one verse for the trinity?

[Der Alte]

So, we're barred from using secular sources. We're barred from using any religious sources if they disagree with orthodoxy... We must support our opinions only using the human opinion of members of your chosen congregation?

How objective.

You are misrepresenting what I said. I did not say anything like that.

Of course he didn't "vote." It wasn't a "voting" situation. The bishops gave their counsel, and he announced what "truth" was after having listened to their counsel... just like a parent listens to his child's suggestion, then makes the same decision he would have made had the child not spoke. However, letting the child (or in this case, "The church") argue before giving his opinion, he gave them the illusion that his opinion was based on their debate.

It's like the ancient proverb: What's the only way to get a woman to do what you want? Make her think it was her idea.

Humorous anecdotes, which may contain a grain of truth, are not evidence.

Since we're talking about "real history" ... where are you getting this "real history" from? You're making a claim that all these sources are wrong, however your source is completely accurate with NO, ZERO, NONE actual references.

Please see my post which you replied to, note I referred to six historians who lived concurrent with Nicaea.

Here are the names of several historians who lived concurrent with Nicaea, and wrote about it, Eusebius, Lactantius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Rufinus. None of them support the EB. According to the real history, Constantine spoke only at the opening ceremony and throughout the council his bishop spoke for him. He did not even vote.

The question isn't "why would Christians who have been persecuted by the roman government for so long finally give in?" ... but rather... why are YOU under the impression that the same empire that had been persecuting Christians for SO long finally just said "oh, nvm, we're going to be nice now and just let you have your way?"

I know what happened as related by historians who were alive at the time and who attended the Nicarea council. All accounts which claim that Constantine was a pagan sun worshipper, who forced a pagan Trinity on the council at the point of a bloody spear or sword, etc. have no factual information on which to base those claims. None of the 4th century historical accounts referenced above support any of those claims.

Think about it from a pagan Emporer's perspective.

According to the historians Eusebius and Lactantius who lived at the time of Nicaea, Constantine was a Christian.

According to what? Because every report I've ever read on the Nicene creed was that the major point of debate was the diety of Christ. That because he was the Son of God, and because "kind begets kind" that Jesus must be the same kind as the one who begat him... i.e. his Father was a "God", therefore he must be of the "God"kind as well. This shows a second God-being... there was no talk about him being "equal" or "the same being" until decades later.

You may have read all this in WTBS and other unsupported publications but the genuine histories, referred to above, none of the highlighted statements are factual.

this is dandy. When we give our opinion, you dismiss it because "the JWs have only been around for 100 years! And other congregations have been around for much longer!" ... yet, they give a reference you disagree with, then provide a LATER reference saying it's more updated?

You continue to deliberately misrepresent what I said. I did NOT make either of these statements.

So, which is it? Are newer sources "better because they are updated?" Or, are we to trust older sources because they're older?

If you would read my posts you would not have to ask this question. I have clearly stated what I meant more than once. If there is anything in my posts which you do not understand, quote my post exactly and I will clarify it. Please don't misrepresnet what I have said and accuse me of saying things I did not say.

Either way, it's fallacious... although I'm not sure what the proper term would be for "saying something's right solely on the basis of it being older/newer." What's the term for that?

If I had said anything remotely like this it would be false or fallacious but I didn't. You continue to misrepresent what I did say. If you think I did say something like this please quote the post exactly and I will clarify it for you.

 

[jpr7]

Challenge: there is not one verse in the Bible that teaches the trinity--3 persons, all 3 God, actually one person.

No, you won't find any verses that say that because the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't say that. But you do find verses that lead one to the correct doctrine of the Trinity. Besides, you have an argument from silence, which honestly doesn't prove anything wrong.

conclusion: If this were the "cardinal doctrine" of every mainstream church, it should be clearly and explicitely taught in at least one verse.

For a sample of verses that support that Christ is God (and implicitly supports the Trinity), you may want to check out these threads:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7399955/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7398345/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7398691/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7423356/

 

[steve4.truth]

[

quote=jpr7;53844517] Besides, you have an argument from silence, which honestly doesn't prove anything wrong.

