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

[Godistruth1]

Not claiming to have full knowledge of the Godhead, ... I will stick with the Biblical description of One Godhead ... which includes three Persons ...

Fair enough

 

[Godistruth1]

God says that He has a Son ...

Matthew 3

16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

God has many sons in Bible. Even David is called begotten son of God. And I think Adam is too and so is everyone

 

[A_Thinker]

It's simple logic. You would not believe in Jesus if you did not believe in Bible sale way I'd not believe in Muhammad if I did not believe in Quran. So if quran/bible says there will come prophets does not mean anyone can claim to be prophet and they can't say because bible or quran said so. The authority must always be specific.

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

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

 

[Not David]

I adhere to 2 Timothy 3:16 unless those Scriptures do not address an issue. Just because Protestants believe the same way does not mean they invented the doctrine. Where are we told to build doctrines on tradition? The verse does NOT say, "All tradition is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: "

Which has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura. Also you just told me that you don't care what Jesus said and I'm sure you don't care Paul said "to keep the traditions either by word or mouth" and that the Church is the "foundation and pillar of Truth"

 

[Not David]

So three can be infinity gods equal to 1 because 1x1x1x1x1x1x1 is also 1?

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

 

[Not David]

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

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

One man who copied Gnostic books about Christianity and who believe the Trinity is a third of a god and that Mary is part of it.
Also he believed he was possessed by a demon.

 

[Barney2.0]

So God alone cannot be considered God or holy spirit alone can't be considered God? Who sad God is infinity. No holy spirit and Jesus were not infinite as in power and knowledge. So you saying infinity just for the sake of it.

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.

 

[Barney2.0]

I would not accept doctrines from the Protestant churches either. I suspect neither would you. The teachings of Yeshua and his apostles are the teachings of non-pediphiles. They were not workers of iniquity. Such workers arose in the church AFTER Paul departed (Acts 20:29).


The second century believers did not belong to the "Catholic Church", but to the "catholic church" or "universal church". The term was not used until after Paul departed and corruption set in. Eventually it came to refer to the particular sect known as the "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church". The Catholic Church did not give us the NT. YHWH may have used them to compile the canon, but He alo used a donkey to teach a man.

As for what the CC changed; they abolished the feast days and instituted man-made feasts in their place; changed the Sabbath to Sunday; abolished the dietary laws, etc.

You accept and believe in doctrines that were invented by Protestants. The Catholic Church isn’t filled with pedophiles in every quarter as you seem to believe. The Catholic Church means the universal church, which the disciples were apart of. The Catholic Church did compile the first Christian Old and New Testament Which wouldn’t have been available without it. Did the donkey teach man his inspired scriptures or did the donkey compile the word of God? I’d urge you to drop the arguement at this point it makes no sense in comparing two unrelated events. The Catholic Church isn’t just the Roman Catholic Church there are also Eastern Catholics and various eastern churches in communion with it which is why it’s called the universal church. As for your claims, there a difference between the ceremonial and natural law:

Why We Are Not Bound by Everything in the Old Law

The Law of God

 

[Barney2.0]

I have no problem using sources outside of Scripture IF Scripture does not address an issue or if the outside source agrees with Scripture. The outside sources used to teach a trinity do NOT agree with Scripture unless the Scriptures are twisted to conform to the outside source.

No, you seem to have a problem with outside sources that do not agree with your personal interpretation of scripture. Nothing in scripture refutes or conflicts with the idea of a trinity on the contrary scripture confirms it.

 

[gadar perets]

My view of the Godhead has less to do with equality ... and more to do with relationship. The members of the Godhead operate together, in unity, with the same purposes and plan.

I agree.

They were together in the beginning, executed Creation together, have redeemed mankind together, and will continue to operate and govern the Universe together.

The Creator, Yeshua's Father YHWH, created everything all by Himself by speaking things into existence.

Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith YHWH, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am YHWH that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Job 9:8; "Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea."

Prov.30:4; "Who hath ascended up into heaven? who hath gathered the wind in His fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His son's name, if thou canst tell?" (This verse teaches us that the Creator, whoever He is, has a Son. Does Yeshua have a son? No. Father YHWH is the Creator and He has a Son who is not given credit for creation in this verse).​

Psalm 33:6 By the word of YHWH were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. (Not "their mouths").​

The scriptures state that Christ was, originally, in the very form of God, ... that He took on the form of a man, ... and that He is now glorified (as He was originally) ... and has inherited all authority from His Father.

