Trinitarian Doctrine

[ZoneChaos]

He did not pray to Himself as humanity, but to the one true God, to the same God who dwelled in His humanity and who also inhabits the universe.

I have a probloem with this. My problem is that this seperates Jesus from God. This saying that Jesus could have existed without God dwelling in Him. That without God, Jesus would have been an ordinary man. This takes away from Jesus being God, and replaces it with Jesus being made to be God, by God.

That's wrong.

 

[ZoneChaos]

First, let me ask the Trinitarian a question. Their doctrine states that the Father and the Son are two persons and that they are separate and distinct one from the other, yet they are coeternal and co-equal. In simple language this means that the Father has no more power than the Son and likewise the Son has no more power than the Father. The Father was not before the Son or the Son was not before the Father. Now the question I will ask is this: "If the Father and Son are co-equal , why did the Son pray to the Father?"

When Jesus, of His own will, decided to take upon Himself the form of a man, He lowered himself. THta is not to say that His devine nature was less than the Father's, but rather that with the addition of a human nature, He was less than the Father, becasue fo the human nature.

Divinely, He was Equal with the Father, as being God, but Mortally, He was less than the Father.

You pray to someone because you need help, If the Son is co-equal, with the Father he had no need to pray to Him for help because he has just as much power and might. Please think, Mr. Trinitarian, before you ask such a question.

The Bible teaches that the Son lowered himself when He became man. With this new natur eof being Human, the Son did need help, coucil, adn communion with the Father.

The SOn, fully God on earth, chose to limit Himself as a human while on earth. Jesus was GOd, yes? And yet, there are times when Jesus is less than Omnipotent in appearance or action. Jesus still had to eat to regain energy, whoich is not Omnipotence, as we know God to be. This is becasue Jesus, as a human, lived as a human, with all of its physical barriers. And in that capacity, needed the Father just as we do.

So, Mr. Oneness, before you claim Trinitarians ignorant, consider we have thought it through.

 

[jbenjesus]

Originally posted by ZoneChaos


Does "begotten" mean "created"?

Or rather, can begotten mean "of"?

Was what Trinitarians call "Son of God" created by God, or is the "Son of God" simply of God, with no beginning... eternal, yet begotten?

Has Jesus Christ always existed, without beginning, and has done so, by the very nature of being God, of sharing in what it means to be God, and by that, is begotten of that eternal nature, without a beginning of existance, but rathe rin a state of always being begotten... of always being of God?

Does a son have a beginning? A son, by very nature of the word, must have not existed first, and then come into existence by birth to then be called a son. "The Son of God" is a term referring to God's manifestation in the flesh, in other words his humanity. Hi humanity was born on a certain day. His Deity has always existed. Here we distinguish between flesh and Spirit. I will requote what I said previously.

"However, we do find the term "begotten son" in John 3:16. This word in the greek means single of its kind and used of only sons or daughters. Sons and daughters have a definitive beginning because they must be born.

Jesus was born, was He not? And if He was born, then He must have started to exist as a man at His concpetion in Mary's womb and consequent birth. There is His beginning. His humanity began at His birth. The "Son of God" was not eternal. His very birth (humanity) contradicts His eternality.

The role of the Son of God began at His birth. He was born of a virgin woman. Galations 4:4 is says the Son came in the "fulness of time". In God's divinely appointed time, He manifested Himself in the flesh and the role of the Son began - to redeem mankind and destroy the works of the devil.

Psalm 2:7 says, "...this day have I begotten thee" in reference to the Son. So He started on some day. "The Son" is not spoken of as eternal. See also acts 13:33, Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6. These all refer to the birth of the promised Messiah "the Son" and they speak of His beginning starting when He is birthed of a virgin."

 

[jbenjesus]

Originally posted by ZoneChaos


I have a probloem with this. My problem is that this seperates Jesus from God. This saying that Jesus could have existed without God dwelling in Him. That without God, Jesus would have been an ordinary man. This takes away from Jesus being God, and replaces it with Jesus being made to be God, by God.

That's wrong.

What you said has not been said by us, but I will clarify in answer to your question.

Jesus would not have existed without God dwelling in Him.

By making that statement above, we are simply distinguishing (identifying) between His two natures (Spirit and flesh). Without God, Jesus would simply have never existed, because the flesh was birthed of God, in the womb of Mary.

But I think that is where our issue lies. You believe "the Son of God" has existed eternally b/c He is the 2nd person of the Trinity, therefore, as 2nd person of the trinity He has always existed.

We don't believe "the Son of God" to be the 2nd person of the trinity, but the one and only Spirit of God manifesting Himself in the flesh, in the fulness of time.

 

[jbenjesus]

Originally posted by ZoneChaos


When Jesus, of His own will, decided to take upon Himself the form of a man, He lowered himself. THta is not to say that His devine nature was less than the Father's, but rather that with the addition of a human nature, He was less than the Father, becasue fo the human nature.

Divinely, He was Equal with the Father, as being God, but Mortally, He was less than the Father.



The Bible teaches that the Son lowered himself when He became man. With this new natur eof being Human, the Son did need help, coucil, adn communion with the Father.

The SOn, fully God on earth, chose to limit Himself as a human while on earth. Jesus was GOd, yes? And yet, there are times when Jesus is less than Omnipotent in appearance or action. Jesus still had to eat to regain energy, whoich is not Omnipotence, as we know God to be. This is becasue Jesus, as a human, lived as a human, with all of its physical barriers. And in that capacity, needed the Father just as we do.

So, Mr. Oneness, before you claim Trinitarians ignorant, consider we have thought it through.

This is our issue: trinitarians such as yourself claim that Jesus was the 2nd person of the trinity and therefore is God. Yet you claim, that the 2nd person of the trinity is co-equal with the 1st person of the trinity - God the Father.

If your claim is true, that "the Son of God" is God because He is the 2nd person of the trinity, then it makes no sense at all for Him to be praying at all if the 2nd person of the trinity (the Son of God) is God already. That is another conflict and contradiction of the trinity doctrine.

The trinity doctrine according to you says on one end, Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, as the scriptures clearly and explicitly state, then the trinity doctrine confuses and contradicts what they say they believe by using non-biblical terms in saying, Jesus, the Son of God is the second "person" of God co-equal and co-eternal.

Now, if Jesus was the "one and only person" of God come in the flesh, and we realize His Spirit was Deity and His flesh humanity and He related to many different people on both scales, then its easy to understand why "the Son of God" prayed. He was a man like us in every way that we are men, and so dependent upon the Spirit like we need be.

His uniqueness, different from us, is that His Spirit (Deity) was fused with humanity, like nothing ever done before in creation, inseparable and yet distinguishable.