I would contest that the argument from silence proves everything. It is God's silence on the trinity that proves it is a human invention.
Take reincarnation for a good parallel. The Bible is silent on this topic. No verse can be successfully used to prove it. That shows that God does not believe in reincarnation. there is no verse that says reincarnation is not true. Silence proves everything. But just like the trinity, those who have decided to believe in reincarnation can find verses that seem to support it. Yet it is the Bible's silence--that there is no verse that explicitly states it--that speaks loudest.

 

[jpr7]

[

I would contest that the argument from silence proves everything.

You can contest that but it would be to your argument's demise. There's a reason why an argument from silence is a logical fallacy.

It is God's silence on the trinity that proves it is a human invention.

God actually isn't silent on the Trinity. Of course, you haven't put forth a correct understanding of the Trinity in the first place so I'm not expecting you to get it right away. In regard to God's silence, He was silent to Abraham on the Law of Moses and so shall we say the Law of Moses was a human invention?

Take reincarnation for a good parallel. The Bible is silent on this topic.

Correct, the Bible is silent on it. It doesn't mean, however, that reincarnation is a "good parallel." Because the Bible is silent on the subject of reincarnation that it neither supports nor doesn't support reincarnation in and of itself. The Bible does, however, make statements that are explicitly contradictory to reincarnation (that is, the resurrection).

No verse can be successfully used to prove it.

An argument from silence doesn't mean that there aren't verses to prove something. It means that someone argues from what the Bible doesn't say, rather than what it does say.

That shows that God does not believe in reincarnation. there is no verse that says reincarnation is not true. Silence proves everything.

Again, silence means that the Bible neither supports nor doesn't support. An argument that is based on what the Bible neither supports nor doesn't support proves nothing. You don't state beliefs based on what you don't believe because it doesn't tell anyone what you do believe.

But just like the trinity, those who have decided to believe in reincarnation can find verses that seem to support it. Yet it is the Bible's silence--that there is no verse that explicitly states it--that speaks loudest.

Quite easy to assert. If you're going to assert something you need to demonstrate it. I've posted links to some threads that vigorously assert that Jesus Christ is God. I haven't seen you enter into those threads and interact and show that these verses only "seem to support [the Trinity]." If you're going to assert and demonstrate something you'll need to argue from what the Bible says, not from its silence.

Silence isn't grounds to prove anything but it isn't grounds to disprove anything either.

 

[steve4.truth]

Of course, you haven't put forth a correct understanding of the Trinity in the first place so I'm not expecting you to get it right away.

Please, I know what the trinity is. I studied it, defended it, and preached it up till 7 yrs. ago. You must admit there are numerous slants on it. Few agree exactly with the nicean creed. What one person considers trinity is different from the next person. that puts up a huge red flag for me.

In regard to God's silence, He was silent to Abraham on the Law of Moses and so shall we say the Law of Moses was a human invention?

bad parallel. The law of Moses came from God's mouth on mt. Sinai and it didn't exist in Abraham's time.

Correct, the Bible is silent on it. It doesn't mean, however, that reincarnation is a "good parallel." Because the Bible is silent on the subject of reincarnation that it neither supports nor doesn't support reincarnation in and of itself. The Bible does, however, make statements that are explicitly contradictory to reincarnation (that is, the resurrection).

Yes, and the Bible makes statements that are explicitly contradictory to trinity (If Jesus is almighty, He cannot call anyone "My God". That's why the Father doesn't call anyone "My God".) Also, someone who believes reincarnation would argue that there are verses that support it. But just like trinity, there is no verse that explicitly teaches it. Show me one major teaching that is not explicitly taught.

An argument from silence doesn't mean that there aren't verses to prove something. It means that someone argues from what the Bible doesn't say, rather than what it does say.
Again, silence means that the Bible neither supports nor doesn't support. An argument that is based on what the Bible neither supports nor doesn't support proves nothing. You don't state beliefs based on what you don't believe because it doesn't tell anyone what you do believe.

