Is The Trinity Biblical?

[thereselittleflower]

nephilimiyr

The Creed clearly shows us that God is three persons ..

God the FATHER (Father refers to a preson . . it is an attribute of personhood)

God the Son (Son refers to a person , . it is an attribute of personhood)

God the Holy Spirit, Lord and Giver of life (Lord and Giver refer to a person .. only a person is a Lord, only a person can give . . attributes of personhood)


One essence between the Father and the Son . . one nature . .

Proceeds from the Father . . sharing of the one nature . .

Worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son .. sharing in the divine attributes of Godhead . .


It's all there . . 1 God, 3 persons, 1 Essence


Can you come to a right elementary understanding of the Trinity from the scriptures? Yes, you can . .

But it is unlikely that you would come to a FULL understanding of the Trinity without falling into error and heresy alone, using scripture alone . .


That is, unless, of course, you hear the voice of the Holy Spirit infallibly . . . Would you care to answer my question regarding that?





Peace in Him!
Peace in Him!

 

[nephilimiyr]

I'm asking you a question . . you don't want to answer it?

I have asked you several, you don't want to answer any of them?

I find that people who claim what you claim for yourself never want to answer this question becaues it exposes their hypocrisy . .

Oh really? What have I claimed for myself thereselittleflower? Please don't dodge this question like all the others. I took what you just said as bordering on insult.

As for the questions, I have no problem answering them. I see no reason to do so however. Perhaps if you answer those question of mine I'll answer yours.

 

[nephilimiyr]

When you tell me when the New Testament came to be, I will answer your question.

It don't work that way therese. I have a post already with unanswered questions by you. I didn't write them to waste time. Read post #34 and answer those questions THEN I will answer yours if you still want me to.

Where did I say that "essence" meant person??

I said this

There is no scripture that explicitly states this, you are correct but there is no line in the nicene creed that explicitly states God is one nature but three persons either. While reading the nicene creed you draw that inference just like I draw the inference from reading the NT that God is made up of 3.

You replied with this

The word in the Creed is "essence" . . this means on nature . . Being one essence with the Father . . The sharing of this essence by the Holy Spirit is revealed in the procession of the Holy Spirit.

This tells me you were argueing my point that the nicene creed doesn't explicitly state God is one nature in three persons.

And how are we disagreeing here? What is it specifically you think Shelb was trying to say is there in the Creed that you say is not there?

This is from Shelb5's first post

please show me where the bible will teach us this with out prior knowledge of what it is. You believe it because someone told you first, there is no scripture that tells you God is one nature but three persons.

In another thread Shelb5 was makeing the case that the nicene creed teaches God is one nature but three persons. I suspect that that thread is the reason for this one, I could be wrong. Anyway to argue her point I'm saying that the nicene creed doesn't explicitly explain the trinity in the same way she says the Bible doesn't explicitly explain it. In both cases you have to do further study. I say with further study within the Bible the nature of the trinity is made evident. It's the same documents that gave the nicene council their beliefs on how to explain it in the creed.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Neph,.

First, I find your tactics and games very childish . .

Second, the questions you are demanding I answer were clearly rehtorical and ones which you answered yourself in the SAME post. . obviously such questions are not real questions needing a response from others . .

Let's look at your post #34:

Question #1:

Shelb5 and therese who is the comforter?
John 15:26, But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me

John 16:7, Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Your partial answer:

John 15:26 talks about the Comforter comeing from the Father yet in John 16:7 Jesus refers to the Comforter as "him". The very use of the word shows that Jesus is talking about someone else. Again in John 15:26 the use of the word "he" signifies that Jesus is talking about someone else other than him.

Your 2nd question:
[quote[]So who is this someone else?
Acts 1:5, For John truely baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
[/quote]

Your FULL answer:

The someone else, the Comforter, is the Holy Spirit.

And you are demanding I answer these questions even though you have done so?


I don't think so neph .. you are showing yourself to be less than an honest participant in this thread ..


I asked you a pointed question .. of course you do not have to answer it, but your failure to do so seriously begs the question why . .


You are the one who brought up the Holy Spirit as the source of your wisdom in regards to understanding the word of God ..

the Holy Spirit doesn't give me wisdom to know what the creed says but what the Word of God says

You are the one who has stated that you don't need the creed (which is the teaching of the Church) to teach you about the Trinity

Do I need the nicene creed to teach me of the trinity, no.

You are the one who asked, rhetorically who the Comforter was in relation to all this . . which you answered yourself.


Now, let's recap . . you have made the claim that you don't need the Creed to understand the Trinity and that it is the Holy Spirit who gives you the wisdom to know what the word of God says. .


Since you have rejected the creed and teaching of the Church as NECESSARY for you to rightly understand the doctrines of the Christian faith,including the Trinity; instead showing that you rely on the Holy Spirit to give you wisdom to know what the word of God says, I asked you 2 very relevant questions which you are very persitantly dodging, trying to deflect attention off yourself . .

