Trinity haters on CC

john832 · Jan 30, 2016

Hmmm, and after reading this...

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

Joh 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.

I have to draw the conclusion that the Creator of ALL THINGS was made flesh, became human. Your post therefore, is rendered invalid by scripture.

BeyondET · Jan 31, 2016

john832 said:

interesting indeed for none of the scripture you posted in tells the whole of God was in human form on earth nor either what I posted in tells it was just part of God though I only speak of what I hear and everyone has free will to hear what they hear or believe. Though I would have to say in Joh1:1 the word was with God clearly a separation Word meaning one part and God meaning another part because this passage says the word was with God. I am one who believes in the trinity it's ok if you don't that's called free will.

BeyondET · Jan 31, 2016

On a side note if one calls Jesus the Son of God then that's a separation if one thinks the all of God was here in the flesh what reason would one to use the word Son why not just say Jesus the God and toss the word Son

williamjordan · Jan 31, 2016

prove-all said:

Several things are problematic here, and don’t set quite right. I am not here to defend Constantine, but I don’t think one can pass judgment so quickly.

Constantine’s conversion is associated with his victory at Milvian Bridge near Rome in a battle against Maxentius, Emperor of the western Roman Empire. If you recall from any of your world civ classes, the Roman Empire was divided into two portions, the Eastern Empire, and the West… there were two emperors, not just one.

Constantine had prayed for divine help against Maxentius and had apparently seen some kind of vision in the sky which he, or his advisors, interpreted as coming from the Christian God. Constantine’s victory at the Milvian Bridge appears to have influenced him toward a policy of favoring Christianity.

Prior to Constantine’s victory Christianity had been an illegal religion. Christians were deprived of property rights, legal rights of assembly, and the rights to appeal in legal proceedings. And yes, you are correct that Constantine worshipped the Sun god.

After Constantine’s victory at Milvian Bridge, he did maintain an allegiance with the Sun god. And there’s no hard evidence to suggest at this point in his life that he had a long lasting, dramatic conversion. However, despite the fact he does maintain his allegiance to the Sun god, he quickly began to grant privileges to Christians… he began to change Roman policy. More specifically, in 313AD Constantine met Licinius, Emperor of the eastern Roman Empire in Milan, and they together issued the Edict of Milan. In addition, Constantine began to give large gifts to the Church, and favoring Christian clergy. So we see some sort of change, but not really what you would call a profound conversion, because he is after all still maintaining some loyalty to this Sun god.

This Edict of Milan was not exclusively for Christians, but an edict of toleration for all religions. Christians specifically were given full legal rights, and the edict orders all property that had been previously confiscated from Christians should be immediately returned without demand of payment.

In 321 Constantine ordered that Sunday, the day on which Christians worship, be kept free of legal proceedings. Prior to this Christians could be dragged into legal proceedings on their day of worship, and if they objected… well, who cared? They’re just Christians. Constantine did not change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Justin Martyr, who was writing before Constantine was even born, says this,

“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things, Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying, Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And those who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows, and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world, and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn [Saturday]; and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them those things, which we have submitted for your consideration.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1.186)

In the Letter of Barnabas (mid 2nd c.) the first day of the week in which Christians worship is referred to the eighth day to contrast it with the Sabbath,

“Finally He saith to them; ‘Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot away with.’ You see what is His meaning ; it is not your present Sabbaths that are acceptable [unto Me], but the Sabbath which I have made, in the which, when I have set all things at rest, I will make the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another world. Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested [He] ascended into the heavens.” (Barnabas 15.8-9)

Up until 323AD Constantine maintained some sort of allegiance to the Sun god, but there is evidence of gradual change. He did after all, grant Christians certain rights. But in 323AD Constantine faced Licinius, Emperor of the Eastern Empire, who was a worshipper of the traditional Roman gods. The decisive battle between them ended just eight months before Nicea in 324AD, with Constantine victorious over Licinius and becoming sole Emperor. And it is this victory that may have truly prompted Constantine’s conversion to follow the Christian God.