I cannot accept as a "cardinal doctrine of the church" something that the Bible neither supports or doesn't support. Let me illustrate. The Constitution of the USA is silent on global warming. You cannot decide for or against global warming based on the constitution. Now you can believe in global warming, but you can't claim it as a constitutional belief. You can believe the trinity if you want, but you can't claim it as a Biblical belief. You can assert that Jesus is called "God" (which we have no problem with), but the Bible is silent on the trinity.

Quite easy to assert. If you're going to assert something you need to demonstrate it. I've posted links to some threads that vigorously assert that Jesus Christ is God. I haven't seen you enter into those threads and interact and show that these verses only "seem to support [the Trinity]." If you're going to assert and demonstrate something you'll need to argue from what the Bible says, not from its silence.

As I said, I don't need to be educated about the trinity. I have thoroughly studied the pros and cons of each verse repeatedly. The theme of this thread is that there is not one verse which explicitly teaches the trinity.

 

[Der Alte]

Please, I know what the trinity is. I studied it, defended it, and preached it up till 7 yrs. ago. You must admit there are numerous slants on it. Few agree exactly with the nicean creed. What one person considers trinity is different from the next person. that puts up a huge red flag for me.

These arguments are irrelevant. There are people in virtually every denominations who cannot succinctly state all their beliefs and practices and agree with every one of them. Every denomination in existence has red flags. And OBTW I don't believe there is such a thing as an ex-Trinitarian. How cna someone have a life altering experience with the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, walk with him for any length of time, then suddenly discover he is the wrong Lord.

Yes, and the Bible makes statements that are explicitly contradictory to trinity (If Jesus is almighty, He cannot call anyone "My God". That's why the Father doesn't call anyone "My God".) Also, someone who believes reincarnation would argue that there are verses that support it. But just like trinity, there is no verse that explicitly teaches it. Show me one major teaching that is not explicitly taught.

There is no scripture which explicitly contradicts the Trinity. That the word Trinity does not appear in scriptrure is an invalid argument. There are scripture which clearly state there is one God. But, the father is called or referred to as God, but he is not the son or the holy spirit. The son is called or referred to as God, but he is not the father or the holy spirit. The spirit is called or referred to as God, but he is not the son or the father. Each is clearly shown, in scripture, to have a self distinct from the others.

As I said, I don't need to be educated about the trinity. I have thoroughly studied the pros and cons of each verse repeatedly. The theme of this thread is that there is not one verse which explicitly teaches the trinity.

Evidently you do need to be educated about the Trinity. Eleven passages, from the list of 86, below, which reveal the Triunity of God. Each passage shows Father, Son, and Holy Spirit having a different relationship, effect, role, etc., with respect to believers.

For example, #2, Titus 3:4, believers are SAVED BY Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all three. We are SAVED BY, the kindness and love of God our Savior, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy, Ghost, shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savour, all three..

Also see, #10, 2 Thess 2:13, believers are SAVED BY Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all three.

(1.) 2 Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

(2.) Tit 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of [1]regeneration, and renewing of [2]the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he [3] shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

(3.) Jud 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

(4.) 1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to [1] the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of [2] the Spirit, [Repeated three times, cf. 2 Th 2.13, Ro 15:16] unto obedience and [3] sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: [Repeated twice, cf. Heb 9.14] Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

(5.) Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing, which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God,.

(6.) Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost,.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call,.

(7.) Rom 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ, to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost,.

(8.) Rom 15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse,, and he, that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him, shall the Gentiles trust.
13 Now the God of hope, fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost,.

(9.) Heb 9.14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!,

(10.) 2 Thess 2.13 But we ought always to thank God, for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning [1]God, chose you to be saved through [2] the sanctifying work of the Spirit, and through belief in the truth.
14 He called you to this through our gospel, that you might [3] share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ,.

