• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Trinity found in Bible or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Apodictic

Member
Jan 7, 2009
718
308
✟24,617.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hello everyone, :wave:

I have come to the belief that the Trinity is not found in the Bible through studying the Scripture, but I would like to hear the arguments supporting the trinity being found in the Bible. I have seen some of the more common arguments, but let us have a discussion from top to bottom with no presumptions.

God bless and may a educational discussion follow. :)
 

Apodictic

Member
Jan 7, 2009
718
308
✟24,617.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1 John 5:7 has credibility problems that I will now show. The verse reads:

1 John 5:7 KJV
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 American Standard Version
And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
1 John 5:7 Darby Bible Translation
For they that bear witness are three:
1 John 5:7 English Revised Version
And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
1 John 5:7 World English Bible
For there are three who testify:
From the above translations, we can see some noticeable disagreement on what the Greek actually says. The KJV, along with many other translations, states the trinity plainly, where many other translations do not. But why?

The problem is that no Greek manuscript dating before around 1500 AD has the words “[…]the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost[…]”. The Nicene Creed was formulated in 381 AD at the Council of Constantinople. This verse was altered after Christianity had already officially accepted the Nicene Creed and the concept of the trinity.

>- Sources -<
http://www.godglorified.com/1_john_57.htm
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20john%205;&version=31;
http://ankerberg.org/Articles/bible-for-dummies/BD0999W1.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm
http://scripturetext.com/1_john/5-7.htm
 
Upvote 0

Secundulus

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2007
10,065
849
✟14,425.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1, NASB95)

" And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14, NASB95)
 
Upvote 0

Rasta

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2007
6,274
184
42
✟29,944.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
The word TRINITY is not found ANYWHERE in the Bible. Thus any docterine about the TRINITY proper is unbiblical, just like the practise of INDULGANCE, just like the practise of praying to Saints.

These practises, save perhaps indulgances, were taken from existing Pagan traditions.

See Hecate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hecate

Beyond that, the idea of the Trinity does not make sence within the context of the Bible.

If Jesus and God are ONE: Why does Jesus say: "about that day or that hour only the Father knows, neither the angels in Heaven nor the Son" (Mark 13:32)

If Jesus and God are one, that statement should be able to read: "about that day or that hour only I know, neither the angels in Heaven nor myself" This is an obvious contradiction.

If Jesus and God are ONE: Why does Jesus say: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matt 27:46)

If Jesus and God are one, that statement should be able to read: "Myself, Myself, why have I forsaken Myself?" This obviously doesn't make any sence.

The concept of the Trinity is obviously an afterthought of the Church designed to reconsile the Gospel accounts with monotheism.
 
Upvote 0

synger

Confessional Liturgical Lutheran
Site Supporter
Sep 12, 2006
14,588
1,571
60
✟76,293.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The basis for the doctrine of the Trinity is found in New Testament passages that associate the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Two such passages are Matthew's Great Commission: "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" (Matthew 28:19) and St Paul's: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (2 Corinthians 13:14).

The specific word "Trinity" is not used in the Bible to explain the nature and relationship of God. But then, neither is "eschatology" used in the Bible to explain the study of end times. Or the word "Bible" itself. We create words to explain the concepts we encounter.

The Trinitarian nature of God has always been implied in Scripture, even though it wasn't named as "trinity" until the time of the early CHurch and the Christological debates. The church in her fight against heresy had to think through what the Bible says about how God exists. The result was the doctrine of the Trinity. But please keep in mind that the development of this doctrine was based on a careful study of Scripture.

From a fairly good article on the subject:

"The doctrine of the trinity states that there is one God who is one in essence or substance, but three in personality. This does not mean three independent Gods existing as one, but three Persons who are co-equal, co-eternal, inseparable, interdependent, and eternally united in one absolute Divine Essence and Being."

If you are looking specifically for Biblical passages that speak of God in three Persons, this list is a good place to start

As to your specific questions... we don't know. *smiles* It's not a very satisfying answer, but it's the only one we have. Scripture is clear that Jesus is God... and it is also clear that Jesus prayed (to himself? Out of obedience?). Some have suggested that it was Jesus' human nature speaking (he being both 100 percent human and 100 percent God), or that he does know/hear, but that he was showing his obedience. The Bible doesn't give us the whys and wherefores.
 
