The Trinity

[x141]

yet we are told to have the mind of Christ...thus it seems to me that when you were asked to clarify, you might want to dismiss with all the symbolism that is not consistent with scripture and stick with either the symbolism that is consistent, or simply speak clearly on the matter. I have no problem with symbolism, I do have a problem with 1. symbolism that is contrary to scripture, like Jesus is manna when He clearly said He wasn't, and/or 2. when asked for clarity none is given.
Heb. 4:12 For the word of God is living and effective and sharper than any double-edged sword, penetrating as far as the separation of soul and spirit, joints and marrow. It is able to judge the ideas and thoughts of the heart.

seems to disagree with you on the matter of the word of God being alive, but back to point....you are right (If I am understanding you right) that Jesus is the only one that can give life, scripture cannot give us life, only point us to life, even though it is alive.

You are right, it seems to ...

Jesus never said he wasn't the manna, he said that he was the true ... and the Hebrews writer said in these last times he has spoken to us by son, but he has always spoken to us by son (which can be consecutively seen from Adam on) from the very beginning (by whom he created all things) which as we see he did it with words).

Is Jesus God … “Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.” (or does Jesus just seem to disagree with you). Yet he would tell those who would stone him for saying he was the son of God (which in their minds was making himself equal with God) that they were Gods, so they who were going to stone him were going to do so for what the scriptures said that they were.

 

[donfish06]

hum...did you read the articles? Every one talked about how the idea of the triune God goes all the way back to the disciples...and yet you insist that it cannot be found in scripture. How odd that something that cannot be found in scripture, would be taught by those who penned scripture....which was in fact, the point of what I posted those articles to show and you just dismissed it because it wasn't from people that support your view, which is even more odd to me. I mean, what kind of logic assumes that only information from people who agree with me can be accurate information? That is insanity as best I can tell. lol and yet Jesus Himself declared that He and the FAther were ONE...seems highly unlikely that Jesus would say He was the same as the Father if He didn't believe He and the Father were one, but we add to this with the understanding of His claim to be the I AM.. You see, the Jews believed and the text supports the idea that "I AM" was the name God gave Himself, thus for the claim to be made that Jesus was the "I AM" is to be using one of God's proper names. Like if I said I am Sally Jones...

So, your claim here that the Jesus and the disciples (who btw, called Him their teacher) did not believe Jesus and God to be one, is just plain wrong. To add insult to injury (sorry but I have to point it out even though it makes you look uninformed) it was this claim of deity that caused Jesus to be accused of blasphemy and passages like I John 4:2 This is how you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit who confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

and II John 1:7
I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

further confirm that the early church and Jesus and the disciples and apostles specifically did teach trinity....sorry dude, you lose, just because you can find people who agree with you or teach a false doctrine, doesn't change what scripture clearly teaches. amen, but it is heresy to dismiss the doctrines clearly taught in scripture which is my problem with you and some other posters who try to claim that Jesus is not the Christ, God in flesh. And what is very puzzling to me, is why you all would have a problem understanding that if the flesh is just dirt, a temporary house, why you don't get that God could slip on a body, a suit of clothes and in that, dwell on this earth, just like a man. Add to this, that angles are recorded in scripture as taking on the appearance of a man and it boggles my mind to try to figure out how you CANNOT figure out that they are one and the same. It is just mind boggling how you can't figure this out. well, since only you non trinitarians are describing trinity this way, it would seem that you all are either 1. hard of hearing and thus have no clue what trinitarians believe, or 2. you are simply trying to change the teaching into something it isn't so that you can troll the forums and insight anger by trying to paint false ideas and inflammatory responses, like another poster with similar views to yours tried to do with me. Either way, it is disturbing and sinful behavior and should as such be apauling to every true believer here. here is the disturbing thing, that is what was described to you as to the trinity, and far from what you describe when talking to trinitarians. Which makes me curious why you are changing your claims now that you have been caught?

Since none of the rest of this addressed the truth of trinity, I just ignored it.

Sorry to point this out, but I never said that Jesus was not God, or diety.

I have said that God is not a trinity. I find it funny that you did not address the numerous historical evidences that Trinitarian baptism was not around until the 2nd or 3rd century...

 

[donfish06]

amen, but it is heresy to dismiss the doctrines clearly taught in scripture which is my problem with you and some other posters who try to claim that Jesus is not the Christ, God in flesh. And what is very puzzling to me, is why you all would have a problem understanding that if the flesh is just dirt, a temporary house, why you don't get that God could slip on a body, a suit of clothes and in that, dwell on this earth, just like a man.