(11.) I Cor 12.3 Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.,
5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord.,
6 There are different kinds of working, but the same God, works all of them in all men.

The Gospels and Acts

Mat 1:18-22, Mat 3:9-11, Mat 3:16-17, Mat 4:1-4, Mat 10:19-23, Mat 12:28, Mat 28:19, Mark 12:35-37, Lk 1:15-17, Lk 1:30-35 *, Lk 1:67-69, Lk 2:25-32, Lk 4:12-13, Lk 10:21, Lk 12:8-10, Jn 1:32-34, Jn 3:31-35, Jn 14:15-17, Jn 14:25, Jn 15:26, Jn 16:7-10, Jn 16:13-15, Jn 20:16-22, Acts 1:4-5, Acts 1:7-8, Acts 2:32-33, Acts 2:38-39*, Acts 4:8-10, Acts 4:24-26, Act 4:29-31, Acts 5:30-32, Acts 7:51-56, Acts 8:14-17, Acts 9:15-20 Acts 10:38, Acts 11:15-17, Acts 11:23-24, Acts 15:7-11, Acts 16:6-10, Acts 20:22-24, Acts 28:23-25.

The Pauline writings

Rom 1:1-4, Rom 5:1-5, Rom 8:9-11, Rom 8:13-16, Rom 8:26-29, Rom 15:12-13*, Rom 15:16*, , Rom 14:15-17, Rom 15:16, Rom 15:18-19, Rom 15:30, I Cor 2:8-10, I Cor 2:14-16, I Cor 6:9-11, I Cor 6:14-19, I Cor 12:3-5*, 2 Cor 1:20-22, 2 Cor 3:3-4, 2 Cor 13:14*, Gal 3:1-5, Gal 4:4-6, Gal 5:21-25, Eph 2:17-18, Eph 3:14-17, Eph 4:4-6, Eph 4:30-32, Eph 5:18-20, Phil 3:3, I Thess 1:4-6, 2 Thess 2:13-14*, I Tim 3:15-16, Titus 3:4-6.*

The General Epistles

Heb 2:3-4; Heb 6:3-6; Heb 9:14*; Heb 10:29-31; I Pet 1:2; * I Pet 3:18; I Pet 4:14; I Jn 3:21-24; I Jn 4:13-14; I Jn 5:6-9; Jud 1:20-21*.

Revelation

Rev 14:12-13, Rev 22:17-18,​

 

[prisonchaplain]

I'll confess that I haven't read any of this string at all. But, of course there is a VERSE that expresses the Trinity:

Holy Holy Holy
Merciful and mighty
God in three persons
Blessed Trinity

I love that verse. It's a great hymn.

 

[steve4.truth]

These arguments are irrelevant. There are people in virtually every denominations who cannot succinctly state all their beliefs and practices and agree with every one of them

Agreed. But there are many different views of the trinity among the CLERGY.

There is no scripture which explicitly contradicts the Trinity. That the word Trinity does not appear in scriptrure is an invalid argument. There are scripture which clearly state there is one God. But, the father is called or referred to as God, but he is not the son or the holy spirit. The son is called or referred to as God, but he is not the father or the holy spirit. The spirit is called or referred to as God, but he is not the son or the father. Each is clearly shown, in scripture, to have a self distinct from the others.

So your premise is that because each one is called "Theos", they are all the same person, right?? OK, logically then, anyone called "Theos" would also be part. Satan is called "Theos" (2 Cor. 4:4). So that theory has big holes.

For example, #2, Titus 3:4, believers are SAVED BY Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all three. We are SAVED BY, the kindness and love of God our Savior, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy, Ghost, shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savour, all three..

Again, faulty reasoning. Your premise is that because we are "saved" by all three, they must be a trinity, right? But we are told to "save" fellow believers: Jude 23 and some save, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
Just because Tom, Dick and Harry do the same thing doesn't make them a trinity.

Bottom line: Your arguments are only by inference. I assert again, there are no passages of scripture that EXPLICITLY teach the trinity.