Eusebius of Caesarea, an ancient historian during the time of Constantine, recorded Constantine as saying,

“And now I beseech you, most mighty God, to be merciful and gracious to your Eastern nations, to your people in these provinces, worn as they are by protracted miseries; and grant them healing through your servant. Not without cause, O holy God, do I prefer this prayer to you, the Lord of all. Under your guidance have I devised and accomplished measures fraught with blessings: preceded by your sacred sign I have led your armies to victory: and still, on each occasion of public danger, I follow the same symbol of your perfections while advancing to meet the foe. Therefore have I dedicated to your service a soul duly attempered by love and fear. For your name I truly love, while I regard with reverence that power of which you have given abundant proofs, to the confirmation and increase of my faith. I hasten, then, to devote all my powers to the restoration of your most holy dwelling-place, which those profane and impious men have defiled by the contamination of violence. My own desire is, for the common good of the world and the advantage of all mankind, that your people should enjoy a life of peace and undisturbed concord. Let those, therefore, who still delight in error, be made welcome to the same degree of peace and tranquillity which they have who believe. For it may be that this restoration of equal privileges to all will prevail to lead them into the straight path. Let no one molest another, but let every one do as his soul desires. Only let men of sound judgment be assured of this, that those only can live a life of holiness and purity, whom you call to a reliance on your holy laws. With regard to those who will hold themselves aloof from us, let them have, if they please, their temples of lies: we have the glorious edifice of your truth, which you have given us as our native home. We pray, however, that they too may receive the same blessing, and thus experience that heartfelt joy which unity of sentiment inspires.” (The Life of Constantine, 2.55-56)

I know the citation is quite long, but it is quite important. Can we honestly say that this sounds like a devout pagan? Or does it sound like that Constantine has had a change of heart (albeit, a gradual change)? Very close to the ending of the citation Constantine groups himself apart from someone else: “With regard to those who will hold themselves aloof from us, let them have, if they please, their temples of lies.” Throughout Eusebius’ work it becomes quite clear that Constantine distinguishes himself from pagans, a sort of switching of allegiances. Eusebius even mentions that Constantine goes on to have pagan temples “razed to their foundations” (Life of Constantine, 3.1). Encyclopedia Britannica makes mention that Constantine “destroyed three famous temples, at Aegae in Cilicia and at Apheca and Heliopolis in Phoenicia, and in 331 confiscated all the temple treasures, even stripping the cult statues of their gold; he probably also seized the temple endowments. Before the end of his reign he may even have banned sacrifice" (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386).

williamjordan · Jan 31, 2016

prove-all said:

Allow me, for a moment, to demonstrate how flawed this is.

You depict Constantine as the one who “invented” the Nicene Creed; however, it was a close adviser to Constantine, bishop Hosius of Corduba (i.e., Ossius of Cordova), that really brought forth the formula, “of one substance with the Father.” The very source you cite actually states this, but you have omitted that information from the citation, which is extremely deceptive on your behalf. Further, just several paragraphs earlier you criticize the Catholic Church “for creating false historical records to their interpretation of events to hide the real truth at times.” Irony?

Many of those who were present at the Council had suffered for their faith under the Diocletianic Persecution (299-313AD). In his Ecclesiastical History, Theodoret of Cyrus describes those present at the Council as those who “bore in their bodies the marks of the Lord Jesus Christ,” some of which “had had the right eye dug out, others had lost the right arm” -- they altogether “looked like an assembled army of martyrs.”

“At this period many individuals were richly endowed with apostolical gifts; and many, like the holy apostle, bore in their bodies the marks of the Lord Jesus Christ. James, bishop of Antioch, a city of Mygdonia, which is called Nisibis by the Syrians and Assyrians, raised the dead and restored them to life, and performed many other wonders which it would be superfluous to mention again in detail in this history, as I have already given an account of them in my work, entitled ‘Philotheus.’ Paul, bishop of Neo-Caesarea, a fortress situated on the banks of the Euphrates, had suffered from the frantic rage of Licinius. He had been deprived of the use of both hands by the application of a red-hot iron, by which the nerves which give motion to the muscles had been contracted and rendered dead. Some had had the right eye dug out, others had lost the right arm. Among these was Paphnutius of Egypt. In short, the Council looked like an assembled army of martyrs.”

To suggest that Constantine somehow “forced” the Nicene Creed upon the council is a complete fabrication of history. Men who were willing to suffer for the faith during the Diocletian Persecution would blatantly turn around and betray it only twelve years later and not even at the point of a sword, but exile? These were not the type of men who were fine with compromising their beliefs when just a few years earlier they were willing to die for them.

williamjordan · Jan 31, 2016

BeyondET said:

He doesn't believe in the Trinity, but he is a Unitarian of the Modalistic persuasion. He will deny being Unitarian altogether, because he won't wish to align himself with other Unitarians such as Socinians, etc., and will opt for what he would call "Oneness." Funny how it was a dead give away even from a few short posts.

