Debating the Trinity

[LoveofTruth]

First, you have it all backwards. Pointing out an unauthorized addition to the Bible doesn't constitute attacking the Bible. Quite to the contrary. It constitutes a defense of the Bible from those who would disrespectfully add their own thoughts to it in order to promote their own agendas..


Also, you fail to explain the scripture where it is written that they had one God-the Father.



Why instead of saying that in the beginning was God and the Word was in the beginning with God and the Word was God, why doesn't it say and the Word and the Holy Spirit were with God and they both were also God? Now THAT would definitely be a clear Trinitarian statement.

Why does Jesus call the Father his God not just prior but even after being resurrected to heaven?



All these seem to convey a nontrinitarian viewpoint that should be given serious consideration and not just be merely shunted aside as nonsensical.

BTW
The scriptures you quoted are being forced into a Trinitarian mold. The Israelites who received them as God's chosen people drew no Trinitarian concept from those scriptures nor were they enlightened to see them that way. The interpretations seem forced. Not that I would object if they turn out to be true. Of course not. Only that they seem forced.

The King James Bible has it right in 1 John 5:7 , but that is another massive 45 hour talk in another thread.

that verse is older in reference than the newer versions. Cyprian quoted it in 250 Ad around

also consider the early Nicean Fathers ( so called) they quote many verses in their writings that are in the King james alone. based on the old text. Showing that the newer versions using certain text are false.

 

[Radrook]

The King James Bible has it right in 1 John 5:7 , but that is another massive 45 hour talk in another thread.

that verse is older in reference than the newer versions. Cyprian quoted it in 250 Ad around

also consider the early Nicean Fathers ( so called) they quote many verses in their writings that are in the King james alone. based on the old text. Showing that the newer versions using certain text are false.

It is a scripture which is suspect of being given a Trinitarian twist.

This is the way it went originally:
1 John 5:
…6This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ—not by water alone, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies to this, because the Spirit is the truth. 7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement.…

 

[Butch5]

the section in Corinthians is talking about the understanding that "these three are one ( 1 John 5:7). All scripture is only understood by the Spirit as i was saying and when i showed you the unanswerable section in Isaiha 48:12-18 or so, that is only seen by the spiritual man. For the natural man will see it as illogical or foolish to interpret it as it says. But to those who see spiritually and who have revelation of the Son and the father and the Holy Spirit, it is clear.

All things that can be known of God ( including the trip unity of the God head0 are only known by the spirit and so you are very very wrong in your understanding of 1 Cor 2. Paul is clear there and you nor any other natural man cannot understand the things of God but by the Spirit

also every true Christian only believes in ONE God , one being who consist of three person in One being. No one should say three Gods.

This trick is used by the Oneness groups to try and manipulate the hearers. But to all believers there is one being God who subsists in three persons. he word

The person of Christ " and the express image of His person, and pronouns like "he" or Him;' etc show personality. And when we see the father speaking personally and the Son and the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost speaks to men as well.

you are in grave danger spiritually if you deny the eternal Son of God and the true God . Jesus prayed to the father in John 17 and said that he had glory WITH him before the world was. This word "with" in Greek means beside or face to face. This is similar to John 1 where the Word was with God, or beside him face to face.

You've got Paul's words out of context and as such are misapplying them. In 1 Cor 2 the natural man is the Greek. There was a reason that the Greeks thought the Gospel was foolishness. If you understand Greek philosophy you know that in the Greek mind salvation was to escape the physical body and ascend into the "Pleroma" to be with the gods. In the Greek mind the body was the prison of the soul and they sought to be free of it. So, when Paul came along preaching the resurrection of the body the Greeks would see no purpose for that. Their goal was to escape the body, not be put back into it, let alone for eternity.

18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.1
19 And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?
20 For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.1
21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.1
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.1
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.1
32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. (Acts 17:18-32 KJV)

It helps greatly if we take the context and the historical setting into account. To take Paul's statement about the natural man and randomly apply it to everyone who doesn't have the Spirit goes way beyond what Paul was saying.

What you say about one being consisting of three person is illogical. Are you aware that one of the definitions of person is human being. The word being is a synonym for person. So, what you are essentially saying is that God is a being that consists of three other beings. Now, you have 4 beings. There is nothing ins Scripture that would support any such idea. It's an error from the fifth century.