 

[Der Alte]

Agreed. But there are many different views of the trinity among the CLERGY.

Not true, and totally irrelevant. I doubt if there is any knowledgeable clergyman who disagrees with the Athanasian creed. On second thought there may be a few Jim Jones, David Koreshes, etc. running around with some weird ideas about the Trinity.

So your premise is that because each one is called "Theos", they are all the same person, right?? OK, logically then, anyone called "Theos" would also be part. Satan is called "Theos" (2 Cor. 4:4). So that theory has big holes.

Irrelevant automatonic response. There is NO, ZERO, NONE verse which calls Satan Theos. There are many false Theos mentioned in scripture, including men's bellies. And the context excludes any other irrelevant proof text you want to post. And I think you have ignored the other 35 or so scripture I mentioned. Is there any vs. in the Bible where someone other than the creator, Jesus, and the holy spirit are called Theos, more than once. In any vs. where something, someone other than F,S,HS are called, referred to as Theos, do they a ever exercise any of the abilities, prerequisites of the creator as do F, S, HS?

Again, faulty reasoning. Your premise is that because we are "saved" by all three, they must be a trinity, right? But we are told to "save" fellow believers: Jude 23 and some save, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
Just because Tom, Dick and Harry do the same thing doesn't make them a trinity.

Again faulty reasoning. A command to do something is not the same as a statement of accomplished fact. And then of course there are not a few dozen other scripture which repeat the command of Jude 23. Also those who might or might not pull someone out of the fire, do not wash, regenerate, and renew as does the HS, or shed blood as Jesus, Tit 3:4, or sanctify as does the HS, or impart the Glory of Christ, 2 Thes 2;13, and they don't give gifts of the spirit, 1 Cor 12:3. As I said 86 vss. which reveal the Triunity of God, and ZERO vss. which contradict.

Bottom line: Your arguments are only by inference. I assert again, there are no passages of scripture that EXPLICITLY teach the trinity.

Again a specious argument with 1-2 out-of-context proof texts, which do not really address any of the scripture I posted.

 

[steve4.truth]

I don't know why you keep asking me to address the verses you posted. I told you from the beginning that is not the purpose of this thread. There are arguments for and against all those verses. The purpose of this thread is to bring out a very vital piece of evidence on the subject that most threads have overlooked: That there is not one passage of the scriptures that EXPLICITLY teaches the trinity. If you just admit that is true, I will we satisfied and put a big smile on my face!

 

[Strong in Him]

Challenge: there is not one verse in the Bible that teaches the trinity--3 persons, all 3 God, actually one person.

Why does there have to be ONE verse which teaches the Trinity, when the concept is taught throughout Scripture?

Just a few verses -

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ..... and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Gen 1:1-2
God and the Spirit together at creation.

"He (Christ) is the image of the invisible God .... For by him all things were created ..... all things were created by him and for him." (Col 1:15-16)
" ... in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, through whom he made the universe." (Heb 1:2)
"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God" (John 1:1)
The Son was present at and active in the creation of the world.

"Let US make man in OUR image" (Gen 1:26) Plural. The Hebrew word for God is, I understand, used in the plural form in Genesis 1.

I know the NWT - and I'm presuming you are a JW - would contest the verse from John; translating it as "the word was a god", but this contradicts another Scripture -

"Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me." (Isaiah 43:10)

The Word, who became flesh - Jesus, cannot be a god since there is only one.

God is called "Father" a number of times in Scripture.
The Jews crucified Jesus for blasphemy - they knew by his teachings that he was claiming to be God. Jesus himself prayed, just before his death, that God would glorify him with he glory that he had with his Father before the world began. (John 17:5)
From other verses of Scripture we can see that the Spirit is the Spirit of God - God is divine, therefore his Spirit must be too.

So we have the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all divine, all present at the creation of the world and therefore eternal; and yet there is only one God.