I have never said that Jesus was not God in flesh. My assertion is that he is not "one of three." They are all one.

Eph 4:5-6 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (6) One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1Co 12:4-6 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. (5) And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. (6) And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.​

I realize that there are many "trinitarians" who believe this way. But this is NOT trinitarianism. Trinitarianism started with the Catholic Church, and the Protestants took it right along with out question. History shows, as I posted multiple sources above, that the baptismal formula was never in the "name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" until Tertullian, the "Father of the Trinity" (according to the sites that you posted. To be a Father means to be a creator. Tertullian created the trinity) made his change and the Nicene council changed it. It was always in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, which IS the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, seeing that they are TRULY one. Jesus commanded us to baptize in the NAME. Father, Son, HG are not NAMES. NO ONE in the scriptures was ever baptized such. All accounts of baptism in the scriptures were in Jesus' name.

I am sure you have run into trinitarians (true trinitarians) who will "separate" the "persons". I spoke to some one and I said, "Would you agree that Jesus was the complete epitome of Love, that no one love(s)(d) more then Jesus?" and his response was "besides God." ... That is heresy. That is separating God. Jesus IS God, so how could God love more than Jesus? THAT is what a trinitarian says. If you believe God to be the way that I have described him then you, sir, are NOT a trinitarian. THAT is my point.

Let's take a look at the ultimate book of history, the Bible. It is THE authority of what the Church should be. Please show me ONE place that anyone in the New Testament Church was baptized other than in Jesus' Name, and I will rest my case. Until you show me this, then you have been baptized CONTRARILY to what the ORIGINAL Christians have been, thus your baptism is WRONG.

Jesus said:

Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. ​

The 12 Apostles baptized the way that Jesus told them to ... in the NAME. The MEN at Nicaea made THEIR commandment to baptize in "titles". If you are following the doctrines of MAN, and not the commandments of the LORD, then as Jesus said, you do worship in VAIN.

 

[donfish06]

For all who are interested, here is a link to a site that can explain the TRUTH about the Godhead a lot better than I apparently have.

http://alivinggod.com/the-godhead.html#blank

 

[razzelflabben]

You are right, it seems to ...

Jesus never said he wasn't the manna, he said that he was the true ... and the Hebrews writer said in these last times he has spoken to us by son, but he has always spoken to us by son (which can be consecutively seen from Adam on) from the very beginning (by whom he created all things) which as we see he did it with words).

Is Jesus God … “Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.” (or does Jesus just seem to disagree with you). Yet he would tell those who would stone him for saying he was the son of God (which in their minds was making himself equal with God) that they were Gods, so they who were going to stone him were going to do so for what the scriptures said that they were.

look at the context of John 10....commentaries help here too...but to discuss it would again, be off topic

 

[razzelflabben]

Sorry to point this out, but I never said that Jesus was not God, or diety.

no, you and some other posters said that you do not believe in trinity...thus, either Jesus or the HS or both are not manifestations of God or else you simply lied about not believing in trinity. Your choice, no skin off my nose either way.

I have said that God is not a trinity. I find it funny that you did not address the numerous historical evidences that Trinitarian baptism was not around until the 2nd or 3rd century...

why show you again what I already showed you is in scripture...see, the problem seems to be that you are playing a semantic game by trying to change what others are saying so that you sound wise in your own eyes.

Let me tell you a story...a friend of mind called one day, totally frantic and worried. You see, she was talking to someone from the leadership of the church who was doing just what you are doing. Because of that, she was doubting her entire salvation and trusted me to tell her the truth from scripture, which I did and she replied, "that is exactly what I believe, but (the other guy) told me I was wrong because I didn't explain it the same way he did." This is the problem with playing these types of semantic games that you seem think make you look wise and learned. And just a hint for you, scripture warns us about leading others astray. But all that is between you and God, I have evidenced exactly what I claimed. One of your huge problems is that you rail against trinitarians by accusing them of being tri theist, which is an out and out lie, then try to force them to evidence something else....and with that, I am done.

 

[donfish06]

no, you and some other posters said that you do not believe in trinity...thus, either Jesus or the HS or both are not manifestations of God or else you simply lied about not believing in trinity. Your choice, no skin off my nose either way. why show you again what I already showed you is in scripture...see, the problem seems to be that you are playing a semantic game by trying to change what others are saying so that you sound wise in your own eyes.