Are you able to hear and understand the Comforter perfectly?



Are you infallible in your understanding and comprehending of what He says to you?



​

Now the ball is in your court . . I have answered your questions in post #34 as you demanded by quoting the answer you gave yourself. You said if you would then answer mine if I still wanted you to do so . .

Obviously I want you to do so . .

If you choose to not answer, which is your perrogative, then you beg the question why . .


Peace in Him!

 

[Symes]

The Trinity is in the Bible. Understanding it fully from the Bible and the Bible only is possible. Just because the Roman Catholic Church makes a statement about it over 1,500 years ago does not mean they have absolute authroity about the teaching of the Trinity.

John 10:30

"I and my Father are one."

Genesis 1:2

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."


Matthew 28:19,20


"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen"


Argue about this until the cows come home. It will not make any difference. It is there, accept it and stop trying to make out it was the Roman Catholic Church that found it and gave it to the world.

 

[Benedicta00]

The Trinity is in the Bible. Understanding it fully from the Bible and the Bible only is possible. Just because the Roman Catholic Church makes a statement about it over 1,500 years ago does not mean they have absolute authroity about the teaching of the Trinity.

John 10:30

"I and my Father are one."

Genesis 1:2

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."


Matthew 28:19,20


"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen"


Argue about this until the cows come home. It will not make any difference. It is there, accept it and stop trying to make out it was the Roman Catholic Church that found it and gave it to the world.

Then why was Arian using scripture to prove Jesus was not God? Why was this heresy so bad and so believed even then that the Church at that time was almost divided with those who believed Arian and those who remain obedient to what the Church has always believed? Why were there many martyrs who died defending the belief that Jesus IS God?

If scripture is so clear why is this heresy still with us today in the Mormons and the JW’s?

 

[Benedicta00]

What do I think? I think you know what I think.

I think it is definately Biblical and The Bible is all that is needed to prove it.
I think one will not find a single Scripture to prove it, but as with any Biblical doctrine, Scripture must be looked at as a whole.

Can I quote all Scripture necessary to prove The Trinity? No. But I think someone here can, or can lead me to a resource that can. That basically is what I'm looking for.

I think some will do everything in their power to prove that The Bible is not all that we need to find The Truth.

God Bless.

No one is suggesting that… please…

The point is the bible itself- where do we have it on authority that this is indeed the word of God. There were many other writings that we not included in the canon, how come? Who was it that decided that these books were not from God and the others that we have were? And how did they know? Could it have been because the deposit of faith was already left with the Church before a word was ever written down that they used to determine what was true and was wasn’t?

It did not fall from the sky with a note and a table of contents that said I am inspired trust me.

 

[Symes]

Then why was Arian using scripture to prove Jesus was not God? Why was this heresy so bad and so believed even then that the Church at that time was almost divided with those who believed Arian and those who remain obedient to what the Church has always believed? Why were there many martyrs who died defending the belief that Jesus IS God?

If scripture is so clear why is this heresy still with us today in the Mormons and the JW’s?

Then why do people worship on the first day of the week when there is no Biblical support for such a thing, even the Roman Catholic Church will come out and say there is no Biblical support for such a belief.

Why do people baptise infants when the Bible says that to be baptised a person must believe. An infant cannot believe, an infant cannot make a choice.

Just because different churches beleive different doctrines does not prove a thing.

 

[Benedicta00]

Yes but there is only one truth

Takeing Genesis 1:26 and interpreting it to be talking about the trinity is committing the crime of reading the NT into the OT. Any student of biblical interpretation will tell you that that is a illegitimate method of interpretation yet many committ the error of reading genesis 1:26 in that way.

That’s right and every single person here thinks they have it yet no one can agree…

 

[Benedicta00]

That's why it says "Image". We are not gods... we are human. Everything on this earth was created after a "pattern or something in the heavens". Man included.

We are one person which is made up of three persons (a character or role); God is one person made up of three persons (an individual being)... It's the same "pattern" or "image" only we are not gods.

Did you see a mouse or something?

We do not resemble the trinity because we have a body a soul and a spirit. We resemble God not because we have a spirit but because we are spirit beings like Him and will live forever like Him, it just where is what we have to concern ourselves with.

We resemble the trinity in our bodies through the marriage- the two becoming one in love where nine months later the have to name it. This is how we are three separate and distinct persons but we share one bond of love together. That is how we resemble the trinity but you can not conclude the trinity from that.
The trinity is three separate distinct persons. Individually we are not. One can not conclude the trinity from this verse but when in context after we understand the teaching we can understand our relationship to Him by this verse.

 

[Benedicta00]

Just curious here, but what do you do with Genesis 1:26 and John 1:1?

