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.
A totally different context. In the context of John 14.7-8 Jesus was making clear that to have seen Him WAS TO HAVE SEEN the Father, nothing less. He was not speaking loosely or parabolically or saying they had direct mediation through Him.
He made clear that they had actually seen the Father. That was only possible if Jesus and the Father were of the same nature and standing so that they reflected each other..
He made clear that they had actually seen the Father. That was only possible if Jesus and the Father were of the same nature and standing so that they reflected each other..
He regularly does so in the OT. For example in Genesis 16 there is a distinction between God and the angel of YHWH. And yet both are seen to be God.
the Father and the Son:
Jesus said, 'That all may honour the Son AS they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son (as they honour the Father), does not honour the Father Who sent Him.' John 5.23
“For as the Father has life in Himself, so has He given the Son to have life in Himself” John 5.26
Jesus answered them, “MY Father is working still and I am working.” This was why the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God John 5.17-18
“Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM” John 8.58
Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father and we will be satisfied.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know Me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, Show us the Father. John 14.9
“And this is life eternal, that they may know you the only true God and Jesus Christ Whom You have sent – and now, Father, glorify Me with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17.5)
John said, 'In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was face to face with God, and What God was the Word was, – and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1.1, 14).
The risen Jesus said, “Baptising them in the (one) Name (YHWH) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” Matthew 28.19
And for us there is ONE GOD, the Father, from Whom are all things and for Whom we exist, and ONE LORD through Whom are all things and through Whom we exist 1 Corinthians 8.6 (in contrast with the many gods and lords)
He is the IMAGE of the invisible God, the firstBORN before the whole of creation Colossians 1.15
In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form Colossians 2.9
Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ Titus 2.13
When the goodness and kindness of God our Saviour appeared, – which He poured out upon us through Jesus Christ our Saviour Titus 3.4, 6
In the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ – of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ 2 Peter 1.1 ,11 (exactly parallel in the Greek).
Who being the outshining of His glory and the exact representation of His substance Heb 1.3
He is the SON in contrast to all angels Heb 1.4 following.
Thomas called Him, “my LORD and my God”. John 20.28
The two are distinct in John 14.16-17, 26.
the Father and the Son:
Jesus said, 'That all may honour the Son AS they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son (as they honour the Father), does not honour the Father Who sent Him.' John 5.23
“For as the Father has life in Himself, so has He given the Son to have life in Himself” John 5.26
Jesus answered them, “MY Father is working still and I am working.” This was why the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God John 5.17-18
“Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM” John 8.58
Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father and we will be satisfied.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know Me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, Show us the Father. John 14.9
“And this is life eternal, that they may know you the only true God and Jesus Christ Whom You have sent – and now, Father, glorify Me with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17.5)
John said, 'In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was face to face with God, and What God was the Word was, – and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1.1, 14).
The risen Jesus said, “Baptising them in the (one) Name (YHWH) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” Matthew 28.19
And for us there is ONE GOD, the Father, from Whom are all things and for Whom we exist, and ONE LORD through Whom are all things and through Whom we exist 1 Corinthians 8.6 (in contrast with the many gods and lords)
He is the IMAGE of the invisible God, the firstBORN before the whole of creation Colossians 1.15
In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form Colossians 2.9
Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ Titus 2.13
When the goodness and kindness of God our Saviour appeared, – which He poured out upon us through Jesus Christ our Saviour Titus 3.4, 6
In the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ – of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ 2 Peter 1.1 ,11 (exactly parallel in the Greek).
Who being the outshining of His glory and the exact representation of His substance Heb 1.3
He is the SON in contrast to all angels Heb 1.4 following.
Thomas called Him, “my LORD and my God”. John 20.28
The two are distinct in John 14.16-17, 26.
Well sword I'm glad to see your using various sources (like here the interlinear) to check things out. That's very good because it helps you learn. Now, regarding 2 Peter 1:1 and what you said about the "of us" the point Peter is making that other people or other Christians have received the same kind of faith as Peters'. In other words, others have received this blessed assurance through the righteousness equitable justification, innocence imputed to all without any partiality of "God and our Savior Jesus Christ."