 

[ZoneChaos]

Does a son have a beginning? A son, by very nature of the word, must have not existed first, and then come into existence by birth to then be called a son.

And in the mortal physical world, I would agree. God is not bound by physics.

"Son" can also simply mean being as the role of the Son to that of the Father. The Bible does not teach anytype od physical precreation by God. Even Jesus birth was spiritual intervention on God's part. GOd didn't physically "father" Jesus, the event was supernatural.

"The Son of God" is a term referring to God's manifestation in the flesh, in other words his humanity.

I agree, but this doe snot mean the Son of God was created at the birth of Jesus Christ.

His humanity was born on a certain day. His Deity has always existed. Here we distinguish between flesh and Spirit. I will requote what I said previously.

I can agre with this too, as does the Trinity Doctrine. The Son did not exist with a human nature sense eternity, but as I said, took on the form os a mortal coil, by his choice. The Son of God existed before creation, but did not exist with a dual nature until He chose to do so at His physical birth as Jesus Christ.

 

[ZoneChaos]

What you said has not been said by us, but I will clarify in answer to your question.

Jesus would not have existed without God dwelling in Him.

Eaither way, Jesus did not exist as a man regardless of wether He was God or not.

By making that statement above, we are simply distinguishing (identifying) between His two natures (Spirit and flesh). Without God, Jesus would simply have never existed, because the flesh was birthed of God, in the womb of Mary.

I agree. But you said "to the same God who dwelled in His humanity", which is saying to me that Jesus' Physical existance didn't rely on Him being God to exist, but rather only relied upon Him being created by God to exist.

But I think that is where our issue lies. You believe "the Son of God" has existed eternally b/c He is the 2nd person of the Trinity, therefore, as 2nd person of the trinity He has always existed.

We don't believe "the Son of God" to be the 2nd person of the trinity, but the one and only Spirit of God manifesting Himself in the flesh, in the fulness of time.

Duh!

 

[ZoneChaos]

This is our issue: trinitarians such as yourself claim that Jesus was the 2nd person of the trinity and therefore is God. Yet you claim, that the 2nd person of the trinity is co-equal with the 1st person of the trinity - God the Father.

Co-equal Supernaturally, Yes. Not co-Equal Physically. BY tkaing on the form of a creation, the SOn lowerd Himself by that second nature, and at the same time retains equality Supernatually.

If your claim is true, that "the Son of God" is God because He is the 2nd person of the trinity, then it makes no sense at all for Him to be praying at all if the 2nd person of the trinity (the Son of God) is God already.

But we don't claim that He was praying to what we call the "Godhead" (all three "perosns" of the Trinity), but rather the SOn, a member of the Godhead, was praying, as mortal man, to the Father of the Godhead. Both were Fully God in Supernaturla nature, but within the Godhead, the relationship exists of Father, Son (and Spirit).

That is another conflict and contradiction of the trinity doctrine.

ONly because oyu do not understand "God" as being both the "Godhead" and sometimed being "Father" only. Gos is Father, the and the Spirit, all three are God. But it is acceptable to refer to each individually as "God" as well, because it is true. When Jesus said "my God", He was speaking to the Father alone, and not the Spirit or Himself.

The trinity doctrine according to you says on one end, Jesus was God manifest in the flesh,

Yes, but not as you understand God to be, in your Oneness Doctrine. we state that Jesus was thre So of GOd, who is God, manifest in the Flesh, to be more accurate.

Now, if Jesus was the "one and only person" of God come in the flesh, and we realize His Spirit was Deity and His flesh humanity and He related to many different people on both scales, then its easy to understand why "the Son of God" prayed. He was a man like us in every way that we are men, and so dependent upon the Spirit like we need be.

True, but you would have Him prayig to himself either way.. which is I guess , your answer to my question, Who did Jesus pray to?

His uniqueness, different from us, is that His Spirit (Deity) was fused with humanity, like nothing ever done before in creation, inseparable and yet distinguishable.

Agian, this is not accurate from my perspective. Jesus was not a culmination of being man and God, but instead was fuly God and Fully man. 100% God + 100% Man = 100% Jesus

 

[jbenjesus]

Why be a Trinitarian?
by
Jason Dulle
JasonDulle@aol.com

Introduction

Why should we conclude that God is a Trinity of persons; i.e. God's eternal essence subsists in three distinct and eternal persons: Father, Son, Spirit? Is the Biblical evidence as overwhelmingly compelling as many Trinitarians claim it is? Oneness believers would answer in the negative. Each theological position will point to certain Scriptures to bolster their case. This is arguing from the micro-level. Our doctrine of God cannot be informed from a few isolated verses, but must be informed from the entire corpus of Biblical data. While we must grapple with the Biblical text on the micro-level, we can only do so after having established the Biblical teaching on God on the macro-level.

No theological position can adequately explain every verse in the Bible that pertains to God. There will always be passages that are difficult to explain, and that seem to support another position. Because of this we must move beyond proof-texting when it comes to the Oneness vs. Trinity debate. It is at the level of proof-texting, however, that the debate usually lies. Both sides gather up five verses that bolster their view, and use those same verses to attack the contrary position. Each side thinks they are right and have "won" the argument, but in reality we have ten verses that seem to teach to different things. Nobody has "won" until we can find a way to understand all ten verses with internal consistency and without jumping through exegetical hoops.

It will not do to find a particular verse in the Bible that does not readily fit with our opponents doctrine, and exploit that one verse to such an extent that we dismiss their entire position. To do so is to commit what I call the "weak link" fallacy. We commit the weak link fallacy when we attack the one weak link in our opponent's theological system, and then mistakenly believe that we have dismantled the entire theological chain. Not so. In order to dismantle a theological system we must not only dismantle the weak links of the chain, but the strong links of the chain too. All theological positions have weak links. There are just as many difficult texts for Trinitarians as there are for Oneness believers. We will not be able to solve the Godhead issue and the dilemma of these problem texts unless we first establish a Biblical foundation upon which to interpret them through. We build that foundation through observing the Biblical data as a whole, not a difficult verse here and there. When it comes to the Oneness vs. Trinity debate we must ask ourselves Which view is better supported by the larger picture of Scripture? While there may be verses which seem to indicate a Trinity of eternal persons on the micro-level, we would only be justified in concluding that God is indeed a Trinity if such an interpretation is supported on the macro-level. If Trinitarianism cannot be supported on a macro-level of exegesis, then we should not interpret particular verses within a Trinitarian construct. In this short article I intend to demonstrate that on the macro-level Oneness theology is better supported by Scripture than is Trinitarian theology.

