Is God Three, or Two?

[Der Alte]

I do not consider myself an anti-Trinitarian. I simply define the Trinity differently from what is considered orthodox.
John 5:19-20:
19. Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; He can do only what He sees His Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
20. For the Father loves the Son and shows Him all He does. Yes, to your amazement He will show Him even greater things than these.

This is referring to God as He is revealed singularly as Father or Son, the two distinct persons who exist as the one God being.

Begging the question and violates the rules of language. Contrary to your assumption this verse does not say anything about, "God as He is revealed singularly as Father or Son, the two distinct persons who exist as the one God being!"

John 5:26:
26. For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.

The life which both the Father and the Son have in themselves is the life of the Holy Spirit, they are both one and the same Spirit in nature and substance, one Holy Spirit being. And as God (Father and Son) they both live in us as one Holy Spirit:

In Him (the Son) you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by His Spirit. - Eph 2:22.

More question begging! Neither of these verses say, "the Father and the Son . . . are both one and the same Spirit in nature and substance, one Holy Spirit being."

The Holy Spirit in us is God (Father and Son) living in us.
The distinction has to do with the fact that the Spirit is not just the Father or just the Son, He is both. God reveals Himself singularly as Father or Son, and He also reveals Himself plurally as Father and Son in the form of the Holy Spirit.
If the Holy Spirit is the nature and substance of God then the Holy Spirit is the person of God, because the person of God is God in nature and substance.

Continuing with the begged question that, "the Holy Spirit is the nature and substance of God then the Holy Spirit is the person of God."

John 16:13-15:
13. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on His own;

This means that the Spirit of truth will “speak” as the plural Father and Son, and not as a singular person. Christ is making the point that when the Spirit “speaks” it is the Father and Son who is speaking.

So when Jesus uses a singular pronoun, he, him, himself, referring to God, himself, or the Holy Spirit it means nothing he really means the plural father and son?

13. He will speak only what He hears,

What the Spirit “hears” is what is spoken between the Father and the Son, which is then reveal to us through their Spirit.

If the Spirit is the plural self of the Father and the Son how does he hear what is spoken between the Father and the Son? John 16:13 says the HS does NOT speak of Himself. No matter what kind of word games you try to play if, as you claim, the HS hears from the F&S, and he is the F&S then he hears from himself.

Notice that Christ here is using figure of speech by the use of the terms “speak” and “hears”. The Holy Spirit does not generally speak to us to give us understanding, He inspires us with understanding. The term “speak” is only a figure of speech. Similarly, the term “hears” is also a figure of speech as well.

The favorite cop-out of every false religious group when scripture, as written, contradicts their assumptions/presuppositions they blow it off as figurative. If we listened to every false religious group around, JW, LDS, UU, OP, WWCG, anti-Trin MJ, kristadelfian, etc. the entire Bible is figurative.

13. and He will tell you what is yet to come.
14. He will bring glory to Me by taking from what is Mine and making it known to you.
15. All that belongs to the Father is Mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is Mine and make it known to you.

Again, the term “take from” is only a figure of speech. Christ is simply making the point that all that He and the Father wants us to know will be revealed to us through their Spirit. The Father reveals Himself to us through the Son and the Son reveals Himself to us through the one Spirit. Therefore, all that the Father and Son has and does is revealed to us through the one Holy Spirit. The Father and the Son exist and function as one Holy Spirit and reveal themselves to us as one Holy Spirit being.

More arbitrary dismissing the literal scripture as figurative. Notice how the scripture is always figurative when it supports your assumptions/presuppositions. Everything in read is just your speculation.

For through Him (the Son) we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. - Eph 2:18.
This maybe because they never thought of God as a Holy Spirit they could receive or having a Holy Spirit they could receive. This lack of knowledge on their part doesn’t negate God Himself being the Holy Spirit. It maybe that they just didn’t fully understand God’s nature.

More speculation "maybe" this, "maybe" that, "maybe" something else.

It is expected that all that the Father and Son does is done through the Holy Spirit since they both are one and the same Holy Spirit, therefore they can only function through the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit is their very nature and substance.

The distinction between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is that the Father or Son are the two singularly persons of God and the Holy Spirit is the one plural person of God (Father and Son).

Not stated anywhere in scripture!

I don’t know, I’m not an anti-Trinitarian. To me it makes no difference, since God is revealed as a singular “self” in the form of Father or Son, as well as a plural “self” in the form of Holy Spirit.

It doesn't matter whether you are an anti-Trinitarian or not. According to you we ignore all the rules of grammar in the NT, because virtually everything concerning God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is figurative and we need someone with special, esoteric knowledge like you to tell us what it means.