Let me tell you a story...a friend of mind called one day, totally frantic and worried. You see, she was talking to someone from the leadership of the church who was doing just what you are doing. Because of that, she was doubting her entire salvation and trusted me to tell her the truth from scripture, which I did and she replied, "that is exactly what I believe, but (the other guy) told me I was wrong because I didn't explain it the same way he did." This is the problem with playing these types of semantic games that you seem think make you look wise and learned. And just a hint for you, scripture warns us about leading others astray. But all that is between you and God, I have evidenced exactly what I claimed. One of your huge problems is that you rail against trinitarians by accusing them of being tri theist, which is an out and out lie, then try to force them to evidence something else....and with that, I am done.

So you can't find Trinitarian baptism in the Bible?

 

[razzelflabben]

I have never said that Jesus was not God in flesh. My assertion is that he is not "one of three." They are all one.

which is trinitarian belief which you claim you do not believe....so, let's play your semantic game and ask why you claim to not believe something you now claim to believe in??????? Hum????? Maybe because you haven't been listening????? or something less flattering than that?????

Eph 4:5-6 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (6) One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1Co 12:4-6 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. (5) And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. (6) And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.​

yep...trinitarian belief....a belief you have rejected....why reject it if you really believe it??????? ​

I realize that there are many "trinitarians" who believe this way. But this is NOT trinitarianism. Trinitarianism started with the Catholic Church, and the Protestants took it right along with out question.

websters...trinity....: the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma....hum...who should we believe, you or websters, who is known for defining words?

History shows, as I posted multiple sources above, that the baptismal formula was never in the "name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" until Tertullian, the "Father of the Trinity" (according to the sites that you posted.

Matthew 28:19....Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,....hum, now you want us to believe you over Matthew's gospel.....I'd show you more, but you have been ignoring scripture in order to hold to what your teachers have been teaching you...which is sad, but unfortunately, all to common.

To be a Father means to be a creator. Tertullian created the trinity) made his change and the Nicene council changed it. It was always in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, which IS the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, seeing that they are TRULY one. Jesus commanded us to baptize in the NAME. Father, Son, HG are not NAMES. NO ONE in the scriptures was ever baptized such. All accounts of baptism in the scriptures were in Jesus' name.

Acts 8:16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus....is a passage that should send your ideas into spasms, enjoy looking at it.

I am sure you have run into trinitarians (true trinitarians) who will "separate" the "persons". I spoke to some one and I said, "Would you agree that Jesus was the complete epitome of Love, that no one love(s)(d) more then Jesus?" and his response was "besides God." ... That is heresy. That is separating God. Jesus IS God, so how could God love more than Jesus? THAT is what a trinitarian says. If you believe God to be the way that I have described him then you, sir, are NOT a trinitarian. THAT is my point.

and yet, websters defines what you claim to believe as trinitarian and is consistent with every single trinitarian I personally have ever talked to about trinity. So, I'm curious, why do you feel the right to change word meanings based on your experience with a person or two? What and who gives you the right to change word meanings cause you want to? Let me remind you that websters defines trinity as..
: the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma

Let's take a look at the ultimate book of history, the Bible. It is THE authority of what the Church should be. Please show me ONE place that anyone in the New Testament Church was baptized other than in Jesus' Name, and I will rest my case. Until you show me this, then you have been baptized CONTRARILY to what the ORIGINAL Christians have been, thus your baptism is WRONG.

How many times must you be shown Matthew 28:19 before you accept it was shown?

Jesus said:

Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. ​

The 12 Apostles baptized the way that Jesus told them to ... in the NAME. The MEN at Nicaea made THEIR commandment to baptize in "titles". If you are following the doctrines of MAN, and not the commandments of the LORD, then as Jesus said, you do worship in VAIN.

so, now you are going to try to go down the road of accusing others falsely? As I said, Matthew 28:19 was presented several times now, and it clearly says to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and HG. but notice in Acts 8 that they hadn't yet received the HS because they had only been baptized in the name of Jesus alone. We receive the HS when we believe unto salvation, thus, the instruction is to now baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and HG, cause we now have that HS.

Oh well, you claim to accept scripture, but your post show a lack of willingness or understanding, so I don't expect much of a reply other than flaming.

 

[razzelflabben]

So you can't find Trinitarian baptism in the Bible?

how many times must Matthew 28 be posted before you accept that it was posted?

