Why do you have to believe in the trinity to be saved?

[ewq1938]

Can you explain the word 'essence' simply in your own words?

I would say since both are God that they have the same divine essence which they are composed of, uncreated and immortal.

I have a hard time trying to work out how one person can be a family

I don't find it very complex, just incorrect.

 

[ken777]

I would say since both are God that they have the same divine essence which they are composed of, uncreated and immortal.

So when Jesus is saying "I and the Father are one" He actually means "I and the Father are composed of the same substance but we are two different Persons". If you find that a satisfying explanation then stick with that but it strikes me as an oxymoron.

.

 

[ewq1938]

So when Jesus is saying "I and the Father are one" He actually means "I and the Father are composed of the same substance but we are two different Persons". If you find that a satisfying explanation then stick with that but it strikes me as an oxymoron.

.

It's Greek grammar. Reject that and invent your own beliefs. I will stick to what is true.

 

[ken777]

It's Greek grammar. Reject that and invent your own beliefs. I will stick to what is true.

Even using the Greek that you have quoted, Jesus is saying that He and the Father are both the same Spirit. The wonderful truth of the Gospel is not that the First Person sent the Second Person, but that God Himself came in His fullness and became our Kinsman Redeemer.

.

 

[ewq1938]

Even using the Greek that you have quoted, Jesus is saying that He and the Father are both the same Spirit.

It's all good as long as we understand Jesus and the Father are two different people but are the same God.

 

[ken777]

It's all good as long as we understand Jesus and the Father are two different people but are the same God.

Never would I agree to Jesus and the Father being two different people because to me that is polytheism. There is a distinction between the humanity of Jesus and His Deity, which is where Trinitarians get confused.

You might find it worthwhile to do more research on the hen/heis controversy because its use is not as clear cut as you seem to think. Even so, if Jesus and the Father are the same Spirit, they are the same Person. Trinitarianism diminishes the Deity of Jesus Christ by making Him the Second Person out of three different Persons.

.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

It's all good as long as we understand Jesus and the Father are two different people but are the same God.

Its absurd but if we want to have god bend the rules of logic because he can do whatever he wants then fine. But I think the bible is clear God has to stick to certain parameters and I don't think you could get away with saying two people are different but the same God in any other scenario but this proposed creation of the trinity. When you weigh the facts of there being a triune God and there not being a triune God I think the evidence points to one God and one person. Like I said in my earlier posts God sure likes to play tricks on the jews if he hid he was triune. And even hid it from the church. But as paul said Behold I show ye a mystery the triune god! oh wait wat!

 

[ewq1938]

Never would I agree to Jesus and the Father being two different people because to me that is polytheism.

That's incorrect.

You might find it worthwhile to do more research on the hen/heis controversy because its use is not as clear cut as you seem to think.

I have shown that I have done the work. You might try doing it as well.

 

[ken777]

I have shown that I have done the work. You might try doing it as well.

I noticed you quoted those who agreed with your pov There is always bias to consider (eg 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")

One dissenting view: I have heard some Trinitarians claim that John 10:30 must be understood as one in union, simply because of the neuter hen. However, that alone is insufficient as in passages such as James 2:10 hen is used where it obviously means a singular "one," "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all." On the flip side, heis is used of unity in Gal 3:28, "for you are all one in Christ Jesus." In the latter passage, the word one is in grammatical agreement with the word "all," but this does show that heis at times can be used for union. Numbers function often as adjectives, thus qualifying nouns. When the word one is used in the Greek this way, it will agree with the noun it modifies whether it is masculine, feminine or neuter. This usage is simple grammatical agreement and really gives us no clue as to how the word is being used. When Jesus makes the statement "The Lord our God is one Lord," quoting the shema the word heis in this instance is simply in agreement with the masculine "kurios" (Lord). The gender of this word itself does not tell us how it is being used. However, since Jesus told them that this was the most important commandment then I would have a hard time understanding this to be merely "one in unity," for even human beings can have this type of "oneness."

 

[Hoghead1]

That's incorrect.




I have shown that I have done the work. You might try doing it as well.[/QUO

No, he is dead right. If you view the members of the Trinity as three separate, unique personalities, then you do have tritheism, pure and simple. God, then, is said to be one in that all share the nature of Deity. However, three men share in common human nature, but are still three men. Or, God is said to be one in that the three work together in perfect harmony. However, there people working in harmony are still three people.

 

[Hoghead1]

It's all good as long as we understand Jesus and the Father are two different people but are the same God.

That doesn't make any sense. If they are two different people, tow different personalities, then we have two gods, not one. Two men have in common human nature, but are still two men, for example.

 

[Hoghead1]

So when Jesus is saying "I and the Father are one" He actually means "I and the Father are composed of the same substance but we are two different Persons". If you find that a satisfying explanation then stick with that but it strikes me as an oxymoron.

.

It definitely is, as I pointed out earlier. For example, the Cappadocians realized that very point. Hence, Gregory addressed the issue as to why there are not three gods, just as three men sharing human nature are still three men. His answer was that something more was needed to insure the oneness of God. Hence, he argued that the three are one in that they work in such a perfect harmony. Of course, that makes problems, too. But at least he recognized that speaking of three personalities who constitute one God because they all have the same nature does not at all insure the oneness of God.

 

[Hoghead1]

I would say since both are God that they have the same divine essence which they are composed of, uncreated and immortal.



