Why there is no clear mention of trinity in the old testament?

[Not David]

I was wondering when you would start lying about the things I wrote. That is what ALL trinitarians do when I discuss this doctrine. Please quote my words where I said that.


I would appreciate it if you would provide the scripture reference when you cite verses. Paul's was referring to the traditions the apostles taught, not future traditions that are unscriptural and formed by a corrupted church that was overtaken by grievous wolves (in fulfillment of Acts 20:29).

Of course there were wolves who tried to destroy the Church: Gnostics, Arians, Iconoclasts, Nestorians, etc. They all failed though because Jesus promised "the gates of Hell won't destroy the Church"

 

[A_Thinker]

I agree, but that doesn't mean he IS the Father. He is the express image of the Father in character.

... and embodies the fullness of the Godhead.

Colossians 2

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

P.S. It is not my position that the Son is the Father, but rather that they are both God, operating in the same realm of being, and with the same plans and purposes.

 

[gadar perets]

John said that no thing was created without the LOGOS. He also says that the LOGOS was with God, ... and was God.

And that the LOGOS was made flesh ...

When you stop reading the verse with the preconceived understanding that the logos was the Son and stop reading into the text, you will understand what it truly means. BTW, "and the Word was God" is a faulty translation as even trinitarian grammarians admit. They reversed the word order and capitalized "Word" to make it seem like a name rather than a thing.

 

[gadar perets]

Of course there were wolves who tried to destroy the Church: Gnostics, Arians, Iconoclasts, Nestorians, etc. They all failed though because Jesus promised "the gates of Hell won't destroy the Church"

That is NOT how the phrase is to be translated. Hell refers to the grave. The grave will not prevail against the Church because Yeshua has already overcome death and the grave. He has the keys to unlock any grave so that it cannot hold a believer within it (Revelation 1:18). You use "Hell" as some kind of evil force that cannot "destroy" the Church.

 

[gadar perets]

... and embodies the fullness of the Godhead.

Colossians 2

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

P.S. It is not my position that the Son is the Father, but rather that they are both God, operating in the same realm of being, and with the same plans and purposes.

I agree that the fulness of the deity (Godhead is a ridiculous translation) dwelt in Yeshua. That does not mean Yeshua is the deity.

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
​

The deity (God - Yeshua's Father YHWH) also dwells in all believers, but not in His fullness.

 

[gadar perets]

Of course there were wolves who tried to destroy the Church: Gnostics, Arians, Iconoclasts, Nestorians, etc. They all failed though because Jesus promised "the gates of Hell won't destroy the Church"

BTW, I noticed you did not provide a quote of me to justify the following false accusation;

Also you just told me that you don't care what Jesus said
​

I'll take that to mean you lied.

 

[A_Thinker]

When you stop reading the verse with the preconceived understanding that the logos was the Son and stop reading into the text, you will understand what it truly means. BTW, "and the Word was God" is a faulty translation as even trinitarian grammarians admit. They reversed the word order and capitalized "Word" to make it seem like a name rather than a thing.

Jesus said that He was with the Father before the Creation ....

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed.

 

[gadar perets]

Jesus said that He was with the Father before the Creation ....

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed.

Yeshua is said to be the Lamb which was slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8), yet we have the Bible also saying,

“Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” (Hebrews 9:25-26)
​

Clearly, the Hebrews passage states that Yeshua was not literally slain from the foundation of the world, but rather must have been slain in the mind or plan of Almighty Yahweh, before the foundation of the world. This is akin to John 1:1 which speaks of the very word of Elohim, being with Elohim in the beginning. This spoken word, or plan of Yahweh, existed throughout the eons of time. From the beginning of time, Yahweh had Yeshua’s sacrifice in His plan for all humankind, for it was through Yeshua that we would receive our justification (Romans 4:25).

1 Peter 1:18-20 continues to explain this by saying:

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the Did Yeshua Pre-exist? 129 foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you."
​

Notice the use of the word foreordained. Yeshua was foreordained from the foundation of the world, but was made manifest or revealed in these last times. He did not exist as a person or being in former times, but in these last times Yahweh allowed him to be born of a woman (Galatians 4:4) and speaks through him (Hebrews 1:1-2).

It is especially intriguing to find Yeshua praying to the Father, that He would let the disciples share in this glory, (John 17:24) and then he, in turn, mentions the foundation of the world. The disciples would indeed share in the glory of the crucifixion by having their sins washed away, but they definitely did not share Yeshua’s glory by themselves being involved in a Trinitarian being. The glory that Yeshua had was as the slain lamb of Yahweh, in the mind of Yahweh, and Yeshua was praying for that glory to be brought about literally, so as to give unto all those who would accept, eternal life. This is why Yeshua began in John 17:1-2 by saying,

“These words spake Yeshua, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.”
​

Yeshua wanted to bring about the fruition of eternal life, by Yahweh, glorifying him as the ultimate sacrifice, and Yeshua, in turn, glorifying the Father.

 

[A_Thinker]

It is especially intriguing to find Yeshua praying to the Father, that He would let the disciples share in this glory, (John 17:24) and then he, in turn, mentions the foundation of the world.

Jesus actually prays that they would SEE/BEHOLD His glory ... rather than SHARE His glory ...

