT what you have come to believe. But in truth, if you READ the Bible from beginning to end IN ORDER, there is NO 'trinity' in the Bible. NOT ONE LINE of the Bible speaks of 'trinity'.
Blessings,
MEC

How can I read the "Bible," that word never occurs in scripture.
Eleven passages, from the list of 86, below, which reveal the Triunity of God. Each passage shows Father, Son, and Holy Spirit having a different relationship, effect, role, purpose, etc., with respect to believers.
For example, #1, Titus 3:4, believers are SAVED BY Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all three. We are SAVED BY,
1. the kindness and love of God our Savior,
2., by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, shed on us abundantly
3. through Jesus Christ our Saviour, all three..

(1.) Tit 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of 1 God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of 2the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he 3 shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
(2.) 2 Co 13:14 1 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and 2the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, 3be with you all. Amen.
(3.) Jud 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, 1 praying in the Holy Ghost,
21 Keep yourselves 2in the love of God, looking for 3 the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
(4.) 1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to 1 the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of 2 the Spirit, [Repeated three times, cf. 2 Th 2.13, Ro 15:16] unto obedience and 3 sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: [Repeated twice, cf. Heb 9.14] Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
(5.) Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, 1 The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and 2 the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing, which shall be born of thee shall be called 3 the Son of God,.
(6.) Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be 1 baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive 2 the gift of the Holy Ghost,.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as 3 the Lord our God shall call,.
(7.) Rom 15:16 That I should be 1 the minister of Jesus Christ, to the Gentiles, ministering 2the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being 3 sanctified by the Holy Ghost,.
(8.) Rom 15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be 1 a root of Jesse,, and he, that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him, shall the Gentiles trust.
13 Now 2 the God of hope, fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through 3 the power of the Holy Ghost,.
(9.) Heb 9.14 How much more, then, will 1 the blood of Christ, who 2 through the eternal Spirit, offered himself unblemished 3 to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!,
(10.) 2 Thess 2.13 But we ought always to 1 thank God, for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God, chose you to be saved through 2 the sanctifying work of the Spirit, and through belief in the truth.
14 He called you to this through our gospel, that you might 3 share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ,.
(11.) I Cor 12.3 Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
4 There are 1 different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.,
5 There are 2 different kinds of service, but the same Lord.,
6 There are 3 different kinds of working, but the same God, works all of them in all men.
The Gospels and Acts
Mat 1:18-22, Mat 3:9-11, Mat 3:16-17, Mat 4:1-4, Mat 10:19-23, Mat 12:28, Mat 28:19, Mark 12:35-37, Lk 1:15-17, Lk 1:30-35 *, Lk 1:67-69, Lk 2:25-32, Lk 4:12-13, Lk 10:21, Lk 12:8-10, Jn 1:32-34, Jn 3:31-35, Jn 14:15-17, Jn 14:25, Jn 15:26, Jn 16:7-10, Jn 16:13-15, Jn 20:16-22, Acts 1:4-5, Acts 1:7-8, Acts 2:32-33, Acts 2:38-39*, Acts 4:8-10, Acts 4:24-26, Act 4:29-31, Acts 5:30-32, Acts 7:51-56, Acts 8:14-17, Acts 9:15-20 Acts 10:38, Acts 11:15-17, Acts 11:23-24, Acts 15:7-11, Acts 16:6-10, Acts 20:22-24, Acts 28:23-25.
The Pauline writings
Rom 1:1-4, Rom 5:1-5, Rom 8:9-11, Rom 8:13-16, Rom 8:26-29, Rom 15:12-13*, Rom 15:16*, , Rom 14:15-17, Rom 15:16, Rom 15:18-19, Rom 15:30, I Cor 2:8-10, I Cor 2:14-16, I Cor 6:9-11, I Cor 6:14-19, I Cor 12:3-5*, 2 Cor 1:20-22, 2 Cor 3:3-4, 2 Cor 13:14*, Gal 3:1-5, Gal 4:4-6, Gal 5:21-25, Eph 2:17-18, Eph 3:14-17, Eph 4:4-6, Eph 4:30-32, Eph 5:18-20, Phil 3:3, I Thess 1:4-6, 2 Thess 2:13-14*, I Tim 3:15-16, Titus 3:4-6.*
The General Epistles
Heb 2:3-4; Heb 6:3-6; Heb 9:14*; Heb 10:29-31; I Pet 1:2; * I Pet 3:18; I Pet 4:14; I Jn 3:21-24; I Jn 4:13-14; I Jn 5:6-9; Jud 1:20-21*.
Revelation
Rev 14:12-13, Rev 22:17-18,​