Translation: He believes Jesus is God the Father, something every Trinitarian under the sun will deny.

Bowman · Jan 31, 2016

john832 said:

1 Peter 3.18

Because even Christ once suffered concerning sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God; indeed being put to death in flesh, but made alive in Spirit;

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

· God the Father… Acts 3.26; Eph 1.15-20; Gal 1.1; 1 Thes 1.9-10

· God the Son…John 2.19-22; 10.17-18; Romans 6.4

· God the Spirit…Romans 8.11; 1 Peter 3.18

· The Trinity…Romans 10.9; Peter 1.20-21; Hebrews 13.20-21; 1 Cor 6.14; Col 2.11-12; Acts 2.23-24; 2.32; 3.14-15; 13.30-37

williamjordan · Jan 31, 2016

prove-all said:

You put forth the argument that 1 John 5.7 is the only passage that could interpreted in favor of Trinitarianism. However, 1 John 5.7 didn't find it's way into the pages of Scripture until roughly the 16th c., and yet we have folks from earlier periods writing entire treatises on the subject (i.e., Novatian, On the Trinity).

Something in Scripture had persuaded Ignatius of Antioch (2nd c.) to speak of Christ as the “one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible — even Jesus Christ our Lord” (Ignatius to the Ephesians, Chp 7).

Dude653 · Feb 17, 2016

when jesus was praying in the Garden???? Who was he talking to?>

Ultimatum77 · Feb 17, 2016

This website clearly summarizes modalism if anyone is interested...it is a false doctrine and pretty much acts as if God is a shape-shifter ( no blasphemy intended ) which He is not....

False Doctrine of Modalism: As taught by the United Pentecostal church

4enlightment · Feb 17, 2016

dalconn said:

Well in the beginning it says God's not God. We are suppose to be one with God as well, but division has entered and caused us to separate. We became more earthly beings rather than spiritual beings; but the God's (Elohim) were alway as one being. Like in the scriptures, the unbeliever is sanctified by the believing which means in God eyesight that they are one being.

gerjozen · Mar 3, 2016

GodIsSalvation

Senior Member

Join DateDecember 18th, 2013Age26Posts6,069Rep Power21

[h=2]

Re: Trinity haters on CC[/h]

Yes Trinity concept is true. One God, One Word, One Spirit.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The Father is greater than the Son, just as a man is greater than his words, but the Son and Father are one just as a man, his word, and his breath are one. The Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father.

The Father formed the Word by his Spirit. So they are One. The divine conception of Jesus is a good illustration of this.

QUESTION.1
My dear friend if I'm allowed to question you, What did Jesus exactly meant when He said that The Father Is Greater Than Him?
Was Jesus referring to His humanity or His Godhead?

Jesus also said that no man knows the time and the hour, not even the Son.....
Wasn't that while He was yet on earth coz in Heaven He's the One opening the sealed book and revealing the mysteries for He's now in Heaven the Omniscient God.

QUESTION.2
Is there any Scripture to prove that The Father FORMED the Word?
I'm not talking about the flesh Man Jesus being FORMED in Mary's womb, but what U say
that The Word was FORMED?

Now U R quoting Jn.1:1, "In the BEGINNING (Beginning of WHAT?) WAS (Past.Tense) The
Word.

Then U quote verse.2, "The same WAS (Past. Tense) [and NOT became] in the BEGINNING with God..."

Now as I correctly understand it, verse.14, "And the Word was MADE (became) (not Was)
flesh...."

If it is as U are saying that the Word was FORMED, now that was 2000 years back, right, how then can the Word be from the Beginning which was another +/- 4000yrs back?

Now U say "The divine conception is a good illustration of this" do U mean then that the Word is formed NOT making Him Eternal, coz verything with a beginning was NOT Eternal.

gerjozen · Mar 3, 2016

GodIsSalvation

Senior Member

Join DateDecember 18th, 2013Age26Posts6,069Rep Power21

Re: Trinity haters on CC

Yes Trinity concept is true. One God, One Word, One Spirit.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The Father is greater than the Son, just as a man is greater than his words, but the Son and Father are one just as a man, his word, and his breath are one. The Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father.

The Father formed the Word by his Spirit. So they are One. The divine conception of Jesus is a good illustration of this.

QUESTION.1
My dear friend if I'm allowed to question you, What did Jesus exactly meant when He said that The Father Is Greater Than Him?
Was Jesus referring to His humanity or His Godhead?

