Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

[Berean777]

Sometimes our best isn't quite good enough. But that means we keep on trying and wait for the Lord to impart onto us knowledge.

Praise be to his name forever.

 

[YHWH's Lion]

Until one reads the entirely canonical Matthew 28:19.

what do you mean by that?

 

[YHWH's Lion]

The reason they were baptizing "in the name of Jesus" is not that it was a formula but that the phrase, "in the name of," means "in the authority of." We can see proof of this in Acts 4:7-10 below -



The Jews asked, "By what power, or in what name, have you done this?" Peter answers and says that it was in the name of Jesus that they healed. In other words, "in the name of Jesus" means that it is by the power and authority found in Christ. We can see this usage many places in the New Testament.

As you can see, "in the name of the Lord Jesus" and "in the name of Jesus" speaks of "in the authority of Jesus." Therefore, when someone is properly baptized, they are baptized in the name of Jesus, that is, by the authority of Jesus. Therefore, when they are properly baptized in the name of Jesus, they should say, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" just as Jesus commanded us to do in the following versus -



Jesus empowered his disciples by breathing on them the Holy Ghost and by sending them in twos, in every town and city and commanded them to baptise in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

So what you are claiming is that the apostles were disobedient to the great commission command to baptise in the trinity formulea as commanded of them by the Lord and so they modified it by taking out the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit.

If I was to entertain your formulea that baptism is in the name of Jesus only, when scripture has the Lord spell out that formulea, then my question to you is -

If Jesus told you to do something exactly how he spelled it out, then are you not compelled to follow his instruction to the jot and tittle?

That is,

When Jesus gives an instruction so clearly defined as in the Matthew verse above, then will you regard Jesus as the final authority in this matter or will you content with him?

See the point I am trying to make is that you ignore what the Lord has instructed and sent as part of the great commission, the very disciples who wrote the Acts of the apostles and you have side lined him by redefining the name of Jesus as the formulea for baptism, rather than authority.

it is your opinion everything you just wrote. The Bible shows multiple times people being baptized in the name of Jesus. We are not supposed to build a doctrine on one text. Every matter must be established by 2 or 3 witnesses. There are many witnesses of the apostle baptizing in the name of Jesus and just your opinion that "they were actually saying, in the name of father, son, Holy Spirit The question is valid why the bible doesn't record the apostles baptizing in the name of the father son and holy spirit, maybe it wasn't supposed to be a "formula"

 

[YHWH's Lion]

Three persons, the Father (invisible Yahweh), the Son (visible Yahweh) and the Holy Ghost that proceeds from the invisible Yahweh. But there is one infinite being called Yahweh.

One infinite being/substance who is God, three distinct personalities (persona's).

you didn't answer my question, do you believe that there is only one being in heaven?

 

[Berean777]

it is your opinion everything you just wrote. The Bible shows multiple times people being baptized in the name of Jesus. We are not supposed to build a doctrine on one text. Every matter must be established by 2 or 3 witnesses. There are many witnesses of the apostle baptizing in the name of Jesus and just your opinion that "they were actually saying, in the name of father, son, Holy Spirit The question is valid why the bible doesn't record the apostles baptizing in the name of the father son and holy spirit, maybe it wasn't supposed to be a "formula"

At the end of the day Jesus instructed them to do so.

Your claim is that they disobeyed Jesus and did not follow the instruction word for word as it came out of the mouth of the Lord, before he would send them in twos in every village and town.

At the end of the day Jesus is the final authority and if Jesus says something then I consider him the final authority in this matter.

Which leads us to the point of contention of whether the disciples disobeyed Christ's instructions or that you have grossly misunderstood that the comments made in Acts is to use the name of Jesus as the authority and then baptise the converts in the of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

My claim is that in the name of Jesus is authority and not hiw they baptised the nes converts because I believe that they followed his instructions to the jot and tittle.

Therefore my claim can not be an opinion, rather it is common sense and logic.

 

[Berean777]

you didn't answer my question, do you believe that there is only one being in heaven?

I did answer your question, but I feel that you are not understanding your own question.

One substance means one nature and one nature in context to the one God Yahweh is one infinite God being who is Holy, Holy Holy Spirit.