Those who believe in a Trinity often do so based on the fact that Scripture often makes a distinction between the Father and Son, and to a lesser degree the Holy Spirit. If God's oneness is a numerical oneness of person (meaning He is uni-personal) as Oneness believers maintain, these distinctions become very perplexing, if not meaningless. After all, how is it that Jesus prays to the Father, and speaks of the Father as though the Father is another person distinct from Him if Jesus' deity is the deity of the Father? It would be the same personal deity in both cases. If such is the case why would we need to make any distinction between Father and Son? In order to make sense of the distinctions betwen Father and Son it would seem that Jesus must be a distinct person from the Father. While I believe monotheism and the Biblical distinctions are easily reconciled when understood in light of the humanity God assumed in the incarnation (without resorting to a Nestorian view of Christ), I can also see the weight of the dilemma that faces the readers of Scripture when they encounter such distinctions. How can God be one and at yet at the same time the Scripture speak of the Father, Son, and Spirit as distinct and as God?

It would be very easy to conclude that Father, Son, and Spirit are three personal deities within one divine essence. Such a conclusion can account for both the real distinctions we encounter between Father, Son, and Spirit, and maintain the existence of only one God. Of course "one" has to be redefined away from a numerical oneness to the notion of a "unity" to make this view work. While I sympathize with the Trinitarian solution to the perplexing data in Scripture, it is the redefining of "one" that makes the Trinitarian view untenable. See my articles entitled "Trinitarianism: Modified Tritheism."

There is no doubt that we find distinctions in reference to Father, Son, and Spirit in the Scripture, but the simple existence of distinctions does not warrant a Trinitarian concept of God. The doctrine of the Trinity is a mere a model formulated by the church fathers through which the oneness passages could be reconciled with the distinction passages. I do not believe that such a conclusion is the best conclusion to make of the data, because the Trinitarian conclusion is not based on all the data.

We must consider the following data when developing our theology of God:

1. While we do find distinctions between Father, Son, and Spirit, these distinctions do not appear until the NT.

2. The vast majority of distinctions in the NT are between the Father and Son, not the Father, Son, and Spirit.

3. The appellations "Father" and "Son" do not appear in the OT as designations for God. God is only called "Father" or likened to a "Father" about a dozen times, and in each case it describes God's relationship to His creation (as creator, or covenant-maker), not His relationship to another divine person (Son). Rather than being referred to as "Father" in the OT, God is referred to as "YHWH."

4. While the OT speaks of the Spirit, there is never any indication that the Spirit is a distinct person within God's essence. The Spirit is most often said to belong to YHWH, not to be a distinct person from Him.

5. Not only do we find Jesus being distinguished from the Father, but we also find Him being distinguished from God altogether.

What are the implications of this data? What is the best model of God that we can formulate to adequately account for all of the Biblical data? Is it the Trinitarian or Oneness model?

The Nature of the Distinctions

Based particularly on the NT data Trinitarians conclude that God is three persons in one essence. Why should we conclude such? Is it because we see distinctions between Father, Son, and Spirit in the Bible? To conclude that God is tri-personal based simply on the fact that we find distinctions in the Bible is not logical, and is a hasty conclusion that does not account for all the data. To determine how Jesus is distinguished from the Father we must examine the nature of those distinctions. What we find is that Jesus is not only distinguished from the Father, but at times Jesus is distinguished from God altogether (Matthew 27:46; Luke 2:52; John 8:40; 14:1; 20:17b; Acts 2:22; 4:10; 7:55; 10:38; Romans 10:9; Ephesians 1:3; Hebrews 1:9; I Peter 1:3). Jesus spoke of the Father calling Him "My God." If Jesus has a God, then who is Jesus? If we assume that this is the second person speaking, does God the Son have a God? In Trinitarian theology God the Son is God, He does not have a God. Paul said, "To us there is but one God, the Father; and one Lord Jesus Christ" (I Corinthians 8:6). There is God, and then there is Jesus. Here again Jesus is distinguished from God Himself. (1)

Should we conclude from the above distinction passages that Jesus is just a man, and not God? Of course not. But if we are going to look merely at the distinctions between Father and Son and conclude from the very existence of those distinctions that God must be more than one person (a triune being), then we must with those same distinctions further conclude that Jesus is not God at all. We realize that this would be a false deduction because there are Scriptures that clearly declare Jesus to be God. This demonstrates that the mere existence of distinctions between Father and Son does not give us warrant in itself to understand those distinctions as eternal distinctions within God's very essence. We must seek to understand how it is that the Son is distinct from the Father, and distinct from God altogether.

Why is the Son Distinct from the Father?

Is the distinction between the Father and Son due to the existence of three eternal persons in one God, or is it due to the addition of humanity to God's one eternal person? Is the distinction between eternal persons, or is the distinction between the one uni-personal God's incarnate existence as a man, and the same uni-personal God's existence continued existence beyond the incarnation as the unlimited Spirit?

If the distinction is between eternal persons in the Godhead, why do we not read of the second person until the incarnation? Why would God fail to reveal Himself as eternal Son until the NT, if the Son is an eternally divine person in YHWH's eternal and essential being?

Also, why, if God is eternally Father, is He never called "God the Father" until the NT? While God was called "Father" occasionally before the incarnation (e.g. Malachi 3:10), "Father" begins to be used for God in an unparalleled way after the incarnation. In the OT "Father" was employed to describe the relationship between God and His creation, not between God and God (as in Trinitarian thought). God's fatherhood to Jesus Christ, however, was of a different nature than God's fatherhood spoken of in the OT. God was Jesus' Father because it was God who fathered Jesus' human existence. This might explain why it is that God becomes known as "Father" in the NT, rather than "YHWH" as He was known in the OT.

If God is eternally Father and Son, it seems strange that we never read of "Father" and "Son" until the NT when God actually fathered a son. Is this just a coincidence, or is there a logical reason for this? The fact that such terminology is mysteriously missing from the OT makes sense when it is recognized that "Father" and "Son" are relational terms used in the context of begetting a child. Did God beget a child? Yes, at the time of the incarnation. Would this account for the lack of such terms as "Father" and "Son" in the OT, and the virtual exclusive use of such terms for God in the NT? Yes it would. Is it not better, then, to understand "Father" and "Son" to be incarnationally-bound appellations rather than eternal relationships within the Godhead? After all, it is not until the NT that we find any distinctions in reference to God, and the existence of the "Father/Son" terminology.

The incarnation brought a distinction between God's existence as an incarnate man (genuine humanity and deity united in one theandric(2) existence) and the same God's continued transcendent existence beyond the incarnation (exclusive Spirit or theistic existence). The Father is exclusive deity while the Son, being God incarnate, is deity and humanity metaphysically united in one existence. The distinction between the Father and Son does not lie in the identity of Jesus' deity (as some distinct person in the eternal Godhead), but in the fact that the Son is a genuine human being. The distinctions between Father and Son are exclusively bound up in the incarnation, not in God's essential being.