An example of the plural “self” of God is found in Genesis 1:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters...Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...

Here we see God being revealed plurally in the form of one Spirit, one Holy Spirit.

Wresting scripture. Cramming two widely disparate verses, Gen 1:2 and 1:26, together to make them support your assumptions/presuppositions.

Since the Holy Spirit is the plural “self” of God (Father and Son) then everything the Holy Spirit says and does is from the Father and Son, because the Father and Son are one and the same Holy Spirit..

Ending by repeating your begged question, "the Holy Spirit is the plural 'self' of God (Father and Son)" which is NOT stated or implied anywhere in scripture.

 

[ARBITER01]

Three separate beings, with defined activities differing from themselves,.

2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all.

 

[2ducklow]

Three separate beings, with defined activities differing from themselves,.

Luke 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in his own glory, and the glory of the Father, and of the holy angels.


Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds.

1 Timothy 5:21 I charge thee in the sight of God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing by partiality.

thus 2 cor. 13.14 is no proof of a trinity.

2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

 

[ARBITER01]

Luke 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in his own glory, and the glory of the Father, and of the holy angels.


Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds.

1 Timothy 5:21 I charge thee in the sight of God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing by partiality.

thus 2 cor. 13.14 is no proof of a trinity.

2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

You can make claims that it is not, but most folks are able to read and see how one scripture line identifies 3 separate beings with 3 different involvements in our life.

You can certainly argue that for the sake of arguing it, and seek to pitt scripture against scripture to somehow fortify your case before others, but that line of scripture is really not hard to understand.

 

[cubinity]

Is there, within the Bible, any negative consequence for believing any of the following:

1) the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are, as separate people, all one God. (Trinitarian)

2) the Father and Jesus are united by a Holy Spirit, making them both one God. (OP's proposal)

3) the Father alone is God. He made his Son, who made everything else for Himself, and God appointed His Son as Lord over it all, giving Him total authority, as if the Son was God, and both share God's glory as the Son sits at the right hand of the Father, while the Holy Spirit helps the people. (anti-Trinitarian)

If so, what's the Scripture, and what is the consequence?

 

[ARBITER01]

Is there, within the Bible, any negative consequence for believing any of the following:

1) the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are, as separate people, all one God. (Trinitarian)

2) the Father and Jesus are united by a Holy Spirit, making them both one God. (OP's proposal)

3) the Father alone is God. He made his Son, who made everything else for Himself, and God appointed His Son as Lord over it all, giving Him total authority, as if the Son was God, and both share God's glory as the Son sits at the right hand of the Father, while the Holy Spirit helps the people. (anti-Trinitarian)

If so, what's the Scripture, and what is the consequence?

I'll speak for one of them. The problem with number 2 is that The Holy Spirit is identified separately at times, specifically in places such as acts. There are distinctions identified for each being of the GODHEAD, so trying to join 1 with the other 2 doesn't agree with the body of scripture.

The statement that agrees most with scripture would be 1.

 

[2ducklow]

When the obvious meaning of a scripture contradicts other scriptures and is illogical, nonsensical and contradictory, then it's time to look for a not so obvious meaning to that scripture, instead of saying one is 2,3,7,9 or 10,000,000, or up is down, or right is left, to support the obvious meaning of said scripture. Everyone knows that except when the subject is trinity.

 

[ARBITER01]

When the obvious meaning of a scripture contradicts other scriptures and is illogical, nonsensical and contradictory, then it's time to look for a not so obvious meaning to that scripture, instead of saying one is 2,3,7,9 or 10,000,000, or up is down, or right is left, to support the obvious meaning of said scripture. Everyone knows that except when the subject is trinity.

Suggesting that the triune description of GOD in scripture would somehow not agree with the full weight of scripture, both OT and NT, is quite funny.

2 Cor 13:14 identifies 3 separate beings doing 3 separate works in the believers life. That does not disagree with the body of scripture.

 

[2ducklow]

tom ran to the store, Judy baked a cake, and Alfred stole a minibike.
voila, a trinity.

 

[ARBITER01]

tom ran to the store, Judy baked a cake, and Alfred stole a minibike.
voila, a trinity.

Correct, now find where that understanding disagrees with scripture. If the doctrine of the triune nature of GOD is wrong, then scripture will easily prove it as such.

 

[2ducklow]

Alice sue and the family all went to town, voila another trinity. trinity is everywhere. 3 pennies on the ground, voila another trinity. air water and land, voila another trinity. tounge mouth and teeth, voila another trinity.

