Can the Trinity be Biblically proven?

  • 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.
J

jaybird88

Guest
Who told you the trinity is a doctrine of man?
the bible and church history.

What men made it up and when was it made up?
roman councils. is it created out of thin air? no and thats not what im saying. but none the less the official doctrine was not established until about 300 yrs after Jesus taught. established by men, not Jesus not the Father, not a prophet and not one of the 12.

Secondly, if you reject the Son of God you are rejecting God the Father. "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also." 1 John 2:22,23. And btw, here's an oldie but a goody, "But whoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven." Matthew 10:33. :eek:

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
reject the Son? what are you going on about? think ur confused, i made no such statement.
 

bluto

Senior Member
Aug 4, 2016
2,060
522
113
You keep talking in generalities. "the bible and church history." Where in the Bible, and where and when in church history? Anybody can make a claim or state a postion, but you have to prove your claim/position. Then you say, "roman councils." And no, I'm not saying it came out of thin air.

When you say about 300 years after Jesus taught are you referring to the Council of Nicea at 325AD? Do you even know the purpose of the creeds of Christianity? Creeds (and btw the word "creed" comes from the Latin "credo" meaning "I beieve." Creeds are considered authoritative pronouncements that set forth the central articles of tenets od the historic Christian faith.

There are various reason why the creeds were written. They corrected various heresies or profounc doctrinal deviations from Scripture that had arisen. The creeds affirm esential Christian truth. Creeds also help us identify what is essential doctrine from peripheral points. For example, believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ is an essential doctrine. A periphearal teaching is when is Jesus Christ coming back for His church. In short, the creeds do reflect how the early church interpreted Scritpure and how they understood in particular the nature of God.

Now, getting back to the purpose of the Council of Nicea was to deal with Arius/Araianism, who taught that Jesus Christ was a created being. The JW's of today are Arians along with Christadelphians, Unitarians and other groups. The Council confirmed the Deity of Jesus Christ and His eternality. It also defined the relationship between the Father and the Son as "of one substance/essence/nature." It also affirmed the Trintiy as theree co-equal and co-eternal Persons.

As a matter of fact the Bible itself has "creeds." 1 Corinthians 15:3,4, "For I delievered to you, as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, vs4, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." This is a creed jaybird, a summary of what is already taught in the Bible. 1 Timothy 2:5,6 is a creed and so is Deuteronmy 5:4, the "Shema." You can read those verses for yourself. I'm not here to do your homework.

Lastly, you said something about accepting the Father. That is what prompted me to quote 1 John 2:23;24. I was merely pointing out that you can't have one without the other. Which brings to mind the old song, "Love and Marriage, you can't have one without the other." This is how the internal relationship is between God the Father and God the Son. Now, if you don't believe me in all of this do your own homework and check me out according to Acts 17:11. And your saying I'm confused? :rolleyes:

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
 

prove-all

Senior Member
May 16, 2014
5,977
400
83
63
You keep talking in generalities. "the bible and church history." Where in the Bible, and where and when in church history?

some info on church history or whats called
the lost century in history

as Edward Gibbon wrote in
The History of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire
"The scanty materials of ecclesiastical history seldom enable us to dispel
the cloud that hangs over the first age of the church .

Jesse Lyman Hurlbert in
The story of the christian church
the age just after the book of acts he calls "..the age of shadows.."

"of all the periods in the churches history, it is the one about which we know
the least about. For fifty years after St. Paul's life a curtain hangs over the church,
through which we strive vainly to look;


William McLaughlin in
The Course of Christian History

"But Christianity itself had been in the process of transformation as it progressed
and at the close of the period was in many respects quite different from the apostolic
Christianity."


Samuel G. Green in
A handbook of church History

"The thirty years which followed the close of the New Testement canon and the
destruction of Jerusalem, are in truth the most obscure in the history of the church.
When we emerge in the second century, we are to a great extent in a changed world."


William fitzgerald in
lectures on ecclesiastical History

"over this period of transition, which immediatly succeeds upon
the era properly called apostolic, great obscurity hangs."