John 17:24 Father, I desire that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

 

[Barney2.0]

There is no such thing in Scripture as the "ceremonial law" or "natural law". Those are man-made divisions to justify their abolishment of the feast days and Sabbath.

There is a difference between the natural law and ceremonial law and this distinction is made in Judaism, Catholics didn't invent the terms.

 

[Barney2.0]

There is nothing in Scripture that says the Father and Son are co-eternal or co-equal.

Nothing in scripture says to rely on scripture alone and I already proved tome from the Catholic encyclopaedia that Matthew 28:19 teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal and co-equal. Also why would you expect to find terms that were created to explain what is in scripture?

 

[Godistruth1]

And it is undoubtably true that Islam rests on the testimony of ONE MAN.

If Mohammed was wrong, ... then all Islam is wrong ...

You don't even know who the authors of bible were. The history of Muhammad and his companions is well documented but compared to bible you have no idea who the authors were

 

[Godistruth1]

Except, there are only 3 persons who are God by nature.
And here we go with you saying we worship "gods".

Since there are three deities I don't think it's wrong to say gods. It's how English is when you have three distinct gods.

 

[Godistruth1]

All persons of the trinity are infinite and God. The Holy Spirit and the Son were infinite in power and knowledge they just chose to not express their complete knowledge to man.

So Jesus lied when he said he did not know everything?

 

[gadar perets]

Jesus actually prays that they would SEE/BEHOLD His glory ... rather than SHARE His glory ...

John 17:24 Father, I desire that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Sorry. I wrote 24 instead of 22.

22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:​

 

[gadar perets]

There is a difference between the natural law and ceremonial law and this distinction is made in Judaism, Catholics didn't invent the terms.

I didn't say the Catholics invented it. I said it was "man-made". I also didn't say it was invented, but used to "justify" their abolishment of ...

 

[gadar perets]

Nothing in scripture says to rely on scripture alone

Why do you exalt something that comes from man (man's traditions) over something that is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16)? Especially when your traditions cause people to break YHWH's commandments?

“And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?…You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition” (Matthew 15:3, 6).
​

The Scriptures are sufficient so "that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.' We don't need to be further perfected by the traditions of the Catholic church.

and I already proved tome from the Catholic encyclopaedia that Matthew 28:19 teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal and co-equal. Also why would you expect to find terms that were created to explain what is in scripture?

The verse says no such thing. The Catholic encyclopedia contains the words of men, not YHWH. If you can't find the doctrine in Scripture, then you should not make up words to force it into Scripture.

 

[A_Thinker]

Sorry. I wrote 24 instead of 22.

22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:​

This is, obviously, not the glory He is requesting that the Father bestow upon Him again (that He had before the Creation), ... but rather, the glory described in John 1:14 ....

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

 

[Barney2.0]

Why do you exalt something that comes from man (man's traditions) over something that is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16)? Especially when your traditions cause people to break YHWH's commandments?

“And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?…You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition” (Matthew 15:3, 6).
​

The Scriptures are sufficient so "that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.' We don't need to be further perfected by the traditions of the Catholic church.


The verse says no such thing. The Catholic encyclopedia contains the words of men, not YHWH. If you can't find the doctrine in Scripture, then you should not make up words to force it into Scripture.

I don’t accept what comes from men without authority, I accept what comes from apostolic and inspired origins. Matthew 15:3 talks about mandate tradition not apostolic tradition or the Church tradition which is God inspired. The Catholic encyclopedia explains the verse in the language it was written in which is Greek. You didn’t refute anything the Catholic encyclopedia said on the verse Matthew 28:19, just to add to that you’d have to be pretty ignorant to think that Jesus rejected all forms of tradition considering most teachings of the time were memorized orally and not written down in scripture. Also didn’t you say you have no problem accepting things outside of scripture that don’t conflict with it. Yet you seemingly accept ideas that have no origin in scripture, also where does it say in 2 Timothy 3:16 that scripture alone is sufficient, infact show me one verse in the whole bible which says scripture alone is sufficient? Please answer this question straight up. And since you say Matthew 28:19 doesn’t teach the trinity I’d ask you to refute the claims presented by the Catholic encyclopedia or accept you have no answer or counter claim:

The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal commission of Matt., xxviii, 20. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the Twelve step by step. First He taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally, after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them go and teach all nations, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt., xxviii, 19). The force of this passage is decisive. That “the Father” and “the Son” are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions “and … and”, is evidence that we have here a Third Person coordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures. The phrase “in the name” (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase “in the name” should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, “name”, and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible. The supernatural appearance at the baptism of Christ is often cited as an explicit revelation of Trinitarian doctrine, given at the very commencement of the Ministry. This, it seems to us, is a mistake. The Evangelists it is true, see in it a manifestation of the Three Divine Persons. Yet, apart from Christ’s subsequent teaching, the dogmatic meaning of the scene would hardly have been understood. Moreover, the Gospel narratives appear to signify that none but Christ and the Baptist were privileged to see the Mystic Dove, and hear the words attesting the Divine sonship of the Messiah.

 

[Barney2.0]

I didn't say the Catholics invented it. I said it was "man-made". I also didn't say it was invented, but used to "justify" their abolishment of ...

So the Jews invented the words to justify their abolishment of the law?