When you read the interlinear you notice the words are not in any particular order when read in English. This means one can take it a certain way and someone else may take it another way. This following is what Barnes said about this issue.
"God and our Saviour Jesus Christ - Margin, "our God and Saviour." The Greek will undoubtedly bear the construction given in the margin; and if this be the true rendering, it furnishes an argument for the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Middleton, Slade, Valpy, Bloomfield, and others, contend that this is the true and proper rendering. It is doubted, however, by Wetstein, Grotius, and others. Erasmus supposes that it may be taken in either sense. The construction, though certainly not a violation of the laws of the Greek language, is not so free from all doubt as to make it proper to use the passage as a proof-text in an argument for the divinity of the Saviour. It is easier to prove the doctrine from other texts that are plain, than to show that this must be the meaning here."
So you see one can change the word order to make agree with their position. So how is this situation resolved or reconciled?
When you read the interlinear you notice the words are not in any particular order when read in English. This means one can take it a certain way and someone else may take it another way. This following is what Barnes said about this issue.
"God and our Saviour Jesus Christ - Margin, "our God and Saviour." The Greek will undoubtedly bear the construction given in the margin; and if this be the true rendering, it furnishes an argument for the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Middleton, Slade, Valpy, Bloomfield, and others, contend that this is the true and proper rendering. It is doubted, however, by Wetstein, Grotius, and others. Erasmus supposes that it may be taken in either sense. The construction, though certainly not a violation of the laws of the Greek language, is not so free from all doubt as to make it proper to use the passage as a proof-text in an argument for the divinity of the Saviour. It is easier to prove the doctrine from other texts that are plain, than to show that this must be the meaning here."
So you see one can change the word order to make agree with their position. So how is this situation resolved or reconciled?
I have to post again because my 5 minutes was up before I could post the following so I will do it now sword.
Well sword I'm glad to see your using various sources (like here the interlinear) to check things out. That's very good because it helps you learn. Now, regarding 2 Peter 1:1 and what you said about the "of us" the point Peter is making that other people or other Christians have received the same kind of faith as Peters'. In other words, others have received this blessed assurance through the righteousness equitable justification, innocence imputed to all without any partiality of "God and our Savior Jesus Christ."
When you read the interlinear you notice the words are not in any particular order when read in English. This means one can take it a certain way and someone else may take it another way. This following is what Barnes said about this issue.
So you see one can change the word order to make agree with their position. So how is this situation resolved or reconciled? One way is to go to Greek Scholars. This is what Greek Scholar A.T.Robertson stated:
Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ (του τεου ημων και σωτηρος Ιησου Χριστου — tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou). So the one article (του — tou) with τεου — theou and σωτηρος — sōtēros requires precisely as with του κυριου ημων και σωτηρος Ιησου Χριστου — tou kuriou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in 2 Peter 1:11 as in 2 Peter 2:20; 2 Peter 3:2, 2 Peter 3:18. So in 1 Peter 1:3 we have ο τεος και πατηρ — ho theos kai patēr (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable (Robertson, Grammar, p. 786), as even Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, Grammatik, p. 158) admits: “Grammar demands that one person be meant.” Moulton (Prol., p. 84) cites papyri examples of like usage of τεος — theos for the Roman emperors. See the same idiom in Titus 2:13. The use of τεος — theos by Peter as a predicate with Jesus Christ no more disproves the Petrine authorship of this Epistle than a like use in John 1:1 disproves the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the same use in Titus 2:13 disproves the genuineness of Titus. Peter had heard Thomas call Jesus God (John 20:28)"
Notice that he uses other verses to support the proper interpretation. And btw, there is only "ONE" correct interpretation although they may be many applications. And if you have a mind look at the commentaries listed from the site you got the interlinear site from and read what others have to say about 2 Peter 1:1. See if you can find one that agrees with you? I wanted to respond to this post of yours before I addressed you other post where you ask the question "Did God die."
