Is God Three, or Two?

[2ducklow]

Let's reiterate here,..

You used a section of scripture that identifies GOD as one, then you said Jesus was not GOD, then you attempted to suggest that the prophets of old only prophesied by their spirit instead of The Holy Spirit since you didn't believe The Holy Spirit was who Peter identified.

Peter didn't identify the spirit of Christ as the Holy Spirit you did. I never said m, nor do I believe, that prophets prophesised by their own spirit. Jesus, and all the prophets prophesised in the holy spirit.

That creates some contradictions.

only with your false understanding of what I said.

1) Only The Holy Spirit prophesied not unregenerate men, and Peter specifically mentions that The Spirit of Christ "testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ" ie prophesied or foretold. Mankind has never known that information. Additionally, scripture does not address anyone receiving a reborn spirit without The Holy Spirit.

You are still assuming that the Spirit of Christ
is the Holy Spirit. . the two verses do not say that. I believe the spirit of Christ is the holy spirit that indwells Him, not that the spirit of Christ is him.

Romans 8:9-10 But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness.

the two verses are saying that if you have the spirit of God dwelling in you, then you are not in the flesh, BUT if you don't have the spirit of Christ, then you are not even his. Meaning that one has to have the spirit of Christ to be saved, but has to have the indwelling of the holy spirit (spirit of god) to be in the spirit. christians that are saved only have the spirit of God with them, not in them, the infilling of the spirit of God comes later, if one seeks it and gets it.

John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.


the apostles, like all born again only saints, had the holy spirit with them, but spirit filled saints have that same spirit in them. It was only at the day of pentecost that the apostles received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

If a person HAVE NOT the spirit of Christ (the holy spirit) then he is none of his, he is not saved, he isn't a christian, BUT if a person has the holy spirit in them, then that person is in spirit. that is the meaning of 2 pet . 1.4.

2 things you fail to recognize and deal with, 1. the spirit of God indwells those who are in spirit, and 2. saints have the spirit of christ (possibly the holy spirit) in order to be his. Have and indwell are two different verbs wit hdifferent meanings which you take to mean the same thing.

2) Why would the Jews specifically say that Jesus made Himself equal with GOD,.. Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Because they misunderstood what Jesus meant. they also accused him of blasphemy, but they were wrong, Jesus commited no blasphemy, and Jesus also didn't make himself equal with God. scripture even says he didn't.

(Rotherham) Philippians 2:6 Who, in form of God, subsisting, not, a thing to be seized, accounted the being equal with God,


Jesus didn't consider equality with god something to be seized. he knew better, the devil tried to seize equality with God and look what happened to him. Jesus wasn't a dummy.

3) We have other places where Jesus and The Holy Spirit are listed equally with GOD,..(Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost:)

SPURIOUS SCRIPTURE.

So the idea that the passage in Deut 6:4 could only mean GOD was of one nature or essence would be wrong, unless we was to forcibly ignore those other sections like matthew, and 2 Cor 13:14, but that creates further contradictions on top of the ones we already have.

I never said deut. 6.4 means god is one nature or one essence. god is one spirit, one being, not one essence, or one nature, god is not a nature, esssence or person, he is a spirit.

The contradictions through are removed when we understand the weight of scripture in the context of 3 equal beings of the same nature, ie triune. That is the only way OT and NT agree.

No contradiction, you just failed to understand what I said..


person of god, nature, essence, are all meaningless terms used to describe trinity, nobody knows what a person of god is, and nature and essence are used interchangeablly for person of God. one god 3 natures. one god three persons, one god 3 essences. it's just a way to describe trinity without describing it.

 

[ARBITER01]

Peter didn't identify the spirit of Christ as the Holy Spirit you did. I never said m, nor do I believe, that prophets prophesied by their own spirit. Jesus, and all the prophets prophesied in the holy spirit.

That's good that you understand it, then you will agree that "the testimony of the sufferings of Christ" is described as coming from The Holy Spirit,..

1Pe 1:11 searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them.