 

[ARBITER01]

Alice sue and the family all went to town, voila another trinity. trinity is everywhere. 3 pennies on the ground, voila another trinity. air water and land, voila another trinity. tounge mouth and teeth, voila another trinity.

Sure,.. you can rebelliously dismiss the truth if you want, but it is quite evident to anyone reading. If you have scripture that would disagree with the triune nature as described in 2 cor, present it.

 

[cubinity]

Sure,.. you can rebelliously dismiss the truth if you want, but it is quite evident to anyone reading. If you have scripture that would disagree with the triune nature as described in 2 cor, present it.

I can't see his posts, so I don't know his entire argument, but I think 2ducklow is arguing from the position of option 3 (post #65), but your arguments back, which clearly support option 1, seem to reflect that he is arguing option 2.

While I have no doubt you can defend your faith in the Trinity using verses from the Bible, so can the anti-Trinitarian. In fact, as a Trinitarian, I can successfully argue the anti-Trinitarian's case for him/her because I know there is as much support for it in Scripture as the Trinitarian view.

I have found from my experience that the truth worth arguing about is not the one we can "prove" from Scripture, but the one that draws us closer to Jesus. On this topic specifically, I have not found any consequences for believing any of the options in post #65, and I have known quite a few people who have been empowered in their relationships with Jesus precisely because they felt free to believe in an option other than my own.

Is an anti-Trinitarian view rebellious against Scripture, or just rebellious against the traditions of the institutional church?

 

[2ducklow]

some people use the word trinity to mean any group of 3, but the word trinity, when refering to the doctrine of the trinity, means 3 persons are one God, (often stated in various different ways, such as God shares 3 persons, ). 2 cor. 13.14 does not prove the trinity doctrine, it is used to prove the trinity doctrine because it is supposed that 3 individuals are being refered to, but that is only a suposistion. Supositions are no proof. the supposistion is that God, and the Holy Spirit are 2 individuals, but that need not be the case.
example.

JOhn, 2ducklow, and 2ducklow's soul, . Here we see only 2 individuals are being refered to because my soul and 2 ducklow are one being, one person. Likewise the Holy Spirit and God are one being, one God, not 2 persons that are one God. you guys suppose that 2 cor. 13.14 refers to 3 individuals,, and I suppose that 2 cor. 13.14 refers to 2 individuals. The rest of the bible would deteremine which supposistion is correct, not the verse 2 cor. 13.14.


in support of my view, from scripture, the bible says that God (the one named in 2 cor. 13.14) is holy and god is a spirit, and God the Father is the one and only real god, therefore I conclude that God the Father is holy spirit from those scriptures.
and since there is only one Holy Spirit, God the Father is the holy Spirit. The bible sometimes refers to god having a spirit and at other times as being a spirit. Just as humans sometimes say that we are a soul and at other times we have a soul. The truth is God is a spirit, but he personifies his spirit in scripture at times, just as we do with our soul. Personification is a subject in the bible seldom dealt with, which has caused much false doctrine.

A second major fault with using 2 cor. 13.14 as proof of the trinity, is that God the Father is not mentioned. It's God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. In trinity theology, God is a trinity, so 2 cor. 13.14 , from a trinity perspective, should be interperted to mean God the Son, The trinity, and the Holy spirit. Which one could equate to 5 persons.

So, 2 cor. 13.14 is extremely faulty as proof of the trinity. At best it could only be said to imply a trinity, at best it could only be used to support a more direct reference to a trinty, of which there are none. there is no scripture even mentioning a trinity, so 2 cor. 13.14 could not even be used to support a trinity scripture.

 

[ARBITER01]

I can't see his posts, so I don't know his entire argument, but I think 2ducklow is arguing from the position of option 3 (post #65), but your arguments back, which clearly support option 1, seem to reflect that he is arguing option 2.

While I have no doubt you can defend your faith in the Trinity using verses from the Bible, so can the anti-Trinitarian. In fact, as a Trinitarian, I can successfully argue the anti-Trinitarian's case for him/her because I know there is as much support for it in Scripture as the Trinitarian view.

I have found from my experience that the truth worth arguing about is not the one we can "prove" from Scripture, but the one that draws us closer to Jesus. On this topic specifically, I have not found any consequences for believing any of the options in post #65, and I have known quite a few people who have been empowered in their relationships with Jesus precisely because they felt free to believe in an option other than my own.

Is an anti-Trinitarian view rebellious against Scripture, or just rebellious against the traditions of the institutional church?

First off, I'm not interested in just being right.

