Can the Trinity be Biblically proven?
- Thread starter bluto
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
R
No problem for me to know who God is, hos name, and how to ID by verses how to prove the point
Unless a person can review, and check the verses And counter check those verses with open mind to actually want to learn the scriptures, and put it together; it is fruitless to explain it, and how it works, and easily to explain..
Unless a person can review, and check the verses And counter check those verses with open mind to actually want to learn the scriptures, and put it together; it is fruitless to explain it, and how it works, and easily to explain..
Is the Trinity Biblical?
[h=2]Surely a teaching as widespread and popular as the Trinity is scriptural, isn't it? Yet time and again, theologians and researchers admit it isn't found in the Bible.[/h] "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24).
Many people assume that God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit form what is commonly known as the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is usually summed up as a belief in one God existing in three distinct but equal persons.
But did you realize that, even though it is a common assumption among many sincere religious people, the word Trinity does not appear anywhere in the Bible? In fact, the word Trinity did not come into common use as a religious term until centuries after the last books of the Bible were completed—long after the apostles of Christ were gone from the scene!
Notice this admission in the New Bible Dictionary:"The term 'Trinity' is not itself found in the Bible. It was first used by Tertullian at the close of the 2nd century, but received wide currency [common use in intellectual discussion] and formal elucidation [clarification] only in the 4th and 5th centuries"(1996, "Trinity").
That same source goes on to explain that "the formal doctrine of the Trinity was the result of several inadequate attempts to explain who and what the Christian God really is . . . To deal with these problems the Church Fathers met in [A.D.] 325 at the Council of Nicaea to set out an orthodox biblical definition concerning the divine identity." However, it wasn't until 381, "at the Council of Constantinople, [that] the divinity of the Spirit was affirmed" (ibid.).
We see, then, that the doctrine of the Trinity wasn't formalized until long after the Bible was completed and the apostles were long dead in their graves. It took later theologians centuries to sort out what they believed and to formulate belief in the Trinity!
Why can't theologians explain this doctrine?
By no means are theologians' explanations of the Trinity doctrine clear. Religious writer A.W. Tozer, in his book The Knowledge of the Holy, states that the Trinity is an "incomprehensible mystery" and that attempts to understand it "must remain forever futile." He admits that churches, "without pretending to understand," have nevertheless continued to teach this doctrine (1961, pp. 17-18).
He then remarkably concludes, "The fact that it cannot be satisfactorily explained, instead of being against it, is in its favor" (p. 23).
The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, in its article on the Trinity, concedes that the Trinitarian concept is humanly incomprehensible: "It is admitted by all who thoughtfully deal with this subject that the Scripture revelation here leads us into the presence of a deep mystery; and that all human attempts at expression are of necessity imperfect" (1988, p. 1308).
Cyril Richardson, professor of church history at New York's Union Theological Seminary, though a dedicated Trinitarian himself, said this in his book The Doctrine of The Trinity:
"My conclusion, then, about the doctrine of the Trinity is that it is an artificial construct . . . It produces confusion rather than clarification; and while the problems with which it deals are real ones, the solutions it offers are not illuminating. It has posed for many Christians dark and mysterious statements, which are ultimately meaningless, because it does not sufficiently discriminate in its use of terms" (1958, pp. 148-149).
He also admitted, "Much of the defense of the Trinity as a 'revealed' doctrine, is really an evasion of the objections that can be brought against it" (p. 16).
A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge states regarding the Trinity, "Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves" (Lyman Abbott, editor, 1885, "Trinitarians").
Why do even those who believe in the Trinity find it so difficult to explain?
The answer is simple yet shocking: It's because the Bible does not teach it! One cannot prove or explain something from the Bible that is not biblical! The Bible is our only reliable source of divine revelation. And the truth, as we will see, is that the Trinity concept simply is not part of God's revelation to humankind.
But don't just take our word for it! Let's see what some standard works of biblical scholarship and other individual scholars say.
Surprising admissions that the Trinity isn't in the Bible!
Notice these admissions from a number of reputable sources and authors who, while themselves affirming the Trinity, acknowledge that the word "Trinity" and the doctrine is not found in the Bible.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia acknowledges that "'trinity' is a second-century term found nowhere in the Bible, and the Scriptures present no finished trinitarian statement" (1988, Vol. 4, "Trinity," p. 914). It further states that "church fathers crystallized the doctrine in succeeding centuries"—long after the apostles had passed from the scene.
