Trinity?

Nick01 · Jul 5, 2014

Good, we have a somewhat responsive answer. So you say the Spirit is not a person. Now, can you tell me then, how you interpret these passages, if you believe the Holy Spirit is not a person?

The Holy Spirit can be grieved (Eph 4:30, the Spirit teaches (John 14:21), the Spirit speaks (Acts 8:29), the Spirit fellowships with us (Phill 2:1), He distributes gifts as he wills (1 Cor 12:11), and has a mind (Romans 8:27). There are other places where the Spirit is talked about in this manner, and it's well worth reading these passages and the whole books in order to get a sense of the writers' pneumatology, but they should suffice to say that the Spirit has personhood, and is described as such consistently

All power is given to Christ...I see HS receiving from Christ...there is not a three way sharing but you refuse to accept what is clearly seen in scripture to hold on to a doctrine of man.[/quote]

Does Christ receive from the Father? Is Christ sent by the Father? Is Christ called the Son of God? Is Christ divine? Again, you are making a straw man argument against the Spirit by ignoring the fact that many of the same things can be said about the Son.

Trinity does not say that all three persons share exactly the same role, or that their relationship to each other is completely symmetrical. Trinity is simply One God, three persons of one essence.

I do believe that Scripture. I just don't believe in your arguments from silence. Even in that passage, I'm sure, you don't don't believe it is saying Jesus isn't God. Instead, it's making a point about two categories - Gods and Lords, and uses the Father and the Son to engage with those categories.

I'm not sure if you've actually read the above passage properly - do you realise it is showing mutual work in the Godhead? The Son takes from the Father, the Spirit takes from the Son. Does this make all of them not God?

I would agree with you. But that doesn't make the Spirit any less divine than it the Son of God title makes Jesus any less divine.

newbirth · Jul 5, 2014

Nick01 said:

Good, we have a somewhat responsive answer. So you say the Spirit is not a person. Now, can you tell me then, how you interpret these passages, if you believe the Holy Spirit is not a person?

The Holy Spirit can be grieved (Eph 4:30, the Spirit teaches (John 14:21), the Spirit speaks (Acts 8:29), the Spirit fellowships with us (Phill 2:1), He distributes gifts as he wills (1 Cor 12:11), and has a mind (Romans 8:27). There are other places where the Spirit is talked about in this manner, and it's well worth reading these passages and the whole books in order to get a sense of the writers' pneumatology, but they should suffice to say that the Spirit has personhood, and is described as such consistently

Is this your definition of the trinity...is it different from Bowman definition? Do you guys share the same views.

Clearly you do not understand ...One God, One Master the master is the way to God. God gave Jesus all power to subdue all things and bring them back to him, there is no third entity in that operation which involves all things....
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]The same was in the beginning with God.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

No third entity
[SUP]14 [/SUP]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.

Where does it say son takes from father?
John 16:15
All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
Father and Jesus have all, spirit is taking from Christ.

Do you and Bowman share the same belief?

Kerry · Jul 5, 2014

The Lord said unto my Lord " Today I have begotten you".

Nick01 · Jul 6, 2014

I don't know what Bowman believes. I'm sure he can answer with what he believes. But that's my definition yes. It's not my definition, though - it's the historic definition of the Trinity in the church, going back at least as far as Nicea as being the accepted understanding amongst the universal church, but in reality going back basically to the apostles. It's certainly evident in precisely those terms in the writings of Origen and Polycarp

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

Genesis 1 doesn't mention Jesus at creation, only God and the Spirit. Why is this argument not any more ridiculous than your argument from John 1?

If they belong to the Father first, and then they belong to the Son, it stands to reason the Son takes from the Father as his own. Basically the same thing as the Father giving to the Son.

“I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me."

"I do not receive glory from men; but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?"