Jesus also said that no man knows the time and the hour, not even the Son.....
Wasn't that while He was yet on earth coz in Heaven He's the One opening the sealed book and revealing the mysteries for He's now in Heaven the Omniscient God.

QUESTION.2
Is there any Scripture to prove that The Father FORMED the Word?
I'm not talking about the flesh Man Jesus being FORMED in Mary's womb, but what U say
that The Word was FORMED?

Now U R quoting Jn.1:1, "In the BEGINNING (Beginning of WHAT?) WAS (Past.Tense) The
Word.

Then U quote verse.2, "The same WAS (Past. Tense) [and NOT became] in the BEGINNING with God..."

Now as I correctly understand it, verse.14, "And the Word was MADE (became) (not Was)
flesh...."

If it is as U are saying that the Word was FORMED, now that was 2000 years back, right, how then can the Word be from the Beginning which was another +/- 4000yrs back?

Now U say "The divine conception is a good illustration of this" do U mean then that the Word is formed NOT making Him Eternal, coz verything with a beginning was NOT Eternal.

SoulWeaver · Aug 27, 2019

It always frustrated me when I got converted and started reading the Bible, when you ask Trinity explained they always tell you about the egg white and egg yolk. Why do it, when God Himself tells us in the Bible and right early, that we are made "in His image". So that is what God considered fit to tell us about the Godhead, then. If we were not made in His image, we could never relate to Him. God wanted a relationship with us. And this is why God uses the parable of the Body of Christ (we all have a body, so it is something we can understand and relate to) to teach us the mystery of Christ and the Church.

We have a head to the body (God has Jesus as the head to the Body of Christ). Furthermore the head speaks and rules our body (just as Jesus is the Word of God and rules the Body of Christ). So this is the body of God.
We have our spirit (God has His). This is the spirit of God.
So far it's easily backed up Biblically. It's the Father that's the tough one, because He's the one no one has seen Him and stayed alive. Lol

Man has an invisible self, too. Our soul or mind, which we can't see but everything we say or do is there first before we say it or make it happen, like Father God who causes everything to happen. It's like Jesus is the Word, and He speaks to us what's on Father God's mind. Of course, I am not saying as a theological statement that Father could be defined as the soul or mind of God. I am merely drawing a similarity, hoping it would be helpful, since the Bible does say we are made in God's image.

All three are one inseparable being but all three also can definitely interact with one another, therefore the notion of three "persons". In Eastern Orthodoxy traditional wording (as per the Christian council creeds) they translate it as God is "three-imaged". We need to stick to the Scriptures always but let's admit: God is a VERY unique being and language might be escaping us a little here on this one to allow ourselves to be strictly dogmatic like some people are doing.

UnitedWithChrist · Aug 28, 2019

dalconn said:

The Trinity is obviously biblical, and those that deny it CANNOT understand union with Christ, which is the central doctrine of Christianity.

I used to belong to a non-Trinitarian cult. I use the word "cult" because those who don't acknowledge the Triune God are cultists, unless they are a recently converted Christian who has not been acquainted with the doctrine.

For them, I suggest reading "Delighting in the Trinity" by Tim Chester.

Anyways, there is one God, YHVH. YHVH exists in three Persons, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Each are distinct Persons.

Jesus has two natures, being truly God and truly man.

The believer is joined with Jesus in a spiritual sense, and is brought into the fellowship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as a result. In his union with Jesus, the believer produces spiritual fruit due to this union.

Pretty simple and clean.

I recommend the book.

TheLearner · Aug 28, 2019

BeyondET said:

Colossians 2:9 For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

Colossians 2:9 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
9 I say this because all of God lives in Christ fully, even in his life on earth.

God is not a physical being that can be measured. Otherwise, The Holy Spirit would not be able to indwell us Christians.

TheLearner · Aug 28, 2019

williamjordan said:

In the John 1:1 quote given, Word was with God or something like that, the better translation is The Word was Face to Face with God.

http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm

oldethennew · Aug 28, 2019

look-up the HISTORY = 'Council of Nicea', and understand the ROOTS'...

seeking Truth is not a (hateful-thing)...

TheLearner · Aug 28, 2019

williamjordan said:

I agree that text is an addition.

The Biblical Basis of the
Doctrine of the Trinity:
An Outline Study
By Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
http://www.apologetics.com
[email protected]

Introduction

It is often alleged that the doctrine of the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine. While the word Trinity is not in the Bible, the substance of the doctrine is definitely biblical.