The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary tells us, "The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT [New Testament]" (Paul Achtemeier, editor, 1996, "Trinity").
The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism states: "Today, however, scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the OT [Old Testament] or the NT [New Testament] . . . It would go far beyond the intention and thought-forms of the OT to suppose that a late-fourth-century or thirteenth-century Christian doctrine can be found there . . . Likewise, the NT does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity" (Richard McBrien, general editor, 1995, "God," pp. 564-565).
The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, in its article on the Trinity, explains: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies . . . It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons" (1985 edition, Micropaedia, Vol. 11, p. 928).
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology points out that "primitive Christianity did
not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the early church" (Colin Brown, editor, Vol. 2, 1976, "God," p. 84).
Historian and science fiction writer H.G. Wells, in his noted work The Outline of History, points out, "There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus ever heard of the trinity—at any rate from him" (1920, Vol. 2, p. 499).
Martin Luther, the German priest who initiated the Protestant Reformation, conceded, "It is indeed true that the name 'Trinity' is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man" (reproduced in The Sermons of Martin Luther, John Lenker, editor, Vol. 3, 1988, p. 406).
The Oxford Companion to the Bible states: "Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon [i.e., actual Scripture]" (Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, editors, 1993, "Trinity," p. 782).
Professor Charles Ryrie, in his respected work Basic Theology, writes: "Many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity . . . In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that 'clearly' states that there is one God who exists in three persons" (1999, p. 89).
Ryrie goes on to state: "The above illustrations prove the fallacy of concluding that if something is not proof texted in the Bible we cannot clearly teach the results . . . If that were so, I could never teach the doctrine of the Trinity" (p. 90).
Millard Erickson, research professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes that the Trinity "is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church.
"In view of the difficulty of the subject and the great amount of effort expended to maintain this doctrine, we may well ask ourselves what might justify all this trouble" (God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, 1995,p. 12).
Professor Erickson further states that the Trinity teaching "is not present in biblical thought, but arose when biblical thought was pressed into this foreign mold [of Greek concepts]. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond and even distorts what the Bible says about God" (p. 20).
Professor Erickson later points out: "It is claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine. If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly, directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible? If this is the doctrine that especially constitutes Christianity's uniqueness . . . how can it be only implied in the biblical revelation? . . . For here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly and clearly.
"Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion" (pp. 108-109). Later in this booklet we will consider various scriptures often used to support the Trinity doctrine.
Shirley Guthrie, Jr., professor of theology at Columbia Theological Seminary, writes: "The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word 'trinity' itself nor such language as 'one-in-three,' 'three-in-one,' one 'essence' (or 'substance'), and three 'persons,' is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy" (Christian Doctrine, 1994, pp. 76-77)."
Quasar92
[h=2]Surely a teaching as widespread and popular as the Trinity is scriptural, isn't it? Yet time and again, theologians and researchers admit it isn't found in the Bible.[/h] "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24).
Many people assume that God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit form what is commonly known as the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is usually summed up as a belief in one God existing in three distinct but equal persons.
But did you realize that, even though it is a common assumption among many sincere religious people, the word Trinity does not appear anywhere in the Bible? In fact, the word Trinity did not come into common use as a religious term until centuries after the last books of the Bible were completed—long after the apostles of Christ were gone from the scene!
Notice this admission in the New Bible Dictionary:"The term 'Trinity' is not itself found in the Bible. It was first used by Tertullian at the close of the 2nd century, but received wide currency [common use in intellectual discussion] and formal elucidation [clarification] only in the 4th and 5th centuries"(1996, "Trinity").
That same source goes on to explain that "the formal doctrine of the Trinity was the result of several inadequate attempts to explain who and what the Christian God really is . . . To deal with these problems the Church Fathers met in [A.D.] 325 at the Council of Nicaea to set out an orthodox biblical definition concerning the divine identity." However, it wasn't until 381, "at the Council of Constantinople, [that] the divinity of the Spirit was affirmed" (ibid.).
We see, then, that the doctrine of the Trinity wasn't formalized until long after the Bible was completed and the apostles were long dead in their graves. It took later theologians centuries to sort out what they believed and to formulate belief in the Trinity!
Why can't theologians explain this doctrine?