You are still assuming that the Spirit of Christ is the Holy Spirit. . the two verses do not say that. I believe the spirit of Christ is the holy spirit that indwells Him, not that the spirit of Christ is him.

Romans 8:9-10 But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness.

the two verses are saying that if you have the spirit of God dwelling in you, then you are not in the flesh, BUT if you don't have the spirit of Christ, then you are not even his. Meaning that one has to have the spirit of Christ to be saved, but has to have the indwelling of the holy spirit (spirit of god) to be in the spirit. christians that are saved only have the spirit of God with them, not in them, the infilling of the spirit of God comes later, if one seeks it and gets it.

John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

the apostles, like all born again only saints, have the holy spirit with them, but spirit filled saints have that same spirit in them. If a person HAVE NOT the spirit of Christ (the holy spirit) then he is none of his, he is not saved, he isn't a christian, BUT if a person has the holy spirit in them, then that person is in spirit. that is the meaning of 2 pet . 1.4.

2 things you fail to recognize and deal with, 1. the spirit of God indwells those who are in spirit, and 2. saints have the spirit of christ (possibly the holy spirit) in order to be his. Have and indwell are two different verbs wit hdifferent meanings which you take to mean the same thing.

That was a nice lengthy explanation on your part, but it contradicts our biblical example from the apostles,..

Act 1:5 for John indeed baptized in water, but you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days after."

And that event happened here, as well as their filling,..

Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them.

Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Immersion and filling. They had not received The Holy Spirit prior to this since Jesus specifically said they would be immersed in The Holy Spirit shortly. The major point is this: they were filled there and then with The Holy Spirit when they were immersed in Him. There was not another time when they somehow received The Holy Spirit later. Their example is ours. We can have a greater filling afterwards, but The Holy Spirit is placed within us at our Spiritual rebirth, not sometime later, as scripture does not describe a secondary event for such a thing.

Because they misunderstood what Jesus meant. they also accused him of blasphemy, but they were wrong, Jesus commited no blasphemy, and Jesus also didn't make himself equal with God. scripture even says he didn't.

(Rotherham) Philippians 2:6 Who, in form of God, subsisting, not, a thing to be seized, accounted the being equal with God,


Jesus didn't consider equality with god something to be seized. he knew better, the devil tried to seize equality with God and look what happened to him. Jesus wasn't a dummy.

You can use a better translation,..

Php 2:6 who subsisting in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,

Additionally, that area wasn't the only place where Jesus described his equality with GOD,..

Joh 17:21 that all may be one, as You are in Me, Father, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us (PLURAL), that the world may believe that You sent Me.

Joh 17:22 And I have given them the glory which You have given Me, that they may be one, as We are One(Plural again):

SPURIOUS SCRIPTURE.

Except, that the particular scripture you just quickly tried to write off is in every Greek manuscript ever collected, every single one without exception,... so no,.. not spurious, it stands.

I never said deut. 6.4 means god is one nature or one essence. god is one spirit, one being, not one essence, or one nature, god is not a nature, esssence or person, he is a spirit.

No contradiction, you just failed to understand what I said..

person of god, nature, essence, are all meaningless terms used to describe trinity, nobody knows what a person of god is, and nature and essence are used interchangeablly for person of God. one god 3 natures. one god three persons, one god 3 essences. it's just a way to describe trinity without describing it.

GOD is a Spirit of course, we can agree on that terminology, but not just one alone, as scripture describes.

 

[2ducklow]

Additionally, that area wasn't the only place where Jesus described his equality with GOD,..

Joh 17:21 that all may be one, as You are in Me, Father, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us (PLURAL), that the world may believe that You sent Me.

Joh 17:22 And I have given them the glory which You have given Me, that they may be one, as We are One(Plural again):
​

Someone saying us doesn't mean that person is equal with the other person, and one is singular not plural.

A man gave us a bag of cat food, me and my cat. Us doesn't mean someone is equal to the other person or thing.

You can use a better translation,..

Php 2:6 who subsisting in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,
​

either translation is correct grammatically.