The following outline study presents an overview of the biblical basis of the doctrine of the Trinity. Comments on the texts have been kept to a bare minimum; the emphasis is on the many biblical texts themselves (about 700 references are listed, including references from 26 of the 27 books of the New Testament).

An exposition of many of the texts discussed here can be found in the author's book Why You Should Believe in the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989). Unfortunately, it is currently out of print, but you may be able to locate a copy through Amazon.com's out-of-print service.

Aproper evaluation of the biblical evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity will depend on the faithful application of sound principles of biblical interpretation. Here I will mention just two principles which, if followed, would prevent almost all interpretive errors on this subject.

The first is to interpret the implicit in light of the explicit. That is, texts that explicitly state that such-and-such is true are to govern our understanding of passages that do not address the issue directly. For example, many passages of the Bible state explicitly that God is omniscient, that is, that he knows all things, including the thoughts of men and all future events (1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Chron. 28:9, 17; Job 37:16; Psa. 139:1-4; Isa. 41:22-23; 42:9; 44:7; Jer. 17:10a). These texts must govern our understanding of passages which might seem to imply, but which do not assert, that God did not know something (e.g., Gen. 3:9-13; 4:9; 18:9, 20-21).

The other principle is that we interpret logically but not rationalistically. Using the same illustration, if God knows everything ahead of time, then logically He must have known that Adam and Eve would fall into sin. However, to argue that if God knew Adam and Eve would sin then they would not be responsible for their choosing to sin is not "logical," is rationalistic. It may be difficult to understand how persons could be responsible for their sinful actions if God knew ahead of time that they would sin, but it is not illogical (not self-contradictory) to say so.

It should be noted that a study of the Trinity should not be undertaken apart from a study of the nature of God.

I. There Is One God

A. One God: Explicit Statements

1. OT: Deut. 4:35; 39; 32:39; 2 Sam. 22:32; Isa. 37:20: 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:5; 14; 21-22; 46:9

2. NT: John 5:44; Rom. 3:30; 16:27; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25

B. None like God (in his essence)

1. Explicit statements: Ex. 8:10; 9:14; 15:11; 2 Sam. 7:22; 1 Kgs. 8:23; 1 Chr. 17:20; Psa. 86:8; Isa. 40:18, 25: 44:7; 46:5, 9; Jer. 10:6-7; Micah 7:18

2. Being like God a Satanic lie: Gen. 3:5; Isa. 14:14; John 8:44

3. Fallen man become "like God" only in that he took upon himself to know good and evil, not that he acquired godhood: Gen. 3:22

C. Only one true God: 2 Chr. 15:3; Jer. 10:10; John 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 John 5:20-21

D. All other "gods" are therefore false gods (idols), not gods at all: Deut. 32:21; 1 Sam. 12:21; Psa. 96:5; Isa. 37:19; 41:23-24, 29; Jer. 2:11; 5:7; 16:20; 1 Cor. 8:4; 10:19-20

E. Demons, not gods, are the power behind false worship: Deut. 32:17; Psa. 106:37; 1 Cor. 10:20; Gal. 4:8

F. How human beings are meant to be "like God"

1. The image of God indicates that man is to represent God and share his moral character, not that man can be metaphysically like God: Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1; 1 Cor. 11:7; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10

2. The goal of being like Christ has the following aspects only:

a. Sharing His moral character: 1 John 3:2; Rom. 8:29

b. Being raised with glorified, immortal bodies like His: Phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:49

3. Becoming partakers of the divine nature refers again to moral nature ("having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust"), not metaphysical nature: 2 Pet. 1:4; see also Heb. 12:10; on the meaning of "partakers," see 1 Cor. 10:18, 20; 2 Cor. 1:17; 1 Pet. 5:1

G. Are mighty or exalted men gods?

1. Scripture never says explicitly that men are gods

2. Powerful, mighty men are explicitly said not to be gods: Ezek. 28:2, 9; Isa. 31:3; 2 Thess. 2:4

3. Men and God are opposite, exclusive categories: Num. 23:19; Isa. 31:3; Ezek. 28:2; Hosea 11:9; Matt. 19:26; John 10:33; Acts 12:22; 1 Cor. 14:2

4. Moses was "as God," not really a god: Ex. 4:16; 7:1

5. Ezek. 32:21 speaks of warriors or soldiers as "mighty gods," but in context they are so regarded by their pagan nations, not by God or Israel; cf. Ezek. 28:2, 9