As to your question, it's rebelliousness against scripture. Institutionalized Christianity has no bearing on the truth of the scriptures. In fact, as a non-denominational Christian, I would be hard pressed to agree with anything stated by traditional/institutionial Christian churches. Jesus is to have lordship in my life, as well as everyone else's, so they just don't matter to me.

What is of concern is to me is what The Holy Spirit reveals as truth to me from the weight of scripture. I'm able to choose one line of scripture and identify 3 beings with 3 separate activities in the believers life. That identifies a triune nature with GOD, and I did not need a traditional type church to teach me that.

 

[Doveaman]

Three separate beings, with defined activities differing from themselves,.

If the Father, Son and Holy spirit is God, and each one is a separate being, then wouldn't that be three God beings or three Gods?

How are these three separate beings considered one God being if they are three separate beings?

 

[Doveaman]

I'll speak for one of them. The problem with number 2 is that The Holy Spirit is identified separately at times, specifically in places such as acts. There are distinctions identified for each being of the GODHEAD,

Number 2 (the OP) does make a distinction between each of the three persons of the GODHEAD: The Father and Son are two singular persons, and the Holy Spirit is one plural person.

so trying to join 1 with the other 2 doesn't agree with the body of scripture.

Don't you have to join 1 with the other 2 in order for it to be considered a Trinity?

 

[Doveaman]

God as the Trinity is one Spirit Being who exists as two singular persons (Father and Son) in the form of one plural person (Holy Spirit).

Father, Son and Holy Spirit; three persons existing as one God Being.

 

[ARBITER01]

some people use the word trinity to mean any group of 3, but the word trinity, when refering to the doctrine of the trinity, means 3 persons are one God, (often stated in various different ways, such as God shares 3 persons, ). 2 cor. 13.14 does not prove the trinity doctrine, it is used to prove the trinity doctrine because it is supposed that 3 individuals are being refered to, but that is only a suposistion. Supositions are no proof. the supposistion is that God, and the Holy Spirit are 2 individuals, but that need not be the case.
example.

JOhn, 2ducklow, and 2ducklow's soul, . Here we see only 2 individuals are being refered to because my soul and 2 ducklow are one being, one person. Likewise the Holy Spirit and God are one being, one God, not 2 persons that are one God. you guys suppose that 2 cor. 13.14 refers to 3 individuals,, and I suppose that 2 cor. 13.14 refers to 2 individuals. The rest of the bible would deteremine which supposistion is correct, not the verse 2 cor. 13.14.


in support of my view, from scripture, the bible says that God (the one named in 2 cor. 13.14) is holy and god is a spirit, and God the Father is the one and only real god, therefore I conclude that God the Father is holy spirit from those scriptures.
and since there is only one Holy Spirit, God the Father is the holy Spirit. The bible sometimes refers to god having a spirit and at other times as being a spirit. Just as humans sometimes say that we are a soul and at other times we have a soul. The truth is God is a spirit, but he personifies his spirit in scripture at times, just as we do with our soul. Personification is a subject in the bible seldom dealt with, which has caused much false doctrine.

A second major fault with using 2 cor. 13.14 as proof of the trinity, is that God the Father is not mentioned. It's God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. In trinity theology, God is a trinity, so 2 cor. 13.14 , from a trinity perspective, should be interperted to mean God the Son, The trinity, and the Holy spirit. Which one could equate to 5 persons.

So, 2 cor. 13.14 is extremely faulty as proof of the trinity. At best it could only be said to imply a trinity, at best it could only be used to support a more direct reference to a trinty, of which there are none. there is no scripture even mentioning a trinity, so 2 cor. 13.14 could not even be used to support a trinity scripture.

If you actually have scripture that specifically speaks against the triune nature of GOD, you can present it, I'm not concerned with your personal ramblings about it.

 

[cubinity]

If you actually have scripture that specifically speaks against the triune nature of GOD, you can present it, I'm not concerned with your personal ramblings about it.

The same can be said of your argument. You have Scripture that says there are three people being mentioned at one time, but you don't have any Scripture that reveal explicitly Jesus is the deity, nor any Scripture calling those same three people "God" because they don't exist.

Therefore, while the arguments presented against you are opinions, they are not any more opinion than your own argument.

If you aren't actually concerned about being right, then you would be at peace leaving these fine folks to their inconsequential opinions.

FYI, the Trinity is historically accredited to the apostolic fathers (post-canon authors) and the institutional church. Scripture supporting the notion may be found it hindsight in the Scriptures, but the theology didn't originate there. You didn't learn the Trinity theology from the Bible, but I completely understand why you think you did. The teaching has saturated our Christian culture with as much fervor as hellenization or post-modernism.