 

[LoveofTruth]

1 John 5:7 evidence

We find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitateagainst the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

 

[Butch5]

Almost four hundred years is indeed a long time for a doctrine that is now viewed as very essential to Christian theology to have been absent as an absolute requirement for Christian worship. Also, the scripture does say that the Father is God without making mention of the Son nor the holy Spirit. However, how do you explain the many scriptures that the NT writers knew applied to God almighty but who then applied it to Jesus? How do you explain John 1: 1? There seems to be a controversy which the Bible itself generates by offering what appears to be contradictory testimony.

Hi Radroook,

The explanation, I believe, is fairly simple. I think one of the problems that is encountered is the way people use the word God. When you say God, people tend to think of a supreme being. However, the word that is translated God in the English Bible is the word "theos" which means deity or divinity.

Notice how Paul acknowledges many gods of the heathen.

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.1 (1 Cor. 8:5-6 KJV)

I bolded the word "theos" It's used of both The true God of Israel and pagan gods. In this context it's who is worshiped by different people.

For Christians there is one ultimate authority and that is the Father. The pagans worshiped mulitple gods, the Christians one, the Father. Even Jesus called the Father, His God. That leads us to the question, how is Jesus God? Remember, the word means Deity. If the Father is Deity then His offspring will also be Deity. The Son is of the same essence or substance as the Father. This is what the first Christians believed and can be seen in the early creeds.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.


THE NICENE CREED (381 A.D.)

We believe in one God, the Father, Ruler of all, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And we believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all time; Light, from Light, true God from true God; begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father,

Again, we see this up until the 400's AD. We see the change in the Athanasian Creed of around 450 AD.Notice that it contains illogical statements. Also, if you want to know where the idea came from that one must believe in the Trinity to be saved, note the first and last verses of the creed.

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

 

[Butch5]

1 John 5:7 evidence

We find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitateagainst the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

There's a lot of dispute about the Johannine Coma. However, even if it is accepted it doesn't prove your point. Too many take this passage as meaning that the three are one being. Look at the context. It's about unity.

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
(1 Jn. 5:5-9 KJV)

The three are being witness to the same thing, they are in unity, they are one in their witness. John is not saying that the Father, Son, and holy Spirit are one being. He's saying they are one in their witness, unified.

When understood in context this passage have no bearing at all on the Trinity.

 

[LoveofTruth]

There's a lot of dispute about the Johannine Coma. However, even if it is accepted it doesn't prove your point. Too many take this passage as meaning that the three are one being. Look at the context. It's about unity.

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
(1 Jn. 5:5-9 KJV)

The three are being witness to the same thing, they are in unity, they are one in their witness. John is not saying that the Father, Son, and holy Spirit are one being. He's saying they are one in their witness, unified.

When understood in context this passage have no bearing at all on the Trinity.

no he says these three are one, not they are one in their witness, unified etc.

 

[Butch5]

Almost four hundred years is indeed a long time for a doctrine that is now viewed as very essential to Christian theology to have been absent as an absolute requirement for Christian worship. Also, the scripture does say that the Father is God without making mention of the Son nor the holy Spirit. However, how do you explain the many scriptures that the NT writers knew applied to God almighty but who then applied it to Jesus? How do you explain John 1: 1? There seems to be a controversy which the Bible itself generates by offering what appears to be contradictory testimony.

I think John 1 is easily understood this way.

'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Deity, and the Word was Deity.'

I changed the word God to Deity. People see God as a person, so when they see the phrase 'the Word was God' it leads too many to the conclusion that the Word was the being they know as God. However, Deity isn't a person, but rather a title. I think that makes it easier to see that the Word can be Deity without being the Father who is also Deity.

 

[Butch5]

no he says these three are one, not they are one in their witness, unified etc.

He's talking about them being a witness.

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

They're one is their bearing record in Heaven. There is nothing in this passage about the physical or spiritual make up of the three. The passage doesn't even say they are one being as you have submitted.

 

[Radrook]

I think John 1 is easily understood this way.

'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Deity, and the Word was Deity.'