I think it tells us that Jesus is God and God is God and that Jesus became man but what it does not tell us is that He is fully human while at the same time being fully divine and that the Holy Spirit is a person that shares their nature and that the father is also a distinct person and Jesus is a separate distinct person. Where can we find that verse?

 

[Benedicta00]

Shelby,


Are you angry? Maybe it's just me.

Not angry at all, just amazingly surprised at all I am reading not believing the rings that some will jump through just so they do not have to admit that it was the Catholic Church who defined this important doctrine in Christianity for us under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Who defended Christendom against the Arian heresy.

 

[Benedicta00]

Then why do people worship on the first day of the week when there is no Biblical support for such a thing, even the Roman Catholic Church will come out and say there is no Biblical support for such a belief.

Why do people baptise infants when the Bible says that to be baptised a person must believe. An infant cannot believe, an infant cannot make a choice.

Just because different churches beleive different doctrines does not prove a thing.

Because we understand all of God’s word that He left upon his ascension with the Church, in full as a cohesive whole and from that we have the scriptures. We do not take scripture isolate it from what the early Church taught and take it out of context reading in a vacuum. That is why.

Here is how it works, The apostles gave their witness to all that Jesus taught them and they pass that down and then God inspired men to write what was being passed down. This is how we have the scriptures, from those who were a witness first hand to Tradition.

And we worship on Sunday because we can, we choose to because this is the day our Lord rose from the dead and with out the resurrection, our faith would be in vain. Then we would be obeying the Sab still.

 

[@@Paul@@]

Paul, person speaks of "personhood" .

not characters or roles . . .


I'm learning something new every day here reading your posts . .


Peace in Him!

person
per·son [púrs’n]
1. human being: an individual human being
2. human’s body: a human being’s body, often including the clothing
objects found on her person

3. human’s appearance: an individual human being’s general appearance (formal)
4. a character or role: a character or role, for example, in a play (archaic)
5. grammar form of verb and pronoun: any one of three forms of verbs and pronouns used to denote the speaker, the person addressed, or somebody else being referred to
6. ethics object with special moral value: an object with special moral value because of some spiritual status, or autonomous nature, or importance for other people
7. law individual or body of individuals: a living human being or a group, either or both having legal rights and responsibilities

Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.​

If one meant PERSONHOOD they should have used that word.

personhood
per·son·hood [púrs’n hd]
n
human state: the state of being human

Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.​

Being human is having 3 persons which make up 1 personhood.

We are all debating on who God is to us as individuals... I said the creation record of man helps me understand WHO God is, God gave me that verse because He probably knew i could relate/understand Him in that regard... If that helps someone else understand it fine... Others see it throught the marriage trinity... Some, God forbid, maybe even the Satanic trinity... (Yes, there IS one of those to)... Others also have posted various examples...

The Creed is no more explaining the trinity as it does "oneness theology"... No where does it say God is one God eternaly and externally existing in three persons, or characters, or beings, or divine natures....... Nowhere...

To even think that we, in this body, can get a clue as to the true nature of God is utterly insulting... Moses only got to see His backside!!

Col 2:8-10 KJV
(8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
(9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
(10) And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:​

This gives me a clue as to the divine nature of God, so what. I know i am complete in Christ, and in Him dwells all the fulness of God which the bible clearly records as being Father>Son>Spirit.

May this day some tomorrow:

Col 3:4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.​

 

[@@Paul@@]

nephilimiyr

The Creed clearly shows us that God is three persons ..

God the FATHER (Father refers to a preson . . it is an attribute of personhood)

God the Son (Son refers to a person , . it is an attribute of personhood)

God the Holy Spirit, Lord and Giver of life (Lord and Giver refer to a person .. only a person is a Lord, only a person can give . . attributes of personhood)


One essence between the Father and the Son . . one nature . .

Proceeds from the Father . . sharing of the one nature . .

Worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son .. sharing in the divine attributes of Godhead . .


It's all there . . 1 God, 3 persons, 1 Essence


Can you come to a right elementary understanding of the Trinity from the scriptures? Yes, you can . .

But it is unlikely that you would come to a FULL understanding of the Trinity without falling into error and heresy alone, using scripture alone . .


That is, unless, of course, you hear the voice of the Holy Spirit infallibly . . . Would you care to answer my question regarding that?


Peace in Him!
Peace in Him!

No one hears voices "infallibily", don't be rediculous... "We have a more sure word of prophesy..." and it's not little voices.

Are you assuming we (or some) can here infallible voices from heaven?

No where does the creed explain the trinity. One could also explain "modalism" from it quite clearly...

 

[@@Paul@@]

Not angry at all, just amazingly surprised at all I am reading not believing the rings that some will jump through just so they do not have to admit that it was the Catholic Church who defined this important doctrine in Christianity for us under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Who defended Christendom against the Arian heresy.