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Well sword I'm glad to see your using various sources (like here the interlinear) to check things out. That's very good because it helps you learn. Now, regarding 2 Peter 1:1 and what you said about the "of us" the point Peter is making that other people or other Christians have received the same kind of faith as Peters'. In other words, others have received this blessed assurance through the righteousness equitable justification, innocence imputed to all without any partiality of "God and our Savior Jesus Christ."
When you read the interlinear you notice the words are not in any particular order when read in English. This means one can take it a certain way and someone else may take it another way. This following is what Barnes said about this issue.
So you see one can change the word order to make agree with their position. So how is this situation resolved or reconciled? One way is to go to Greek Scholars. This is what Greek Scholar A.T.Robertson stated:
Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ (του τεου ημων και σωτηρος Ιησου Χριστου — tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou). So the one article (του — tou) with τεου — theou and σωτηρος — sōtēros requires precisely as with του κυριου ημων και σωτηρος Ιησου Χριστου — tou kuriou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in 2 Peter 1:11 as in 2 Peter 2:20; 2 Peter 3:2, 2 Peter 3:18. So in 1 Peter 1:3 we have ο τεος και πατηρ — ho theos kai patēr (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable (Robertson, Grammar, p. 786), as even Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, Grammatik, p. 158) admits: “Grammar demands that one person be meant.” Moulton (Prol., p. 84) cites papyri examples of like usage of τεος — theos for the Roman emperors. See the same idiom in Titus 2:13. The use of τεος — theos by Peter as a predicate with Jesus Christ no more disproves the Petrine authorship of this Epistle than a like use in John 1:1 disproves the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the same use in Titus 2:13 disproves the genuineness of Titus. Peter had heard Thomas call Jesus God (John 20:28)"
Notice that he uses other verses to support the proper interpretation. And btw, there is only "ONE" correct interpretation although they may be many applications. And if you have a mind look at the commentaries listed from the site you got the interlinear site from and read what others have to say about 2 Peter 1:1. See if you can find one that agrees with you? I wanted to respond to this post of yours before I addressed you other post where you ask the question "Did God die."
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
The intent of muslims to use the bible verse John 16:7 as evidence for Muhammad to be the comforter is a dangerous heresy. Since it can be unforgivable due to blasphemy against the holy spirit if one is aware that they're willingly committing heresy, mentioned in Mark 3:28-29 & Matthew 12:22, 12:31-32. Relating to Islam, it's as worse as written in the Quran 19:88-93, where they regard the highest relationship a person, can have to God, is a servant, while to even state he has a son can cause creation itself to rupture.
Before we explain what the context of the holy spirit means, Muslims would try to say that the Greek word "Paraclete" was a mistranslation from the Greek word "Periklytos", which translates to "Ahmad" a title given to Muhammad meaning admirable one. And while it is a similar spelled word we have close to 6,000 manuscripts of the Greek NT with the BEST consistency than any other ancient writing & 100% of them agrees that the word was NOT "Periklytos" but "Paraclete".
https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
John 14:16-18 specifically states Jesus speaking to his disciples, explaining the comforter being the "SPIRIT OF TRUTH" that the world couldn't receive nor see, but was already dwelling with the disciples, eventually abiding WITHIN them, promising that he won't leave them comfortless, but that he will COME to them basically confirming he is the comforter. Muhammad cannot dwell in those disciples if he didn't exist.
Jesus never denied the comforter/holy spirit to been already present, but simply stated that he would have to leave & be glorified, bc as long as he was on Earth the comforter would be present to them in the form of Christ. This is stated in the previous verse of John 1:32-33 & 7:38-39. So it couldn't have been a Muhammad since he wasn't there.