Just because the word "trinity" isn't used in Scripture, doesn't mean the doctrine is man made and false.
The words "blood transfusion" aren't used in Scripture, yet I have spoken to witnesses who are adamant that the Bible teaches it is wrong to accept one.

conclusion: If this were the "cardinal doctrine" of every mainstream church, it should be clearly and explicitely taught in at least one verse.

Your conclusion is wrong - it is a Scriptural doctrine.

 

[2ducklow]

I don't know why you keep asking me to address the verses you posted. I told you from the beginning that is not the purpose of this thread. There are arguments for and against all those verses. The purpose of this thread is to bring out a very vital piece of evidence on the subject that most threads have overlooked: That there is not one passage of the scriptures that EXPLICITLY teaches the trinity. If you just admit that is true, I will we satisfied and put a big smile on my face!

One time I was witnessing to some neighbors about this subject in real life, not on line. And I brought up the point that no verse has the word trinity in it. My neighbors both responded "Yes there is, it's in mathew 28.19. " I replied that I know mathew 28.19 is used to prove the trinity doctrine but what I'm saying is that the word ''trinity ' is not in that verse or in any verse in the bible, they responded with "yes it is it's in matthew 28.19" . this went on for some 4 or 5 times till i finally gave up. It's not something a trinitarian is prone to admit to.

 

[steve4.truth]

I have no problem with the fact that the word trinity is not in the Bible. that doesn't prove anything if the doctrine itself is taught. And to be honest, I fully understand why people believe in the trinity. Just like me, they see so many verses that refer to Jesus as God or as doing supernatural things. There are many verses which could INFER the trinity IF YOU ALREADY BELIEVE IT. But those same verses could be interpreted differently by non-trinitarians. Of course, trinitarians would claim that they are twisting the scriptures. But then again, Non trinitarians claim that trinitarians are twisting their key scriptures that teach against the trinity. There really are logical, plausible explanations on BOTH sides of each set of verses. It's like playing ring around the rosie.
That's why I like to go straight to the bottom line: Every major teaching in the Bible is explicitely taught in many passages all over the Bible. Again, I challenge anyone to find a MAJOR teaching of the Bible that is only inferred. And again, I challenge anyone to find ONE passage that EXPLICITLY teaches the trinity. Out of 66 books that we call the Bible, surely there should be many verses that EXPLICITLY show all 3 persons as God and actually one person.
There is only one verse that even infers that the Holy spirit is God. Acts 5 says that Annanias and sapphira lied to Peter, the Holy Spirit, and God. This is a PRIME example of trinitarian building a doctrine by inference. Because the passage says that they lied to the Holy Spirit then later says they lied to God, they INFER that the Holy Spirit is God. But they also lied to Peter. Does that infer that Peter is God???? You see how dangerous it is to Infer? The entire trinity doctrine is built on this form of logic. WHERE DOES THE BIBLE EXPLICITLY TEACH THE TRINITY???

 

[Strong in Him]

WHERE DOES THE BIBLE EXPLICITLY TEACH THE TRINITY???

Why do you HAVE to have something explicitly taught in one verse before you will accept it? Maybe because you believe the Bible all has to be taken literally, and if it's not written, it didn't happen?

Jesus is God. He tells us in John 17:5 that he shared his Father's glory before the world began. Paul, John and the author of Hebrews tell us that the universe was made through, and for, the Son. Paul tells us that Christ is the exact image of the father.
The Holy Spirit is God, he is called the Spirit of God in a number of places. He was also with God at creation.

Yet there is only ONE God. ONE God means ONE God, not one true God and a number of lesser deities running around heaven. ONE God. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God. But ONE God.

It's not easy to understand, and I would say the opposite to you, that if you don't want to believe it or consider that it might be true, it's very easy to dismiss it as illogical. Similarly I can understand why someone might not want to acknowledge Jesus as God because that might mean they have to face up to his teachings and claims.
But what's the alternative explanation? Three equally divine beings would be three Gods, there is only one.

 

[Strong in Him]

And I don't believe the Bible INFERS this at all. The trinity is like a puzzle, and you won't see the picture clearly until you put ALL the pieces together. Even then, the NT tells us that at the moment we only see through a glass darkly.