By no means are theologians' explanations of the Trinity doctrine clear. Religious writer A.W. Tozer, in his book The Knowledge of the Holy, states that the Trinity is an "incomprehensible mystery" and that attempts to understand it "must remain forever futile." He admits that churches, "without pretending to understand," have nevertheless continued to teach this doctrine (1961, pp. 17-18).
He then remarkably concludes, "The fact that it cannot be satisfactorily explained, instead of being against it, is in its favor" (p. 23).
The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, in its article on the Trinity, concedes that the Trinitarian concept is humanly incomprehensible: "It is admitted by all who thoughtfully deal with this subject that the Scripture revelation here leads us into the presence of a deep mystery; and that all human attempts at expression are of necessity imperfect" (1988, p. 1308).
Cyril Richardson, professor of church history at New York's Union Theological Seminary, though a dedicated Trinitarian himself, said this in his book The Doctrine of The Trinity:
"My conclusion, then, about the doctrine of the Trinity is that it is an artificial construct . . . It produces confusion rather than clarification; and while the problems with which it deals are real ones, the solutions it offers are not illuminating. It has posed for many Christians dark and mysterious statements, which are ultimately meaningless, because it does not sufficiently discriminate in its use of terms" (1958, pp. 148-149).
He also admitted, "Much of the defense of the Trinity as a 'revealed' doctrine, is really an evasion of the objections that can be brought against it" (p. 16).
A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge states regarding the Trinity, "Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves" (Lyman Abbott, editor, 1885, "Trinitarians").
Why do even those who believe in the Trinity find it so difficult to explain?
The answer is simple yet shocking: It's because the Bible does not teach it! One cannot prove or explain something from the Bible that is not biblical! The Bible is our only reliable source of divine revelation. And the truth, as we will see, is that the Trinity concept simply is not part of God's revelation to humankind.
But don't just take our word for it! Let's see what some standard works of biblical scholarship and other individual scholars say.
Surprising admissions that the Trinity isn't in the Bible!
Notice these admissions from a number of reputable sources and authors who, while themselves affirming the Trinity, acknowledge that the word "Trinity" and the doctrine is not found in the Bible.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia acknowledges that "'trinity' is a second-century term found nowhere in the Bible, and the Scriptures present no finished trinitarian statement" (1988, Vol. 4, "Trinity," p. 914). It further states that "church fathers crystallized the doctrine in succeeding centuries"—long after the apostles had passed from the scene.
The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary tells us, "The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT [New Testament]" (Paul Achtemeier, editor, 1996, "Trinity").
The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism states: "Today, however, scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the OT [Old Testament] or the NT [New Testament] . . . It would go far beyond the intention and thought-forms of the OT to suppose that a late-fourth-century or thirteenth-century Christian doctrine can be found there . . . Likewise, the NT does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity" (Richard McBrien, general editor, 1995, "God," pp. 564-565).
The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, in its article on the Trinity, explains: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies . . . It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons" (1985 edition, Micropaedia, Vol. 11, p. 928).
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology points out that "primitive Christianity did
not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the early church" (Colin Brown, editor, Vol. 2, 1976, "God," p. 84).
Historian and science fiction writer H.G. Wells, in his noted work The Outline of History, points out, "There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus ever heard of the trinity—at any rate from him" (1920, Vol. 2, p. 499).
Martin Luther, the German priest who initiated the Protestant Reformation, conceded, "It is indeed true that the name 'Trinity' is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man" (reproduced in The Sermons of Martin Luther, John Lenker, editor, Vol. 3, 1988, p. 406).
The Oxford Companion to the Bible states: "Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon [i.e., actual Scripture]" (Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, editors, 1993, "Trinity," p. 782).
Professor Charles Ryrie, in his respected work Basic Theology, writes: "Many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity . . . In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that 'clearly' states that there is one God who exists in three persons" (1999, p. 89).
Ryrie goes on to state: "The above illustrations prove the fallacy of concluding that if something is not proof texted in the Bible we cannot clearly teach the results . . . If that were so, I could never teach the doctrine of the Trinity" (p. 90).
Millard Erickson, research professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes that the Trinity "is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church.
"In view of the difficulty of the subject and the great amount of effort expended to maintain this doctrine, we may well ask ourselves what might justify all this trouble" (God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, 1995,p. 12).
Professor Erickson further states that the Trinity teaching "is not present in biblical thought, but arose when biblical thought was pressed into this foreign mold [of Greek concepts]. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond and even distorts what the Bible says about God" (p. 20).