Because of the addition of a genuine human existence to God's eternal person, there arose a real relationship between Father and Son. This relationship was a temporal relationship arising due to God's existence as a genuine human being with a genuine human consciousness, not an eternal relationship between two distinct divine persons. Jesus is a real man with a genuine human existence. Because of His human nature Jesus possesses human rationality, consciousness, spirit, soul, body, and will, giving Him the capacity for, and need for relationships as all men have need, even a relationship with God.

(Cont. next post)

 

[jbenjesus]

Holy Spirit

What about the Holy Spirit? While the distinction between the Father and Son can be explained by the incarnation, when it comes to the Father and the Spirit there is no incarnational distinction. How is it that the Spirit is distinct from the Father? Is the Holy Spirit a reference to a distinct person within God, or is it a reference for a particular aspect of God's one person just like our spirit is a reference to a particular aspect of our one person (I Corinthians 2:11)? If the former, why did the OT not make this explicit, and why is the NT data so lacking for such a conclusion? The NT often makes a distinction between the Father and Son, but rarely makes a distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit.

While the OT speaks of the Spirit of(3) God, there is never any indication that the Spirit is a distinct person within God's essence. The Spirit is most often said to belong to YHWH, not to be a distinct person from Him. If YHWH is the Trinity (Father, Son, and Spirit), and the Spirit is a person in the Trinity, then we must conclude that the Spirit is YHWH. If the Spirit is YHWH, how can the Spirit be said to belong to YHWH? Does the Spirit belong to Himself? It would be senseless to say that one can belong to themselves. They either are themselves, or they belong to another. If YHWH is the Trinity, and the Spirit is said to belong to YHWH, and yet one cannot belong to themselves, then we would have to conclude that the Spirit is not YHWH. Such cannot be true even in Trinitarian thought, and thus we have no logical reason to assume that the Spirit is a distinct person from YHWH. The only way to curtail such a logical conclusion would be to argue that in some references "YHWH" is referring only to the Father, and the Spirit is being said to belong to the person of the Father in YHWH. Such an explanation, however, is inconsistent and falls prey to splitting up the Trinity. Either YHWH is the Trinity of eternal persons, or YHWH refers to only one person in the Trinity. It cannot be both ways.

God is holy, and God is a Spirit, so it is no surprise that God is referred to as "Holy Spirit," or that we read about the "Spirit of [being used as a possessive meaning "belonging to"] God." God's Holy Spirit is the innermost essence of His being. The references to God's Holy Spirit also speak of God in activity. The term serves to signify a certain aspect of God's self-revelation to man. In the OT the Spirit is clearly understood to be a reference to YHWH, referring to His nature as Spirit.
We must still ask how it is that the Spirit is distinguished from the YHWH in the OT, or the Father and Son in the NT. We can make as much distinction between God and His Spirit as we can between a man and his spirit. Paul seemed to make this point when he said concerning the deep things of God: "But God has revealed them to us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searches all things, yes, even the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man, except the spirit of man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God" (I Corinthians 2:12-13). I can distinguish my spirit from my flesh, and speak of my spirit as distinct from me, but my spirit is not a distinct person within me. I am one person, a unified whole, being both body and spirit. God's Spirit is no more distinct from Him than my spirit is from me.

When we understand the NT distinctions to be incarnationally-grounded, it explains the reason Trinitarians find so few passages that would argue for a distinct person of the Spirit, while they find so many that seem to argue for the distinct person-hood of the Son.

Jesus' Prayers

Trinitarians believe that Jesus' communication with the Father, namely His prayers, compels us to conclude that the deity of the Father and the deity of the Son are distinct persons in the Godhead. It is reasoned that if the deity of the Son and the deity of the Father are the same personal deity, then Jesus' communication to the Father was simply God talking to Himself. The simple fact that Jesus communicates with the Father and has a relationship with the Father does not de facto indicate that God is a Trinity of persons. We have to understand why Jesus communicates with the Father. While it could be due to the fact that God is tri-personal, is there compelling evidence to conclude so? There are several reasons why Jesus' communication with the Father should not be understood to indicate that God is a Trinity. We need to ask a few questions about the Biblical data before we can conclude why Jesus communicated with the Father.

First, why do we not read of any communication between the Father and Son until after the incarnation?(4) If God is eternally Father and eternally Son we would expect to find the Father and Son communicating with one another prior to the incarnation. Interestingly, however, we only find such communication after the incarnation. If the communication between Father and Son is a major reason why Trinitarians feel compelled to conclude that the Father and Son are two distinct and eternal persons, and yet the communication only begins after the incarnation when God became man, what compelling evidence is there to conclude that God is eternally Father and eternally Son? If the communication began at a certain point in time, maybe the Son is not an eternal person in the Godhead. Maybe there is another explanation for the Father/Son distinction, and another explanation for the Son's communication with the Father.

Secondly, why is it that Jesus never communicated with any person of the Trinity besides the Father? Why did He not communicate with the Holy Spirit or with God the Son?(5) It seems kind of odd that Jesus would only communicate with one person in the Trinity. Are we more justified in believing that the Son simply chose not to communicate with any person besides the Father, or are we more justified in believing that Jesus only communicated with the Father because there is only one person in the Godhead to communicate with in the first place? The lack of communication to the other two persons of the Triune God may just indicate that there are no 'two other persons.'

Maybe Jesus only communicated with the Father because "Father" is the one uni-personal God's existence as the unlimited Spirit apart from the incarnation. Maybe we do not find any communication between Father and Son prior to the incarnation because the Son did not exist before the incarnation, because the Son is the uni-personal God's existence as man. Maybe the communication and relationship between the Son and Father is due to the fact that God assumed a real limited human consciousness in the incarnation, and with such a consciousness Jesus had need of a relationship with God as does any other human being. Jesus' prayers do not support Trinitarian theology.

Foundational Problems with Trinitarianism

If we are going to confess a Trinity we must ask why we do not find this triunity of God until the NT. We have to wonder why we never read about the second person in the OT. Why was the existence of a second person not revealed until the incarnation? Why is it that God has only spoken through the Son in these last days (Hebrews 1:1-3) if the Son has eternally existed alongside the Father? Does it make more sense to conclude that the Son is an eternally distinct person in the Godhead that God failed to mention until the NT, or is it more reasonable to conclude that "Son" has to do with the one uni-personal God's existence as a man, which existence did not come to be until the incarnation?

If there was no distinct person from the Father in the OT, what would we expect to find in the OT concerning the Son? Nothing. What do we find? Nothing. So why conclude that the Son of God is an eternal person in the Godhead, and reject the idea that "Son" pertains to God's incarnate existence, if we read nothing about the Son until the incarnation? Frankly, there is no good reason to do so. Trinitarians must account for the lack of evidence upon which they have concluded that the Son is eternal. They must account for the fact that God never disclosed His threeness until the NT, offer a viable explanation for such disclosure, and offer compelling evidence that would substantiate the belief that there ever was an eternal Son to be disclosed in the first place.