The one in the same infinite substance has coeternally and coequally existing three distinct persona's who is the Father (invisible Yahweh) the Son (visible Yahweh) and the Holy Ghost who is the narrator of the eternal love story between the Father and Son.

The one infinite being Yahweh is three persona's.

Yes there is only one God being. That is why the Father and the Son say that they are the first and the last, meaning one of his kind, pointing to one substance/being, the I Am. There is only one I Am being.

Humans are many, but God is one. Within that one being is three distinct personalities.

When you say in heaven. My reply is that God is not constrained to a place for he is Holy Holy Holy Spirit.

The Son is in the third heaven and he is the visible image of the invisible Yahweh.

In the Old Testament we have the visible Yahweh sending down fire from the invisible Yahweh.

 

[Wgw]

what do you mean by that?

Simply that if we refer to Matthew 28:19, one finds a canonical refutation of your view that baptism using the Trinitarian formula is somehow unscriptural.

 

[YHWH's Lion]

Simply that if we refer to Matthew 28:19, one finds a canonical refutation of your view that baptism using the Trinitarian formula is somehow unscriptural.

this is to you and Berean777. do you guys agree that we are not supposed to make a doctrine from a single verse? if that is true than MAYBE what Jesus said in end if Matthew wasn't meant to be a formula. Clearly it is not repeated anywhere else yet Christians dogmaticly hang to it yet criticize anyone else who baptizes in the name of Jesus alone.

 

[Wgw]

this is to you and Berean777. do you guys agree that we are not supposed to make a doctrine from a single verse? if that is true than MAYBE what Jesus said in end if Matthew wasn't meant to be a formula. Clearly it is not repeated anywhere else yet Christians dogmaticly hang to it yet criticize anyone else who baptizes in the name of Jesus alone.

Our Lord specifically commands that we baptize in that formula; shall we disobey Him?

 

[YHWH's Lion]

I did answer your question, but I feel that you are not understanding your own question.

One substance means one nature and one nature in context to the one God Yahweh is one infinite God being who is Holy, Holy Holy Spirit.

The one in the same infinite substance has coeternally and coequally existing three distinct persona's who is the Father (invisible Yahweh) the Son (visible Yahweh) and the Holy Ghost who is the narrator of the eternal love story between the Father and Son.

The one infinite being Yahweh is three persona's.

Yes there is only one God being. That is why the Father and the Son say that they are the first and the last, meaning one of his kind, pointing to one substance/being, the I Am. There is only one I Am being.

Humans are many, but God is one. Within that one being is three distinct personalities.

When you say in heaven. My reply is that God is not constrained to a place for he is Holy Holy Holy Spirit.

The Son is in the third heaven and he is the visible image of the invisible Yahweh.

In the Old Testament we have the visible Yahweh sending down fire from the invisible Yahweh.

1) What is the difference between what you just said and the Sabellian view?2) when moses sees the back of God who is he looking at? 3) in revelation 4, who is being described in verse 3? and in revelation 5 verse 1 we see the one that was described in rev 4 :3 holding the book that no one can open except the lamb in verse 7 that takes the book from him that sits on the thrown.
4) in daniel 7:13-14 we have 2 beings, the Son of Man and Ancient of Days.

 

[YHWH's Lion]

Our Lord specifically commands that we baptize in that formula; shall we disobey Him?

Like I said, maybe it wasn't supposed to be a formula. If someone is convicted on the fact that they will not base doctrine on one verse and want to be baptized in the name of Jesus, than that's how they should be baptized. If someone is convicted they should be baptized in the name of father son and holy spirit, than that's how they should be baptized. In the end that's not going to cause them to loose salvation.

 

[Wgw]

Like I said, maybe it wasn't supposed to be a formula. If someone is convicted on the fact that they will not base doctrine on one verse and want to be baptized in the name of Jesus, than that's how they should be baptized. If someone is convicted they should be baptized in the name of father son and holy spirit, than that's how they should be baptized. In the end that's not going to cause them to loose salvation.

From a purely Orthodox perspective, the principle of he legislative force of tradition precludes us from departing from the ancient services of baptism which date back to before the Third Century. We don't really do "change."