 

[donfish06]

how many times must Matthew 28 be posted before you accept that it was posted?

Show me one place where someone is baptized with those words spoken over them. Every time it is in Jesus name, just like your Acts 8:16 quote shows... I'm confused how you see "in Jesus name" meaning father, son, HS

 

[x141]

look at the context of John 10....commentaries help here too...but to discuss it would again, be off topic

"If God is not triune, how would that change anything regarding Christian faith?" This was the topic, and as far as I see it has been off topic for awhile now. But as for your suggestion I only take it from the source, we already know by what is depicted in Genesis what happens when there is a middle man.

 

[razzelflabben]

Show me one place where someone is baptized with those words spoken over them. Every time it is in Jesus name, just like your Acts 8:16 quote shows... I'm confused how you see "in Jesus name" meaning father, son, HS

you know, I shouldn't have to point this out to someone who is able to be on the forums, but when you want to make an argument against someones evidence, it is usually helpful to use the evidence they provide rather than try to use evidence provided for something else and in that claim the evidence you were looking for was not provided....just a bit of friendly advice.

Now, since you apparently can't read the passage presented that testifies to the truth of what I am saying, I'll bold it for you as I cut and paste it.....Matthew 28:19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

the Acts passage supports the reason for the change, but you will not be able to understand that, till or unless you finally grasp that Matthew 28:19 tells us to baptize in the name of the FATHER, SON, and hOLY SPIRIT

 

[razzelflabben]

"If God is not triune, how would that change anything regarding Christian faith?" This was the topic, and as far as I see it has been off topic for awhile now. But as for your suggestion I only take it from the source, we already know by what is depicted in Genesis what happens when there is a middle man.

I'm not even sure what this question means, so can't really answer it without some clarifications.

As to the OP question, as I offered long long ago, If God is not triune, we would still have the Jewish beliefs. IOW's the primary difference between the Jewish beliefs and the NT christian beliefs is that Jesus is the Messiah, the promised one, God in flesh. So, naturally, if we remove that from the equation, we return to OT Jewish beliefs of still looking for the Messiah.

 

[donfish06]

the Acts passage supports the reason for the change, but you will not be able to understand that, till or unless you finally grasp that Matthew 28:19 tells us to baptize in the name of the FATHER, SON, and hOLY SPIRIT

What you fail to grasp is that it asks for the NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I did NOT ask you where it TELLS us to baptize, I said to SHOW me when anyone was ever baptized that way. The Bible, which is the earliest Church history, shows NO ONE was baptized that way.

When Jesus said in Matthew 28:19 baptize in the NAME of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost why then, tell me, did Peter, TEN DAYS LATER after receiving the HOLY GHOST which is to TEACH US ALL THINGS tell everyone in Acts 2:38 to repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ??! The Holy Ghost TAUGHT him that Jesus Christ IS the NAME of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

That's why ALL accounts of baptism in the book of Acts are in Jesus name, and NOT Father, Son, and HG.

PETER, the one given the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM told us to be baptized in Jesus Name to receive the Holy Ghost. If you have not been, then you do not have the Holy Ghost, who is the TEACHER, this you CAN NOT know, what the scriptures REALLY mean

 

[Albion]

I'm not even sure what this question means, so can't really answer it without some clarifications.

As to the OP question, as I offered long long ago, If God is not triune, we would still have the Jewish beliefs. IOW's the primary difference between the Jewish beliefs and the NT christian beliefs is that Jesus is the Messiah, the promised one, God in flesh. So, naturally, if we remove that from the equation, we return to OT Jewish beliefs of still looking for the Messiah.

...assuming that that is the way one "un-Trinitys" the Trinity.

The far more common way is to consider Jesus not to be God in the flesh but merely a prophet, angel, or simply an enlightened human teacher.

 

[Albion]

What you fail to grasp is that it asks for the NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

What is the "NAME" when we say, "Stop in the name of the law!" ???

.

 

[x141]

I'm not even sure what this question means, so can't really answer it without some clarifications.

As to the OP question, as I offered long long ago, If God is not triune, we would still have the Jewish beliefs. IOW's the primary difference between the Jewish beliefs and the NT christian beliefs is that Jesus is the Messiah, the promised one, God in flesh. So, naturally, if we remove that from the equation, we return to OT Jewish beliefs of still looking for the Messiah.

It wasn't a question, but all the same it is not the content of the question but the question that becomes a snare (which I use in the loosest possible sense of the word concerning thought).