"For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man"

newbirth said:

Again, I don't know what Bowman believes. It doesn't really matter if we believe the same thing. But do you agree with my statement - that the Spirit being called the Spirit of God doesn't mean he is not God?

newbirth · Jul 6, 2014

Nick01 said:

[/I][/COLOR]I don't know what Bowman believes. I'm sure he can answer with what he believes. But that's my definition yes. It's not my definition, though - it's the historic definition of the Trinity in the church, going back at least as far as Nicea as being the accepted understanding amongst the universal church, but in reality going back basically to the apostles. It's certainly evident in precisely those terms in the writings of Origen and Polycarp

[/I][/COLOR]In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

Genesis 1 doesn't mention Jesus at creation, only God and the Spirit. Why is this argument not any more ridiculous than your argument from John 1?

[/I][/COLOR]If they belong to the Father first, and then they belong to the Son, it stands to reason the Son takes from the Father as his own. Basically the same thing as the Father giving to the Son.

“I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me."

"I do not receive glory from men; but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?"

"For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man"

Again, I don't know what Bowman believes. It doesn't really matter if we believe the same thing. But do you agree with my statement - that the Spirit being called the Spirit of God doesn't mean he is not God?

That is the same spirit that was in Christ not a different spirit, are you saying .this is not true?
John 1:2-4
[SUP]2 [/SUP]The same was in the beginning with God.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Nick01 · Jul 6, 2014

newbirth said:

Sorry, I don't know understand what you mean. Can you clarify your question, please?

newbirth · Jul 7, 2014

Nick01 said:

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 14:

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
[SUP]18 [/SUP]I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.John 15:26
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 14:23
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
John 16:27-28
[SUP]27 [/SUP]For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

[SUP]28 [/SUP]I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

Jesus is the Word ,the Comforter , the spirit of truth, but you will not believe because you need a trinity for your doctrine.

Richie_2uk · Jul 7, 2014

The Trinity, (1 John 5: 7). "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." I dont know how many times I have to quot this until someone listens to it,

apostolic862004 · Jul 7, 2014

The first part of this statement is very true. That definition of the trinity has its origin at the council of Nicea. The second part is false, it does not go back to the apostles. The apostles never believed in or taught trinitarian doctrine. The council of Nicea had a political meeting because of the division that was being caused by One God believing Christians, and poly theistic pagans. So they tried to meld the two together to keep peace and came up with the trinity three in one doctrine. It is a political and traditional doctrine, not a bible doctrine.

apostolic862004 · Jul 7, 2014

Richie_2uk said:

Yeah the problem is you don't keep quoting:

1 John 5:8 - And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Verse 7 which you are quoting says these three ARE one. They are the same being. Verse 8 says these three AGREE in one. Why does it say these three agree and it doesn't say these three ARE? Because the Spirit, Water, and blood ARE NOT THE SAME, THEY ARE SEPARATE but they work together. But the first three ARE one. They are exactly the same. So using that scripture does not prove trinitarian doctrine. It rather disproves it.

apostolic862004 · Jul 7, 2014

Nick01, do you believe that a spirit is a person?

newbirth · Jul 7, 2014

Richie_2uk said:

[h=1]The Johannine Comma[/h] [h=2](1 John 5:7-8)[/h] The so-called Johannine Comma (also called the Comma Johanneum) is a sequence of extra words which appear in 1 John 5:7-8 in some early printed editions of the Greek New Testament. In these editions the verses appear thus (we put backets around the extra words):

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.

The King James Version, which was based upon these editions, gives the following translation:

For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

These extra words are generally absent from the Greek manuscripts. In fact, they only appear in the text of four late medieval manuscripts. They seem to have originated as a marginal note added to certain Latin manuscripts during the middle ages, which was eventually incorporated into the text of most of the later Vulgate manuscripts. In the Clementine edition of the Vulgate the verses were printed thus:

Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [in caelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. 8 Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra:] spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt.