God is the giver of all knowedge and He can use Satan himself to give that understanding......... I'm not saying the "Catholic Church" is Satan, but just because God used the early church to help people today understand His divine nature, does not mean diddly because there is much debate over the early church beginnings...

Personally, i think it was around well before the "Catholic Church"... But it doesn't matter... God should get all the glory, lets just thank Him.

And i would say the most important doctrine is the fact that Jesus Christ was both fully human and fully God.... and He died on the cross for the sins of mankind and then rose again..... wouldn't you?

 

[Philip]

person
per·son [púrs’n]
1. human being: an individual human being
2. human’s body: a human being’s body, often including the clothing
objects found on her person

3. human’s appearance: an individual human being’s general appearance (formal)
4. a character or role: a character or role, for example, in a play (archaic)
5. grammar form of verb and pronoun: any one of three forms of verbs and pronouns used to denote the speaker, the person addressed, or somebody else being referred to
6. ethics object with special moral value: an object with special moral value because of some spiritual status, or autonomous nature, or importance for other people
7. law individual or body of individuals: a living human being or a group, either or both having legal rights and responsibilities

Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.​

Certainly you are not trying to force an archaic English meaning of a word onto a Greek concept, are you?

No where does the creed explain the trinity. One could also explain "modalism" from it quite clearly...

If you leave the Creed in its proper historical and cultural context, it does eliminate modalism. In the East, where the Creed was written, it was well accepted that the Father and Christ were distinct persons. What was claimed by heretics is that they were not the same God. The first two clauses of the Creed were written to eliminate Arianism. Arianism taught that Christ was a man separate from God. Orthodoxy taught that He was God as well as man.

There were some modalists at the time who did accept the deity of Christ, such as the Sabellians. However, they believed that the Son did not exist before the Incarnation. The Creed explicitly refutes this idea:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages.​

 

[@@Paul@@]

Certainly you are not trying to force an archaic English meaning of a word onto a Greek concept, are you?



If you leave the Creed in its proper historical and cultural context, it does eliminate modalism. In the East, where the Creed was written, it was well accepted that the Father and Christ were distinct persons. What was claimed by heretics is that they were not the same God. The first two clauses of the Creed were written to eliminate Arianism. Arianism taught that Christ was a man separate from God. Orthodoxy taught that He was God as well as man.

There were some modalists at the time who did accept the deity of Christ, such as the Sabellians. However, they believed that the Son did not exist before the Incarnation. The Creed explicitly refutes this idea:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages.​

If one meant the english word personhood, they should have used it.

Just to i fully understand, would that mean:

hupostasis
hoop-os'-tas-is
From a compound of G5259 and G2476; a setting under (support), that is, (figuratively) concretely essence, or abstractly assurance (objectively or subjectively): - confidence, confident, person, substance.​

OR

prosōpon
pros'-o-pon
From G4314 and ὤψ ōps (the visage; from G3700); the front (as being towards view), that is, the countenance, aspect, appearance, surface; by implication presence, person: - (outward) appearance, X before, countenance, face, fashion, (men’s) person, presence.​

 

[KennySe]

Upon reading the Bible, some see that it teaches Modalism. Some see that it teaches pantheism. Some say it teaches Triunity.

Why is there these differences? Isn't the Bible clear? Let's ask the eunich who was met by Phillip.

What is clear by reading the Bible is that Jesus and the Father are one. Whatever that means.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Many good saints of God respond to posts such as this regarding the "trinity" and yet there is no solid agreement among them on this topic. Other topics such as "the death burial and resurrection of Jesus", "the virgin birth", "Lordship of Jesus" and such do not reveal this sort of disagreement. Why is it?
I for one certainly agree with the Nicene Creed and that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God... but not the invented concept of the "trinity" with which people try to put God in their neat little box.
The disagreements exist simply because a group of people have invented a word and are trying to define the nature of God by that word, and in so doing diminish the true definition of God. God is not bound by our definitions or limited to our small attempts to box Him into our useless attempts to describe Him. This aspect of the nature of the unity of God is a mystery, which is a hidden thing, which God says belongs to Him! Do not try and steal what belongs to God!

Deu 29:29
29 The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God: but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law.

God said that we should understand the Father by the revelation Jesus gave us. He is the exact image of the Father and if you want to see that Father or what the Father is like all you have to do is look at Jesus. Jesus is the revelation of the Father and belongs to us. As a believer in Jesus I confess that He succeeded in His mission to show us the Father, so there no need to invent any other doctrine or term to define and understand Him.

I have no problem with anyone who uses or teaches the "trinity"... but I do with those who insist that we accept their man made doctrines "or else".

Trying to fit God into a little concept of "trinity" is like trying to force the raging sea into a cup. You think you are doing something noble and spiritual... but all you are doing is blinding yourselves and others to the truth as revealed in Jesus!