Professor Erickson later points out: "It is claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine. If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly, directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible? If this is the doctrine that especially constitutes Christianity's uniqueness . . . how can it be only implied in the biblical revelation? . . . For here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly and clearly.
"Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion" (pp. 108-109). Later in this booklet we will consider various scriptures often used to support the Trinity doctrine.
Shirley Guthrie, Jr., professor of theology at Columbia Theological Seminary, writes: "The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word 'trinity' itself nor such language as 'one-in-three,' 'three-in-one,' one 'essence' (or 'substance'), and three 'persons,' is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy" (Christian Doctrine, 1994, pp. 76-77)."
Quasar92
Yea, I got more questions and the first one is this? Since Jesus Christ is God Almighty even according to God the Father since you quoted Psalm 45:6,7 and the writer of Hebrews at 1:8 quotes the Psalm I would like to know how it is that Jesus Christ did not preexist His incarnation according to you since He is God? I also want you to know I'm not talking about Jesus Christ appearing permanently in the Old Testament as a man like in the New Testament, but He did appear in the OT which I can easily prove. 
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Exactly,
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1 Tim 2:5
~~~~
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.John 3:13
And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.Luke 3:22
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Matt 1:20
~~~~~~~~~~~
So if the Holy Ghost is the Heavenly Father...
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? Luke 11:13
Why would you ask?
Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. John 9:31
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Gal 6:7-8
39(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)John 7:39
Do you know the difference between the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost? 1 Thess 1:5
For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1 Tim 2:5
~~~~
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.John 3:13
And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.Luke 3:22
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Matt 1:20
~~~~~~~~~~~
So if the Holy Ghost is the Heavenly Father...
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? Luke 11:13
Why would you ask?
Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. John 9:31
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Gal 6:7-8
39(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)John 7:39
Do you know the difference between the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost? 1 Thess 1:5
For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.
R
John 5 verse 43: Jesus Said: "I am Come in MY FATHERS' NAME; AND YOU BELEIVE ME NOT ( THE Spirit and The Son have the same exact same name, because Jesus Told us in John 10 verse 30; "I , and MY FATHER (THE FATHER) ARE ONE...NOT ONE OF TWO PERSONS
Apostle Philip asked Jesus; "LORD, SHOW US TGE FATHER, AND IT SUFFICETH US" Jesus asked Philip: "Have i been so long with ypu Philip, that you don't know me"?
"HE, THAT HAS SEEN ME, HAS'T SEEN THE FATHER? SO, WHY THOU ASK, SHOW US THE FATHER"?? JOHN 14 verses 7-11...Jesus explained it perfectly who he is, yet people still question the fact The Spirit ( The Father) and The Son ( The bodily image of God in a Fleshly Body is the Same ONE GOD and Has ONE SPIRIT, The "Son" deaignates The Manifsted Fleshly body of the One invisable God...End od Story. There never WAS, and NEVER WILL BE 3 PERSONS IN GOD...
Apostle Philip asked Jesus; "LORD, SHOW US TGE FATHER, AND IT SUFFICETH US" Jesus asked Philip: "Have i been so long with ypu Philip, that you don't know me"?
"HE, THAT HAS SEEN ME, HAS'T SEEN THE FATHER? SO, WHY THOU ASK, SHOW US THE FATHER"?? JOHN 14 verses 7-11...Jesus explained it perfectly who he is, yet people still question the fact The Spirit ( The Father) and The Son ( The bodily image of God in a Fleshly Body is the Same ONE GOD and Has ONE SPIRIT, The "Son" deaignates The Manifsted Fleshly body of the One invisable God...End od Story. There never WAS, and NEVER WILL BE 3 PERSONS IN GOD...
Yea, I got more questions and the first one is this? Since Jesus Christ is God Almighty even according to God the Father since you quoted Psalm 45:6,7 and the writer of Hebrews at 1:8 quotes the Psalm I would like to know how it is that Jesus Christ did not preexist His incarnation according to you since He is God? I also want you to know I'm not talking about Jesus Christ appearing permanently in the Old Testament as a man like in the New Testament, but He did appear in the OT which I can easily prove.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
I will tell you this for the last time, Bluto: READ POST #8 and it will answer your questions. FYI, the pre-incarnate Jesus, IS NOT Almighty God, never was and never will be! Jesus is/was the FIRSTBORN over all creation, in Col.1:15, described in Pr.8:22-36.