I'm afraid if you want the truth about our awesome, eternal, Creator God packaged up into one small verse so you can say you have him figured out, you're going to be disappointed. Too many people try to limit God and put him in a box - that's the problem.

 

[2ducklow]

Why do you HAVE to have something explicitly taught in one verse before you will accept it? Maybe because you believe the Bible all has to be taken literally, and if it's not written, it didn't happen?

Jesus is God. He tells us in John 17:5 that he shared his Father's glory before the world began. Paul, John and the author of Hebrews tell us that the universe was made through, and for, the Son. Paul tells us that Christ is the exact image of the father.

Here is the thing that you trinitarains do all the time, you misrepresent what the scripture actually says. When you claim that the bible says Jesus is god all over the bible, then you say it's here in john 17.5 this way. you misrepresent it . Here is what the word of god says and it doesn't say what you said it says.

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Another biggie, is isaiah 9.6, trinitarians say over and over that isaiah 9.6 says Jesus is the almighty god, but it doesn't it says his NAME shall be called the almighty god.

IT's like it's impossible for a trinitarian to quote these scriptures correctly when viewed through trinitarian colored glasses.



Jesus asked to be glorified with GOD'S OWN SELF. you change it to Jesus shared the Father's glory.

The Holy Spirit is God, he is called the Spirit of God in a number of places. He was also with God at creation.

Yet there is only ONE God. ONE God means ONE God, not one true God and a number of lesser deities running around heaven. ONE God. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God. But ONE God.

The father is the one true god, according to scripture. No verse says Jesus is the one true god, or the holy spirit is the one true god.

It's not easy to understand, and I would say the opposite to you, that if you don't want to believe it or consider that it might be true, it's very easy to dismiss it as illogical. Similarly I can understand why someone might not want to acknowledge Jesus as God because that might mean they have to face up to his teachings and claims.
But what's the alternative explanation? Three equally divine beings would be three Gods, there is only one.

the alternative is the bible which says God the Father is the one and only true or real god. john 17.3 and 1 cor. 8.6 et.al.

 

[2ducklow]

And I don't believe the Bible INFERS this at all. The trinity is like a puzzle, and you won't see the picture clearly until you put ALL the pieces together. Even then, the NT tells us that at the moment we only see through a glass darkly.

I'm afraid if you want the truth about our awesome, eternal, Creator God packaged up into one small verse so you can say you have him figured out, you're going to be disappointed. Too many people try to limit God and put him in a box - that's the problem.

Well then you shouldn't limit god to an illogical box, try a logical box. If god is illogical, as you are asserting here, then anything illogical describes god. so just say to yourself, God is unitarian, oneness, and trinitarian, and mormon trinity, and buddah trinity. Doesn't make sense? hey don't paint god in a logical box. it's deep truth man .

 

[2ducklow]

Why does there have to be ONE verse which teaches the Trinity, when the concept is taught throughout Scripture?

Just a few verses -

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ..... and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Gen 1:1-2
God and the Spirit together at creation.

Mary said "my soul doth magnify the Lord. Mary and her soul, two beings together. same illogic as yours.

"He (Christ) is the image of the invisible God .... For by him all things were created ..... all things were created by him and for him." (Col 1:15-16)
" ... in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, through whom he made the universe." (Heb 1:2)

mistranslation the greek prep. is en which always means in and never means by. en occurs in only one case (locative) in Greek and thus can never mean anything but in. also the word translated by is the greek prep. dia which means through not by. translators take prep. as an easy way to insert their doctrine in the bible. they change it to what they think it means. here is what God really said.

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds;

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God" (John 1:1)

the word is what god says, what god says is god figuratively not literally, just as Jesus is a door, a shepard a loaf of bread, and the word figuratively not literally. everybody takes the word of god to mean what god says everywherein the bible EXCEPT john 1.1, then suddenly every christian and his mother just about suddnely changes it to some sentient being. hey it's gotta be true cause you all believe it.

