Trinity or Monotheism

[AvgJoe]

when was Trinity revealed?

The doctrine of the Trinity, is arrived at, by looking at the whole of scripture--not in a single verse. Scripture teaches that God is a Trinity. The word "trinity" is a term used to denote the Christian doctrine that God exists as a unity of three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each of the persons is distinct from the other yet identical in essence.

The word "person" denotes individuality and self-awareness. This is what we see when the Bible is speaking of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit . . . each are called God, each speak, and each have a will. They exhibit attributes of personhood.

I know that the word "person" is not the perfect word to use because it carries with it the idea of individuals who are different beings. But in God there are not three entities--nor three beings. God is a trinity of persons consisting of one substance and one essence. God is numerically one. Yet, within the single, divine essence are three individual subsistences that we call persons.

• 
  Each of the three persons is completely divine in nature though each is not the totality of the Godhead.

• Each of the three persons is not the other two persons.

• Each of the three persons is related to the other two but are distinct from them.

In the simplest of terms, the Trinity is 1 What & 3 Whos.

The following chart shows many of the verses from which the Trinty is derived:

in the bible Jesus is called the son of God but not God, maybe he was just like Moses or as Islam views Mohammad?

Really?!? Jesus never calls Himself God in the Bible?!? Let's probe into that a little further. Did Jesus really say that He was God?

That’s exactly how Jesus’ original audience seemed to take it when He said, “I and the Father are one.” In fact, the Jews were ready to kill Him right there! Why? “Because you,” they said, “a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33).

On another occasion, He used the personal name of Israel’s God–the name revealed to Moses (Exodus 3:14)–to refer to Himself. And He even used the Torah for context, so no one would misunderstand Him: “Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58).

This would be about as wild as someone telling a Muslim, “I am your God, Allah.” What would be such a person's fate, if they were in Iran, and did such a thing. It’s no wonder the Jews tried to stone Him to death. That was the exact penalty for blasphemy under the Jewish legal system.

So, he wasn’t saying something like “I’m some other, generic god” like he was advocating polytheism. Not at all. It was pretty clear to everyone there that He was being much more specific…

Jesus was saying, “I am Israel’s God.”

But Jesus didn’t have to say the words “I am God,” in order to claim to be divine. But why is this a problem? Look, I don’t have to say the exact words, “I am married” to indicate that I’m married. I can tell you, “I’m her husband,” or “this is my wife,” or “it’s our 12th wedding anniversary.” The question is, what did the people who were actually a part of conversation think about what Jesus said?

So did Jesus say He was God? Not in the way you might have expected him to but we should not confuse the directness of a claim with the existence of a claim.” The historical evidence shows that Jesus actually claimed to be the God of Israel on many different occasions.

 

[Tree of Life]

He was providing us with an example of how to pray as men...because he was here to live like one of us. He did the same thing with the Lord's prayer.

So he never actually had a relationship with the Father? It was all an act? This indeed is heretical. I wouldn't call it Christian.

 

[Wololo]

So he never actually had a relationship with the Father? It was all an act? This indeed is heretical. I wouldn't call it Christian.

No, that's a straw man.

Jesus was a human manifestation of the one God. He lived his life not just for the sake of the cross and resurrection, but for the sake of being an example. When he does the Lord's prayer, he is showing us how we are to pray. So even though he is essentially praying to himself, he is doing so because men are supposed to have a relationship with God. How would it look if Jesus never prayed?

In Isaiah, Jesus is referred to as "almighty God" and "everlasting Father". That is Jesus being referred to as God and "Father". In Colossians, he's referred to as being the creator. Jesus as the creator, not 'God'. At the time of creation, technically Jesus didn't even exist.

Yes, there are references to the different manifestations of God. The Holy Spirit is a spiritual manifestation of God. Jesus is a human one, and God is the deity itself that manifests itself in different forms. You will find the common three manifestations of God all over scripture. The actual Trinity itself is never mentioned in the most reliable texts.

Because of this, I reject the Trinity. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Trinity is three separate entities and therefore three gods (which you would of course say is not the case), or there is one God who can manifest himself in different forms and there is only one 'person'.

 

[Wololo]

I'm going to quickly zero in on this and pick it apart logically:

• Each of the three persons is completely divine in nature though each is not the totality of the Godhead.

• Each of the three persons is not the other two persons.

• Each of the three persons is related to the other two but are distinct from them.

To your first point, you're essentially saying that God is divisible. You need to define what that means. If God is incomplete without one of the parts, then he is not infinite, because by missing something he becomes finite. If you take something away from infinite, you still have infinite. Either he is infinite and indivisible, or finite and needs all three parts to be God.


