Can the Trinity be Biblically proven?

[wattie]

if the verse is so consistent with the bible then why is it not there in the first place. changing the Lords word does not create clarity, it causes confusion and destroys the credibility of those that added the passage.

How many italicised insertions are there in the KJV? How many italicised insertions are there also in most other bibles?

A lot!

Did you know 'there is' is an insertion in 'there is one body, one faith, one baptism etc..' in Ephesians?

There are numerous others. At least in my KJV they are clear about what is inserted.

It is true sometimes and insertion can affect the meaning, but context irons out any issues with this.

So with the context of 'these three are one'.. it may be an insertion but is something that is just being repeated that has been throughout earlier passages.

The other thing is..

If you yourself don't agree with the trinity.. are calling Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Father as actually seperate God's plural?

Are you saying Jesus is not God and neither is the Holy Spirit?

If it is either of these things.. there is nothing biblical about that!

 

[wattie]

Look rba, 1 Corinthians 12 is teaching about the administration of spiritual gifts given to Christians by the Holy Spirit for the common good of the church. And yes, I know vs4 says, "the same Spirit. And yes I know vs5 says, "the same Lord, and vs6 says, the same God. And of course the Bible obviously teaches us there is only one God.

The Bible also teaches us that there are three and only three persons "IDENTIFIED" as the one God. Not three different or separate beings of God. For example, you have at Luke 3:22, "and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him/Jesus in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, "Thou are My beloved Son, in Thee I am well-pleased."

Can you explain to all of us here what word would you use besides persons to describe this event? You have the Holy Spirit in the verse, you have Jesus Christ in the verse and you have God the Father in the verse. And like I said, all three of them are identified in the Bible as the one God. So what are they if they are not distinct persons?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Thought id jump in sorry

I only have trouble with person's if they are spiritually seperated beings. As long as they are just expressions/persons/substances of the one being God.. then I have no issue.

I think there are better terms than persons that could be used. Expressions I think would be better. But guess it is just semantics if you have the one being God and don't seperate into 3 beings.

 

[jaybird88]

If you yourself don't agree with the trinity.. are calling Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Father as actually seperate God's plural?

of course i am not saying that, after all we have man made words masquerading in the Lords word proving the doctrine so it must be true. seems like there was someone else i read about that masqueraded as an angel. . .

Are you saying Jesus is not God and neither is the Holy Spirit?

i have no idea, the bible does not say so who am i to make a bold claim that the true nature of Jesus is this and that and any other opinion is of the devil. i will leave that up to the pharisees.

If it is either of these things.. there is nothing biblical about that!

disagreeing with mans opinions of the bible is not disagreeing with the bible itself.

 

[RBA238]

You do talk from ignorance. The Trinity as such was taught by Tertullian c 200 AD long before 325 AD and the Council of Nicea, said nothing about Osiris, Horus and Seb. That is pure invention. You've been reading too may fairy stories. But the triunity of God was taught by Jesus and the Apostles. e.g.Math 28.19,

My last post on this subject
I stated The Gnostics were invited to the Council of Nicea, and The RCC voted on the Father, Son, Holy Ghost was a Triune God and literally 3 persons in God. I'm aware of Tertulian teaching this in 200 AD but this idea never was taught by Jesus nor his Apostles way before Tertulian was even born. Calling someone ignorant, you ate the one who needs to study and look in a mirror when addressing someone of being Ignorant, anyway i'm through with addressing you...

 

[UnderGrace]

Thought id jump in sorry

I only have trouble with person's if they are spiritually separated beings. As long as they are just expressions/persons/substances of the one being God.. then I have no issue.

I think there are better terms than persons that could be used. Expressions I think would be better. But guess it is just semantics if you have the one being God and don't separate into 3 beings.

I agree wattie,

The trinity doctrine emphasizes the separateness, I have been told by many people here on CC that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit yet no where does scripture states that they are separate persons.

As well, the duality of Christ as God and man is often used to show a different person in the Godhead when really it is about the duality of Jesus.


When Jesus was talking to the scribe in Mark 12 and the scribe who knew the words of the scripture stated clearly "the Lord our God is one Lord"

Jesus who is all truth did not take this opportunity to correct the scribe on the separateness and the trinity of God?

Jesus was a controversial man yet on this all important doctrine about the nature of God He was silent?

 

[bluto]

Thought id jump in sorry

I only have trouble with person's if they are spiritually seperated beings. As long as they are just expressions/persons/substances of the one being God.. then I have no issue.

I think there are better terms than persons that could be used. Expressions I think would be better. But guess it is just semantics if you have the one being God and don't seperate into 3 beings.

Come on, as the guy said to dirty harry, "I gots to know" can you please tell me what a better term is to be used besides persons? Go ahead, by all means improve on the term persons. Ok then, give me what you mean by "expresions?" Why are you being so "obtuse" and objectiing about sematics? And btw, there "ARE NOT THREE SEPARTE BEINGS." I have made that perfectly clear. I can't believe how clueless you guys are especially when it comes to terminalogy.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[UnderGrace]

Come on, as the guy said to dirty harry, "I gots to know" can you please tell me what a better term is to be used besides persons? Go ahead, by all means improve on the term persons. Ok then, give me what you mean by "expresions?" Why are you being so "obtuse" and objectiing about sematics? And btw, there "ARE NOT THREE SEPARTE BEINGS." I have made that perfectly clear. I can't believe how clueless you guys are especially when it comes to terminalogy.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

It is not about semantics.