Quasar92.
Last edited:
God, who is the Holy Spirit, according to Jn.4:24 and 2 Cor.3:7-18, is also the Father of Jesus, according to Mt.1:20 and Lk.1:35. One person, not two. They are two very separate entities, as every epistle in the Bible extends greetings to both. To say nothing of Jesus committing His Spirit to the Father in Lk.23:46, and the Father raising Jesus from the dead in Rom.10:9. In addition, Jesus told His disciples in Jn.14:10, His Father lived in Him doing His work, obviously, the Holy Spirit, who also lives in all of us who are born again Christians. Do you see what the Scriptures do to the doctrine of the Trinity?
Quasar92
Hi Bluto,
Let me attempt to answer some of Quasar92 post No.8 using
Psalms 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
Quasar92 said: No, I am not now or ever was a JW. The Bible teaches that Jesus was the FIRSTBORN over all creation in Col.1:15, confirming Pr.8:22-36.
My response: Well FIRSTBORN in Col. 1:15, doesn’t fit FIRSTCREATION nor it was a confirmation of Proverbs 8:22-36. Not even the word “firstborn” was used in Proverbs pertaining to the wisdom of God. The word “possessed” has nothing to do with “firstborn” or “first creation”. It simply means God holds such wisdom even before the creation of the earth. Wisdom in the Proverbs actually is a “personification” in order for people to understand it (vv. 1-5). There’s a need to understand this wisdom because this speaks of the excellent and right things (vv. 6-9). It cannot be compared to any precious gems or all things that maybe desired of (vv.10-11). It is an excellent thing that people to learn of this wisdom because it properly “belongs” “owned” or “possessed” by God. The LORD says “Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom…” v. 14a. Noticeable is the meaning of “possessed” as “belonging to” or “mine”. Now we need to define the word “Fristborn” for consideration:
1) Firstborn – As used in Colossians means “pre-eminence or superiority” over God’s creation. This is specifically used in Col.1:18. It is not a first-born.
Let me attempt to answer some of Quasar92 post No.8 using
Psalms 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
Quasar92 said: No, I am not now or ever was a JW. The Bible teaches that Jesus was the FIRSTBORN over all creation in Col.1:15, confirming Pr.8:22-36.
My response: Well FIRSTBORN in Col. 1:15, doesn’t fit FIRSTCREATION nor it was a confirmation of Proverbs 8:22-36. Not even the word “firstborn” was used in Proverbs pertaining to the wisdom of God. The word “possessed” has nothing to do with “firstborn” or “first creation”. It simply means God holds such wisdom even before the creation of the earth. Wisdom in the Proverbs actually is a “personification” in order for people to understand it (vv. 1-5). There’s a need to understand this wisdom because this speaks of the excellent and right things (vv. 6-9). It cannot be compared to any precious gems or all things that maybe desired of (vv.10-11). It is an excellent thing that people to learn of this wisdom because it properly “belongs” “owned” or “possessed” by God. The LORD says “Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom…” v. 14a. Noticeable is the meaning of “possessed” as “belonging to” or “mine”. Now we need to define the word “Fristborn” for consideration:
1) Firstborn – As used in Colossians means “pre-eminence or superiority” over God’s creation. This is specifically used in Col.1:18. It is not a first-born.
continues:
Quasar said: My position in the subject is to affirm the teachings in the Bible, not to invent them as has been done in the man made doctrine of the Trinity. Review the following Biblical description of God:
My Response: So following the very definition of “Firstborn” and the word “possessed” with Bible’s built in dictionary proves Quasar92 did invented a man- made doctrine.
Quasar said:... How could it be possible for the Holy Spirit to produce the pre-incarnate spirit of Jesus, by the virgin Mary, without receiving the deity of God, as found in Mt.1:20 and in Lk.1:32, 35? To be empowered to give/baptize with the Holy Spirit to all who receive Him as Lord? Mt.3:11, Mk.1:8, Lk.3:16, Jn.1:33, 3:16, 20:21-22, Acts 2:1-3, 1 Jn.3:24 and 1 Jn.4:13. To say nothing of performing 19 noteable miracles of healing the blind, the deaf, people with terminal illness and raising three from the dead? Do you think any ordinary human being could ever do that?