Your second point basically says that each of these 'persons' is distinct. Let's define distinct for a moment. The word is derived from the verb 'to distinguish' which refers to recognizing that something is different. The word distinct itself basically means that these are three different entities. If you can recognize something is different, then you have another entity.


It's important that we separate entity from form. A form is the same entity with a different appearance or different construction. If God were to appear as Jesus, he is not a separate entity, but God as a man in the flesh. He has a different appearance while still maintaining his divinity. If Jesus is distinct from the rest of the Trinity, then he, by the very definition, would have to be a different entity. Semantically speaking, he is another being. That would make God and Jesus different, when in fact we will all agree they are supposed to be the same deity.


The last point doesn't help you. If something needs to be related, it is already different. Jesus cannot be God if they are related. You cannot be separate from something and still be a part of it. Either Jesus is God and they are the same, or Jesus is different and not God. You can't have it both ways because semantically you are inconsistent, as I've demonstrated.


This is why I believe Modalism is the correct perspective. You have one single God manifesting himself how he pleases. God in more than one form at once but still cohesively the same God. The difference between me and you? I don't go so far as to treat them like different entities.

 

[Viren]

Without Jesus or the Holy Spirit, God who is invisible would have no way to communicate with man. So if you don't believe in the trinity you basically believe that God is limited and unable by himself to communicate with what he created.

 

[Wololo]

Without Jesus or the Holy Spirit, God who is invisible would have no way to communicate with man. So if you don't believe in the trinity you basically believe that God is limited and unable by himself to communicate with what he created.

Not at all! Jesus exists. He is the human form of God. He can coexist with the Holy Spirit which is how God works through us in spirit. It's just that all of those are still the same God. They are not separate entities. They're all God in different forms (which can exist at the same time). Jesus IS 100% God. No difference. The Holy Spirit is 100% God. No difference. All of them are just God taking on a different form...a different manifestation.

 

[Albion]

Not at all! Jesus exists. He is the human form of God. He can coexist with the Holy Spirit which is how God works through us in spirit. It's just that all of those are still the same God. They are not separate entities. They're all God in different forms (which can exist at the same time). Jesus IS 100% God. No difference. The Holy Spirit is 100% God. No difference. All of them are just God taking on a different form...a different manifestation.

Modalism is easy to believe in--from a logical POV. The problem is that Scripture doesn't support it. There is information about different functions being performed by each of the three persons of the Trinity, but you still have three PERSONS.

IOW, it can't be Modalism.

 

[Wololo]

Modalism is easy to believe in--from a logical POV. The problem is that Scripture doesn't support it. There is information about different functions being performed by each of the three persons of the Trinity, but you still have three PERSONS.

IOW, it can't be Modalism.

Find me a verse that says "Trinity" or "three persons". There are a couple if you look, but they have some historical problems.

Go for it though. Find them for me. I agree that there are three different manifestations of God that exist (among others), but I want to see sections where the threeness of God is mentioned directly.

Edit: In fact, find for me where it refers to 'persons' at all.

 

[Rationalt]

Without Jesus or the Holy Spirit, God who is invisible would have no way to communicate with man. So if you don't believe in the trinity you basically believe that God is limited and unable by himself to communicate with what he created.

Biblical God was visible to moses and his communication constitute a major portion of Old bible.All that without Jesus.

 

[Rationalt]

Not at all! Jesus exists. He is the human form of God. He can coexist with the Holy Spirit which is how God works through us in spirit. It's just that all of those are still the same God. They are not separate entities. They're all God in different forms (which can exist at the same time). Jesus IS 100% God. No difference. The Holy Spirit is 100% God. No difference. All of them are just God taking on a different form...a different manifestation.

That underlined portion is an interesting take.Three identities and yet interdependent.I wonder if there is scriptural justification for all these wonderful ideas.

 

[Albion]

Find me a verse that says "Trinity" or "three persons".

What a silly (and old) argument! I could just as easily ask you to find a verse that says "Millennium," "Rapture," "Lord's Supper," "Confirmation," or dozens of other terms we use to describe Biblical teachings. None of them is in the Bible, either--by name.

 

[Wololo]

That's the point though. I don't disagree that the three manifestations do different things. I only dispute the separation and 'personhood' of these forms. They are still the same God at their core.

The only difference is that I deny that there are three 'persons' and also only three manifestations. It's mostly a semantic difference so that we can avoid having more than one God...which is what I was explaining.