While both Trinitarian and Oneness theologies must account for the new revelation of God in the incarnation, there is a difference between saying that the same person who revealed Himself to Moses in the OT became a man in the NT (Oneness theology), and saying that a second person in the Godhead no one knew existed became a man in the NT (Trinitarian theology). While Oneness believers may be shocked to see that God would become a man, Trinitarians would be shocked to see who showed up! In Oneness theology the person who shows up is the same person we have been reading about in the OT, not a different person in the Godhead we never read about before. Trinitarian theology has to admit that a whole other person in the Godhead showed up on the scene in flesh, who is personally distinct from the personal God revealed in the OT. In Oneness theology we do not find a part of God that we have never known before; we find the same familiar God, but manifest in flesh.

Also, why is it that God is called "YHWH" before the incarnation, and only "Father" and "Son" after the incarnation? The "Father/Son" terminology only arises after the incarnation when God actually became a man. It is no surprise, then that we find a distinction between Father and Son starting in the NT (not the OT). Maybe we do not find such terminology in the OT because God was never "Father" (in the NT sense of the word describing the relationship between Father and Son) before He fathered a son in the incarnation. (See my article entitled "Eternal Father, Eternal Son?") It is much more reasonable to conclude that the distinctions between Father and Son are temporal distinctions arising in the incarnation, not eternal distinctions within God's essential being.

Conclusion

What model of God, then, can most adequately account for all of the Biblical data? What model best explains the Biblical insistence on monotheism, the lack of any distinction in God's person in the OT, the emergence of "Father/Son" terminology only after the incarnation, and the fact that most of the Biblical distinctions are in reference to the Father and Son, to the exclusion of the Spirit? Is it the Trinitarian or Oneness model?

While the Trinitarian model can account for the distinctions in the NT, it cannot account for the lack of such in the OT, nor the failure of the OT to mention "God the Son" (other than in prophetic passages), nor the non-existence of the "Father/Son" terminology before the incarnation. While it can account for the distinction passages, it does so only at the expense of redefining "one" to mean "unity," and thus bringing the church to the borders of Tritheism. Why should we adopt the Trinitarian model of God when the model fails to answer so much of the Biblical data?

I argue that a Oneness theology best accounts for such a phenomenon, insisting that God is an absolute monad, the Spirit being His very nature and an aspect of His one person, and the Son being none other than His one person incarnated as a man, but distinguished from His continued existence beyond the incarnation due to the hypostatic union of His deity and humanity into one unified theandric existence. Oneness theology best accounts for the rise of distinction-terminology in the NT, and the emergence of the appellations "Father/Son," because it was not until the NT that God fathered a son, and it was not until the hypostatic union when God incorporated a human identity into His person that there arose such a need to make any distinctions in reference to God. The distinction, however, is never said to be between eternal persons in the Godhead. Such distinctions are only necessary in light of the incarnation and God's acquisition of a genuine human consciousness when He assumed a genuine human existence.

Footnotes
(1). Jesus, the Son of God, is fully God, but God is not identified with Jesus, as being identically the same. This demonstrates that God was not centralized in the person of Christ, so that God no longer existed apart from the incarnation. The Scripture presents Jesus both as being God, and in contradistinction to God, offering us a paradoxical, bilateral view of His person. Jesus thought of the Father as being someone other than He Himself, though He also realized that the deity of the Father was in Him (John 10:38; 14:10-11, 20), and that He preexisted the incarnation as YHWH (John 8:56-59).

(2). Coming from the Greek theos (God) and anthropos (man).

(3). In the Hebrew grammar "of" is being used as a possessive meaning "belonging to."

(4). In certain OT passages YHWH does speak to or of the Son (Psalm 2:7; 45:6; 110:1), but a few things should be noted. First, it is never said that the "Father" spoke to the Son. It only speaks of "YHWH" or "God," never suggesting a Father/Son relationship prior to the incarnation. Secondly, these OT passages are clearly prophetic, speaking of the Messiah, and thus cannot be divorced from the incarnation which was yet future. The communication between YHWH and the Messiah (Son), then, was not a present transaction, but a future even.

(5). While it may be argued that Jesus would not communicate with God the Son (as he exists apart from the incarnation) because Jesus was God the Son incarnate, and for Jesus to communicate to God the Son would be for Jesus to communicate to Himself, this assumes that Jesus' communication to the Father arose out of His divine consciousness, rather than a genuine human consciousness. Such a view of Christ denies Christ a true human consciousness and psyche, being Docetic and Apollinarian in nature. Trinitarians must confess a genuine human consciousness for Christ. If His consciousness was human, then His prayers were also human, and could not be construed to be one divine person praying to another divine person, but a genuine human being praying to God. In such case it would not matter if Jesus (God the Son incarnate) prayed to God the Son transcendent because Jesus' prayers arose out of His human consciousness, not God the Son's divine consciousness.

Jason Dulle

 

[LouisBooth]

"After all, how is it that Jesus prays to the Father, and speaks of the Father as though the Father is another person distinct from Him if Jesus' deity is the deity of the Father? "

*sigh* because its of essence, not personhood.

"If the former, why did the OT not make this explicit, and why is the NT data so lacking for such a conclusion? "

Ahh..the old, its not explict in the bible so its not true. So find where it says that you should breath Oxygen to live? Thanks.

"First, why do we not read of any communication between the Father and Son until after the incarnation?("

Because Christ was not limited before the incarnation. Read phil 2:5-8

"why is it that Jesus never communicated with any person of the Trinity besides the Father? "

Christ sent the spirit. Thus he could communcate with him. Just because he didn't choose to do so he couldn't? What is this 1st grade? I can walk. No you can't you aren't walking now. If christ had encountered this he probably would have.

"If we are going to confess a Trinity we must ask why we do not find this triunity of God until the NT. "

Well, I'd say that it was found in the OT. Paul, peter and several others found it if they worshiped Christ. Interesting if you actually look for it, I believe you will find it.

"The "Father/Son" terminology only arises after the incarnation when God actually became a man. "

Pslams 2. If you give up all your authority, you have to be given it back. It was a title of authority.

Glad I could help.

 

[jbenjesus]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"After all, how is it that Jesus prays to the Father, and speaks of the Father as though the Father is another person distinct from Him if Jesus' deity is the deity of the Father? "

*sigh* because its of essence, not personhood.

I'm sure you could define each and clarify its distinction for us biblically.

"If the former, why did the OT not make this explicit, and why is the NT data so lacking for such a conclusion? "

Ahh..the old, its not explict in the bible so its not true. So find where it says that you should breath Oxygen to live? Thanks.