I don't find it very complex, just incorrect.

Well, then you should read the Cappadocians some time.

 

[Hoghead1]

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've seen it used actually. One person in three modes depicted as a family unit.



.

No, that is definitely not correct. "Substance" or "essence" is a concept from Hellenic metaphysics, not Scripture.

 

[Hoghead1]

They aren't separate Gods though. That's why it's not polytheism.



That's modalism. The Trinity is neither of these examples.



.

That's illogical. If they are three separate, unique personalities, then there are three gods. Wotan, Flicka, and Friea are three personalities, all Deity of divinity, yet we recognize there are three gods there, that this is polytheism. The same applies to Christianity as well.

 

[Hoghead1]

Reading isn't enough. Reading and understanding is needed and you don't understand that the Trinity is presented in scripture.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

1Jn_5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

G5140
treis tria
trice, tree'-ah
A primary (plural) number; “three”: - three.

In scripture the Greek word for three is "treis" (pronounced as TRICE) and translated into Latin it became "trinitas" which means "the number three, a triad, three". Eventually it became "three" in English related to the prefix "Tri" which also means three from which the English word Trinity originates. Since scripture states "three that bear record in heaven" and lists the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as those three we can firmly know the Trinity is a scriptural term originating from the Greek for the word "three".


The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all called God in various scriptures so three that are all called God comes full circle to God being a Trinity.


It did not originally have anything to do with "three persons" but simply "three". That is the purist meaning of the word Trinity without addition or alteration.

To coin a new word, Threenity.

Why do you cite the Johannie Comma when this has proven to be a much later "addition" to Scripture? It's merely later tampering by Trinitarians.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

You don't have to believe in the trinity to be saved. Anyone who tries to tell you that is a liar. It's not a point of argument when a lie is spoken so as to mislead the Saints. Recognize the lie, move on, and let those who perpetrate the lie live with the consequences that befalls false doctrine.

Have you not read Galatians 1:8? Any who teach that the Trinity is a false doctrine are contradicting the Apostles and are anathema. Our Lord himself says that many will call Him Lord but not be saved, but he who believes on him will be saved and inherit eternal life.

What does this mean? John 1:1-14 unambiguously declares our Lord to be God incarnate, and Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7-9 (even without the Comma Johanneum) declare the Trinity. St. Athanasius, who determined all these books were canonical, was the most impassioned defender of the deity of Christ and the Trinity during the fourth century.

So I believe this verse refers to Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses and others who call Jesus Christ Lord, while denying his identity as the incarnate Word of God (John 1:14). They will call him Lord, but having cut themselves off from His Church, the Body of Christ (see: Paul, for example, 1 Corinthians 10:17), they tragically will not participate in the salvation provided in and through the Church; if they are saved, it will only be due to a special act of mercy on God's part.

 

[Hoghead1]

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.

Then you are definitely tritheistic. No doubt about it.

 

[Hoghead1]

Have you not read Galatians 1:8? Any who teach that the Trinity is a false doctrine are contradicting the Apostles and are anathema. Our Lord himself says that many will call Him Lord but not be saved, but he who believes on him will be saved and inherit eternal life.

What does this mean? John 1:1-14 unambiguously declares our Lord to be God incarnate, and Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7-9 (even without the Comma Johanneum) declare the Trinity. St. Athanasius, who determined all these books were canonical, was the most impassioned defender of the deity of Christ and the Trinity during the fourth century.

So I believe this verse refers to Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses and others who call Jesus Christ Lord, while denying his identity as the incarnate Word of God (John 1:14). They will call him Lord, but having cut themselves off from His Church, the Body of Christ (see: Paul, for example, 1 Corinthians 10:17), they tragically will not participate in the salvation provided in and through the Church; if they are saved, it will only be due to a special act of mercy on God's part.

I disagree. It appears you have allowed faith to collapse into intellectual ascent to doctrines. It doesn't matter to God how you live, just what doctrines you believe in. I, and many fellow Christians, write that off as Christian Imperialism, which we do not want to be associated with.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Why do you cite the Johannie Comma when this has proven to be a much later "addition" to Scripture? It's merely later tampering by Trinitarians.

1 John 5:7-9 implicitly refers to the Trinity without the Comma Johanneum; the Comma Johanneum is simply a gloss or interpolation that clarifies it. And there are plemty of such glosses and interpolations in Scripture. 1 John 5:7-9 however clearly testifies to the Trinity even without the Comma Johanneum, which is why those Eastern churches whose Bibles lacked it believed in the Trinity in part because of that verse anyway.

Just because something is an interpolation does not make it false, or not divinely inspired, by the way. The Woman Caught in Adultery Pericope in John is probably an interpolation, yet few would argue that it is divinely inspired and one of the most important parts of the Gospel message, demonstrating the forgiveness of Christ (I do know of an obscure Baptist pastor who did make such an argument, and a horrible one at that; he used the alleged spurious status of the text to try and argue against the key message, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and then proceeded on a legalistic, polemical tirade, ignoring of course the Biblical backup provided by "judge not, lest ye not be judged.")

The early church Fathers, in compiling the canon of the New Testament, and indeed the ancient Hebrews before them, seemed to have intentionally aimed for some redundancy; I believe they did this both for didactic reasons, to reinforce the message through repetition, and also to provide a backup source of the dogma if ever part of the sacred scriptures were lost. And we do know of missing books: the Aramaic original Matthew, various historical books, et cetera.