One could certainly look at it that way.

The Jews were promised (from the beginning) that their being accepted of God (or being one with him) would have an end, which is what their religion (or Moses' perception of God (a wandering after) became to them; an ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth, which is in relationship to self, or it remains another's and not your own (which is one way we oppose our selves); as Jesus said, salvation is of the Jews; they had it all along without knowing they did.

If we can reason with God and become clean (which is reflected in Jesus' you are clean from the words I have spoken to you (they being not his own yet his own) yet to others if he had not said they would have had no sin), why was there a need for a sacrifice in the first place, which is seen in an offering not asked for (Cain and Abel) that shows the truth where knowledge outside of self leads to (which is just as relevant to this post as it is to God, and whether he was one or three or three in the earth that agree with the one that is in heaven).

 

[razzelflabben]

What you fail to grasp is that it asks for the NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I did NOT ask you where it TELLS us to baptize, I said to SHOW me when anyone was ever baptized that way. The Bible, which is the earliest Church history, shows NO ONE was baptized that way.

hum...the acts passage tells us that to that point no one had yet been baptized in the name of the HS because they had not yet received the HS...the Matt. passage tells us that now that we have received the HS we are to baptize in the name of the FAther, Son, and HS....seems to me that you are just trying to make an argument out of something that is pretty clear.

When Jesus said in Matthew 28:19 baptize in the NAME of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost why then, tell me, did Peter, TEN DAYS LATER after receiving the HOLY GHOST which is to TEACH US ALL THINGS tell everyone in Acts 2:38 to repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ??! The Holy Ghost TAUGHT him that Jesus Christ IS the NAME of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

you tell me, you are the one who has a problem with what is clearly written in scripture. Seriously dude, I take scripture for what it says, I don't try to use my intellect to second guess God. He says it in His word, I believe it, in fact, scripture tells us to not rely on our own wisdom like you keep trying to do in these posts. So you feel free to explain your wisdom and I will take my God given freedom to believe God's wisdom on the matter.

That's why ALL accounts of baptism in the book of Acts are in Jesus name, and NOT Father, Son, and HG.

see above, apparently you don't take scripture at it's word...but far be it from me to remove from you your God given right to reject what scripture says. Oh, and just for the record, Matt. does evidence exactly what you told me to evidence, your dismissal doesn't change the facts.

PETER, the one given the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM told us to be baptized in Jesus Name to receive the Holy Ghost. If you have not been, then you do not have the Holy Ghost, who is the TEACHER, this you CAN NOT know, what the scriptures REALLY mean

Well, I beg to differ with you, being that the HS has been very "vocal" in my life and has been evidenced repeatedly. But like I said, I choose to believe God over you in this matter.

 

[razzelflabben]

...assuming that that is the way one "un-Trinitys" the Trinity.

The far more common way is to consider Jesus not to be God in the flesh but merely a prophet, angel, or simply an enlightened human teacher.

huh? if Jesus is just a prophet, angel, of enlightened human teacher, wouldn't that automatically make Him not the Messiah, God in flesh? Seems to me you are not trying to argue semantics rather than listening to what is being said.

 

[razzelflabben]

It wasn't a question, but all the same it is not the content of the question but the question that becomes a snare (which I use in the loosest possible sense of the word concerning thought).

One could certainly look at it that way.

The Jews were promised (from the beginning) that their being accepted of God (or being one with him) would have an end, which is what their religion (or Moses' perception of God (a wandering after) became to them; an ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth, which is in relationship to self, or it remains another's and not your own (which is one way we oppose our selves); as Jesus said, salvation is of the Jews; they had it all along without knowing they did.

hum, so you want us to throw out all the bible that tells us that salvation has come for all people, not the Jews alone? Okay...well, I prefer to believe God over you, so I'm leaving it there. Have a great day, hope someday you discover that all of the bible is important, not just the parts you like.

If we can reason with God and become clean (which is reflected in Jesus' you are clean from the words I have spoken to you (they being not his own yet his own) yet to others if he had not said they would have had no sin), why was there a need for a sacrifice in the first place, which is seen in an offering not asked for (Cain and Abel) that shows the truth where knowledge outside of self leads to (which is just as relevant to this post as it is to God, and whether he was one or three or three in the earth that agree with the one that is in heaven).

not a clue, all gobbldy gook that doesn't reflect anything being said to you..sorry, I'm done with gibberish for a season.