 

[Der Alte]

it is your opinion everything you just wrote. The Bible shows multiple times people being baptized in the name of Jesus. We are not supposed to build a doctrine on one text. Every matter must be established by 2 or 3 witnesses. There are many witnesses of the apostle baptizing in the name of Jesus and just your opinion that "they were actually saying, in the name of father, son, Holy Spirit The question is valid why the bible doesn't record the apostles baptizing in the name of the father son and holy spirit, maybe it wasn't supposed to be a "formula"

According to your view we have to throw out John 3:16 because it is the only verse which says "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son." When Jesus or God says something we do not need a confirming verse to validate it.

The Bible does NOT show multiple people being baptized in the name of Jesus! Baptism is mentioned 37 times from Acts to Revelation there is not one verse describing two people entering the water, one being baptized and the one baptizing saying the words "in the name of Jesus!" In only four verses do the words "in the name of" occur. One is a command to be baptized, Act 10:48, Three are references to baptisms which were performed, Act 2:38, 8:16, 19:5. There are only two actual baptisms described in the NT. The baptism of Jesus and the Ethiopian official. In neither event are the words "in the name" recorded as being spoken. Philip must have disobeyed Jesus because he did not say "in the name of Jesus."

A lot of people believe the false teaching circulating around the Matt 28:19 was added to the Bible later. But every early church father who quoted the verse includes the triadic formula. There is no valid manuscript evidence which does not include the triadic formula.

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.

12. 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]

13. 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."

14. 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. "

15. 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."

16. 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."

ECF Link​

 

[Berean777]

1) What is the difference between what you just said and the Sabellian view?2) when moses sees the back of God who is he looking at? 3) in revelation 4, who is being described in verse 3? and in revelation 5 verse 1 we see the one that was described in rev 4 :3 holding the book that no one can open except the lamb in verse 7 that takes the book from him that sits on the thrown.
4) in daniel 7:13-14 we have 2 beings, the Son of Man and Ancient of Days.

1)Sabellianism, also known as modalism, is a heresy which states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, rather than three distinct persons.

The above rejects three distinct persons. I have said all along that there are three distinct persons who are the one God being. The one God being doesn't operate in modes, he is three persona's simultaneously.

2) Moses sees the Angel of Yahweh's presence, the Son member of the trinity.

3) Rev 4:3 is the Son who has the rainbow of promise tied to his covenant and what gives it away is that the 24 elders are 12 and 12 who sit on the right and left of the King of Heavenly Israel. This King is the Son of promise.

In Revelation 5:6
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

This is the King of Israel who is the glorified Son sitting on the one throne with the 24 elders who depict the 24 old covenant judges sitting on his right and left. The lamb taking the book out of the right hand of the one who sat on the throne does not mean that the Father is sitting on a literal physical throne and that he is literally holding the book in his right hand. The language is symbolic and the right hand represents authority in his stead and the throne represents the one and only throne of authority that is passed from the invisible being the Father to the visible being the Son. Everything is prepared for the Son and the language is symbolic for the Father and not literal throne or literal right hand.

4) Again in Daniel the Son approaches the ancient of days is when the risen Christ after his resurrection ascends into heaven to be glorified and to recieve all authority in his hand from the invisible Yahweh. The invisible Yahweh isn't a physical person sitting on a physical throne as you imagine. The Son on the other hand is the visible Yahweh who sits on the one and only throne. Now it is symbolic language just like the right hand. Meaning the Father's authority is given to the Son and all things made subject to Him.

In the old testament authors used to write protect me under your feathers to the Father, it doesn't mean that he is a chicken. Rather feathers are symbol of protection.

Right hand is a symbol of all authority. Like we say today the right hand man. Obviously the book isn't a literal book with ink writtem on it either, rather it is conveying the plan of God like a registry book of life and death that is why Jesus says I will jot those from the book of life, doesn't mean he puts liquid paper to what is already written literally in a literal book.

Think about it and reflect for a moment.

 

[YHWH's Lion]

According to your view we have to throw out John 3:16 because it is the only verse which says "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son." When Jesus or God says something we do not need a confirming verse to validate it.