Immersion and filling. They had not received The Holy Spirit prior to this since Jesus specifically said they would be immersed in The Holy Spirit shortly. The major point is this: they were filled there and then with The Holy Spirit when they were immersed in Him. There was not another time when they somehow received The Holy Spirit later. Their example is ours. We can have a greater filling afterwards, but The Holy Spirit is placed within us at our Spiritual rebirth, not sometime later, as scripture does not describe a secondary event for such a thing.

That understanding contradicts scripture.

ASV) Acts 19:2 and he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed? And they [said] unto him, Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was [given].


thus receiving the holy spirit at conversion isn't automatic as you suppose.

Except, that the particular scripture you just quickly tried to write off is in every Greek manuscript ever collected, every single one without exception,... so no,.. not spurious, it stands.

Manuscript evidence isn't the only evidence to consider. Plus you failed to mention that no manusript, nothing prior to the council of nicea in 325 contains the ending of matthew. you failed to mention the eusebius quoted matthew 28.19 some 23 times in his books without the triune formula, you failed to mention a whole host of other data that condemns matthew 28.19 as spurious. Trinitarians have been trying for centuries to put trinity in various scriptures, not just matthew 28.19 , they tried for example to put it in matthew 6.13, but got caught, cause they didn't do it soon enoguth, and thereare other numerous scriptures where they tried and failed to put father son and holy ghost in the bible, all failed, except mathew 28.19, but there is a paper trail, and evidence to condemn it as spurious, I see from your reply that you prob. are aware of the arguments and choose to believe there is no evidence, in spite of the fact there is a multitude of evidence for it being spurious. any evidence I bring im sure you will say is no evidence, every trinitarian I have discussed this with takes that track.

​

 

[ARBITER01]

Someone saying us doesn't mean that person is equal with the other person, and one is singular not plural.

Sorry, but Jesus wasn't talking to Himself, He did have an audience, so repetitive dismissal is not going to be a strong point on this one friend.

There are two sections that are plural there, along with the other section already presented.

That understanding contradicts scripture.

ASV) Acts 19:2 and he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed? And they [said] unto him, Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was [given].

thus receiving the holy spirit at conversion isn't automatic as you suppose.

There is no contradiction in scripture, you just conveniently refused to post the whole section for better understanding, here let me help you out,..

Act 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples:

Act 19:2 and he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Ghost when ye believed? And they said unto him, Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Ghost was given.

Act 19:3 And he said, Into what then were ye baptized? And they said, Into John’s baptism.

Well looky there folks, they did not know about Jesus, so they were not born again yet,.....

Act 19:4 And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Jesus.

And what happened after they accepted Jesus??,..

Act 19:5 And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Immersed and filled with The Spirit, how about that. Ain't it nice when you post the whole section for everyone to get a "complete" understanding of the section of text?!?!

Manuscript evidence isn't the only evidence to consider. Plus you failed to mention that no manusript, nothing prior to the council of nicea in 325 contains the ending of matthew. you failed to mention the eusebius quoted matthew 28.19 some 23 times in his books without the triune formula, you failed to mention a whole host of other data that condemns matthew 28.19 as spurious. Trinitarians have been trying for centuries to put trinity in various scriptures, not just matthew 28.19 , they tried for example to put it in matthew 6.13, but got caught, cause they didn't do it soon enoguth, and thereare other numerous scriptures where they tried and failed to put father son and holy ghost in the bible, all failed, except mathew 28.19, but there is a paper trail, and evidence to condemn it as spurious, I see from your reply that you prob. are aware of the arguments and choose to believe there is no evidence, in spite of the fact there is a multitude of evidence for it being spurious. any evidence I bring im sure you will say is no evidence, every trinitarian I have discussed this with takes that track.

Sorry friend, it's not happening. No Greek manuscript is missing the section, not one.

The only type of so-called manuscripts that actually have the section missing would be one of the Christian hebrew texts from 15th century or so, and you ain't breaking any new ground with those. Several rag-tag scholars pursuing an agenda have already tried over years, and they made no headway against the Greek.

