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.
Jesus never associated the Trinity with salvation.There is no verse in the bible that says believe in the trinity and ye shall be saved. Or anything even close.
The only verse in the bible that flat out tells you what you need to do to be saved is Romans 10:9. So explain to me an accused non christian who doesn't believe in the trinity but believes in romans 10:9 why im going to hell. Even though I believe what the bible says to believe to be saved.
The Bible implies a Trinity, but does not work it out in any detail. The Trinitarian formulations are largely extra-biblical in nature.
Why the quandary? People who tell you you're going to Hell because you don't believe in the trinity aren't God. Their opinion and judgment is baseless.There is no verse in the bible that says believe in the trinity and ye shall be saved. Or anything even close.
The only verse in the bible that flat out tells you what you need to do to be saved is Romans 10:9. So explain to me an accused non christian who doesn't believe in the trinity but believes in romans 10:9 why im going to hell. Even though I believe what the bible says to believe to be saved.
Again ALL of those SCRIPTURES prove your opinion in complete error. But just for giggles explain this one.........
Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born (CHRIST), and unto us a Son is given (CHRIST): and the government is upon his shoulder, and he shall call his name, Wonderful, Counselor (HOLY SPIRIT), The mighty God (THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD), The everlasting Father (oops Christ states quite clearly here HE is the FATHER), The prince of peace.
No it's not wrong. It's scriptural and scripture is right.
Very true.Three, yes, but three what? Three persons ... or three roles?
The same Scriptures can be understood to believe God is one Person, not three persons.
It is almost impossible to clear our mind of preconceptions.
You really didn't go there did you and make that hilarious claim of "interpretation" when all I did was highlight the facts for you did ya. But just the same what is your agenda denying the obvious?Why did you have to in put your interpretation? Could it be because that's not what the Scriptures say? Those titles apply to the child that was born. However, let's look at the passage that Jesus and the apostles would have used. The Septuagint is what Jesus and the apostles used. They didn't use the Masoretic text.
LXE Isaiah 9:6 For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: <1> for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. (Isa. 9:6 LXE)
How does it imply a trinity?
Three, yes, but three what? Three persons ... or three roles?
The same Scriptures can be understood to believe God is one Person, not three persons.
It is almost impossible to clear our mind of preconceptions.
Really so how do you explain the Triune God show at Jesus's baptism?Very true.
Jesus was known as Immanuel. This means, God with us. Jesus was God incarnate. The Bible tells us that God is a spirit.
Not three separate entities with co-equal power. One God with two attributes afforded to create his divine plan for the world. His Holy Spirit imbued Mary with his son. When Jesus departed the Holy Spirit was sent just as it arrived to show those who witnessed Jesus be baptized what it meant to receive the spirit of God. To defeat death by receiving Christ, the anointing of God.
Think what Colossians 2:9 says.
Three, yes, but three what? Three persons ... or three roles?
The same Scriptures can be understood to believe God is one Person, not three persons.
If it was I'd be able to read it.
I'm afraid three different persons sounds too much like polytheism for me. The example of a father, mother & child being one family is sometimes used but that too sounds like polytheism to me.God is definitely not one person because the Son is a person and the Father is a different person. I believe the three should simply be named: The one God is composed of three: the Father, the Son, the holy Spirit.
I'm afraid three different persons sounds too much like polytheism for me.
The example of a father, mother & child being one family is sometimes used but that too sounds like polytheism to me.
I believe they were manifestations of God - there is no reason to suppose they were three different Persons in three different places. If you have three different Persons in three different places you have three gods, no matter how much they might be one in agreement.Really so how do you explain the Triune God show at Jesus's baptism?
16 And Jesus when he was baptized, came straight out of the water. And lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and John saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and [lighting] upon him.
17 And lo, a voice came from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
So answer me this Whom was speaking from heaven and whom was the Spirit of God descending like a dove? They certainly weren't attributes were they?
I did not say separate, I said three different Persons. Do you believe the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit are three different Persons? When Jesus said "I and the Father are one" in what sense did He mean 'one'?They aren't separate Gods though. That's why it's not polytheism.
Modalism does not use the family analogy - they would be more likely to use the analogy of one man who is a father, son & husband.That's modalism. The Trinity is neither of these examples.
I did not say separate, I said three different Persons. Do you believe the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit are three different Persons?
When Jesus said "I and the Father are one" in what sense did He mean 'one'?
Modalism does not use the family analogy - they would be more likely to use the analogy of one man who is a father, son & husband.
Can you explain the word 'essence' simply in your own words?The Father and Son are. The Holy Spirit is a spirit.
According to Greek Grammar he used it as one in essence.
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
John 10:30
Egoó kaí ho Pateér hén esmen
1473 2532 9999 3588 3962 1520 2070
I and my Father one are
(Interlinear Transliterated Bible. Copyright (c) 1994 by Biblesoft)
"One. Gr. "hen" Neut., one in essence, not one person which would be "heis", masc. This is the climax of His claim to oneness with The Father in vv. 18, 25, 28, 29. Compare also V. 38; 14:11 Rev 22:3"
According to Bullinger, an accomplished Greek scholar, the word for "one" is "hen" the Neut. form of the word "heis". "heis" means "one" of person but "hen" means "one" in essence and not one person!
John 10:30 I and my Father are one [in essence].
or
John 10:30 I and my Father are [spiritually] one.
This is what Christ said.
Matthew Henry also confirms this:
http://www.ccel.org/h/henry/mhc2/MHC43010.HTM
Further to corroborate the security, that the sheep of Christ may have strong consolation, he asserts the union of these two undertakers: "I and my Father are one, and have jointly and severally undertaken for the protection of the saints and their perfection." This denotes more than the harmony, and consent, and good understanding, that were between the Father and the Son in the work of man's redemption. Every good man is so far one with God as to concur with him; therefore it must be meant of the oneness of the nature of Father and Son, that they are the same in substance, and equal in power and glory. The fathers urged this both against the Sabellians, to prove the distinction and plurality of the persons, that the Father and the Son are two, and against the Arians, to prove the unity of the nature, that these two are one. If we should altogether hold our peace concerning this sense of the words, even the stones which the Jews took up to cast at him would speak it out, for the Jews understood him as hereby making himself God (v. 33) and he did not deny it. He proves that none could pluck them out of his hand because they could not pluck them out of the Father's hand, which had not been a conclusive argument if the Son had not had the same almighty power with the Father, and consequently been one with him in essence and operation.
"the union of these two undertakers"
"therefore it must be meant of the oneness of the nature of Father and Son"
"to prove the distinction and plurality of the persons, that the Father and the Son are two"
"one with him in essence and operation"
Matthew Henry also knew that the greek for "one" was meaning one in essence, not in person as Bullinger also confirmed.
Gill
I and my Father are one. Not in person, for the Father must be a distinct person from the Son, and the Son a distinct person from the Father; and which is further manifest, from the use of the verb plural, "I and my Father", esµe?, "we are one"; that is, in nature and essence, and perfections, particularly in power
Robertson's word pictures:
John 10:30
One (hen). Neuter, not masculine (heis). Not one person (cf. heis in Gal_3:28), but one essence or nature.
I have a hard time trying to work out how one person can be a familyI've seen it used actually. One person in three modes depicted as a family unit.
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?