In Islam theology, the "SPIRIT OF TRUTH" is known as the angel Gabriel & Muhammad being sent ONLY by God, then for devil's advocate since muslims do not deny this verse as corruption & admit Muhammad as the comforter in the biblical context, that would've meant he was SPECIFICALLY sent by Jesus/God stated in John 14:26 & John 15:26.
Before we explain what the context of the holy spirit means, Muslims would try to say that the Greek word "Paraclete" was a mistranslation from the Greek word "Periklytos", which translates to "Ahmad" a title given to Muhammad meaning admirable one. And while it is a similar spelled word we have close to 6,000 manuscripts of the Greek NT with the BEST consistency than any other ancient writing & 100% of them agrees that the word was NOT "Periklytos" but "Paraclete".
https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
John 14:16-18 specifically states Jesus speaking to his disciples, explaining the comforter being the "SPIRIT OF TRUTH" that the world couldn't receive nor see, but was already dwelling with the disciples, eventually abiding WITHIN them, promising that he won't leave them comfortless, but that he will COME to them basically confirming he is the comforter. Muhammad cannot dwell in those disciples if he didn't exist.
Jesus never denied the comforter/holy spirit to been already present, but simply stated that he would have to leave & be glorified, bc as long as he was on Earth the comforter would be present to them in the form of Christ. This is stated in the previous verse of John 1:32-33 & 7:38-39. So it couldn't have been a Muhammad since he wasn't there.
In Islam theology, the "SPIRIT OF TRUTH" is known as the angel Gabriel & Muhammad being sent ONLY by God, then for devil's advocate since muslims do not deny this verse as corruption & admit Muhammad as the comforter in the biblical context, that would've meant he was SPECIFICALLY sent by Jesus/God stated in John 14:26 & John 15:26.
I have to post again because my 5 minutes was up before I could post the following so I will do it now sword.
Well sword I'm glad to see your using various sources (like here the interlinear) to check things out. That's very good because it helps you learn. Now, regarding 2 Peter 1:1 and what you said about the "of us" the point Peter is making that other people or other Christians have received the same kind of faith as Peters'. In other words, others have received this blessed assurance through the righteousness equitable justification, innocence imputed to all without any partiality of "God and our Savior Jesus Christ."
When you read the interlinear you notice the words are not in any particular order when read in English. This means one can take it a certain way and someone else may take it another way. This following is what Barnes said about this issue.
So you see one can change the word order to make agree with their position. So how is this situation resolved or reconciled? One way is to go to Greek Scholars. This is what Greek Scholar A.T.Robertson stated:
Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ (του τεου ημων και σωτηρος Ιησου Χριστου — tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou). So the one article (του — tou) with τεου — theou and σωτηρος — sōtēros requires precisely as with του κυριου ημων και σωτηρος Ιησου Χριστου — tou kuriou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in 2 Peter 1:11 as in 2 Peter 2:20; 2 Peter 3:2, 2 Peter 3:18. So in 1 Peter 1:3 we have ο τεος και πατηρ — ho theos kai patēr (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable (Robertson, Grammar, p. 786), as even Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, Grammatik, p. 158) admits: “Grammar demands that one person be meant.” Moulton (Prol., p. 84) cites papyri examples of like usage of τεος — theos for the Roman emperors. See the same idiom in Titus 2:13. The use of τεος — theos by Peter as a predicate with Jesus Christ no more disproves the Petrine authorship of this Epistle than a like use in John 1:1 disproves the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the same use in Titus 2:13 disproves the genuineness of Titus. Peter had heard Thomas call Jesus God (John 20:28)"
Notice that he uses other verses to support the proper interpretation. And btw, there is only "ONE" correct interpretation although they may be many applications. And if you have a mind look at the commentaries listed from the site you got the interlinear site from and read what others have to say about 2 Peter 1:1. See if you can find one that agrees with you? I wanted to respond to this post of yours before I addressed you other post where you ask the question "Did God die."