 

[Der Alte]

[ . . . ]Manuscript evidence isn't the only evidence to consider. Plus you failed to mention that no manusript, nothing prior to the council of nicea in 325 contains the ending of matthew. you failed to mention the eusebius quoted matthew 28.19 some 23 times in his books without the triune formula, you failed to mention a whole host of other data that condemns matthew 28.19 as spurious.

Still promoting the falsehood straight from the pits of Satan re: Matt 28:19! All, 100%, of your so-called "other data that condemns matthew 28.19 as spurious" is equally false. Please try to impress those who don't know with your phony copy/paste about Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

First and foremost Eusebius was an Arian who was excommunicated in 312 for his heretical beliefs. He was reinstated by Constantine, another Arian, for the Nicaean council. That would explain why he did not quote the Triadic formula. What you, and other critics, deliberately fail to state is that Eusebius quoted Matt 28:19 with the Triadic formula at least 5 times in his writings. Here are several irrefutable citations of Mt 28:19 with the Triadic formula hundreds of years before Nicaea and Eusebius.

To verify citations, [ECF Link]

1. Ignatius – The Epistle to the Philadelphians [30-107 a.d.], [a disciple of John.] [218 + years before Nicaea]

Chapter IX.-The Old Testament is Good: the New Testament is Better

"Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." All then are good together, the law, the prophets, the apostles, the whole company [of others] that have believed through them: only if we love one another.

2. Irenaeus – Against Heresies Book III [a.d. 120-202.], [a student of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John.] [123 + years before Nicaea]

That is the Spirit of whom the Lord declares, "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you."308 And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God,309 He said to them," Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. "

3. Justin – 1st Apology Chapter LXI.-Christian Baptism. [110-165 a.d. ][ca. 175 years before Nicaea]

Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.127

4. Tertullian – The Prescription Against Heretics.1 [a.d. 145-220] [105 + years before Nicaea]

Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to "go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost." 203

4a. Tertullian – On Baptism. [105 + years before Nicaea]

For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: "Go," He saith, "teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. "

5. The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus. – Part II. – Dogmatical and Historical. (c.170-c.236). [89 + years before Nicaea]

The Father's Word, therefore, knowing the economy (disposition) and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. "265 And by this He showed, that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested. The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim this truth.

6. Cyprian – Treatise XII.1 – Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews. [c.200-258][67 + years before Nicaea]

And He laid His right hand upon me, and said, Fear not; I am the first and the last, and He that liveth and was dead; and, lo, I am living for evermore289 and I have the keys of death and of hell."290 Likewise in the Gospel, the Lord after His resurrection says to His disciples: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

7. Origen – de Principiis Book I [c.185-c.254] [71+ years before Nicaea]

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.

8. The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations. –
Chapter VII. – Concerning Baptism. [120 AD][205 years before Nicaea]

1. And concerning baptism,73 thus baptize ye:74 Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,75 in living water.76 2. But if thou have not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou3canst not in cold, in warm. 3. But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice77 upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. 4. But before the baptism let the 4 baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but thou shalt order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

9. Constitutions of the Holy Apostles – Book II. Of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. [Late 2d to early 3d century] [100 + years before Nicaea]

Let the presbyters be esteemed by you to represent us the apostles, and let them be the teachers of divine knowledge; since our Lord, when He sent us, said, "Go ye, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

10. Life and Conduct of the Holy Women Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca [mid 3d century] [75 years before Nicaea]

XIV. Therefore the great Paul straightway taking her hand, went into the house of Philotheus, and baptised her in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost.

11. Tatian – The Diatessaron [ca. 175] [150 years before Nicaea]

Then said Jesus unto them, I have been given all authority in heaven 5 and earth; and as my Father hath sent me, so I also send you. Go now into [sup]6[/sup] all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and 7 baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the days, unto 8 the end of the world.