Upvote 0

Rasta

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2007
6,274
184
42
✟29,944.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
The basis for the doctrine of the Trinity is found in New Testament passages that associate the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Two such passages are Matthew's Great Commission: "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" (Matthew 28:19) and St Paul's: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (2 Corinthians 13:14).

Yet the Church chose to re-write the Bible in 300 ACE or so rather than keep the origionals. They definately manipulated scripture to include the practise of Indulgance and the practise of praying to saints. Knowing this, how much do you trust the men of the "Dark Ages" to be completely honest?

The specific word "Trinity" is not used in the Bible to explain the nature and relationship of God. But then, neither is "eschatology" used in the Bible to explain the study of end times. Or the word "Bible" itself. We create words to explain the concepts we encounter.

In other words, make stuff up.

The Trinitarian nature of God has always been implied in Scripture, even though it wasn't named as "trinity" until the time of the early CHurch and the Christological debates. The church in her fight against heresy had to think through what the Bible says about how God exists. The result was the doctrine of the Trinity. But please keep in mind that the development of this doctrine was based on a careful study of Scripture.

This is a very interesting point. Why was there heresy at all with the gospels? Why would some people believe things about Jesus that are not true?

"The doctrine of the trinity states that there is one God who is one in essence or substance, but three in personality. This does not mean three independent Gods existing as one, but three Persons who are co-equal, co-eternal, inseparable, interdependent, and eternally united in one absolute Divine Essence and Being."

This makes absolutely no sence to me. To me this is like saying: This apple is completely green, at the same time this apple is completely red!

As to your specific questions... we don't know. *smiles* It's not a very satisfying answer, but it's the only one we have. Scripture is clear that Jesus is God... and it is also clear that Jesus prayed (to himself? Out of obedience?). Some have suggested that it was Jesus' human nature speaking (he being both 100 percent human and 100 percent God), or that he does know/hear, but that he was showing his obedience. The Bible doesn't give us the whys and wherefores.

This also makes no sence to me for the same reason. Thanks for taking the time though to express your opinions. :)
 
Upvote 0

HumbleSiPilot77

Senior Contributor
Jan 4, 2003
10,040
421
Arizona
✟27,775.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
1 John 5:7 has credibility problems that I will now show. The verse reads:

It only sounds like it has credibility problems because the history of the verse is not deeply researched. Church Tradition about the verse is never addressed or referred to.
From the above translations, we can see some noticeable disagreement on what the Greek actually says. The KJV, along with many other translations, states the trinity plainly, where many other translations do not. But why?

Because some of those versions, -actually the group behind the research and publishing- are going with what you see as a credibility problem. Basic issue is this, does evidence of absence to the verse before such a time period mean the absence of evidence? Certainly not. There is THE possibility of the verse being LEFT out purposely from the original, therefore not appearing. There are Christian Fathers refer to the verse before the alleged "introduction" time.
The problem is that no Greek manuscript dating before around 1500 AD has the words “[…]the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost[…]”. The Nicene Creed was formulated in 381 AD at the Council of Constantinople. This verse was altered after Christianity had already officially accepted the Nicene Creed and the concept of the trinity.

Wrong! First of all, there are 5300 Greek NT mss. which 501 of them contains 1 John Chap. 5. Further there are 8 IDENTIFIED manuscripts that CONTAIN the VERSE, only 1 of them being from 14th century. Also we must look to Athenagorus, a 2nd-century Greek writer (177 AD, which is a date that refutes your Council of Constantinople claim). In his Plea for the Christians, Athenagorus addresses two Roman Emperors, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, seeking from them toleration for Christians within the Empire. As part of his effort, he lays out for them several key points of doctrine, one of which is view of God as a Trinity consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. While not directly quoting the Comma, Athenagorus' language certainly seems to reflect a knowledge and use of the verse as part of his explanation on the Trinity. In explaining the exact relationship of the Son to the Father, Athenagorus states,

"Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason of the Father is the Son of God."

His use of the term Logos (Word) to describe the Son, is a uniquely Johannine presentation of Jesus Christ. Likewise is the presentation of the Father and the Son as being one (John 10:30, 17:11,22). And whereas John 10:30 is a very explicit passage demonstrating the unity of the Father and the Son, it doesn't speak to the Trinity. However, Athenagorus continues on to clear this matter up through his statement,



"The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?"