6. The elohim before whom accused stood in Exodus was God Himself, not judges, as many translations incorrectly render: Ex. 22:8-9, 28; compare Deut. 19:17

7. The use of elohim in Psalm 82, probably in reference to wicked judges, as cited by Jesus in John 10:34-36, does not mean that men really can be gods.

a. It is Asaph, not the Lord, who calls the judges elohim in Psa. 82:1, 6. This is important, even though we agree that Psa. 82 is inspired.

b. Asaph's meaning is not "Although you are gods, you will die like men," but rather "I called you gods, but in fact you will all die like the men that you really are"

c. The Psalmist was no more saying that wicked judges were truly gods than he was saying that they were truly "sons of the Most High" (v. 6b)

d. Thus, Psa. 82:1 calls the judges elohim in irony. They had quite likely taken their role in judgment (cf. point 5 above) to mean they were elohim, or gods, and Asaph's message is that these so-called gods were mere men who would die under the judgment of the true elohim (vss. 1-2, 7-8)

e. Christ's use of this passage in John 10:34-36 does not negate the above interpretation of Psalm 82

f. The words, "The Scripture cannot be broken," means "the Scripture cannot go without having some ultimate fulfillment" (cf. John 7:23; Matt. 5:17). Thus Jesus is saying that what the OT judges were called in irony, He is in reality; He does what they could not do, and is what they could never be (see the Adam-Christ contrasts in Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45 for a similar use of OT Scripture)

g. The clause, "those against whom the word of God came" (John 10:35) shows that this "word" was a word of judgment against the so-called gods; which shows that they were false gods, not really gods at all

h. Finally, these wicked men were certainly not "godlike" or "divine" by nature, so that in any case the use of elohim to refer to them must be seen as figurative, not literal

8. Even if men were gods (which they are not), this would be irrelevant to Jesus, since He was God as a preexistent spirit before creation: John 1:1

H. Are angels gods?

1. Scripture never explicitly states that angels are gods

2. Demonic spirits are not gods, 1 Cor. 10:20; Gal. 4:8; thus, being "mighty spirits" does not make angels gods

3. Satan is therefore also a false god: 2 Cor. 4:4

4. Psalm 8:5 does not teach that angels are gods

a. Psa. 8:5 is paraphrased in Heb. 2:7, not quoted literally (cf. Psa. 68:18 with Eph. 4:8). In Psa. 8:5, elohim certainly means God, not angels, since Psa. 8:3-8 parallels Gen. 1:1, 8 16, 26-28. Note that the Psalmist is speaking of man's exalted place in creation, whereas Hebrews is speaking of the lower place taken by Christ in becoming a man. Thus, Heb. 2:7 may not mean to equate angels with gods at all.

b. Even if Heb. 2:7 does imply that angels are "gods," in the context of Hebrews 1-2 these angels would be those falsely exalted above Christ: Note Heb. 1:6 (which quotes Psa. 97:7, which definitely speaks of "gods" in the sense of false gods); and cf. Col. 2:16 on the problem of the worship of angels.

5. Elsewhere in the Psalms angels, if spoken of as gods (or as "sons of the gods"), are considered false gods: Psa. 29:1; 86:8-10; 89:6; 95:3; 96:4-5; 97:7-9 (note that these false gods are called "angels" in the Septuagint); 135:5; 136:2; 138:1; cf. Ex. 15:11; 18:11; Deut. 10:17; 1 Chr. 16:25; 2 Chr. 2:5.

6. Even if the angels were gods (which the above shows they are not), that would be irrelevant to Jesus, since He is not an angelic being, but the Son who is worshipped by the angels as their Creator, Lord, and God: Heb. 1:1-13.

I. Conclusion: If there is only one God, one true God, all other gods being false gods, neither men nor angels being gods, and none even like God by nature - all of which the Bible says repeatedly and explicitly - then we must conclude that there is indeed only one God.

II. This One God Is Known in the OT as "Jehovah/Yahweh" ("The Lord")

A. Texts where Jehovah is said to be elohim or el: Deut. 4:35, 39; Psa. 100:3; etc.

B. Texts where the compound name "Jehovah God" (Yahweh Elohim) is used: Gen. 2:3; 9:26; 24:3; Ex. 3:15-18; 4:4; 2 Sam. 7:22, 25; etc.