At the seventh Council of Carthage in 256 [69 years before Nicaea], a bishop named Vincentius of Thibaris said, "We have assuredly the rule of truth which the Lord by His divine precept commanded to His apostles, saying, 'Go ye, lay on hands in My name, expel demons.' And in another place: "Go ye and teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'" Vincentius' second quotation is from Matthew 28:19. Despite attempts by some interpreters to connect the first quotation to Matthew 10:8, the references to going, laying on hands, expelling demons, and doing so in My name add up to a reference to Mark 16:15- 18, especially when placed side-by-side with the parallel passage from Matthew

Seventh Council of Carthage - Concerning the Baptism of Heretics. The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics. 256 a.d. [69 years before Nicaea]

12. Lucius of Castra Galbae said: Since the Lord in His Gospel said, "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt should have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out of doors, and to be trodden under foot of men." And again, after His resurrection, sending His apostles, He gave them charge, saying, "All power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth. Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

13. Munnulus of Girba said: The truth of our Mother6 the Catholic Church, brethren, hath always remained and still remains with us, and even especially in the Trinity of baptism, as our Lord says, "Go ye and baptize the nations, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. "

14. Euchratius of Thenae said: God and our Lord Jesus Christ, teaching the apostles with His own mouth, has entirely completed our faith, and the grace of baptism, and the rule of the ecclesiastical law, saying: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

15. Vincentius of Thibaris said: We know that heretics are worse than Gentiles. If, therefore, being converted, they should wish to come to the Lord, we have assuredly the rule of truth which the Lord by His divine precept commanded to His apostles, saying, "Go ye, lay on hands in my name, expel demons." And in another place: "Go ye and teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."​

Trinitarians have been trying for centuries to put trinity in various scriptures, not just matthew 28.19 , they tried for example to put it in matthew 6.13, but got caught, cause they didn't do it soon enoguth, and thereare other numerous scriptures where they tried and failed to put father son and holy ghost in the bible, all failed, except mathew 28.19, but there is a paper trail, and evidence to condemn it as spurious, I see from your reply that you prob. are aware of the arguments and choose to believe there is no evidence, in spite of the fact there is a multitude of evidence for it being spurious. any evidence I bring im sure you will say is no evidence, every trinitarian I have discussed this with takes that track.

You have NO, ZERO, NONE credible evidence for anything concerning Matthew 28:19.

 

[cubinity]

This debate has only reinforced that claim for me that no person will likely deduce the Trinity from the Scriptures unless first led by someone to find it there.

We Trinitarians has the benefit of orthodoxy, tradition, and the most substantial hold on Christian theology regarding the nature of God. However, any argument for the Trinity relying entirely on Scripture always proves to have so many holes and to be substantiated only by that believer's specific interpretations and opinions that the only thing that debater can do is resort to simply not listening and insisting they are right. This is an all-to-common tragedy regarding this issue.

If, as so many have been, the Trinitarian is honest about the sources of his or her theological belief in the Trinity (post canon sources like the apostolic fathers), his or her argument usually maintains stability.

On the other hand, there is substantial evidence in the Scriptures that the authors were not trying to communicate the Trinity specifically, giving the anti-Trinitarian considerable fuel for his or her theological beliefs that there is only a singular God in the Bible. This view is obviously unorthodox, and equally based on that believer's specific interpretations and opinions, but not provably wrong according to the evidence.

Furthermore, since the Trinity is a construct of non-canonized church tradition, there is room to mold it, explore unorthodox facets of it, and even reinvent it if a person was so inclined: some of which the OP has done successfully in this thread.

The OP has asked an honest question, and explored a potential aspect of the Trinity idea. Since some of us have concluded that all of the presented opinions for understanding the nature of God are Scripturally inconsequential and circumstantial, I have personally enjoyed learning more about each of these acceptable approaches to this issue.

Christianity benefits from diversity regarding these inconsequential matters, and I am thankful to be a part of such a diverse community of believers!

Now that I've said that, let's go back to the debate...

 

[Der Alte]

Yep, guess we all should reject all historical evidence, lean on our own understanding, influenced, of course, by whatever tradition we have grown up in, and fall back on the old logical fallacy, argument from silence, "The word Trinity isn't in the Bible so it can't be Biblical."