You missed the whole point of the article. The establishing of a doctrine should be on explicit statements of scripture. Not on implicit or midly alluded to verses. The whole picture needs to be looked at to interpret single verses of scripture. If not, you end up establishing your own personal doctrine not based in scripture, but on your understanding.

"First, why do we not read of any communication between the Father and Son until after the incarnation?("

Because Christ was not limited before the incarnation. Read phil 2:5-8

No, because the God manifested Himself in the Son (in flesh) in the fulness of time. The "sonship" had a beginning, at and by the birth of Mary.

"why is it that Jesus never communicated with any person of the Trinity besides the Father? "

Christ sent the spirit. Thus he could communcate with him. Just because he didn't choose to do so he couldn't? What is this 1st grade? I can walk. No you can't you aren't walking now. If christ had encountered this he probably would have.

Again, you miss the point of the question.

"If we are going to confess a Trinity we must ask why we do not find this triunity of God until the NT. "

Well, I'd say that it was found in the OT. Paul, peter and several others found it if they worshiped Christ. Interesting if you actually look for it, I believe you will find it.

Interesting how the "old testament scriptures that speak of the triunity of God" led the Israelites to believe in ONE GOD; Not three, or three in one, or three of one substance, or three of one essence.

"The "Father/Son" terminology only arises after the incarnation when God actually became a man. "


Pslams 2. If you give up all your authority, you have to be given it back. It was a title of authority.

Psalms 2 -

1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, 3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

This was a prophetic passage spoken of by David. Not only did it have to do with David (since he was King and the anointed chosen one of God for Israel), but it was also prophetic in that it spoke of the “Anointed” one to come, that is Jesus (Christ - Anointed One, see Luke 2:26 – the King of Israel see Mark 15:32). All of the Old Covenant in one way or another, through types, shadows, symbols and so forth is a foreshadowing

4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. 5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. 6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. 7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Many people think that this scripture that says, “The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” refers the birth of Jesus. Not so. In Acts 13:33, Paul says that the verse in Psalms 2 does not refer to his natural birth, but His resurrection, “God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”

8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. 10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. 11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

This passage speaks of the gospel being preached unto the uttermost parts of the earth, taking possession of the earth (people). Blessed are they that put their trust in Him. Who? The Lord’s anointed – Jesus.

In summary this passage is a prophetic passage. It is not a passage to express to Israel of the dual or triple “personhood” of God. How is this known? Because all Old Testament saints and the Jews to this day are still strict monotheist and rightly so! For he isn’t a 3 person God.

This neo-tritheistic view is nothing but another form of polytheism.

Unfortunately in this whole thread, you fail still to see that.


Glad I could help.

 

[LouisBooth]

"You missed the whole point of the article. The establishing of a doctrine should be on explicit statements of scripture. "

YOu mean like I and the father are one, or the fulliness of the godhead dwelt in Christ bodily. Or the things in John 1? Hint: they are.

"No, because the God manifested Himself in the Son (in flesh) in the fulness of time. The "sonship" had a beginning, at and by the birth of Mary.
"

*chuckles* not really. YOu haven't read pslams 2 have you? I would agree in that the authority was given BACK to christ at birth, for he gave it up when he became flesh. It was not a never had thing though. That's what the TOTALITY of scripture tells us.

"Interesting how the "old testament scriptures that speak of the triunity of God" led the Israelites to believe in ONE GOD; Not three, or three in one, or three of one substance, or three of one essence. "

Umm..I think YOU miss the point. The reason the bible is ONE book and not two is so we can have the WHOLE picture. Thats one of the reasons christ came. The isrealites had a lot of things "wrong" if you look through the NT. Jesus did a lot of correcting.


"It is not a passage to express to Israel of the dual or triple “personhood” of God"

You obviously miss the point of the passage. If you look at how that passage is stated that quoting of passage is a side point. The point of Pslams 2 is to show that the title Son of God is a title of authority. That's what it means. Trinity isn't polytheism. If you truely understood the position YOU would see that. Its monotheism. Its like someone saying to a jew, no, you worship the name of God and God also. You're not a monotheist but a polytheist.

 

[edpobre]

Originally posted by ZoneChaos


When Jesus, of His own will, decided to take upon Himself the form of a man, He lowered himself. THta is not to say that His devine nature was less than the Father's, but rather that with the addition of a human nature, He was less than the Father, becasue fo the human nature.

Divinely, He was Equal with the Father, as being God, but Mortally, He was less than the Father.

Please direct us to the scripture showing "when Jesus, of his own will, decided to take upon himself the form of a man, He lowered himself." Please explain how you can reconcile this idea with Numbers 23:19 were God says he is NOT a MAN; Ezek. 28:2 where God says that MAN cannot be God and Hosea 11:9 where God says He is God and NOT man.

The Bible teaches that the Son lowered himself when He became man. With this new natur eof being Human, the So did need help, coucil, adn communion with the Father, the SOn, fully God on earth, chose to limit Himself as a human while on earth. Jesus was GOd, yes? And yet, there are times when Jesus is less than Omnipotent in appearance or action. Jesus still had to eat to regain energy, whoich is not Omnipotence, as we know God to be. This is becasue Jesus, as a human, lived as a human, with all of its physical barriers. And in that capacity, needed the Father just as we do.

color=blue]Which is which my friend? Did Jesus lower himself and BECAME a man or did he lower himself by ADDING human nature to his divine nature? Which of these is supported by the Bible and can you please show us the verse. If Jesus WAS God who BECAME a MAN, doesn't it stand to reason that Jesus is NO LONGER God?[/color]

So, Mr. Oneness, before you claim Trinitarians ignorant, consider we have thought it through.

Are you AWARE that God CREATED man and Jesus said he is a MAN? Do you realize the implication of Jesus' statement that he is a MAN? Could Jesus have been the CREATOR who became the CREATED being? Or could Jesus be the CREATOR and the CREATED being at the SAME time?

Very unlikely, because Jesus acknowledges another God who must have been his CREATOR. Have you given coonsiderable thought that Jesus does NOT lie?

Ed

 

[LouisBooth]

""when Jesus, of his own will, decided to take upon himself the form of a man, He lowered himself.""

Sure Phil 2:5-8 It says but made HIMSELF nothing. He lowed himself ed. That's what being humble is all about.

 

[jbenjesus]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
[B"Interesting how the "old testament scriptures that speak of the triunity of God" led the Israelites to believe in ONE GOD; Not three, or three in one, or three of one substance, or three of one essence. "

Umm..I think YOU miss the point. The reason the bible is ONE book and not two is so we can have the WHOLE picture. Thats one of the reasons christ came. The isrealites had a lot of things "wrong" if you look through the NT. Jesus did a lot of correcting.