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Well sword I'm glad to see your using various sources (like here the interlinear) to check things out. That's very good because it helps you learn. Now, regarding 2 Peter 1:1 and what you said about the "of us" the point Peter is making that other people or other Christians have received the same kind of faith as Peters'. In other words, others have received this blessed assurance through the righteousness equitable justification, innocence imputed to all without any partiality of "God and our Savior Jesus Christ."
When you read the interlinear you notice the words are not in any particular order when read in English. This means one can take it a certain way and someone else may take it another way. This following is what Barnes said about this issue.
So you see one can change the word order to make agree with their position. So how is this situation resolved or reconciled? One way is to go to Greek Scholars. This is what Greek Scholar A.T.Robertson stated:
Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ (του τεου ημων και σωτηρος Ιησου Χριστου — tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou). So the one article (του — tou) with τεου — theou and σωτηρος — sōtēros requires precisely as with του κυριου ημων και σωτηρος Ιησου Χριστου — tou kuriou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in 2 Peter 1:11 as in 2 Peter 2:20; 2 Peter 3:2, 2 Peter 3:18. So in 1 Peter 1:3 we have ο τεος και πατηρ — ho theos kai patēr (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable (Robertson, Grammar, p. 786), as even Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, Grammatik, p. 158) admits: “Grammar demands that one person be meant.” Moulton (Prol., p. 84) cites papyri examples of like usage of τεος — theos for the Roman emperors. See the same idiom in Titus 2:13. The use of τεος — theos by Peter as a predicate with Jesus Christ no more disproves the Petrine authorship of this Epistle than a like use in John 1:1 disproves the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the same use in Titus 2:13 disproves the genuineness of Titus. Peter had heard Thomas call Jesus God (John 20:28)"
Notice that he uses other verses to support the proper interpretation. And btw, there is only "ONE" correct interpretation although they may be many applications. And if you have a mind look at the commentaries listed from the site you got the interlinear site from and read what others have to say about 2 Peter 1:1. See if you can find one that agrees with you? I wanted to respond to this post of yours before I addressed you other post where you ask the question "Did God die."
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
You asked me to basically give an example within commentaries (of 2 Peter 1:1) being used within the framework of my understanding of it. First off, I don’t feel the need to base my views along the sides of Trinitarian backed commentators for validity. However, you already provided such a commentary in post 1385.
Your commentary can be found below, where there is a link to commentary provided by biblehub. Scroll down to Barnes’ notes on the Bible. The last paragraph deals with the verse in question.
2 Peter 1:1 Commentaries: Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
Below is the “Trinitarian” based commentary that you posted in 1385, and that I just gave the link to.
God and our Saviour Jesus Christ - Margin, "our God and Saviour." The Greek will undoubtedly bear the construction given in the margin; and if this be the true rendering, it furnishes an argument for the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Middleton, Slade, Valpy, Bloomfield, and others, contend that this is the true and proper rendering. It is doubted, however, by Wetstein, Grotius, and others. Erasmus supposes that it may be taken in either sense. The construction, though certainly not a violation of the laws of the Greek language, is not so free from all doubt as to make it proper to use the passage as a proof-text in an argument for the divinity of the Saviour. It is easier to prove the doctrine from other texts that are plain, than to show that this must be the meaning here.
By your own post you prove that not even all Trinitarians agree that 2 Peter 1:1 has to mean that Jesus is “the God” based upon the original Greek rendering…thanks bluto.
I have not had a chance to read all the posts here yet. I am a New Guy.
But there is no "trinity" in the Scriptures.
1. Nowhere in the Scriptures does Jesus call Himself God.
2. Nowhere in the Scriptures is God referred to as three or three in one...
CLV Dt 6:4 Hear, Israel! Yahweh is our Elohim; Yahweh the only One.
3. Jesus told us that we could all become One with the Father (John 17:11), like He is...
CLV Jn 17:11 And no longer am I in the world, and they are in the world, and I to Thee am coming. Holy Father, keep them in Thy name, in which Thou hast given them to Me, that they may be one, according as We are.