The Son was present at and active in the creation of the world.

"Let US make man in OUR image" (Gen 1:26) Plural. The Hebrew word for God is, I understand, used in the plural form in Genesis 1.

[ elohim has the same form for both singular and plural. I caught 10 fish the other day, but I didn't catch 10 fish that are one fish. Fish has the same form for singular and plural, just as elohim does. if your going to say that YHWH is 3 persons that are one YHWH because of elohyim, then your going to have to say that all the false gods are one false god cause elohim is what they/he is called. There is no word in any language that means singluar plural, yes/no, up/down, right/left, one/many, 3/1 etc.

I know the NWT - and I'm presuming you are a JW - would contest the verse from John; translating it as "the word was a god", but this contradicts another Scripture -

"Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me." (Isaiah 43:10)

The Word, who became flesh - Jesus, cannot be a god since there is only one.

God is called "Father" a number of times in Scripture.
The Jews crucified Jesus for blasphemy - they knew by his teachings that he was claiming to be God. Jesus himself prayed, just before his death, that God would glorify him with he glory that he had with his Father before the world began. (John 17:5)
From other verses of Scripture we can see that the Spirit is the Spirit of God - God is divine, therefore his Spirit must be too.

So we have the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all divine, all present at the creation of the world and therefore eternal; and yet there is only one God.

well yea if you use illogic and change the scripture, you got a fair case.

Just because the word "trinity" isn't used in Scripture, doesn't mean the doctrine is man made and false.
The words "blood transfusion" aren't used in Scripture, yet I have spoken to witnesses who are adamant that the Bible teaches it is wrong to accept one.

neither is the word bloodtransfusion/progolf, 3/1 , plural singular, up/down, right/left etc. in the bible either. trinity is a concept equal to those concepts. equal in illogic. If Jesus was teaching that he and 2 other PERSONS are God , how come no one ever asked him to explain how 3 could be one? You think people in Jesus day had no problem with the concept that 3 is one? get real.



Your conclusion is wrong - it is a Scriptural doctrine.[/quote]

 

[Strong in Him]

Here is the thing that you trinitarains do all the time, you misrepresent what the scripture actually says. When you claim that the bible says Jesus is god all over the bible, then you say it's here in john 17.5 this way. you misrepresent it .

I didn't just quote John 17:5, I gave other verses too, such as Is 43:10 in which God says that there is NO other God, and John 1:1-2 which says that the word was God and was with God in the beginning. If you are a JW, don't know if you are, you may then counter that by saying that the correct translation is "the word was a god" - that's even worse, it makes Scripture contradict itself.
I also quoted verses from Hebrews and Colossians which explain that the Son was instrumental in the creation of the universe, along with the Spirit as seen in Gen 1.
Then I pointed out that the Jews knew and believed that Jesus was claiming to be God; that is why they crucified him. You don't seem to have considered any of these.

As well as this, if Jesus wasn't God; who was he? JUST a man? So it was ONLY a man who died for my sins on the cross? And how can Jesus be an effective mediator between God and man if he has only ever been man? It's because he was both man AND God that he can represent both, mediate between us and reconcile us to the Father.
This was one of the heresies that was being taught in the early church - that Jesus may have been anointed and received the Spirit of God, but was only man, not God.

The trinity is stated in the Nicene creed, it is a Christian doctrine.
Have a look under "forum rules" at the top of this site, you'll see the Nicene creed written out with Scriptural references for each part. This is the statement of faith accepted by CF; at one point if a person did not accept this, they were not allowed to use a Christian icon in their posts.
Mainstream denominations accept this doctrine; cults don't, which is why they are not accepted by the Christian church.

But I have to take a break from these forums for a bit, so that's as far as I can go with this discussion st the moment.

 

[Strong in Him]

Well then you shouldn't limit god to an illogical box, try a logical box.

I don't want to put God in a box at all - even if one could be found big enough to contain him.

Let God be God.