"It is not a passage to express to Israel of the dual or triple “personhood” of God"

You obviously miss the point of the passage. If you look at how that passage is stated that quoting of passage is a side point. The point of Pslams 2 is to show that the title Son of God is a title of authority. That's what it means. Trinity isn't polytheism. If you truely understood the position YOU would see that. Its monotheism. Its like someone saying to a jew, no, you worship the name of God and God also. You're not a monotheist but a polytheist. [/B]

This passage does not say this at all. I've already posted the passage and anyone can read the passage and see that you are merely reading something into it that is not there. You are saying the passage says something when the passage itself says nothing of the sort. It is merely your private interpretation of scripture. Not only that, Psalms 2 does not represent the totality of scripture concerning this subject.

This whole thread has proven that "Trinity" says they are monotheist, but in reality they are neo-tritheistic, which is simply and new way of explaining 3 person (polytheistic) God.

Concerning this:

Umm..I think YOU miss the point. The reason the bible is ONE book and not two is so we can have the WHOLE picture. Thats one of the reasons christ came. The isrealites had a lot of things "wrong" if you look through the NT. Jesus did a lot of correcting.

I will ask, knowing that you can't, but show us one scripture where Jesus corrected the Jews understanding that God is a 3 person God rather than a one person God? Just one?

Now I'll show you how Jesus emphatically affirmed their understanding and belief that God is One.

Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Jesus affirmed Deuteronomy 6:4. He did not contradict it and give a new teaching foreign to what the Jews knew and understood. This would have been a perfect opportunity to correct them if (as you say) they were wrong and need to be corrected on their understanding of the one personhood of God.

He rather affirms the scribe and says:

Mar 12:32-34 - And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

He affirms him and says you are not far from the kingdom of God.

What a perfect opportunity for Him to give this newfound "revelation" that the God of the Old Covenant is really three persons!

Your opinion is unsupported and unfounded.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Not only that, Psalms 2 does not represent the totality of scripture concerning this subject"

That's exactly what it says. Read Acts.

"I will ask, knowing that you can't, but show us one scripture where Jesus corrected the Jews understanding that God is a 3 person God rather than a one person God? Just one? "

So which instance where they picked up stones to stone him after declaring himself God do you want me to point you to? There are several.


"Your opinion is unsupported and unfounded.
"

*chuckles* Well you haven't read or seem to understand my opinion at all. I claim God is one. I am a berean by the way in action, That's why I affirm trinity docterine. He said Love God with all you are. Correct? Well then why does he say those that love ME obey MY commandments. No God's commandments, but his? Why is it he claims he will raise himself up but in other sections of the NT he says God will raise him up? Why does he say I and the FATHER are ONE. Why? Because trinity docterine is the truth, its who God is. One in three and threee in one. Open your eyes and see the truth.

 

[jbenjesus]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Not only that, Psalms 2 does not represent the totality of scripture concerning this subject"

That's exactly what it says. Read Acts.

You literally make no sense sometimes.

"I will ask, knowing that you can't, but show us one scripture where Jesus corrected the Jews understanding that God is a 3 person God rather than a one person God? Just one? "

So which instance where they picked up stones to stone him after declaring himself God do you want me to point you to? There are several.

Neither of these "stone" instances has anything to do with correcting Jews and teaching them that God is "One in three and threee in one." This is unscriptural and unfounded. Yet you continue to use this phrase.

"Your opinion is unsupported and unfounded.
"

*chuckles* Well you haven't read or seem to understand my opinion at all. I claim God is one. I am a berean by the way in action, That's why I affirm trinity docterine. He said Love God with all you are. Correct? Well then why does he say those that love ME obey MY commandments. No God's commandments, but his? Why is it he claims he will raise himself up but in other sections of the NT he says God will raise him up? Why does he say I and the FATHER are ONE. Why? Because trinity docterine is the truth, its who God is. One in three and threee in one. Open your eyes and see the truth.

Trinity doctrine says there is a second and third person of God. All unscriptural and unfounded terms regarding God. Trinity doctrine is antiscriptural.

Your claim that God is one is scriptural. Your affirmation of the trinity doctrine contradicts your claim, yet you remain affirming it.

I will only use scripture to support my claim that God is not three persons.

What can we conclude, in regards to the number of God, by listing the occurrences of these words or phrases as they appear in relation to God in the Bible- "Holy One", "One", "Holy Trinity", "Trinity", "Triune", "Three"-

Holy Trinity-

Not found anywhere in scripture.

Trinity, or Triune-

Not found anywhere in scripture.

Three-

1) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one" -1 John 5:7.

Holy One-

1) "Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed...the Holy One of Israel -2 Kings 19:22.

2) "...I have not concealed the words of the Holy One" -Job 6:10.

3) "...Neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption" -Psalm 16:10.

4) "...O my God: unto thee will I sing...thou Holy One" -Psalm 71:22.

5) "Yea, they... limited the Holy One..." -Psalm 78:41.

6) "...The Holy One... is our King" -Psalm 89:18.

7) "...They have provoked the Holy One..." -Isaiah 1:4.

8) "...Let the counsel of the Holy One...draw nigh..." -Isaiah 5:19.

9) "...They have...despised...the Holy One..." -Isaiah 5:24.

10) "...The light of Israel...his Holy One..." -Isaiah 10:17.

11) "...Stay upon the Lord, the Holy One..." -Isaiah 10:20.

12) "...Great is the Holy One...in the midst of thee" -Isaiah 12:6.

13) "...Have respect to the Holy One..." -Isaiah 17:7.

14) "...Rejoice in the Holy One..." -Isaiah 29:19.

15) "...Sanctify my name...the Holy One..." -Isaiah 29:23

16) "...A rebellious people...say...cause the Holy One...to cease from before us" -Isaiah 30:9-11.

17) "Wherefore thus saith the Holy One... Ye despise this word and trust in oppression and perverseness..." -Isaiah 30:12.

18) "...The Lord God, the Holy One..." -Isaiah 30:15.

19) "Woe to them that...look not unto the Holy One..." -Isaiah 31:1.

20) "Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed?... Even against the Holy One" -Isaiah 37:23.

21) "To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One" -Isaiah 40:25

22) "I...the Lord, and thy redeemer, the Holy One..." -Isaiah 41:14.

23) "...Glory in the Holy One..." -Isaiah 41:16.

24) "...The Holy One...hath created..." -Isaiah 41:20.

25) "For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour..." -Isaiah 43:3

26) "...The Lord, your redeemer, the Holy One..." -Isaiah 43:14.

27) " I am the Lord, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King" -Isaiah 43:15.

28) "...The Lord, the Holy One..." -Isaiah 45:11.