From the Vulgate, then, it seems that the Comma was translated into Greek and inserted into some printed editions of the Greek text, and in a handful of late Greek manuscripts. All scholars consider it to be spurious, and it is not included in modern critical editions of the Greek text, or in the English versions based upon them. For example, the English Standard Version reads:

For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

We give below the comments of Dr. Bruce M. Metzger on 1 John 5:7-8, from his book, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1993).
[HR][/HR] After μαρτυροῦντες the Textus Receptus adds the following: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.
[h=3](A) External Evidence.[/h] (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:

61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
88: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
221: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
429: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
629: a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.
636: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).
The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)
[h=3](B) Internal Probabilities.[/h] (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.
For the story of how the spurious words came to be included in the Textus Receptus, see any critical commentary on 1 John, or Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.; cf. also Ezra Abbot, "I. John v. 7 and Luther's German Bible," in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458-463.

Richie_2uk · Jul 7, 2014

apostolic862004 said:

According to your belief. I believe 1 John 5: 7 is talking about the trinity. Yes it dont mention the word Trinity, but the meaning is there in 1 John 5: 7.

Nick01 · Jul 7, 2014

newbirth said:

It's pretty clear they're separate people. Apart from the fact that most of John 14 describing this Spirit who is to come, that he will send, there is also the whole fact of the Great Commission - why baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit if the Son and the Spirit are (despite all the evidence) the same person? Why does the Spirit fly down onto Jesus at his baptism, if they are the same person? Why are the Son and the Father not just the same person? Why not just preach modalism, and be done with it?

Nick01 · Jul 7, 2014

apostolic862004 said:

It had nothing to do with paganism, but mostly because of the need to try and reconcile the idea of the divinity of Christ with monotheism. The realisation then followed that if the Son was God, the Spirit was God too. This flowed from much of the earlier thought that had placed the Spirit into close proximity with the Father and Son, following the formula of baptism given in the Great Comission. Again, you have people like Tertulian and Origen with quite Trinitarian theologies well before Nicea. In fact, I think both Tertuliian and Origen both explicitly use the term. Polycarp gives praise to the Holy Spirit, with the Father and the Son, in The Martyrdom of Polycarp, and Ignatius prescribes obedience to the Spirit in one of his letters. Of course, by Nicea, the discussion was wrapped up and people came to some agreement (bar the likes of Arius and some others), but that doesn't mean there was an orthodoxy in development before that.

Laying it all at the feet of Nicea is simply historically mistaken.

Nick01 · Jul 7, 2014

apostolic862004 said:

I don't know that the definition of a spirit is "a person", if that's what you're asking. I don't know if all spirits are people (though plenty in the Bible seem to be). But I believe the Holy Spirit is, yes, because that's how the Bible describes him.

Kerry · Jul 7, 2014

Nick01 said:

The Spirit can be greived and the Spirit can speak.

Rev 2:11
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second deat

newbirth · Jul 7, 2014

Nick01 said:

The scripture I post are facts how you interpret them is another matter.....
2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
He is referring to this line..
.[SUP]6 [/SUP]Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

So here it is clear as day...

concerning Father and Son

John 1:1-3
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]The same was in the beginning with God.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:14
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.

Hebrews 10:5
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Nick01 · Jul 7, 2014

newbirth said:

It says the Spirit is the Lord. The Bible also says the son is the Lord, the Father is the Lord, and that God is Lord. The Bible also talks about each of these people together. This passage just as easily is proof for a Trinitarian understanding of God. It only isn't if you look at it expecting it to say otherwise.

Correct. I just don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

Also correct. Similarly, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about the Spirit from this verse.

As above.

newbirth · Jul 8, 2014

jimmydiggs said:

You want so much to support your theory so that is all you will see...blinded by the doctrine of man (you don't have that knowledge so don't sweat it)
2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.( are you going to tell me the Lord he is talking about is not Jesus or the spirit he is talking about is not the Holy spirit)

[SUP]6 [/SUP]But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

Trinity?

Senior Member

Banned

Kerry

Guest

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Richie_2uk

Guest

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Richie_2uk

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Kerry

Guest

Banned

Senior Member

Banned