Philip Schaff in
History of the Christian Church

"The remaining thirty years of the first century are involved in mysterious darkness,
illuminated only by the writings of John. This is a period of church history about which
we know least and would like to know most."

"Simon Magus unquestionably adulterated Christianity with pagon ideas and practices
and gave himself out for an emanation of God."

"This heresy in the second century spread over the whole church, east and west,
in the various schools of agnosticism."


-


-Satan was doing everything he could to destroy the Work of God, and in
little more than two decades, God’s people were turning to another gospel.

-this was the time of the Roman Empire , and in around 117 AD, at its greatest extent.
streched from Britian clear to modern day Turkey, and it ruled with the rod of iron.

-



I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you
into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years
I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
 
J

jaybird88

Guest
You keep talking in generalities. "the bible and church history." Where in the Bible, and where and when in church history? Anybody can make a claim or state a postion, but you have to prove your claim/position. Then you say, "roman councils." And no, I'm not saying it came out of thin air.

When you say about 300 years after Jesus taught are you referring to the Council of Nicea at 325AD? Do you even know the purpose of the creeds of Christianity? Creeds (and btw the word "creed" comes from the Latin "credo" meaning "I beieve." Creeds are considered authoritative pronouncements that set forth the central articles of tenets od the historic Christian faith.
i dont think there is a specific date in church history that points to the day the doctrine of the trinity was founded. it was a process. "about 300 yrs" is what i said. the process started after rome and Christianity blended together. that alone should make you think.

There are various reason why the creeds were written. They corrected various heresies or profounc doctrinal deviations from Scripture that had arisen.
IMO these creeds were set up to tell everyone "our way or the highway!" from now on you will understand Jesus according to what we say , not what Jesus says. Jesus teaches seek and you will find, rome teaches we will do the seeking for you.
i dont remember Jesus ever beating, killing or forcing anyone against their will to follow Him. but rome was very good at this.


Lastly, you said something about accepting the Father. That is what prompted me to quote 1 John 2:23;24. I was merely pointing out that you can't have one without the other. Which brings to mind the old song, "Love and Marriage, you can't have one without the other." This is how the internal relationship is between God the Father and God the Son. Now, if you don't believe me in all of this do your own homework and check me out according to Acts 17:11. And your saying I'm confused? :rolleyes:

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
and yes ur very confused when making suggestions that i am ejecting Jesus. please give me an example of where i have done this? is there a teaching of Jesus that says one rejects Him if they dont proclaim the trinity doctrine?? i dont think so.
1 John 2:23;24
no mention of trinity doctrine

Acts 17:11
this has to do with testing teachers against scriptures. has nothing to do with doctrines of man.
 
Aug 19, 2016
721
3
0
There is this issue if you are going to call the Father superior to the Son..

If we do this.. but still call Jesus divine.. or maybe 'a god'...

Then we have Polytheism.

Obviously Quasar92 is denying Jesus' diety.. that definitely is one of the characteristics of being a christian.

We don't follow 'a god' or 'a lesser god' in Jesus.. Jesus is Almighty, Conquerer, Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last.

He was with God in the beginning and all thing were made thru Him.

All the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily.

Yes the word 'trinity' isn't taught in the bible. But the context of the bible shows the one triune being, God expressing Himself in three essences/substances. (I'm still not happy with persons :))

If someone wants a God as the Father who is not triune.. well then what are they going to do with the Holy Spirit and Jesus?

if they are lesser.. you plainly have polytheism.


Show me where I deny the deity of Jesus. You bear false witness against me from not reading what I have posted! When God, the Holy Spirit and Father produced Jesus by the virgin Mary, Jesus received His deity, in Mt.1:20 and in Lk.1:35!


Quasar92
 
Aug 19, 2016
721
3
0
The difference is that you have taken what a heretic has plucked out from what Trinitarians have written, baited it with his own little heretical twist, and bit it hook line and sinker.


Here's an example of what you call "plucking out!" Your dogmatic meaningless opinion will not win any cigar! Reading and accepting Biblical teachings, not what you have been deceived with by man!