My Response: The Holy Ghost, belongs to Him all the attributes that God the Father and God the Son has thus co-equal. Of course, he did not receive deity because He was indeed a Divine person of the Godhead! (Acts 5: 3-4). Being active in the Creation as in the Book of Genesis, the Holy Ghost is able to do miracle in Christ Virgin birth.
Quasar said: My position in the subject is to affirm the teachings in the Bible, not to invent them as has been done in the man made doctrine of the Trinity. Review the following Biblical description of God:
My Response: So following the very definition of “Firstborn” and the word “possessed” with Bible’s built in dictionary proves Quasar92 did invented a man- made doctrine.
Quasar said:... How could it be possible for the Holy Spirit to produce the pre-incarnate spirit of Jesus, by the virgin Mary, without receiving the deity of God, as found in Mt.1:20 and in Lk.1:32, 35? To be empowered to give/baptize with the Holy Spirit to all who receive Him as Lord? Mt.3:11, Mk.1:8, Lk.3:16, Jn.1:33, 3:16, 20:21-22, Acts 2:1-3, 1 Jn.3:24 and 1 Jn.4:13. To say nothing of performing 19 noteable miracles of healing the blind, the deaf, people with terminal illness and raising three from the dead? Do you think any ordinary human being could ever do that?
My Response: The Holy Ghost, belongs to Him all the attributes that God the Father and God the Son has thus co-equal. Of course, he did not receive deity because He was indeed a Divine person of the Godhead! (Acts 5: 3-4). Being active in the Creation as in the Book of Genesis, the Holy Ghost is able to do miracle in Christ Virgin birth.
Quars said: The following is God's description of Himself, directly from the Scriptures.
Let me assure you that I am fully convinced that you all love the Lord! By the same token, you can be equally certain that I love Him too. With that having been said, the following Scriptural contradiction of the doctrine of the Trinity is documented in the following, to seek and correct, the false teachings found in it, that were accepted into the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century A.D.
1. it is necessary to properly identify God, whom both Jesus, Paul and John have done, in Jn.1:18, 4:24; Rom.1:20; 2 Cor.3:17-18, Col.1:15 and 1 Jn.4:12, when they identify Him as Spirit.
My Response: An examination of the verses above does not provide identity of God as spirit except John 4:24 and 2 Cor. 3:17-18, nevertheless, we believe that Holy Spirit is God.
John 1:18
In John 1:18, although no man hath seen God as the text says, Jesus did declare Him. The verse is not direct citation for identifying God is a spirit in the sense the spirit is not seen. To think, there are things that a man cannot see that is active yet not called a spirit. As Jesus said “…the wind blows where it listeth…” John 3:8 yet the “wind” cannot be the spirit, the pull of gravity, cannot be seen yet is not a spirit. Here are other things we cannot see and not speaks of spirit but it’s a reality,
1. Bouyancy
2. Magnetic force
3. Nuclear Interaction
So John 1:18 is not a direct bible verse in identifying God is a Spirit, rather the verse justify Christ pre-existence is eternal with God the Father.
Romans 1:20
The verse rather has something to do with the trinity. Godhead according to the freedictionary.com means:
Godhead - definition of Godhead by The Free Dictionary the Christian God, especially the Trinity.
It is well established fact that when speaking of the Godhead does in reference not only to the Divinity or Deity but also the Trinity. Earlier English Dictionary would tell you that.
1. The New World of English Words by Edward Phillips, 1658
2. A New Dictionary French and English, with another English and French, Guy Miege 1677
3. A New English Dictionary, John Kersey the younger, 1702
So there’s no complexity at all! Plain and simple, there is God the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost!
Let me assure you that I am fully convinced that you all love the Lord! By the same token, you can be equally certain that I love Him too. With that having been said, the following Scriptural contradiction of the doctrine of the Trinity is documented in the following, to seek and correct, the false teachings found in it, that were accepted into the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century A.D.
1. it is necessary to properly identify God, whom both Jesus, Paul and John have done, in Jn.1:18, 4:24; Rom.1:20; 2 Cor.3:17-18, Col.1:15 and 1 Jn.4:12, when they identify Him as Spirit.
My Response: An examination of the verses above does not provide identity of God as spirit except John 4:24 and 2 Cor. 3:17-18, nevertheless, we believe that Holy Spirit is God.