The problem is that the most reliable scriptural texts don't actually mention there being an inherent threeness to God. All it does is mention three different forms that serve different purposes. That doesn't imply Trinity at all, especially considering that God has also taken on the form of a cloud and a pillar of fire in order to guide his people. What I see is that all of the forms are still one. They are not different entities.

You can't just wave your hands and say "the Bible says" or "the Bible doesn't say", when I'm reading the same book and can provide a comfortable argument against a distinct Trinity.

Note: I've even heard people pray to the three different parts of the Trinity. That to me is just polytheism. If you're separating God into parts, I don't see how that's still one single God.

 

[Lukaris]

That's the point though. I don't disagree that the three manifestations do different things. I only dispute the separation and 'personhood' of these forms. They are still the same God at their core.

The only difference is that I deny that there are three 'persons' and also only three manifestations. It's mostly a semantic difference so that we can avoid having more than one God...which is what I was explaining.

The problem is that the most reliable scriptural texts don't actually mention there being an inherent threeness to God. All it does is mention three different forms that serve different purposes. That doesn't imply Trinity at all, especially considering that God has also taken on the form of a cloud and a pillar of fire in order to guide his people. What I see is that all of the forms are still one. They are not different entities.

You can't just wave your hands and say "the Bible says" or "the Bible doesn't say", when I'm reading the same book and can provide a comfortable argument against a distinct Trinity.

Note: I've even heard people pray to the three different parts of the Trinity. That to me is just polytheism. If you're separating God into parts, I don't see how that's still one single God.

Most Christians believe in the Trinity, supporting statements have been satisfactorily presented, & you do not believe in it. Believe as you see fit & Christians can equally reject your belief. Fair enough.

 

[gord44]

What a silly (and old) argument! I could just as easily ask you to find a verse that says "Millennium," "Rapture," "Lord's Supper," "Confirmation," or dozens of other terms we use to describe Biblical teachings. None of them is in the Bible, either--by name.

Those words aren't really needed either.

 

[Wololo]

Most Christians believe in the Trinity, supporting statements have been satisfactorily presented, & you do not believe in it. Believe as you see fit & Christians can equally reject your belief. Fair enough.

I don't really bash people who follow the mainstream line. I'm just trying to make it clear that modern modalism is not unsubstantiated. In the end it's irrelevant to salvation so it's not something that needs to be a big point of contention either.

 

[Viren]

Biblical God was visible to moses and his communication constitute a major portion of Old bible.All that without Jesus.

I'm thinking about how God is described in the new testament.

2 Corinthians 4:18

So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal

 

[Albion]

Those words aren't really needed either.

I disagree. Sometimes it's necessary to point out the fallacies of some folks's favorite "gotcha" ploys. And since I was asked, point blank, for a response, I gave one. If I had not done so, you know that the next thing would have been to claim I had avoided something or dodged the question.

 

[Wololo]

I disagree. Sometimes it's necessary to point out the fallacies of some folks's favorite "gotcha" ploys. And since I was asked, point blank, for a response, I gave one. If I had not done so, you know that the next thing would have been to claim I had avoided something or dodged the question.

You're funny. You didn't point anything relevant out at all. Not only can I justify my position from scripture, but I can explain it with logical coherence. Your response was sarcastic and did absolutely nothing to address my points nor it did it present a case of your own. That's why it was unnecessary to say what you did...because it contributed nothing to the discussion.

 

[Albion]

You're funny.

Thank you. Sometimes I do see the humor in the shallowness that's inherent in popular myths.

You didn't point anything relevant out at all.

I pointed out the meaningless of your claim that because the word "Trinity} is not in the Bible, the concept somehow cannot be there. That's illogical and, yes, it's funny when I read anyone trying to pass it off as a serious argument.

Not only can I justify my position from scripture, but I can explain it with logical coherence.

But I can justify mine with Scripture. I haven't depended upon a rationalization.

 

[Wololo]

Thank you. Sometimes I do see the humor in the shallowness that's inherent in popular myths.


I pointed out the meaningless of your claim that because the word "Trinity} is not in the Bible, the concept somehow cannot be there. That's illogical and, yes, it's funny when I read anyone trying to pass it off as a serious argument.


But I can justify mine with Scripture. I haven't depended upon a rationalization.

If the concept cannot be argued there, then what tool do you recommend we use? We will go in circles discussing things in the Bible, which is why a lot of the time I make sure the position is logically coherent.

Both positions can be argued from scripture, but scripture is not clear enough on this matter for us to be certain. What it would turn into is a bunch of throwing proof texts at a each other and not accomplishing anything.