A Critique of Mt.28:19 and 1 Jn.5:7

The short and conclusive answer to Mt.28:19 being altered and 1Jn.5:7 being inserted is the following:

God is Spirit: Jn.1:18; Rom.1:20; 2 Cor.3:17-18; Col.1:15; 1 Tim.1:17; 1 Tim.6:16 Heb.11.27 and 1 Jn.4:12.

God is Holy: Lev.11:44-45; Lev.19:2; Isa.43:3; Jos.24:19; 1 Sam.2:2; Job 6:10; Ps.99:3 and 1 Pet.1:15-16.

According to the above, there is no option to the Scriptural fact God is the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is the Father of Jesus according to Mt.1:20; Lk.1:35 and Acts 13:33. One essence/person, not two!

1. What is God? He is Spirit, according to Jesus, in Jn.4:24 and Paul, in 2 Cor.3:17-18. That no one has ever seen Him and that He is invisible, are found in Jn.1:18; Rom.1:20; Col.1:15; 1 Tim.1:17; Heb.11:27 and in 1 Jn.4:12. [Moses, Abraham and Jacob saw the pre-incarnate Jesus, not God, the invisible Holy Spirit].
2. God, who is Spirit according to the Scriptures, is also Holy, according to Lev.11:44-45; Lev.19:2; Ps.99:3; Ps.99:5 and 1 Pet.1:15-16.

Therefore, according to the above Scriptural facts above, it becomes clear why Mt.28:19 as found in our Bibles today is an alteration from that which was originally written by the author. Jesus would never have made a statement like the present day translation, because He knew very well His Father was/is the Holy Spirit, according to Mt.1:20 and Lk,1:35. Jesus stated that His Father lived in Him doing His work, in Jn.14:10, clearly revealing His Father to be the Holy Spirit.

In addition, the practice of baptism by the Apostles, was always in the name of Jesus Christ, confirming the prophecy of John the Baptist, in Mt.3:11; Mk.1:8; Lk.3:16 and Jn.1:33, as found in Acts 2:38. Never in the triune theology Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit - for the above Scriptural reasons.

In regards to 1 Jn.5:7, it is a late Latin insert of about the 12th century. It does not appear in any of the early Greek mss.


Quasar92
 
Aug 19, 2016
721
3
0
You keep talking in generalities. "the bible and church history." Where in the Bible, and where and when in church history? Anybody can make a claim or state a postion, but you have to prove your claim/position. Then you say, "roman councils." And no, I'm not saying it came out of thin air.

When you say about 300 years after Jesus taught are you referring to the Council of Nicea at 325AD? Do you even know the purpose of the creeds of Christianity? Creeds (and btw the word "creed" comes from the Latin "credo" meaning "I beieve." Creeds are considered authoritative pronouncements that set forth the central articles of tenets od the historic Christian faith.

There are various reason why the creeds were written. They corrected various heresies or profounc doctrinal deviations from Scripture that had arisen. The creeds affirm esential Christian truth. Creeds also help us identify what is essential doctrine from peripheral points. For example, believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ is an essential doctrine. A periphearal teaching is when is Jesus Christ coming back for His church. In short, the creeds do reflect how the early church interpreted Scritpure and how they understood in particular the nature of God.

Now, getting back to the purpose of the Council of Nicea was to deal with Arius/Araianism, who taught that Jesus Christ was a created being. The JW's of today are Arians along with Christadelphians, Unitarians and other groups. The Council confirmed the Deity of Jesus Christ and His eternality. It also defined the relationship between the Father and the Son as "of one substance/essence/nature." It also affirmed the Trintiy as theree co-equal and co-eternal Persons.

As a matter of fact the Bible itself has "creeds." 1 Corinthians 15:3,4, "For I delievered to you, as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, vs4, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." This is a creed jaybird, a summary of what is already taught in the Bible. 1 Timothy 2:5,6 is a creed and so is Deuteronmy 5:4, the "Shema." You can read those verses for yourself. I'm not here to do your homework.