John 1:18
In John 1:18, although no man hath seen God as the text says, Jesus did declare Him. The verse is not direct citation for identifying God is a spirit in the sense the spirit is not seen. To think, there are things that a man cannot see that is active yet not called a spirit. As Jesus said “…the wind blows where it listeth…” John 3:8 yet the “wind” cannot be the spirit, the pull of gravity, cannot be seen yet is not a spirit. Here are other things we cannot see and not speaks of spirit but it’s a reality,
1. Bouyancy
2. Magnetic force
3. Nuclear Interaction
So John 1:18 is not a direct bible verse in identifying God is a Spirit, rather the verse justify Christ pre-existence is eternal with God the Father.
Romans 1:20
The verse rather has something to do with the trinity. Godhead according to the freedictionary.com means:
Godhead - definition of Godhead by The Free Dictionary the Christian God, especially the Trinity.
It is well established fact that when speaking of the Godhead does in reference not only to the Divinity or Deity but also the Trinity. Earlier English Dictionary would tell you that.
1. The New World of English Words by Edward Phillips, 1658
2. A New Dictionary French and English, with another English and French, Guy Miege 1677
3. A New English Dictionary, John Kersey the younger, 1702
So there’s no complexity at all! Plain and simple, there is God the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost!
Quasar92 said: In the KJV, is another example of the pre-incarnate Spirit of Jesus being created, in their translation of Pr.8:22, which reads as follows: "The Lord POSSESSED me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old." In a review of Gen.14:19 and 22, the term POSSESS in both, means CREATOR
My Response: Not exactly does the Bible say about the word “possessed” as “Creator”. I WOULD rather suggest the word used is “Possessor” for consideration but still, there is a vast difference to the word “Creator”. This is actually the trick or tweak. Not only that, Christ is the very “Word” John 1:1 who at the beginning was God AND the very Creator (John1:2-3)
Quasar92 said: To further reinforce the Pr.8:22-36 passage, it can also be seen in Col.1:15, that Jesus is/was the FIRSTBORN over all creation. And in vs 18, it is written that He is the FIRSTBORN from the dead. Let it be crystal clear, the term, 'FIRSTBORN' means exactly the same in both verses! It means FIRSTBORN, not of everlasting eternity, but rather, as in Pr.8:22, He was brought forth, as the first of YHWH's works, before the world began.
My Response: Wisdom was brought forth not like the NIV’s “given birth”. For how can wisdom be given birth? Wisdom was not made flesh; it is the “Word!” (John 1:14). The “Word” is none other the Lord Jesus Christ!
My Response: Not exactly does the Bible say about the word “possessed” as “Creator”. I WOULD rather suggest the word used is “Possessor” for consideration but still, there is a vast difference to the word “Creator”. This is actually the trick or tweak. Not only that, Christ is the very “Word” John 1:1 who at the beginning was God AND the very Creator (John1:2-3)
Quasar92 said: To further reinforce the Pr.8:22-36 passage, it can also be seen in Col.1:15, that Jesus is/was the FIRSTBORN over all creation. And in vs 18, it is written that He is the FIRSTBORN from the dead. Let it be crystal clear, the term, 'FIRSTBORN' means exactly the same in both verses! It means FIRSTBORN, not of everlasting eternity, but rather, as in Pr.8:22, He was brought forth, as the first of YHWH's works, before the world began.
My Response: Wisdom was brought forth not like the NIV’s “given birth”. For how can wisdom be given birth? Wisdom was not made flesh; it is the “Word!” (John 1:14). The “Word” is none other the Lord Jesus Christ!
continues...
Quasar 92 said: 6. When the Holy Spirit of God overpowered the virgin Mary, she conceived in what became the incarnate Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, several things happened:
A. God, who is the Holy Spirit became the Father of Jesus, as documented in Mt.1:20 and Lk.1:35.
My Response: This is not true according to Matthew and Luke, it was only assumed, a guess by some to fit their belief system. The scriptures did not tell us that? Is it because, the Virgin Birth is the miracle working of the Holy Ghost, thus He is the God the Father. NO! This is what Paul is saying of the “…great is the mystery of godliness: God manifest in the flesh…” (2 Timothy 3:16)
Quasar 92 said: 6. When the Holy Spirit of God overpowered the virgin Mary, she conceived in what became the incarnate Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, several things happened:
A. God, who is the Holy Spirit became the Father of Jesus, as documented in Mt.1:20 and Lk.1:35.
My Response: This is not true according to Matthew and Luke, it was only assumed, a guess by some to fit their belief system. The scriptures did not tell us that? Is it because, the Virgin Birth is the miracle working of the Holy Ghost, thus He is the God the Father. NO! This is what Paul is saying of the “…great is the mystery of godliness: God manifest in the flesh…” (2 Timothy 3:16)
continues...