 

[miknik5]

Der Alter,

What a 'waste of time'. Nothing you offered speaks of 'trinity'. Not one word. But since you seem to WANT to find scripture that offers the TRUTH, allow me to offer just a couple of lines:

Ephesians 1 (KJV)

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ

The God and Father of 'our Lord' Jesus Christ.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could read this and still maintain a belief in the idea of 'trinity'. It couldn't be offered any clearer.

And the opening: from God: our Father "AND" from our Lord Jesus Christ. If this doesn't show a complete separation of God from His Son, I don't know how one could offer words any clearer.

And the opening of almost EVERY epistle Paul wrote are almost identical.

How confusing eh? Paul offering an utter separation so far as God and His Son. And no way to 'talk around it'.

So your attempt to offer scripture written by Paul that teaches 'trinity'? Not even close. Paul taught NO 'trinity'. Paul taught NO 'three persons in ONE God'. And any attempt to pull scripture out of context to indicate such is just plain deceitful. Paul offer no 'indication' of 'trinity'. NONE.

Nor did any 'other apostle'. Only when you bend, twist, alter or take scripture out of context can scripture offered by the apostles be USED to indicate 'trinity'.

The word was NEVER uttered, nor was the concept ever offered. Each offered that the Father and the Son were two separate entities. Nothing offered that would teach us that they were 'two parts of the same God'. The Father IS God. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. THAT is what scripture teaches us.

And there is not one single line of the Bible that tells us that we MUST understand and accept that there are 'three persons in one God'. This is taught by MEN, not God. There is nothing offered in the Bible instructing us to BELIEVE in 'trinity'. In fact, if one actually reads the Bible in context, it would appear that the Bible warns us NOT to accept doctrines LIKE 'trinity'.

Blessings,

MEC

How many HOLY SPIRITS are there in Heaven?

 

[JoeP222w]

About the only piece of scripture I could find when searching the bible that would even support the idea of the Trinity is (John 10:30) when Jesus said "I and my Father are one". But, in the same chapter a few verses later in John 10:36 Jesus says "Say yet of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said I am the Son of God?"

In other words, Jesus said "I am not claiming to be God. I am claiming to be the Son of God."

In fact, nowhere else in the bible did Jesus ever apparently claim to be God. Throughout the entire bible he claimed to be the Son of God. Also, in (Matthew 3:16-17) we learn that the Spirit of God came down from heaven and said "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Well, if Jesus is our God Yahweh how can he be in two different places at once first of all. To claim that the baby Jesus is his son? I know, our LORD is all powerful and can do anything and to split into three would not be difficult for him. But, it just sounds fishy to me. Also, why would he claim "This is my son" and not say "He his me in human flesh" or "He is God" or say really ANYTHING that would support the Trinity?

Also, why would he in every single Bible verse where he speaks about the LORD would he call him Father if he was the same entity in a different Flesh? Why would Jesus say over and over again that the Father was greater than he was if he was God? (John 14:28)

If Jesus was God why would he be separate from God in Revelation? (Revelation 1:14-18) and the Father appears throughout Chapter 4.

It's very clear from Chapters 1-4 of Revelation that Jesus and the LORD are NOT equal. None of the 24 elders in Revelation 4:10 were worshiping Jesus they were worshiping the Father and the Father alone.

Also, if the LORD and Jesus were one why are they going to come down to the earth in two separate forms? And why would Jesus need to rule on the earth with us for 10,000 years? And then we worship the Father forevermore?

Why would Jesus state that the Father and the Father ALONE should be worshiped? (Matthew 4:10)

Why would Jesus state that nobody else on this earth is "Father" But, the LORD? (Matthew 23:9)

Also why would it say in the Bible over and over and over again that NOBODY is Equal to God? The only entity equal to the Father is, THE FATHER!

Yet, because of the belief in the Trinity so many Christians worship Jesus. It's even in almost every single worship song that exists today. An age, that's been proven over and over again to be corrupted? An age that Jesus warned us against (Matthew 7:15)

Also, why is Jesus always referred to in the bible as the Lord? And the Father is always referred to as the LORD? The two words are completely different. In other words, they're two completely different entities.