C. Only one Yahweh/Jehovah: Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29

D. Conclusion: Jehovah is the only God, the only El or Elohim

TheLearner · Aug 28, 2019

III. God Is a Unique, Incomprehensible Being

A. Only one God, thus unique: See I.A.

B. None are even like God: see I.B.

C. God cannot be fully comprehended: 1 Cor. 8:2-3

D. God can only be known insofar as the Son reveals Him: Matt. 11:25-27; John 1:18

E. Analogical language needed to describe God: Ezek. 1:26-28; Rev. 1:13-16

F. God is transcendent, entirely distinct from and different than the universe, as the carpenter is distinct from the bench

1. Separate from the world: Isa. 40:22; Acts 17:24

2. Contrasted with the world: Psa. 102:25-27; 1 John 2:15-17

3. Created the world: Gen. 1:1; Psa. 33:6; 102:25; Isa. 42:5; 44:24; John 1:3; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 1:2; 11:3

IV. Is God One Person?

A. God is one God (cf. I above), one Yahweh, one Lord (cf. II above), one Spirit (John 4:24)

B. However, the Bible never says that God is "one person"

1. Heb. 1:3 KJV speaks of God's "person," but the word used here, hupostasis, is translated "substance" in Heb. 11:1 KJV; also in Heb. 1:3 "God" refers specifically to the Father

2. Gal. 3:20 speaks of God as one party in the covenant between God and man, not as one person

3. Job 13:8 KJV speaks of God's "person," but ironically the Hebrew literally means "his faces"

C. The use of singular and plural pronouns for God

1. Over 7000 times God speaks or is spoken of with singular pronouns (I, He, etc.); but this is proper because God is a single individual being; thus these singular forms do not disprove that God exists as three "persons" as long as these persons are not separate beings

2. At least three times God speaks of or to himself using plural pronouns (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7), and nontrinitarian interpretation cannot account for these occurrences.

a. A plural reference to God and the angels is possible in Isa. 6:8, but not in the Genesis texts: in 1:26 "our image" is explained in 1:27, "in God's image"; in 3:22 "like one of us" refers back to 3:5, "like God."

b. The "literary plural" (possibly, though never clearly, attested in Paul) is irrelevant to texts in which God is speaking, not writing.

c. The "plural of deliberation" (as in "Let's see now...") is apparently unattested in biblical writings, and cannot explain Gen. 3:22 ("like one of us").

d. The "plural of amplitude" or of "fullness" (which probably does explain the use of the plural form elohim in the singular sense of "God") is irrelevant to the use of plural pronouns, and again cannot explain Gen. 3:22.

e. The "plural of majesty" is possibly attested in 1 Kgs. 12:9; 2 Chron. 10:9; more likely Ezra 4:18; but none of these are certain; and again, it cannot explain Gen. 3:22; also nothing in the context of the Genesis texts suggests that God is being presented particularly as King.

D. The uniqueness of God (cf. III above) should prepare us for the possibility that the one divine Being exists uniquely as a plurality of persons

V. The Father of Jesus Christ Is God

A. Explicit statements: John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; etc.

B. The expression, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ": 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3

VI. Jesus Christ Is God

A. Explicit statements

1. Isa. 9:6; note 10:21. Translations which render "mighty hero," are inconsistent in their rendering of 10:21. Also note that Ezek. 32:21 is (a) not in the same context, as is Isa. 10:21, and (b) speaking of false gods, cf. I.G.5. above.

2. John 1:1 Even if Jesus is here called "a god" (as some have argued), since there is only one God, Jesus is that God. However, the "a god" rendering is incorrect. Other passages using the Greek word for God (theos) in the same construction are always rendered "God": Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38; John 8:54; Phil 2:13; Heb. 11:16. Passages in which a shift occurs from ho theos ("the God") to theos ("God") never imply a shift in meaning: Mark 12:27; Luke 20:37-38; John 3:2; 13:3; Rom. 1:21; 1 Thess. 1:9; heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 4:10-11

3. John 1:18. The best manuscripts have "the unique God" (monogenês, frequently rendered "only-begotten," actually means "one of a kind," "unique," though in the NT always in the context of a son or daughter). Even if one translates "only-begotten," the idea is not of a "begotten god" as opposed to an "unbegotten god."

4. John 20:28. Compare Rev. 4:11, where the same construction is used in the plural ("our") instead of the singular ("my"). See also Psa. 35:23. Note that Christ's response indicates that Thomas' acclamation was not wrong. Also note that John 20:17 does show that the Father was Jesus' "God" (due to Jesus becoming a man), but the words "my God" as spoken by Thomas later in the same chapter must mean no less than in v. 17. Thus, what the Father is to Jesus in His humanity, Jesus is to Thomas (and therefore to us as well).