CLV Jn 17:21 that they may all be one, according as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us, that the world should be believing that Thou dost commission Me.
CLV 1C 15:28 Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all.
4. Jesus told us we are all gods...
AV Jn 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35. If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
CLV Jn 10:33 The Jews answered Him, "For an ideal act we are not stoning you, but for blasphemy, and that you, being a man, are making yourself God."
34. Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, that `I say you are gods'?
35. If He said those were gods, to whom the word of God came (and the scripture can not be annulled)
5. Plural does not necessarily mean three. If God is represented as plural in Genesis, this is not 'proof' that He is a trinity. Plural is more than one. It could mean 2, 20, 200, 20,000, etc. I learned that in grammar school.
6. The Jews have no trinity. Ask any Jew about this...
AV Mk 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
CLV Mk 12:29 Jesus answered him that "The foremost precept of all is: Hear, Israel! the Lord our God is one Lord.
He said ONE here, not three in one. Right?
Anyone who uses the OT for evidence of a 'trinity' is attempting to re-write history, the Scriptures, and the traditions and beliefs of the Jews. He/she would be taking the Ancient writings of another culture and forcing it to comply with their own beliefs. In effect, trying to destroy an Ancient foreign culture.
7. Jesus speaks to the Father as if He is a separate entity, not the same being as Himself. And, according to these verses, they have had this same relationship for quiet some time...
AV John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
CLV John 17:4 "I glorify Thee on the earth, finishing the work which Thou hast given Me, that I should be doing it.
5. "And now glorify Thou Me, Father, with Thyself, with the glory which I had before the world is with Thee.
and again...
AV Mt 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
CLV Mt 19:17 Yet He said to him, "any/Why are you asking Me concerning good? One is good. Yet if you are wanting to be entering into life, keep the precepts."
If God and Jesus were the same, would Jesus have denied being good here?
once more...
CLV Mk 13:32 "Now concerning that day or hour no one is aware--neither the messengers in heaven, nor the Son--except the Father.
How could God keep that information from Himself?
Also see Matt.3:17, 17:5, 26:39, Mark 1:11, 10:18, 15:34, Lk 3:22, 23:46, John 5:30, 14:28, 20:17, 1Cor.11:3, Col 3:1, 1Tim. 2:5
8. Oh yeah. The word 'trinity' is absent from the Scriptures.
I never tire of writing that.
But there is no "trinity" in the Scriptures.
1. Nowhere in the Scriptures does Jesus call Himself God.
2. Nowhere in the Scriptures is God referred to as three or three in one...
CLV Dt 6:4 Hear, Israel! Yahweh is our Elohim; Yahweh the only One.
3. Jesus told us that we could all become One with the Father (John 17:11), like He is...
CLV Jn 17:11 And no longer am I in the world, and they are in the world, and I to Thee am coming. Holy Father, keep them in Thy name, in which Thou hast given them to Me, that they may be one, according as We are.
CLV Jn 17:21 that they may all be one, according as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us, that the world should be believing that Thou dost commission Me.
CLV 1C 15:28 Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all.
4. Jesus told us we are all gods...
AV Jn 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35. If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
CLV Jn 10:33 The Jews answered Him, "For an ideal act we are not stoning you, but for blasphemy, and that you, being a man, are making yourself God."
34. Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, that `I say you are gods'?
35. If He said those were gods, to whom the word of God came (and the scripture can not be annulled)
5. Plural does not necessarily mean three. If God is represented as plural in Genesis, this is not 'proof' that He is a trinity. Plural is more than one. It could mean 2, 20, 200, 20,000, etc. I learned that in grammar school.
6. The Jews have no trinity. Ask any Jew about this...
AV Mk 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
CLV Mk 12:29 Jesus answered him that "The foremost precept of all is: Hear, Israel! the Lord our God is one Lord.
He said ONE here, not three in one. Right?