Hence, Athenagorus connects the Father, the Son (whom he had previously referred to as "the Logos", the Word), and the Holy Spirit, stating both their union and their distinction in order. The only portion of Scripture where these two points are juxtaposed in such a manner is I John 5:7.
 
Upvote 0

HumbleSiPilot77

Senior Contributor
Jan 4, 2003
10,040
421
Arizona
✟27,775.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yet the Church chose to re-write the Bible in 300 ACE or so rather than keep the origionals. They definately manipulated scripture to include the practise of Indulgance and the practise of praying to saints. Knowing this, how much do you trust the men of the "Dark Ages" to be completely honest?

What or what part of the Bible has been re-written in 300 ACE?, What parts were manipulated, if you say so definitely? First let's see you back that up. Second, non-canonical gospels are still available today, doesn't that tell you something about Church's attitude towards tolerance? They simply excluded books that were obviously not from true sources. How much do you know of the canonization process of the Scriptures? Practice of praying to Saints is not a Catholic invention that was excluded by Reformation, it has always been there.

In other words, make stuff up.
Such as modern scientists using Greek mythology to define their phenomenon sometimes. There is nowhere synger even remotely suggested we made stuff up. Synger said we create definitions for the stuff that exists, "making stuff up" means the stuff doesn't exist, we create the concept. If you really don't have anything to say, don't say it. Your smart attitude really doesn't earn you any points.

This is a very interesting point. Why was there heresy at all with the gospels? Why would some people believe things about Jesus that are not true?
Why would some people believe that GOD could not have made contact with people?


This makes absolutely no sence to me. To me this is like saying: This apple is completely green, at the same time this apple is completely red!
It doesn't have to make sense to you. You don't live in the same dwelling with God. That is why you DON'T believe. I have no problem formulating a description for a being that BEYOND my understanding trying to understand Him. Everything synger said in that definition regarding the doctrine of Holy Trinity is Scriptural. Your analogy is also faulty because the same apple can become and/or wear both colors, however God the Father doesn't become God the Son.

This also makes no sence to me for the same reason. Thanks for taking the time though to express your opinions. :)
You too!
 
Upvote 0

Rasta

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2007
6,274
184
42
✟29,944.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
What or what part of the Bible has been re-written in 300 ACE?, What parts were manipulated, if you say so definitely? First let's see you back that up.

It's impossible to know exactly, since all we have is one side of the story. I said they were manipulative based on what we know. The practise of praying to saints, and the practise of indulgances are unbiblical practises that the Church instructed the "faithfull" to oblige. Are you positive that this is it?

I am not positive. Thus: Doubt. No, I don't have magical mind powers that let me travel back in time and see exactly what happened, if that's what you are wondering.

Second, non-canonical gospels are still available today, doesn't that tell you something about Church's attitude towards tolerance? They simply excluded books that were obviously not from true sources. How much do you know of the canonization process of the Scriptures?

I know the process was much like the ID movement today. They started with presuppositions of what they wanted to be true, then viewed everything else through that lense. Their "ruler" of "truth" and "authority" was merely an opinion: hence disagreement. Hence: a need for an "official creed".

Practice of praying to Saints is not a Catholic invention that was excluded by Reformation, it has always been there.

Yes. And it is found nowhere in scripture. It was practised in Rome and Greece prior to Christianity, though they didn't call them saints, the function was the same. This was likely to attract pagans, so they could feel more confortible with being forced to become Christians.

Such as modern scientists using Greek mythology to define their phenomenon sometimes.

Like what?

There is nowhere synger even remotely suggested we made stuff up. Synger said we create definitions for the stuff that exists, "making stuff up" means the stuff doesn't exist, we create the concept. If you really don't have anything to say, don't say it. Your smart attitude really doesn't earn you any points.

Who claims to have seen the TRINITY? The concept of the trinity smacks of reverse engineering as seen by Jesus' own words. Jesus claims to NOT be the father, many times. So in this case, it is being made up.

Why would some people believe that GOD could not have made contact with people?

Because we see how "successfull" every single religion on the face of the earth is when it comes to absolute claims of knowledge.

It doesn't have to make sense to you. You don't live in the same dwelling with God. That is why you DON'T believe. I have no problem formulating a description for a being that BEYOND my understanding trying to understand Him.

He is beyond your understanding, yet you describe him? This makes "sence" to you? I bet you think you know his likes, dislikes, and which football teams he preffers huh?