29) "... Our redeemer...the Holy One..." -Isaiah 47:4.

30) "...The Holy One...thy God..." -Isaiah 48:17.

31) "...The redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One..." -Isaiah 49:7.

32) "...The Holy One of Israel..." -Isaiah 49:7.

33) "...Thy Maker...the Holy One...God of the whole earth..." -Is.54:5.

34) "...Run unto...the Holy One..." -Isaiah 55:5.

35) "...Bring thy sons...to the Holy One..." -Isaiah 60:9.

36) "...The city...the Zion of the Holy One..." -Isaiah 60:14.

37) "...Babylon...hath been proud against...the Holy One..." -Jeremiah 50:29.

38) "...Israel...was filled with sin against the Holy One..." -Jeremiah 51:5.

39) "So will I make my Holy name known in the midst of my people...that I am the Lord, the Holy One..." -Ezekiel 39:7.

40) "...I am God...the Holy One in the midst of thee..." -Hosea 11:9.

41) "...O Lord my God, mine Holy One..." -Habakkuk 1:12.

42) "...The Holy One...His glory covered the heavens..." -Habakkuk 3:3.

43) "...Jesus of Nazareth...the Holy One..." -Mark 1:24.

44) "... Jesus of Nazareth...the Holy One..." -Luke 4:34.

45) "...David speaketh concerning Him...thine Holy One..." -Acts 2:25-27.

46) "But ye denied the Holy One..." -Acts 3:l4.

47) "...Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption" -Acts 13:35.

48) "...Ye have an unction from the Holy One..." -1 John 2:20.

One-

1) "...The Lord our God is one Lord" -Deuteronomy 6:4.

2) "...The Lord of hosts, the mighty One...'l -Isaiah 1:24.

3) "...They shall cry unto the Lord...and He shall send them a saviour, and a great one..." -Isaiah l9:20.

4) "...The Lord...a mighty and strong one..." -Isaiah 28:2.

5) "...Come...to the mighty One of Israel" -Isaiah 30:29.

6) "...I the Lord am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One..." -Isaiah 49:26.

7) "...The high and lofty One...inhabiteth eternity..." -Isaiah 57:15.

8) "...Thy Saviour...Redeemer, the mighty One..." -Isaiah 60:16.

9) "...King over all...one Lord, and His name one" -Zechariah 14:9.

10) "...One father...One God created us" -Malachi 2:10.

11) "...One, that is God..." -Matthew 19: 17.

12) "...One is your Master, even Christ" -Matthew 23:8.

13) "...One is your Father..." -Matthew 23:9.

14) "...One is your Master..." -Matthew 23:10.

15) "And John...preached saying, There cometh one mightier than I..." -Mark 1:6-7.

16) "...One, that is God..." -Mark 10:18.

17) "...One God; and there is none other..." -Mark 12:32.

18) "...One, that is, God..." -Luke 18:19.

19) "...We have one Father, even God" -John 8:41.

20) "...One shepherd" -John 10:16.

21) "I and my Father are one" -John 10:30.

22) "...One; as thou, Father..." -John 17:21.

23) "...Even as we are one..." -John 17:22.

24) "'...Your fathers...have slain them which shewed before the coming of the Just One..." -Acts 7:52.

25) "...See that Just One..." -Acts 22:14.

26) "...It is one God, which shall justify..." -Romans 3:30.

27) "...Righteousness...by one, Jesus Christ" -Romans 5:17.

28) "...By...one the free gift came..." -Romans 5:18.

29) "...There is none other God but one" -1 Corinthians 8:4.

30) "...There is but one God, the Father..." -1 Corinthians 8:6.

31) "...One and the selfsame Spirit..." -1 Corinthians 12:1l.

32) "For as the body is one...so also is Christ" -1 Corinthians 12:12.

33) "For by one Spirit are we all baptized..." -1 Corinthians 12:13.

34) ''...Drink into one Spirit" -1 Corinthians 12:13.

35) "...God is One" -Galatians 3:20.

36) "...Access by one Spirit unto the Father" -Ephesians 2:18.

37) "There is...one Spirit..." -Ephesians 4:4.

38) "One Lord..." -Ephesians 4:5.

39) "One God and Father of all..." -Ephesians 4:6.

40) "For there is one God..." -1 Timothy 2:5.

41) "Thou believest that there is one God..." -James 2:19.

42) "There is one lawgiver..." -James 4:12.

43) "...The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost...are one -1 John 5:7.

44) "...In heaven...one sat on the throne" -Revelation 4:2.

45) "...Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord..." -Mark 12:28-29.

"Jesus...said...If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him" John 14:23. "...I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth..." John 14:16-17. Does the Bible teach that these are three separate persons, or one selfsame Spirit that dwells in believers?

"There is one God and Father of all who is...in you all" -Eph.4:6.

"...As God hath said, I will dwell in them..." -2 Corinthians 6:16.

"God is a Spirit..." -John 4:24.

"There is...one Spirit..." -Ephesians 4:4.

"...The Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us" -2 Timothy 1:14.

"...If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead...but the Spirit is life..." -Romans 8:9-10.

"But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit...For as the body is one...so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body...and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" -1 Corinthians 12:11-13.

"...Know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus...both Lord and Christ" -Acts 2:36.

"...Ye are...the epistle of Christ...written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God...in fleshy tables of the heart... Now the Lord is that Spirit..." -2 Corinthians 3:3,17.

"...The mystery which hath been hid...but now is made manifest to His saints...is Christ in you..." -Colossians 1:26-27.

"...Christ is all, and in all" -Colossians 3:11.

Jesus said "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you" -John 14:18.

A true Berean would see that the overwhelming evidence against a three person God is undeniable and to say otherwise is unscriptural and antiscriptural.

Can you handle the overwhelming evidence against your affirmation of the "trinity"?

Maybe you need to restudy and seriously reconsider "the traditions of men " which you hold to that nullify the power of God.

Respectfully submitted to you for your consideration and edification.

 

[LouisBooth]

"{Does the Bible teach that these are three separate persons, or one selfsame Spirit that dwells in believers?"

None of the scripture you posted goes against trinity. None of it at all. YOu quoted verses praising God. So what? That doesn't say anything against trinity. For christians believe that God is one. I'm suspecting though just like the verse in John 4 you have taken others out of context as well, but that's the only way to combat truth, its to twist verses around. Trinity is truth, God is tribute. Always was and always will be.


Funny how these fit together to prove trinity though...

""...If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead...but the Spirit is life..." -Romans 8:9-10.
"


""...As God hath said, I will dwell in them..." -2 Corinthians 6:16. "

and

""...The Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us" -2 Timothy 1:14.
"

God dwells in us who is the spirit of Christ who is the Holy Spirit. Trinity.