Paul and the apostles never used any term and neither should we.

 

[bluto]

It is not about semantics.

Paul and the apostles never used any term and neither should we.

First of all sometimes it is about "sematics." Secondily, it was wattie that mentioned sematics, not me. Third of all words have meanings and what determines their meanings in the context. If I were to say the word "bark" you would not know what I meant unless in the context of the word used. Bark can mean the bark of a dog or the bark of a tree. Therefore, sematics and context serve a purpose. All of this is simple common sense.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[UnderGrace]

First of all sometimes it is about "sematics." Secondily, it was wattie that mentioned sematics, not me. Third of all words have meanings and what determines their meanings in the context. If I were to say the word "bark" you would not know what I meant unless in the context of the word used. Bark can mean the bark of a dog or the bark of a tree. Therefore, sematics and context serve a purpose. All of this is simple common sense.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Well sorry that I labelled you on this, I did not catch it for some reason in wattie's post.

I say it is not about semantics because no matter what the context is the word "trinity" does not apply in describing God.
They are not separate persons.

 

[bluto]

Well sorry that I labelled you on this, I did not catch it for some reason in wattie's post.

I say it is not about semantics because no matter what the context is the word "trinity" does not apply in describing God.
They are not separate persons.

First of all the word trinity is not meant to descrbe God. It's a word of convience to describe the one God as three persons as Tertiillan coined the word. It does not mean "three gods" The Bible never uses he word "omnipresent" but the concept of God being eveywhere is in the Bible. So I hope you understand what my point is.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[UnderGrace]

First of all the word trinity is not meant to descrbe God. It's a word of convience to describe the one God as three persons as Tertiillan coined the word. It does not mean "three gods" The Bible never uses he word "omnipresent" but the concept of God being eveywhere is in the Bible. So I hope you understand what my point is.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Oh yes indeed I do and I know all about Tertullian too, you will be happy to know that Tertullian did not say persons but he

used the word "persona" comes from Latin and it means "masks" or "faces" as in a play.

As well, the trinity doctrine is an inferred doctrine not like omnipresent which is directly supported by scripture.

 

[wattie]

Come on, as the guy said to dirty harry, "I gots to know" can you please tell me what a better term is to be used besides persons? Go ahead, by all means improve on the term persons. Ok then, give me what you mean by "expresions?" Why are you being so "obtuse" and objectiing about sematics? And btw, there "ARE NOT THREE SEPARTE BEINGS." I have made that perfectly clear. I can't believe how clueless you guys are especially when it comes to terminalogy.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Well I'm glad you don't seperate them

I really have no issue with you here.

As long as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all fully God.. co-equal and co-eternal...in your teaching.. then what I am saying with the 3 being expressions or substances rather than persons.. doesn't really matter.

There is just this picture that is presented sometimes in cartoons and illustrations.. of someone in heaven.. with The Father and Son as seperate beings. That to me.. looks like Polytheism. Surely when we get to heaven we would meet the one being God.

 

[jaybird88]

co-equal ?
John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I

 

[mailmandan]

co-equal ?
John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I

Jesus was speaking from His humanity here. BUT speaking from His divinity, Jesus said - "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) that is co-equal in essence/nature.

 

[Quasar92]

Jesus was speaking from His humanity here. BUT speaking from His divinity, Jesus said - "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) that is co-equal in essence/nature.

Why then did the apostles greet both the Father as well as Jesus in every epistle in the Bible? How do you explain Jn.1:1-2 and 17.3, 5 and Rom.10:9-10 then?


Quasar92

 

[mailmandan]

Why then did the apostles greet both the Father as well as Jesus in every epistle in the Bible? How do you explain Jn.1:1-2 and 17.3, 5 and Rom.10:9-10 then?

Quasar92

The Father and Son are one God in essence/nature yet two distinct persons.

 

[jaybird88]

Jesus was speaking from His humanity here. BUT speaking from His divinity, Jesus said - "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) that is co-equal in essence/nature.

so His teachings kinda change back and forth depending on the doctrines you follow. makes no sense to me but ok.

 

[Quasar92]

The Father and Son are one God in essence/nature yet two distinct persons.

Not according to the Scriptures. Review Ps.45:6-7 and Heb.1:8-9.


Quasar92

 

[mailmandan]

so His teachings kinda change back and forth depending on the doctrines you follow. makes no sense to me but ok.

His teachings don't change back and forth. Jesus was fully man and fully God. That seems to trip people up when interpreting scripture.

 

[jaybird88]

His teachings don't change back and forth. Jesus was fully man and fully God. That seems to trip people up when interpreting scripture.

and thus when you follow these doctrine it means when Jesus makes statements such as "Father is greater than the Son", we can go back and say, what Jesus "really" meant was the Father is equal to the Son and not greater.