 

[ARBITER01]

Yep, guess we all should reject all historical evidence, lean on our own understanding, influenced, of course, by whatever tradition we have grown up in, and fall back on the old logical fallacy, argument from silence, "The word Trinity isn't in the Bible so it can't be Biblical."

Well, not everyone is so inclined to intake false suggestive thoughts like that so easily though. I can positively, with all honesty, say that I did not learn about the GODHEAD through any institutionalized church, be it Catholic or Protestant. In fact, my 1st 13 years after being born again had no involvement in a church while being stationed at various places in the military. I chose not to.

 

[Der Alte]

Yep, guess we all should reject all historical evidence, lean on our own understanding, influenced, of course, by whatever tradition we have grown up in, and fall back on the old logical fallacy, argument from silence, "The word Trinity isn't in the Bible so it can't be Biblical."

Well, not everyone is so inclined to intake false suggestive thoughts like that so easily though. I can positively, with all honesty, say that I did not learn about the GODHEAD through any institutionalized church, be it Catholic or Protestant. In fact, my 1st 13 years after being born again had no involvement in a church while being stationed at various places in the military. I chose not to.

I was being somewhat sarcastic.

 

[ARBITER01]

I was being somewhat sarcastic.

I picked up on some of that, but your example was exactly how many folks ingested false teachings at an early stage of their maturity. They refused anyone, as well as The Holy Spirit, and suffered major setbacks in growth because of it.

 

[Doveaman]

This debate has only reinforced that claim for me that no person will likely deduce the Trinity from the Scriptures unless first led by someone to find it there.

We Trinitarians has the benefit of orthodoxy, tradition, and the most substantial hold on Christian theology regarding the nature of God. However, any argument for the Trinity relying entirely on Scripture always proves to have so many holes and to be substantiated only by that believer's specific interpretations and opinions that the only thing that debater can do is resort to simply not listening and insisting they are right. This is an all-to-common tragedy regarding this issue.

If, as so many have been, the Trinitarian is honest about the sources of his or her theological belief in the Trinity (post canon sources like the apostolic fathers), his or her argument usually maintains stability.

On the other hand, there is substantial evidence in the Scriptures that the authors were not trying to communicate the Trinity specifically, giving the anti-Trinitarian considerable fuel for his or her theological beliefs that there is only a singular God in the Bible. This view is obviously unorthodox, and equally based on that believer's specific interpretations and opinions, but not provably wrong according to the evidence.

Furthermore, since the Trinity is a construct of non-canonized church tradition, there is room to mold it, explore unorthodox facets of it, and even reinvent it if a person was so inclined: some of which the OP has done successfully in this thread.

The OP has asked an honest question, and explored a potential aspect of the Trinity idea. Since some of us have concluded that all of the presented opinions for understanding the nature of God are Scripturally inconsequential and circumstantial, I have personally enjoyed learning more about each of these acceptable approaches to this issue.

Christianity benefits from diversity regarding these inconsequential matters, and I am thankful to be a part of such a diverse community of believers!

Now that I've said that, let's go back to the debate...

I couldn't have said it better myself. Well put.

 

[Doveaman]

So really no scripture speaks of god having a nature.

I understand what you are saying here, but nature can be defined as:

The inherent tendencies directing conduct.

The tendencies or desires governing behaviour.

The fundamental qualities of a person; identity or essential character.

The particular combination of qualities belonging to a person by constitution; inherent character.

From these definitions I think it is safe to say that God has a nature, and since God is divine then His nature would be a divine nature.

person of god, nature, essence, are all meaningless terms used to describe trinity, nobody knows what a person of god is, and nature and essence are used interchangeablly for person of God. one god 3 natures. one god three persons, one god 3 essences. it's just a way to describe trinity without describing it.

So how exactly do you describe Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Are they God or not? And do they have personality or not? And are they God’s personality or not?