I changed the word God to Deity. People see God as a person, so when they see the phrase 'the Word was God' it leads too many to the conclusion that the Word was the being they know as God. However, Deity isn't a person, but rather a title. I think that makes it easier to see that the Word can be Deity without being the Father who is also Deity.

The Trinity doctrine does say that each aspect of the Godhead is fully God.
I disagree. I think that if indeed the Trinity is true, then each aspect would be a facet of God and three together would be God. Each one by itself cannot be fully God because God consists of a Trinity and each alone would need the other two in order to complete what we consider to be God. If a triangle loses one of its vertices it ceases to be a triangle.

 

[Doveaman]

That is a very profound concept. Are separating the Holy Spirit from God in some way. It seems as if you are now proposing not a Trinity but a Quadrinity.

1. God the Father
2. God the Son
3. God the Holy Spirit
4. God the Spirit

Not really.

The Father is God the Spirit, and the Son is God the Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is God the Spirit.

God the Spirit is one divine Spirit being existing as three "persons" -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

My view is that the Father is a singular person who exists as Father, the Son is a singular person who exists a Son, and the Holy Spirit is a dual person who exists as Father and Son.
But all three persons exist as one divine Spirit being called God.

 

[Doveaman]

The Trinity doctrine does say that each aspect of the Godhead is fully God.
I disagree. I think that if indeed the Trinity is true, then each aspect would be a facet of God and three together would be God. Each one by itself cannot be fully God because God consists of a Trinity and each alone would need the other two in order to complete what we consider to be God. If a triangle loses one of its vertices it ceases to be a triangle.

I agree.

God is one divine Spirit being existing as three "persons" or "hypostases" -- the three real and distinct substances in the one undivided substance or essence of God.

God must exists as three distinct spiritual "persons" in order for him to exists as one undivided Spirit being.

It is similar to the undivided dual nature of Christ who exists as one God-Man.

Here's a thought:

Since Jesus has now taken on a human nature, it may be said that God is now Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Man.

A Quadrinity and not a Trinity.

This means the Nicene Creed may need to be rewritten.

If Jesus is the begotten Son from the Father before all ages (according to the Nicene Creed), it also means that Jesus is the begotten Man from the Father before all ages.

 

[Butch5]

The Trinity doctrine does say that each aspect of the Godhead is fully God.
I disagree. I think that if indeed the Trinity is true, then each aspect would be a facet of God and three together would be God. Each one by itself cannot be fully God because God consists of a Trinity and each alone would need the other two in order to complete what we consider to be God. If a triangle loses one of its vertices it ceases to be a triangle.

Exactly! This is where those who hold the doctrine have resort to linguistical gymnastics. It's simply a logical fallacy. What is troubling is how so many will simply ignore the historical and grammatical evidence to defend a doctrine devised by men from the fifth century.

 

[Der Alte]

Exactly! This is where those who hold the doctrine have resort to linguistical gymnastics. It's simply a logical fallacy. What is troubling is how so many will simply ignore the historical and grammatical evidence to defend a doctrine devised by men from the fifth century.

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​

 

[Doveaman]

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​

Interesting.

 

[Butch5]

Interesting.

Yeah, but did you notice the Irenaeus quote didn't say anything about a Trinity?

 

[Butch5]

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​

Your point is?

 

[Doveaman]

Yeah, but did you notice the Irenaeus quote didn't say anything about a Trinity?

Yes I noticed.

 

[Der Alte]

Yeah, but did you notice the Irenaeus quote didn't say anything about a Trinity?

Irrelevant! The word Bible does not occur in scripture. There are many words which do not occur in scripture which are reasonably acceptable for Bible discussion e.g. Theology, Christology, Hamartology, Hermeneutics etc.

Your point is?

Go back and read my post and the post I was responding to and you might be able to ascertain my point.

 

[Butch5]

Irrelevant! The word Bible does not occur in scripture. There are many words which do not occur in scripture which are reasonably acceptable for Bible discussion e.g. Theology, Christology, Hamartology, Hermeneutics etc.

I didn't say the word trinity wasn't in the quote. I said there is no trinity in the quote.

Go back and read my post and the post I was responding to and you might be able to ascertain my point.

I read your posts. The reason I asked what your point was is that your reply had nothing to do with what I was talking about.