Everything synger said in that definition regarding the doctrine of Holy Trinity is Scriptural.

Nope. The definition is non-biblical. Invented by man.

Your analogy is also faulty because the same apple can become and/or wear both colors, however God the Father doesn't become God the Son.

Actually, your understanding is faulty. An apple can be PARTIALLY green and PARTIALLY red. An apple can be COMPLETELY green then turn COMPLETELY red. An apple can't be COMPLETELY green and COMPLETELY red at the same time.


Thanks friend.
 
Upvote 0

Secundulus

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2007
10,065
849
✟14,425.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The practise of praying to saints, . . . are unbiblical practises that the Church instructed the "faithfull" to oblige.
False. This is in the Bible. It is recorded in 2 Maccabees 15:11-16.

I know the process was much like the ID movement today. They started with presuppositions of what they wanted to be true, then viewed everything else through that lense. Their "ruler" of "truth" and "authority" was merely an opinion: hence disagreement. Hence: a need for an "official creed".
False. They kept the books with apostolic authority and discarded the rest.

Yes. And it is found nowhere in scripture.
False. I gave you the scripture above.
 
Upvote 0

Apodictic

Member
Jan 7, 2009
718
308
✟24,617.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am happy to see the interest for this topic is growing! :) I welcome everyone that has joined so far and welcome anyone else who still wants to! :hug:

I am going to respond to one verse at a time. So if I do not get to the verse that you have mentioned, just be patient. It takes some time to read through all the posts when I return to the forum ;)

1 John 5:7

The first verse mentioned was 1 John 5:7. This verse does have quite an interesting history behind it. I noticed that I did misstate one thing. The quotation below addresses where the words in question do appear.

Textual problems concerning the longer version of 5:7. The Textus Receptus (Received Text) of 1 John 5:7-8 contains additional words which are absent from the earliest and best Greek manuscripts.manuscript and contextual evidence is decidedly against their authenticity.588 The longer reading is found only in eight late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 1500&#8217;s These words, known as the Comma Johanneum (Latin for &#8220;Johannine sentence&#8221;) are inserted between vv. 7-8 and read as follows: ejn tw'/ oujranw'/, oJ pathvr, oJ lovgo", kaiV toV a{gion pneu'ma, kaiV ou|toi oiJ trei'" e{n eijsi. 5:8 kaiV trei'" eijsin oiJ marturou'nte" ejn th'/ gh'/ (&#8220;&#8230;in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth&#8230;&#8221;). Although the words are fairly well known in the English-speaking world (primarily through their inclusion in the King James Version), ; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus&#8217; Greek NT was published in 1516. The story of how the longer reading was omitted from the first two editions of Erasmus&#8217; text (1516, 1519) but came to be included in his later editions is well known. One of Erasmus&#8217; most vocal critics was Stunica, one of the editors of the Complutensian Polyglot, who charged that Erasmus&#8217; text lacked the trinitarian affirmation of 1 John 5:7-8 (the passage currently under discussion). Erasmus responded that he had not found any Greek manuscript containing these words, but&#8212;unwisely as it turned out&#8212;promised that if he were shown one Greek manuscript containing the words, he would insert them. A manuscript containing the &#8220;missing&#8221; words was produced, probably written to order around 1520 by a Franciscan friar who took the words from the Latin Vulgate and translated them back into Greek.589 Erasmus became aware of this manuscript between May 1520 and September 1521. He kept his promise and inserted the words of the Comma into his third edition (1522), but indicated in a lengthy footnote his suspicions that the Greek manuscript containing the disputed words had been written to order.590 The influential German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus&#8217; second edition (1519) and so did not contain the Comma. But the translators of the King James Version, who worked mainly from Theodore Beza&#8217;s tenth edition (1598), which was based on the third and later editions of Erasmus (as well as those of Stephanus), included the Comma because they found it in these editions of the Greek text.

The force of the o{ti (Joti, &#8220;for&#8221;) at the beginning of 5:7. A second causal Joti-clause (after the one at the end of the preceding verse) is somewhat awkward, especially since the reasons offered in each are somewhat different. The content of the second Joti-clause (the one in question here) goes somewhat beyond the content of the first. The first Joti-clause, the one at the end of 1 John 5:6, stated the reason why the Spirit is the one who testifies: because the Spirit is the truth. The second Joti-clause, here, states that there are three witnesses, of which the Spirit is one. It is probably best, therefore, to understand this second o{ti (Joti) as indicating a somewhat looser connection than the first, not strictly causal but more inferential in sense (the English translation &#8220;for&#8221; captures this inferential sense).591
Reference for quotation:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2071

If the trinity belief hangs on the balance by this one verse, that is not favorable for believers in this concept. I know there are other verses that do not have this creditability issue, some of which have been mentioned and I will address soon.