 

[Doveaman]

The contradictions through are removed when we understand the weight of scripture in the context of 3 equal beings of the same nature, ie triune. That is the only way OT and NT agree.

And this triune nature of God can be defined as Two singular persons (Father or Son) and One plural person (Holy Spirit). Two plus One equals Three. This definition does not deny the triune nature of God, it simply defines it differently.

We know that God reveals Himself as two singular persons: Father or Son, and we also know that God reveals Himself as one plural person: Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness - Gen 1:26.

The nature of God as singular but yet triune is also brought out in this verse:

For in Christ all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in bodily form - Col 2:9.

The fullness of God as Father lived in the Son’s physical body through the Holy Spirit.

This is why the Son could say: He who has seen Me has seen the Father...Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? ...the Father who dwells in Me does the works. - John 14:9-10.

It is the Father that works in the Son through the Holy Spirit.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit in one body: Trinity.

 

[Der Alte]

(Rotherham) Philippians 2:6 Who, in form of God, subsisting, not, a thing to be seized, accounted the being equal with God,

Jesus didn't consider equality with god something to be seized. he knew better, the devil tried to seize equality with God and look what happened to him. Jesus wasn't a dummy.[ . . . ]

I'm sure you have access to a parsed NT,

Phi 2:6 ος 3739 R-NSM εν 1722 PREP μορφη 3444 N-DSF θεου 2316 N-GSM υπαρχων 5225 V-PAP-NSM ουχ 3756 PRT-N αρπαγμον 725 N-ASM ηγησατο 2233 V-ADI-3S το 3588 T-ASN ειναι 1511 V-PXN ισα 2470 A-NPN θεω 2316 N-DSM​

The verb wrongly translated "to be" in "to be equal" is a V-PXN, present, no voice stated, infinitive. "the being equal with God," It was a then, and there reality, not something considered and declined.

 

[Der Alte]

And this triune nature of God can be defined as Two singular persons (Father or Son) and One plural person (Holy Spirit). Two plus One equals Three. This definition does not deny the triune nature of God, it simply defines it differently.

You are not describing two plus one = three, but one plus one = one.

We know that God reveals Himself as two singular persons: Father or Son, and we also know that God reveals Himself as one plural person: Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness - Gen 1:26.

Describes the plural nature of God but does NOT limit that plurality to only two.

The nature of God as singular but yet triune is also brought out in this verse:

For in Christ all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in bodily form - Col 2:9.

The fullness of God as Father lived in the Son’s physical body through the Holy Spirit.

No scripture states, "The fullness of God as Father lived in the Son’s physical body through the Holy Spirit.!"

This is why the Son could say: He who has seen Me has seen the Father...Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? ...the Father who dwells in Me does the works. - John 14:9-10.

It is the Father that works in the Son through the Holy Spirit.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit in one body: Trinity.

Father and son in one is NOT a Trinity, that is a duality.

 

[higgs2]

gaaaaaaaaasp!!!!

 

[ARBITER01]

And this triune nature of God can be defined as Two singular persons (Father or Son) and One plural person (Holy Spirit). Two plus One equals Three. This definition does not deny the triune nature of God, it simply defines it differently.

We know that God reveals Himself as two singular persons: Father or Son, and we also know that God reveals Himself as one plural person: Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness - Gen 1:26.

The nature of God as singular but yet triune is also brought out in this verse:

For in Christ all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in bodily form - Col 2:9.

The fullness of God as Father lived in the Son’s physical body through the Holy Spirit.

This is why the Son could say: He who has seen Me has seen the Father...Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? ...the Father who dwells in Me does the works. - John 14:9-10.

It is the Father that works in the Son through the Holy Spirit.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit in one body: Trinity.

It seems you are complicating things in respect to the position of The Holy Spirit. He is just as much GOD and Lord as The Father and Son, and we see that identified specifically for us by Paul,..

1Co 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

1Co 12:2 Ye know that when ye were Gentiles ye were led away unto those dumb idols, howsoever ye might be led.

1Co 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking in the Spirit of God saith, Jesus is anathema; and no man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit.