I'm not saying that Jesus never performed miracles. But, David also performed a miracle because he was blessed by God. Are we now going to claim that David is a god? We see miracles every single day! Are we all gods? The bible is very clear that we aren't. In fact, our desire to be gods in the first place, is part of what corrupted humanity in the first place (Genesis 3:5).

Who's to say that our LORD didn't bless Jesus in the same way? Just because Christ resurrected the dead doesn't automatically make him a god!

Paul also resurrected the dead! Are we going to claim that Paul is a god now too? Also, why would he say that he will be by the Lord's side in heaven after his resurrection if he was God?

Also, something that I'm having a really hard time accepting. If Jesus was God, why did he have to pray to HIMSELF asking for guidance and direction? Jesus was an EXTREMELY religous person who devoted and completely dedicated his life to the Father! He prayed to the Father constantly! If Jesus was the Father or any part of the Father why would he pray to HIMSELF asking what to do! If Jesus was God in the flesh he would have known exactly what to do and would have just did it and not prayed to himself for guidance at all!

So many things, just Biblically aren't adding up here. Not in the basic teachings of the LORD.

I'm not claiming to be right, in fact the Trinity is a large belief in Christianity. And, on these forums. I just think that, something just isn't right here. I'm sorry, it just isn't right. So many Bible verses contradict the Trinity that It's impossible for me to believe in. And I personally, will never believe in it. Not when the Bible gives so much evidence to the contrary. It seems to be the opinion of man and not the opinion of the LORD and certainly not of Jesus. Jesus always called himself the Son of God, and made that fact abundantly clear throughout the Bible.

My worship belongs to the LORD and the LORD alone. I pray to the LORD and the LORD alone. I hold Jesus in high respect but to me? Jesus is not God, is not equal to God, and in no way, shape, or form, is a god. This almost reminds me of Buddhism and many Buddhists today treating Buddha like he was a god. Buddha NEVER claimed to be a god nor did he want to be worshiped as one. Buddha spent his life looking FOR God.

Recommend you read "The Forgotten Trinity" by James R. White.

 

[Der Alte]

Recommend you read "The Forgotten Trinity" by James R. White.

I also have White's "The Forgotten Trinity." Another good book is "God Crucified" by Richard Bauckham. Also several years ago while I was working for the US Govt in the far east a close relative wrote me that he had become a Christian but informed me that the Trinity, Christmas, Easter etc. were all pagan. This relative did not have a computer so we discussed this by snail mail.
.....Most of his arguments had been downloaded from the 'net but after a few months he went to a book store, specifically trying to find something to bolster his argument. While shopping he picked up the book "The Trinity, Evidence and Issues" by Robert Morey read a little bit, did some more shopping came back and read a little more. He left came back the next day read a little more then bought the book, took it home and read it through twice. After which he wrote me that I was right and he was wrong. Whereupon I ordered the book.
.....Morey addresses virtually all the anti-Trinitarian arguments and cites 479+ verses of scripture, 150+ are OT, 40 apocryphal books, 12 dead sea scrolls and 10 Talmudic citations.

 

[Der Alte]

Der Alter,
What a 'waste of time'. Nothing you offered speaks of 'trinity'. Not one word. But since you seem to WANT to find scripture that offers the TRUTH, allow me to offer just a couple of lines:
Ephesians 1 (KJV)
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ
The God and Father of 'our Lord' Jesus Christ.
I find it hard to believe that anyone could read this and still maintain a belief in the idea of 'trinity'. It couldn't be offered any clearer.
And the opening: from God: our Father "AND" from our Lord Jesus Christ. If this doesn't show a complete separation of God from His Son, I don't know how one could offer words any clearer.
And the opening of almost EVERY epistle Paul wrote are almost identical.
How confusing eh? Paul offering an utter separation so far as God and His Son. And no way to 'talk around it'.
So your attempt to offer scripture written by Paul that teaches 'trinity'? Not even close. Paul taught NO 'trinity'. Paul taught NO 'three persons in ONE God'. And any attempt to pull scripture out of context to indicate such is just plain deceitful. Paul offer no 'indication' of 'trinity'. NONE.
Nor did any 'other apostle'. Only when you bend, twist, alter or take scripture out of context can scripture offered by the apostles be USED to indicate 'trinity'.
The word was NEVER uttered, nor was the concept ever offered. Each offered that the Father and the Son were two separate entities. Nothing offered that would teach us that they were 'two parts of the same God'. The Father IS God. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. THAT is what scripture teaches us.
And there is not one single line of the Bible that tells us that we MUST understand and accept that there are 'three persons in one God'. This is taught by MEN, not God. There is nothing offered in the Bible instructing us to BELIEVE in 'trinity'. In fact, if one actually reads the Bible in context, it would appear that the Bible warns us NOT to accept doctrines LIKE 'trinity'.
Blessings,
MEC