Just so no one feels ignored, please lend me your eyes (You can not very well hear me through your computer screen :D ).

I will most commonly not respond to people on an individual basis. Through experience, personal quotations during discussions can spark feuds. Instead I will respond to the points and verses brought up. If I forget to address anything, please kindly remind me. But keep in mind due to the volume of replies I can not be expected to respond to them all instantaneously! ^_^

As a rule of thumb, if I respond to some parts of your post, but not all parts, then I either forgot to address it or misunderstood something as being irrelevant. I prefer reminders through PM so we do not clutter up the thread with "You forgot this!". But if you are already making a new point, you are welcome to tack any such reminders at the end of your new points or verses.

If you post a link, then rest assured I will read it when I get the time. But due to the variable size of link content, I can not be expected to respond to a link alone. A point must be made accompanying the link as support for the claim before I can comment.

Thank you all for joining in on this discussion! :hug:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

HumbleSiPilot77

Senior Contributor
Jan 4, 2003
10,040
421
Arizona
✟27,775.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Erasmus responded that he had not found any Greek manuscript containing these words, but&#8212;unwisely as it turned out&#8212;promised that if he were shown one Greek manuscript containing the words, he would insert them. A manuscript containing the &#8220;missing&#8221; words was produced, probably written to order around 1520 by a Franciscan friar who took the words from the Latin Vulgate and translated them back into Greek

Unfortunately, that just doesn't explain the usage/reference of 1 John 5:7 by Patristic Authors. The COMMA is authentic.
 
Upvote 0

Rasta

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2007
6,274
184
42
✟29,944.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
False. This is in the Bible. It is recorded in 2 Maccabees 15:11-16.

Who is Maccabees? And what was his relation to Jesus?

False. They kept the books with apostolic authority and discarded the rest.

Apostolic authority? How was that determined?

False. I gave you the scripture above.

The definition that was posted, is not found in the Bible. It was written down by some dude, because apparently, scripture was not clear enough. Hence: the need for a definition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apodictic
Upvote 0

Apodictic

Member
Jan 7, 2009
718
308
✟24,617.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The next verse mentioned in this thread as support for the trinity was John 1:1, a very commonly referred to verse.

John 1:1

" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1, NASB95)

I have actually started another thread in another sub-forum regarding the English translation of this verse. It appears I put that thread in the wrong forum, since I have only received a single reply in the course of nearly two days! :blush:

Just for total reference here is my thread:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7328348

The main point being that the Greek word used for "God" in the later part of this verse is the same Greek word used for "god" as a title for satan in 2 Corinthians 4:4. So the verse appears to have been purposely mistranslated to support the belief in the trinity. There appears to be no clear justification why one is capitalized, while the other is not.

Another interesting fact to point out here is that the verse does not mention the Holy Spirit. If the author was truly trying to reveal the trinity nature of God, then why would the author only mention the Father and the Son/Word? :mmh:
 
Upvote 0

HumbleSiPilot77

Senior Contributor
Jan 4, 2003
10,040
421
Arizona
✟27,775.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The main point being that the Greek word used for "God" in the later part of this verse is the same Greek word used for "god" as a title for satan in 2 Corinthians 4:4. So the verse appears to have been purposely mistranslated to support the belief in the trinity. There appears to be no clear justification why one is capitalized, while the other is not.

You are confused. Do you speak Greek? And so, how do you distinguish "God" and "god" in English?
 
Upvote 0

Apodictic

Member
Jan 7, 2009
718
308
✟24,617.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The next verse mentioned was John 1:14.

John 1:14

" And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14, NASB95)

I am not going to to assume what interpretation is being suggested here, because the post did not suggest one...But I will point something out.

This verse contains no context that would lead the reader to believe the Word is God in this verse, unless the reader has already accepted it elsewhere in the context of John, which could happen, like in John 1:1 with what seems to be a mistranslation.