1Co 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

1Co 12:5 And there are diversities of ministrations, and the same Lord.

1Co 12:6 And there are diversities of workings, but the same God, who worketh all things in all.

1Co 12:7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal.

 

[Doveaman]

You are not describing two plus one = three, but one plus one = one.

Yeah, God's nature is complicated like that; three is one and two is one and one is one and one is two and one is three.

Describes the plural nature of God but does NOT limit that plurality to only two.

I agree: God reveals Himself as One Father and One Son and One Holy Spirit; One Father and One Son existing as One Holy Spirit. One + One + One = Three.

No scripture states, "The fullness of God as Father lived in the Son’s physical body through the Holy Spirit.!"

That my understanding of the verse:

For in Christ all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in bodily form - Col 2:9.

How does all the fullness of the Godhead dwell in the physical body of the Son if not by the Holy Spirit?

He who has seen Me has seen the Father...Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? ...the Father who dwells in Me does the works. - John 14:9-10.

How does the Father dwell and work in the Son if not by the Holy Spirit?

Father and son in one is NOT a Trinity, that is a duality.

I'm using my definition, not yours. God is one Father and one Son, and God as one Father and one Son is also one Holy Spirit. The Trinity is Father, Son and Holy Spirit existing as one God.

 

[Doveaman]

It seems you are complicating things in respect to the position of The Holy Spirit. He is just as much GOD and Lord as The Father and Son,

Of course He is. God and Lord as The Father and Son is one Holy Spirit, therefore Holy Spirit is just as much GOD and Lord as The Father and Son. No disagreement here.

and we see that identified specifically for us by Paul,..
1Co 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
1Co 12:2 Ye know that when ye were Gentiles ye were led away unto those dumb idols, howsoever ye might be led.
1Co 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking in the Spirit of God saith, Jesus is anathema; and no man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit.

This makes sense if Jesus, the Son, and God, the Father, is also the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit, the plural person of God (Father and Son), does not speak against Himself, and the Lord Jesus, the Son, is revealed in the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit is also the Lord Jesus, the Son, and God, the Father.

1Co 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
1Co 12:5 And there are diversities of ministrations, and the same Lord.
1Co 12:6 And there are diversities of workings, but the same God, who worketh all things in all.
1Co 12:7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal.

These verses are simply telling us that God works in us and the Lord ministers in us through the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us. The Holy Spirit in us is God in us and the Lord in us working and ministering through us by the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us.

For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. - 1 Cor 12:8-11.

The Holy Spirit is the plural God (Father and Son) in us distributing to each one of us individually His spiritual gifts according to His own will.

 

[2ducklow]

I understand what you are saying here, but nature can be defined as:

The inherent tendencies directing conduct.

The tendencies or desires governing behaviour.

The fundamental qualities of a person; identity or essential character.

The particular combination of qualities belonging to a person by constitution; inherent character.

From these definitions I think it is safe to say that God has a nature, and since God is divine then His nature would be a divine nature.
So how exactly do you describe Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Are they God or not? And do they have personality or not? And are they God’s personality or not?

the Father is the one and only real or true god.
the son is the new man, the new creation of god, begotten of god, and conceived of Mary. God created new human male seed that he used to fertilize Mary's egg with, thus resulting in God's only begotten son. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God the Father, it is what he is, just as what we humans are are soulical beings. we are not our bodies.

god is not said to have a personality or have a nature, or be an essence, or be a person of God, or be a nature.
None of the definitions of nature that you posted are what anyone means when they use the word nature to describe God. when trinitarians say God has 3 natures, they don't mean any of the def. you posted, they don't mean anything, they are meaningless words as used by trintiarains to describe God. nature, essence, person of god are all meaningless words used by trinitarians interchangeably like in a shell game to confuse people into thinking something has actually been said when it hasn't. when people use a word, as trinitarians do, that doesn't mean what the word means, as in the case of essence, person , and nature, then whatever they say using those nonmeaning words is meaningless. all trinitarian explanations are meaningless because they use words that have no meaning.