As you said what a waste of time. You keep repeating the same vacuous argument from silence. Yet you keep using the word "Bible" a word that does not occur anywhere in scripture.
.....There is one God. The Father is God but He is not he Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son is God but He is not he Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God but He is not he Son or the Father. There is one God.

[1] Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
[2] Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
[3]Luk 7:16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.
[4] Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[5] Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
[6] Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him[God created the world, Gen 1:1][/color], and the world knew him not.
[7] Joh 1:14 And the Word [acting on Himself] became flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
[8] Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten God, μονογενὴς θεὸς ] which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
[9] John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
[10] Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. [Jewish leaders speaking]
[11] Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.[John speaking]
[12] Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am [ אהיה/ehyeh, I am, Ex 3:14].
[13] John 12:41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his [Jesus] glory, and spake of him[יהוה/YHWH, Isa 6:1ff].

Isa 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple​

[14] Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
[15] Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was[Jesus was aware of His existence before the world was created.].
[16] Joh 17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine[Everything that belongs to the Father belongs to Jesus]; and I am glorified in them.
[17] Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, [Jesus] My Lord and my God. [Thomas addressed Jesus as God and Jesus praised him.]
[18] Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
[19] Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever[Jesus called God]. Amen.
[20] 2 Cor 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
[21] Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
[22] Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
[23] Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
[24] Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
[25] Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever[God calls the Son, God]: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
[26] Heb 3:3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.
4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.
[27] Phi 2:6 Who, being [existing] in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
[28] 1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh[Jesus called God], is justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
[29] 1 Tim 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ[Jesus called God], which is our hope;
[30] 1 Tim 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;[The lamb is king of kings, Rev 17:14, Jesus is king of kings, Rev 19:16, God is Lord of Lords Deu 10:17]
[31] Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ[Jesus called God];
14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
[32] 2 Pet 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[Jesus called God]:
[33] 1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life[Jesus called God].
[34] Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings[יהוה/YHWH, Deu 10:17]: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
[35] Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS[יהוה/YHWH, Deu 10:17].
[36] Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be[יהוה/YHWH, Isa 40:10].
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.[יהוה/YHWH, Isa 44:6]​

3. There is one God! The Holy Spirit is called/referred to as God, in scripture, but the Spirit is not the Father or the Son. Acts 5:3-4, Acts 28:25-27.
Scripture which identify the Holy Spirit as God

Act 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.​

This passage, Act 5:3-4, above, identifies the Holy Spirit as God by equating lying to the H.S. with lying to God.

Act 28:25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.​

This passage Act 28:25-27, above, identifies the Holy Spirit as YHWH by saying the H.S. spoke words which were spoken by YHWH, in Isa 6:8-10, below.

Isa 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, [יהוה/YHWH] saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.
9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed
-----
Heb 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. [O.T. see יהוה/YHWH, Jer 31:33-34]​

This passage, Heb 10:15-17, above, identifies the Holy Spirit as YHWH by saying words spoken by YHWH, in Jer 31:33-34, below, were spoken by the H.S.

Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, [יהוה/YHWH] I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more
-----
Heb 3:7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,
8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.
10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. [O.T. יהוה/YHWH, Ps 95:10]
11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.) [O.T. יהוה/YHWH, Deu 1:34-35]​

This passage, Heb 3:7-11, above, identifies the Holy Spirit as YHWH by saying words spoken by YHWH in Psa 95:10-11, and Deu 1:34-35, below, were spoken by the Holy Spirit.