My interpretation follows. If Jesus is the Word, then this verse is stating that Jesus became flesh and came to earth; he was born on earth. The significance here is that before birth Jesus was only a soul, no body. Of course if the interpreter has already accepted the trinity, they will view this verse differently.
 
Upvote 0

HumbleSiPilot77

Senior Contributor
Jan 4, 2003
10,040
421
Arizona
✟27,775.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
My interpretation follows. If Jesus is the Word, then this verse is stating that Jesus became flesh and came to earth; he was born on earth. The significance here is that before birth Jesus was only a soul, no body. Of course if the interpreter has already accepted the trinity, they will view this verse differently.

Interpretation is made through the Holy Spirit, using the entire context of Scriptures. The verse doesn't say a thing about who was a soul, no body etc. That is admittedly your interpretation, however you are also quick to accuse those teach Trinity of having different views than you do, so who are you? As long as you are not responding to the counter arguments, you are just spamming away.
 
Upvote 0

Apodictic

Member
Jan 7, 2009
718
308
✟24,617.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have began reading some of the links posted earlier on in this thread and wanted to bring forth some quotations from them so that they can be considered here.

Probably no doctrine was the subject of more controversy in the early church than that of the Trinity. Certainly the teaching of “one God in three Person” was accepted in the early church, but only as this teaching was challenged did a systematic doctrine of the Trinity emerge.
Arianism. This doctrine had it roots in Tertullian, who made the Son subordinate to the Father. Origen took this further by teaching that the Son was subordinate to the Father “in respect to essence.” The result was ultimately Arianism which denied the deity of Christ. Arius taught that only God was the uncreated One; because Christ was begotten of the Father it meant Christ was created by the Father. Arius believed there was a time when Christ did not exist. Arius and his teaching was condemned at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.
I noticed this source, although supporting the trinity, openly admits the trinity was a controversial topic even in the early church. The people who denied Jesus as being divine were ultimately marked as heretics. Although labeling someone does not discredit their position. Notice the teaching was not condemned until 325 AD, a significant time after Jesus had delivered his revelation.

The case for the Triunity of God is even stronger in the New Testament. Here it can be unequivocally demonstrated the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Furthermore, the New Testament teaches us that these three names are not synonymous, but speak of three distinct and equal Persons.

(1) The Father is called God (John 6:27; 20:17; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 4:6; Phil. 2:11; 1 Pet. 1:2).

(2) Jesus Christ, the Son is declared to be God. His deity is proven by the divine names given to Him, by His works that only God could do (upholding all things, Col. 1:17; creation, Col. 1:16, John 1:3; and future judgment, John 5:27), by His divine attributes (eternality, John 17:5; omnipresence, Matt. 28:20; omnipotence, Heb. 1:3; omniscience, Matt. 9:4), and by explicit statements declaring His deity (John 1:1; 20:28; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8).

(3) The Holy Spirit is recognized as God. By comparing Peter’s comments in Acts 5:3 and 4, we see that in lying to the Holy Spirit (vs. 3), Ananias was lying to God (vs. 4). He has the attributes which only God can possess like omniscience (1 Cor. 2:10) and omnipresence (1 Cor. 6:19), and He regenerates people to new life (John 3:5-6, 8; Tit. 3:5), which must of necessity be a work of God for only God has the power of life. Finally, His deity is evident by the divine names used for the Spirit as “the Spirit of our God,” (1 Cor. 6:11), which should be understood as “the Spirit, who is our God.”

Ryrie writes: “Matthew 28:19 best states both the oneness and threeness by associating equally the three Persons and uniting them in one singular name. Other passages like Matthew 3:16-17 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 associate equally the three Persons but do not contain the strong emphasis on unity as does Matthew 28:19.”18

Above we see numerous verses used in support of the trinity. I am personally adding these to the thread for consideration, since a source quoted by another here has these verses presented. All of these will be addressed.

Source of quotations:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=215

Again, do not feel ignored. It would be unfair for me to focus on one person in this discussion. I am responding to arguments presented sequentially in the thread. Once I have addressed all points made sequentially up to a counter argument, at that time I will circle around to the verse again addressing any counter arguments made.

The problem with these forums is the lack of formal debate, where there are two clear groups. On these boards there are often times 5+ people discussing a single topic simultaneously, each of the 5+ expecting direct and immediate responses, quite a difficult matter to address sufficiently. I will do my best to address arguments and counters in a timely manner.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.