Lastly, you said something about accepting the Father. That is what prompted me to quote 1 John 2:23;24. I was merely pointing out that you can't have one without the other. Which brings to mind the old song, "Love and Marriage, you can't have one without the other." This is how the internal relationship is between God the Father and God the Son. Now, if you don't believe me in all of this do your own homework and check me out according to Acts 17:11. And your saying I'm confused? :rolleyes:

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto


Go to the following to learn the background and historicity of the doctrine of the Trinity, Bluto.

Is the Trinity Biblical


Quasar92
 
Aug 19, 2016
721
3
0
But they show that Jesus claimed to be equal with the Father.. I don't accept your 'biblical view of God' which is totally unbiblical. The revelation in the NT is quite clear to those to whom it is given by the Father.

It is hidden from 'the wise' but revealed to babes. All you demonstrate is that you are not one of His.


I'm more the Lord's than you are/ Because you teach man made doctrine over what He teaches, which you will be called on to answer for ne day! See the following for your edification::

Is the Trinity Biblical


Quasar92
 
F

FreeNChrist

Guest
please point me to the scripture where Jesus teaches this.
dont show me scriptures trying to prove the doctrine. show me where Jesus Himself says one can not follow Him unless we proclaim this doctrine. do you understand the difference?
If the "Jesus" you follow isn't God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity, then the "Jesus" you are following is not the real Jesus, but is merely a figment of your own imagination.
 
F

FreeNChrist

Guest
For your edification, review the following about the heretic teachings you will one day be trying to explain to the Lord as to why you do, when neither He, His disciples, oir the Bible ever taught such a thing.

Is the Trinity Biblical

Quasar92
Linking to the websites of non-Christian cults for support of your beliefs only works against you here, and is also against forum rules.
 
Aug 19, 2016
721
3
0
Linking to the websites of non-Christian cults for support of your beliefs only works against you here, and is also against forum rules.


Your barfing that others are not Christian when you blindly teach false doctrine yourself is typical of those who are unteachable. Those whom you call non-Christian cults, call the Trinity non-Christian cults as well. Why do you keep hiding from the Biblical teachings with meaningless opinion you cannot support nor prove?

Review the following for the Biblical facts and truth:

The Biblical Description of God - in Theology/Prophecy & Revelation Forum Forum

Quasar92
 
Last edited:

bluto

Senior Member
Aug 4, 2016
2,060
522
113
I'm sorry quasar, you keep making unfounded statements mostly by taking people out of context and not knowing your Bible. You quoted "esteemed" Trinitarians who believe the Trinity but yet you use them to show the Trinity is not found in the Bible. And there are a few people around here that agree with you. Since I started this thread, "Can the Trinity Be Blically proven" I will try and approach this matter a different way.

Do you know the definition of a "syllogism?" A syllogism in logic is a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two given premises, one major premise and one minor premise. And btw, in logic there is "deductive" reasoning and "inductive" reasoning. This type of reasoning also consist of premises in order to reach a conclusion. The following is a syllogism that I would like you to think about and then tell me if it's true because the "premise" is true. If it's not true then tell me why? Anybody can answer if they like.

If the Bible teaches that There is ONE GOD

and

If in the Bible The Father is identifiec as God

and

If in the Bible His Son is identified as God

and

If in the Bible their Spirit is identified as God

THEN the doctrine of the Trinity is valid

OR

The Bible is wrong. What I have done is produced a deductive syllogism. Please show me where the structure of my argument is flawed. If you can then I will gladly provide the evidence for each element in the syllogism from the Bible. You also made this statement which really shows your not thinking. "there was no Son in the OT excepts God's prophecy that He was going to be a Father." You then gave some verses. I will deal with your statement after were done with the syllogism business. :eek:

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Bumped for quasar.
 
Aug 19, 2016
721
3
0
BLUTO said:
m sorry quasar, you keep making unfounded statements mostly by taking people out of context and not knowing your Bible. You quoted "esteemed" Trinitarians who believe the Trinity but yet you use them to show the Trinity is not found in the Bible. And there are a few people around here that agree with you. Since I started this thread, "Can the Trinity Be Blically proven" I will try and approach this matter a different way.