The Bible does NOT show multiple people being baptized in the name of Jesus! Baptism is mentioned 37 times from Acts to Revelation there is not one verse describing two people entering the water, one being baptized and the one baptizing saying the words "in the name of Jesus!" In only four verses do the words "in the name of" occur. One is a command to be baptized, Act 10:48, Three are references to baptisms which were performed, Act 2:38, 8:16, 19:5. There are only two actual baptisms described in the NT. The baptism of Jesus and the Ethiopian official. In neither event are the words "in the name" recorded as being spoken. Philip must have disobeyed Jesus because he did not say "in the name of Jesus"

​

We do not have to throw away John 3:16, I find it funny you even say that. The doctrine of Jesus being the only Son of God is supported by other texts. We are talking about doctrine being established on 2 or 3 witnesses.
When we begin to make a doctrine on one verse that is not supported by any other verses, not to mention in this case of baptism is actually contradicted by other verses, we need to think if MAYBE the original verse that we are making a doctrine on isn't saying what we think it might be saying. Wgw said it truthfully " that tradition is what prevents change"
and by quoting the sources you quoted, I see you are sticking to tradition as well. Like I said, if someone is convicted in their heart that they should be baptized in the name of Jesus, than they should be baptized in the name of Jesus and if someone is convicted to be baptized in all 3, than that's how they should be baptized. This is not a salvational issue.
​

 

[Wgw]

We do not have to throw away John 3:16, I find it funny you even say that. The doctrine of Jesus being the only Son of God is supported by other texts. We are talking about doctrine being established on 2 or 3 witnesses.
When we begin to make a doctrine on one verse that is not supported by any other verses, not to mention in this case of baptism is actually contradicted by other verses, we need to think if MAYBE the original verse that we are making a doctrine on isn't saying what we think it might be saying. Wgw said it truthfully " that tradition is what prevents change"
and by quoting the sources you quoted, I see you are sticking to tradition as well. Like I said, if someone is convicted in their heart that they should be baptized in the name of Jesus, than they should be baptized in the name of Jesus and if someone is convicted to be baptized in all 3, than that's how they should be baptized. This is not a salvational issue.
​

Actually that's not what I said, although one could read it that way. Consider that our NT canon, from St. Athanasius, represents the binding force of tradition; shall we now throw it out, drop the Gospel of John because some postmodern liberal theologians regard it as spurious and even "oppressive," and introduce the Gospel of Thomas?

This is not a strawman; my belief is that when we adopt the principle that it is acceptable to unillaterally doscard, change or alter the most ancient traditioms of Christianity, held by all mainstream churches, going back to the fourth century, or much earlier in the case of the Baptismal liturgy, we will quickly find that there is nothing sacred remaining, nothing sufficiently esteemed as to be able to withstand the illegitimate forces of capriciousness.

 

[Berean777]

We do not have to throw away John 3:16, I find it funny you even say that. The doctrine of Jesus being the only Son of God is supported by other texts. We are talking about doctrine being established on 2 or 3 witnesses.
When we begin to make a doctrine on one verse that is not supported by any other verses, not to mention in this case of baptism is actually contradicted by other verses, we need to think if MAYBE the original verse that we are making a doctrine on isn't saying what we think it might be saying. Wgw said it truthfully " that tradition is what prevents change"
and by quoting the sources you quoted, I see you are sticking to tradition as well. Like I said, if someone is convicted in their heart that they should be baptized in the name of Jesus, than they should be baptized in the name of Jesus and if someone is convicted to be baptized in all 3, than that's how they should be baptized. This is not a salvational issue.
​

You have it the wrong way around friend. Please listen.

Just like legislation you cannot use one legislation against another and all legislation in law speak, must be harmonised without conflict.

Scripture too requires all versus to be harmonised and if one verse falls out of harmony then something is a miss. Let us take an expert witness statement from our Lord. The Lord's statement bears a lot of weight and therefore all other versus following it must comply with it without contradiction or conflict.

Your ideas that are being viewed from the perspective of many witnesses on this forum are considered in introducing conflict into the equation and therefore it is telling you that there exists a conflict. So where you go from here is your decision, but you have been well informed of the choice that you have to make.

 

[Paul1963]

Actually that's not what I said, although one could read it that way. Consider that our NT canon, from St. Athanasius, represents the binding force of tradition; shall we now throw it out, drop the Gospel of John because some postmodern liberal theologians regard it as spurious and even "oppressive," and introduce the Gospel of Thomas?