Philippians 2

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

To begin with, what does verse 5 mean? Does it mean that we should have the same mind as Messiah Yeshua before or after his earthly birth? Paul is telling the Philippians to have the same mind as Messiah Yeshua . If Yeshua pre-existed, he certainly did not carry the name Messiah Yeshua. That name can only be applied to the historical Yeshua, not the being who supposedly pre-existed as "the Word." Yeshua did not officially become "the Anointed" or "the Messiah" until he was baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38).

As a child, Yeshua "waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of Yahweh was upon him" (Luke 2:40). Even at that time Yeshua knew who he was, knew who his Father was (Luke 2:49), and knew what he had to do. By the time of his baptism he was so filled with wisdom, knowledge, Spirit, and power that Paul says he was "in the form (or likeness) of God." It does not say he "was God." Yet, Yeshua did not allow that power and wisdom to corrupt him. Nor did he, for one moment, consider himself YHWH's equal. He knew his Father was greater than himself (John 10:29; 13:16; 14:28). The RSV and many other versions correctly translate Philippians 2:6 as follows;

"Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped."​

Yeshua did not strip himself of any pre-existent power or glory. He simply humbled himself and made himself of no reputation even though he was far more knowledgeable and powerful than any of his contemporaries. Instead of glorifying himself and expecting others to serve him, he chose to become a servant. He became like most men, common and unassuming as compared to the politically powerful and famous. He took on the form of a "servant". It does not say he "took on the form of a man" as you wrote.

In addition to not exalting himself in the eyes of man, he further humbled himself by becoming totally obedient to the laws and will of His Father YHWH. As a reward for his obedience, YHWH has highly exalted him. A future exaltation will be the reward of all true believers if they, too, will humble themselves as Yeshua did.

 

[gadar perets]

You accept and believe in doctrines that were invented by Protestants. The Catholic Church isn’t filled with pedophiles in every quarter as you seem to believe. The Catholic Church means the universal church, which the disciples were apart of. The Catholic Church did compile the first Christian Old and New Testament Which wouldn’t have been available without it. Did the donkey teach man his inspired scriptures or did the donkey compile the word of God? I’d urge you to drop the arguement at this point it makes no sense in comparing two unrelated events. The Catholic Church isn’t just the Roman Catholic Church there are also Eastern Catholics and various eastern churches in communion with it which is why it’s called the universal church. As for your claims, there a difference between the ceremonial and natural law:

Why We Are Not Bound by Everything in the Old Law

The Law of God

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.

 

[gadar perets]

No, you seem to have a problem with outside sources that do not agree with your personal interpretation of scripture. Nothing in scripture refutes or conflicts with the idea of a trinity on the contrary scripture confirms it.

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

 

[gadar perets]

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

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.

and I'm sure you don't care Paul said "to keep the traditions either by word or mouth" and that the Church is the "foundation and pillar of Truth"

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).

 

[A_Thinker]

The Creator, Yeshua's Father YHWH, created everything all by Himself by speaking things into existence.

John disagrees.

Will you cast away his witness ... ???

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

 

[A_Thinker]

Prov.30:4; "Who hath ascended up into heaven? who hath gathered the wind in His fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His son's name, if thou canst tell?" (This verse teaches us that the Creator, whoever He is, has a Son. Does Yeshua have a son? No. Father YHWH is the Creator and He has a Son who is not given credit for creation in this verse).

The passage says that the Creator God has a (uniquely begotten) Son ... as do countless passages in the scriptures (John 3:16, Hebrews 5:5; Acts 13:33; Psalm 2:7, etc.) ...

 

[gadar perets]

John disagrees.

Will you cast away his witness ... ???

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

I would never throw away John, but I would throw away modern translations of John that contradict Isaiah 44:24.

 

[gadar perets]

The passage says that the Creator God has a (uniquely begotten) Son ... as do countless passages in the scriptures (John 3:16, Hebrews 5:5; Acts 13:33; Psalm 2:7, etc.) ...

I agree. The Creator has a Son. The Son is not the Creator. The Creator is the Son's Father.

 

[A_Thinker]

He took on the form of a "servant". It does not say he "took on the form of a man" as you wrote.

It doesn't ???

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Scripture also cites Jesus saying that His disciples' experience of Him was tantamount to experiencing the Father.

John 14

8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.”

9 Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own. Instead, it is the Father dwelling in Me, performing His works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me—or at least believe on account of the works themselves.

 

[A_Thinker]

I agree. The Creator has a Son. The Son is not the Creator. The Creator is the Son's Father.

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 ...

 

[gadar perets]

It doesn't ???

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

No, it doesn't. You are interchanging the phrases without warrant.

Scripture also cites Jesus saying that His disciples' experience of Him was tantamount to experiencing the Father.

John 14

8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.”

9 Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own. Instead, it is the Father dwelling in Me, performing His works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me—or at least believe on account of the works themselves.

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