Psa 95:10 Forty years long was I b][יהוה/YHWH vs. 6]grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:
11 Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.
---------
Deu 1:34 And the LORD [יהוה/YHWH] heard the voice of your words, and was wroth, and sware, saying,
35 Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers,​

 

[redleghunter]

It seems bad enough to say God is a person, but to say God is three persons (Greek hypostases), sounds worse. Those formal dogmatic definitions of the Trinity which insist that God is Trinitarian in essence; that the Son is an eternal Logos or ‘place of Forms’ somehow generated from the Father and that the three ‘persons’ of the Divine Being are related in love to one another, while yet somehow being the same being, without possessing different properties from one another, seems to me to be neither licensed by the Bible nor compatible with the stress on the mystery and ineffability of the divine which is so stressed in orthodox theology. One can take these philosophical constructs as imaginative insights into the divine, prompted by reflection and prayer within the Christian tradition. As such, they have great value; but something goes wrong when they are claimed, as they sometimes are, to give a correct description of what the divine being is in itself. These are symbols of infinity and not copies of divine reality; and to say that perhaps preserves the true intent of the orthodox theologians as well as reminding one that they are concerned with spiritual understanding, not with a rather arid form of Greek metaphysics. Therefore what we call God is beyond every category that the mind can develop. God is the ultimate reality that the human mind can embrace and it never does so except partially. The Trinitarian word for that is, 'Father', the source, the originator of all that is. We also experience God as the ultimate depth of meaning that is within. That is what the symbol 'Holy Spirit' stands for. Finally, we experience God coming to us from other lives and most especially through the life of the one we call Christ. That is what the symbol 'Son' stands for.

Are you going to give bishop Spong credit for what you just posted above without attribution?

Or did you lift this from a George Yandell sermon?

 

[Paul Yohannan]

It seems bad enough to say God is a person,

Why does the idea of a personal God trouble you?

but to say God is three persons (Greek hypostases), sounds worse.

Prosopa are not the same as hypostases.

Those formal dogmatic definitions of the Trinity which insist that God is Trinitarian in essence; that the Son is an eternal Logos or ‘place of Forms’

Nay. The Platonic concept of the Logos as one finds in Philo, for example, is not equivalent to the Christological concept, which is a translation of the Hebraic word "Memra.". A conflation of these ideas in Origen led to the heresy of Arius.

somehow generated from the Father and that the three ‘persons’ of the Divine Being are related in love to one another, while yet somehow being the same being, without possessing different properties from one another, seems to me to be neither licensed by the Bible nor compatible with the stress on the mystery and ineffability of the divine which is so stressed in orthodox theology.

This merely reflects a certain lack of erudition surrounding the Orthodox understanding of divine revelation. I would suggest Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky along with volume II of the Panarion of St. Epiphanius of Salamis, specifically, Against Arians, and a reread of De Incarnatione.

One can take these philosophical constructs as imaginative insights into the divine, prompted by reflection and prayer within the Christian tradition.

Not if one reads the written words or considers the recorded historical context of those who you propose imagined these "philosophical constructs."

As such, they have great value; but something goes wrong when they are claimed, as they sometimes are, to give a correct description of what the divine being is in itself.

If you actually understood the orthodox doctrinal perspective you would see the error in what you just wrote. As far as something going wrong, the horrible persecutions continually inflicted on Christians from the beginning for believing Jesus Christ to be God incarnate rather seems to defeat any argument that Trinitarian faith would be contrart to personal morality.

These are symbols of infinity and not copies of divine reality; and to say that perhaps preserves the true intent of the orthodox theologians as well as reminding one that they are concerned with spiritual understanding, not with a rather arid form of Greek metaphysics. Therefore what we call God is beyond every category that the mind can develop. God is the ultimate reality that the human mind can embrace and it never does so except partially.

Which is why faith in the divine personhood and the incarnation of God is so important.

The Trinitarian word for that is, 'Father', the source, the originator of all that is.

Whereas it is correct to say the Father is the source of the Godhead, it is incorrect to say the Father is more divine than the Son or the Spirit.

We also experience God as the ultimate depth of meaning that is within. That is what the symbol 'Holy Spirit' stands for. Finally, we experience God coming to us from other lives and most especially through the life of the one we call Christ. That is what the symbol 'Son' stands for.

This symbolism is superficially pleasant-sounding, but quite contrary to the living faith for which the persecuted Christians in the Islamic world are dying for, or what the persecuted Christians of the very disagreeable Soviet Union died for in previous decades.