Quasar 92 said: B. The term "Father" is the very same title all men receive after they have produced children of their own, as was the case when God, who is the Holy Spirit produced His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Therefore, God who is the Holy Spirit and the Father are one and the same person. Fulfilling the prophecy of God in Ps.2:7, repeated after being fulfilled in Heb.1:5.
My Response: The use of “begotten” is used to the word “father” and never to the spirit. So Christ is “the only begotten Son” of God the Father John 1:14, 18; 3:16; Acts 13:33. Psalms 2:7 refers to the LORD, rightfully God the Father as fulfilled in Hebrews 1:5.
Quasar 92 said: B. The term "Father" is the very same title all men receive after they have produced children of their own, as was the case when God, who is the Holy Spirit produced His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Therefore, God who is the Holy Spirit and the Father are one and the same person. Fulfilling the prophecy of God in Ps.2:7, repeated after being fulfilled in Heb.1:5.
My Response: The use of “begotten” is used to the word “father” and never to the spirit. So Christ is “the only begotten Son” of God the Father John 1:14, 18; 3:16; Acts 13:33. Psalms 2:7 refers to the LORD, rightfully God the Father as fulfilled in Hebrews 1:5.
Hi Bluto
A good understanding on the subject where one may wanted to chop off and eliminate a clear proofs of the trinity is found in Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7. Not a bit of mere man-made opinion can obliterate Jesus Authority in Matthew 28:19 and a mere guess of 1 John 5:7 as external and internal evidences which makes the clear indication of the originality of the text in question. The burden of proof is to anyone to prove while confessedly, many of man-made theories may goes to hybrid with so many heretical teachings of the past.
A short simple explanation of the Matthew 28:19 is by no means an alteration to disprove Christ words. To give at least a background on the book of Matthew, The book of Matthew is written with the mindset of Christ being the King. This is shown in chapter 1 that the genealogy of Christ was even unto the king David (Matthew 1:17) THUS the Son of David and as a King, he has all the majesty and authority. Jesus said as written in Matthew 28:18 that with all authority (power) his disciples must “Go”, “teach” then “baptized” and “teach all things”. With the simplicity of the Great Commission, the apostles and his disciples must abide with the teaching which started in Jerusalem to the uttermost part of the world. Mathew 28:19 goes on to say the teaching of the Godhead “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”. The teaching is that the word “name” is in singular, followed by an elliptical clause indicating that one name is the name of each person of the Trinity. Why are those "ANDs" put in? In order that we may know that while there is only one God, yet that one God exists eternally in three persons - Father and Son and Holy Ghost. Again, “…and these three are one.”
God bless
A good understanding on the subject where one may wanted to chop off and eliminate a clear proofs of the trinity is found in Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7. Not a bit of mere man-made opinion can obliterate Jesus Authority in Matthew 28:19 and a mere guess of 1 John 5:7 as external and internal evidences which makes the clear indication of the originality of the text in question. The burden of proof is to anyone to prove while confessedly, many of man-made theories may goes to hybrid with so many heretical teachings of the past.
A short simple explanation of the Matthew 28:19 is by no means an alteration to disprove Christ words. To give at least a background on the book of Matthew, The book of Matthew is written with the mindset of Christ being the King. This is shown in chapter 1 that the genealogy of Christ was even unto the king David (Matthew 1:17) THUS the Son of David and as a King, he has all the majesty and authority. Jesus said as written in Matthew 28:18 that with all authority (power) his disciples must “Go”, “teach” then “baptized” and “teach all things”. With the simplicity of the Great Commission, the apostles and his disciples must abide with the teaching which started in Jerusalem to the uttermost part of the world. Mathew 28:19 goes on to say the teaching of the Godhead “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”. The teaching is that the word “name” is in singular, followed by an elliptical clause indicating that one name is the name of each person of the Trinity. Why are those "ANDs" put in? In order that we may know that while there is only one God, yet that one God exists eternally in three persons - Father and Son and Holy Ghost. Again, “…and these three are one.”
God bless