5. Acts 20:28: "the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." The variant readings (e.g. "the church of the Lord") show that the original was understood to mean "His own blood," not "the blood of His own [Son]" (since otherwise no one would have thought to change it). Thus all other renderings are attempts to evade the startling clarity and meaning of this passage.

6. Rom. 9:5. While grammatically this is not the only possible interpretation, the consistent form of doxologies in Scripture, as well as the smoothest reading of the text, supports the identification of Christ as "God" in this verse.

7. Titus 2:13. Grammatically and contextually, this is one of the strongest proof-texts for the deity of Christ. Sharp's first rule, properly understood, proves that the text should be translated "our great God and Savior" (cf. same construction in Luke 20:37; Rev. 1:6; and many other passages). Note also that Paul always uses the word "manifestation" ("appearing") of Christ: 2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2. Tim. 1:10; 4:1, 8.

8. Heb. 1:8. The rendering, "God is your throne," is nonsense - God is not a throne, He is the one who sits on the throne! Also, "God is your throne," if taken to mean God is the source of one's rule, could be said about any angelic ruler - but Hebrews 1 is arguing that Jesus is superior to the angels.

9. 2 Pet. 1:1. The same construction is used here as in Titus 2:13; see the parallel passages in 2 Pet. 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18.

10. 1 John 5:20. Note that the most obvious antecedent for "this" is Jesus Christ. Also note that the "eternal life" is Christ, as can be seen from 1:2.

B. Jesus is Jehovah/Yahweh

1. Rom. 10:9-13: Note the repeated "for," which links these verses closely together. The "Lord" of 10:13 must be the "Lord" of 10:9, 12.

2. Phil. 2:9-11. In context, the "name that is above every name" is "Lord" (vs. 11), i.e., Jehovah.

3. Heb. 1:10: Here God the Father addresses the Son as "Lord," in a quotation from Psa. 102:25 (cf. 102:24, where the person addressed is called "God"). Since here the Father addresses the Son as "Lord," this cannot be explained away as a text in which a creature addresses Christ as God/Lord in a merely representational sense.

4. 1 Pet. 2:3-4: This verse is nearly an exact quotation of Psa. 34:8a, where "Lord" is Jehovah. From 1 Pet. 2:4-8 it is also clear that "the Lord" in v. 3 is Jesus.

5. 1 Pet. 3:14-15: these verses are a clear reference to Isa. 8:12-13, where the one who is to be regarded as holy is Jehovah.

6. Texts where Jesus is spoken of as the "one Lord" (cf. Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29): 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:5; cf. Rom. 10:12; 1 Cor. 12:5.

C. Jesus has the titles of God

1. Titles belonging only to God

a. The first and the last: Rev. 1:17; 22:13; cf. Isa. 44:6

b. King of kings and Lord of lords: 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16

2. Titles belonging in the ultimate sense only to God

a. Savior: Luke 2:11; John 4:42; 1 John 4:14; Titus 2:13, cf. v. 10; etc.; cf. Isa. 43.11; 45:21-22; 1 Tim. 4:10; on Jesus becoming the source of salvation; Heb. 5:9, cf. Ex. 15:2; Psa. 118:14, 21

b. Shepherd: John 10:11; Heb. 13:20; cf. Psa. 23:1; Isa. 40:11

c. Rock: 1 Cor. 10:4; cf. Isa. 44:8

D. Jesus received the honors due to God alone

1. Honor: John 5:23

2. Love: Matt. 10:37

3. Prayer: John 14:14 (text debated, but in any case it is Jesus who answers the prayer); Acts 1:24-25; 7:59-60 (cf. Luke 23:34, 46); Rom. 10:12-13; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 12:8-10 (where "the Lord" must be Jesus, cf. v. 9); 2 Thess. 2:16-17; etc.

4. Worship (proskuneô): Matt. 28:17; Heb. 1:6 (cf. Psa. 97:7); cf. Matt 4:10

5. Religious or sacred service (latreuô): Rev. 22:13

6. Doxological praise: 2 Tim. 4:18; 2 Pet. 3:18; Rev. 1:5-6; 5:13

7. Faith: John 3:16; 14:1; etc.

Trinity haters on CC

Senior Member

BeyondET

Guest

BeyondET

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Ultimatum77

Guest

Banned

Member

Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member