Do you know the definition of a "syllogism?" A syllogism in logic is a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two given premises, one major premise and one minor premise. And btw, in logic there is "deductive" reasoning and "inductive" reasoning. This type of reasoning also consist of premises in order to reach a conclusion. The following is a syllogism that I would like you to think about and then tell me if it's true because the "premise" is true. If it's not true then tell me why? Anybody can answer if they like.

If the Bible teaches that There is ONE GOD

and

If in the Bible The Father is identifiec as God

and

If in the Bible His Son is identified as God

and

If in the Bible their Spirit is identified as God

THEN the doctrine of the Trinity is valid

OR

The Bible is wrong. What I have done is produced a deductive syllogism. Please show me where the structure of my argument is flawed. If you can then I will gladly provide the evidence for each element in the syllogism from the Bible. You also made this statement which really shows your not thinking. "there was no Son in the OT excepts God's prophecy that He was going to be a Father." You then gave some verses. I will deal with your statement after were done with the syllogism business. :eek:

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto





Your argument from the above is prime case ofsyllogism, bluto. Listen up! You insist that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are ONE GOD, right? Then explain to me why the Bible teaches God is the Holy Spirit and His title is Father? One person! And that both the pre-incarnate person who later became the human Jesus, the Son of God/God the Son, is A SEPARATE PERSON from the Father! Two persons, not one! Which means, the Bible teaches there are TWO persons in the Godhead, NOT THREE!


All men who produce children of their own, have the title of father! With that having been said, why don't Trinitarians make the claim that Jesus and the Son are TWO persons instead of just one, as they so they do Almighty God, the Holy Spirit, and the Father?


The Scriptural explanation for all of the above has been previously posted, and can be reviewed from the link in post #341 or below:


http://deeperwalk.lefora.com/topic/3265768/The-Biblical-Description-of-God#.V9q0mYYrI2x




Quasar92
 
Aug 19, 2016
721
3
0
Linking to the websites of non-Christian cults for support of your beliefs only works against you here, and is also against forum rules.


You labor under false pretenses! The Scriptural facts I post refuting teachings that are non-Scriptural only work against the false prophets who continue to propagate them! Your meaningless opinion is a complete failure!


Quasar92
 
J

jaybird88

Guest
If the "Jesus" you follow isn't God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity, then the "Jesus" you are following is not the real Jesus, but is merely a figment of your own imagination.
but where is the scripture i asked for? its ok i think we both know its not there.
 

bluto

Senior Member
Aug 4, 2016
2,060
522
113
No jaybird, your the one that is not thinking? All you do is give either "that is not what I said" or "IMO." There is no substance in your post and I find them all "negative" as opposed to saying anything positive. This tells me you don't know your Bible. As well, your in the big leagues now and your not messing around with a little kid.

And this statement of yours is really off the wall. "IMO these creeds were set up to tell everyone "our way or the highway!" from now on you will understand Jesus according to what we say , not what Jesus says. Jesus teaches seek and you will find, rome teaches we will do the seeking for you.
i dont remember Jesus ever beating, killing or forcing anyone against their will to follow Him. but rome was very good at this."

I gave you a perfectly legitimate argument of the purpose of the creeds. What is your rebuttal, "their meant to tell everone "our way or the highway." :rolleyes: The bottom in all of this, (and btw I'm not talking about the trinity) is the fact that you deny the deity of Jesus Christ, despite the abundant evidence to the contrary.

So, please tell me why you don't believe Jesus Christ is not God? I would really like to know? :eek:

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
hdsi
 
F

FreeNChrist

Guest
but where is the scripture i asked for? its ok i think we both know its not there.
I'm not here to prove the Trinity to you. I'm here to make sure you and others understand that the denial of the Trinity is heresy.
 
F

FreeNChrist

Guest
Your barfing that others are not Christian when you blindly teach false doctrine yourself is typical of those who are unteachable. Those whom you call non-Christian cults, call the Trinity non-Christian cults as well. Why do you keep hiding from the Biblical teachings with meaningless opinion you cannot support nor prove?

Review the following for the Biblical facts and truth:

The Biblical Description of God - in Theology/Prophecy & Revelation Forum Forum

Quasar92
LOL. How is it you would think posting the same link to the same heresy from the same non-Christian cult would help you?