This is not a strawman; my belief is that when we adopt the principle that it is acceptable to unillaterally doscard, change or alter the most ancient traditioms of Christianity, held by all mainstream churches, going back to the fourth century, or much earlier in the case of the Baptismal liturgy, we will quickly find that there is nothing sacred remaining, nothing sufficiently esteemed as to be able to withstand the illegitimate forces of capriciousness.

Great post!!

 

[YHWH's Lion]

1)Sabellianism, also known as modalism, is a heresy which states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, rather than three distinct persons.
The above rejects three distinct persons. I have said all along that there are three distinct persons who are the one God being. The one God being doesn't operate in modes, he is three persona's simultaneously.

yet you insist that only one person can be seen and the other 2 persons are invisible when the bible shows 2 Beings visible in the texts in revelation and daniel.

2) Moses sees the Angel of Yahweh's presence, the Son member of the trinity.

Yet the verses say LORD, not Angel of the LORD like other parts of the bible.

3) Rev 4:3 is the Son who has the rainbow of promise tied to his covenant and what gives it away is that the 24 elders are 12 and 12 who sit on the right and left of the King of Heavenly Israel. This King is the Son of promise.

In Revelation 5:6
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

This is the King of Israel who is the glorified Son sitting on the one throne with the 24 elders who depict the 24 old covenant judges sitting on his right and left. The lamb taking the book out of the right hand of the one who sat on the throne does not mean that the Father is sitting on a literal physical throne and that he is literally holding the book in his right hand. The language is symbolic and the right hand represents authority in his stead and the throne represents the one and only throne of authority that is passed from the invisible being the Father to the visible being the Son. Everything is prepared for the Son and the language is symbolic for the Father and not literal throne or literal right hand.

4) Again in Daniel the Son approaches the ancient of days is when the risen Christ after his resurrection ascends into heaven to be glorified and to recieve all authority in his hand from the invisible Yahweh. The invisible Yahweh isn't a physical person sitting on a physical throne as you imagine. The Son on the other hand is the visible Yahweh who sits on the one and only throne. Now it is symbolic language just like the right hand. Meaning the Father's authority is given to the Son and all things made subject to Him.

In the old testament authors used to write protect me under your feathers to the Father, it doesn't mean that he is a chicken. Rather feathers are symbol of protection.
Right hand is a symbol of all authority. Like we say today the right hand man. Obviously the book isn't a literal book with ink writtem on it either, rather it is conveying the plan of God like a registry book of life and death that is why Jesus says I will jot those from the book of life, doesn't mean he puts liquid paper to what is already written literally in a literal book.

So you take the verses and simply on your own authority turn them into symbolic verses?
Yes there are symbolic things in the book of daniel and book of revelation but NOT ALL is symbolic.
You are simply taking what you like and making it symbolic in order to fit your doctrine.
Clearly we have instances in the bible when we have both the Father and the Son together. (like the verses above)
Starting as early as Genesis, when Elohim said "Let us make men in OUR image our likeness"
Obviously the the Beings talking must have a shape, because we were made in their image and likeness

How do u know that the Father does not have a throne? - your assumption contradicts scripture
How do u know there isn't an actual Book of Life with our names written in it? - your assumption contradicts scripture

You are making alot of assumptions and taking liberty to impose your ideas to what is symbolic to what is not.

 

[Hoghead1]

You are overlooking some key points, YHWH. Incidentally, don't you think it is a bit arrogant to use God's name as you net nym? But let us move on. The Trinity is not a biblical doctrine. Granted, there are implications toward a Trinity, in Scripture, but there is no clear statement or doctrine. Paul, for example, in Rom. 8, fails to make any clear distinction between the Second and Third Persons. Where, for example, can you find Augustine's psychological model of the Trinity in Scripture? Where can you find the social theory of the Trinity in Scripture? The latter argues God is a cosmic society of there separate, individual personalities who work in harmony. Now I realize you are trying to do something like that. However, the problem is that this social model is actually polytheism and then completely against the grain of the Bible's monotheism. The "Let us" in Genesis is actually a reference to a residual polytheism. "Let us" implies there is more than one ego or god here. And that's blatantly polytheism. I know it is commonplace in churches to sing, "God in three persons, blessed trinity." But really what is meant here? The only way you can come up with one God is to argue that God or Godness is a common property shared by three personalities, like human nature is shared by three people. If so, that reduces God to being an abstract impersonal essence, rather than a personal being.