Anyone who uses the OT for evidence of a 'trinity' is attempting to re-write history, the Scriptures, and the traditions and beliefs of the Jews. He/she would be taking the Ancient writings of another culture and forcing it to comply with their own beliefs. In effect, trying to destroy an Ancient foreign culture.
7. Jesus speaks to the Father as if He is a separate entity, not the same being as Himself. And, according to these verses, they have had this same relationship for quiet some time...
AV John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
CLV John 17:4 "I glorify Thee on the earth, finishing the work which Thou hast given Me, that I should be doing it.
5. "And now glorify Thou Me, Father, with Thyself, with the glory which I had before the world is with Thee.
and again...
AV Mt 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
CLV Mt 19:17 Yet He said to him, "any/Why are you asking Me concerning good? One is good. Yet if you are wanting to be entering into life, keep the precepts."
If God and Jesus were the same, would Jesus have denied being good here?
once more...
CLV Mk 13:32 "Now concerning that day or hour no one is aware--neither the messengers in heaven, nor the Son--except the Father.
How could God keep that information from Himself?
Also see Matt.3:17, 17:5, 26:39, Mark 1:11, 10:18, 15:34, Lk 3:22, 23:46, John 5:30, 14:28, 20:17, 1Cor.11:3, Col 3:1, 1Tim. 2:5
8. Oh yeah. The word 'trinity' is absent from the Scriptures.
I never tire of writing that.
To be called lord does not have to be in reference solely to being the God of the Most High. I believe they still have lords in the UK. Lord is just a title of authority. You can see an example of this in 1 Peter 3:6. The commentator that bluto showed (Albert Barnes) ministered at a Presbyterian church. I believe Presbyterians are Trinitarians.
What’s funny is that even when you look at context, you can see how a distinction was made between Jesus and God. Seems to almost be ignored by some in here though. The very next verse reads…
2 Peter 1:2 - May grace and peace be multiplied to you through the knowledge of God AND of Jesus our Lord.
Thanks for the scriptures BigD9832.
2 Peter 1:2 - May grace and peace be multiplied to you through the knowledge of God AND of Jesus our Lord.
Thanks for the scriptures BigD9832.
Thanks.
There are so many ways to show that there is no "trinity."
For example, if you follow the ecumenical councils of the church you can see how the "trinity" evolved. Only man's ideas evolve. God reveals. He already knows.
So if you take an early version of the "trinity" to a Catholic church they will call you a heretic.
Thanks.
There are so many ways to show that there is no "trinity."
For example, if you follow the ecumenical councils of the church you can see how the "trinity" evolved. Only man's ideas evolve. God reveals. He already knows.
Really bigd? "So many ways not to show the trinity?" Nonsense, if you read my very first post in this thread I started you will see how I "Biblically" addressed how the Trinity is taught in the Bible (and yes, I already know the word trinity is not in the Bible, it doesn't have to be for it to be taught). Now, can you please give me the purpose of the Council of Nicea that met at 325AD? Why did they meet?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
So if you take an early version of the "trinity" to a Catholic church they will call you a heretic.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
CLV Phl 2:5 For let this disposition be in you, which is in Christ Jesus also,
6 Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God,
7 butnevertheless empties Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming to be in the likeness of humanity,
8 and, being found in fashion as a human, He humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore, also, God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name,
10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean,
11 and every tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God, the Father.
THE EXAMPLE OF CHRIST JESUS
6 Form denotes outward appearance, as is shown by Paul's use of it in the contrast, "having a form of devoutness, yet denying its power" (2Tim 3:5). We have found it impossible to sustain the idea that it refers to intrinsic essence. Figure or fashion denotes the form prevailing at any time. Christ was the Image of God, the visible representation of the Deity. Paul himself saw Him on the Damascus road in celestial glory. Yet the form in verse 6 was laid aside for that of a slave, at His incarnation.
Adam and his progeny seek to exalt themselves and will be humbled. But Christ, Who might easily assume the place of equality with God, found His delight in submission and humiliation.
The ending -mos of the word for pillaging denotes the act, not the object of pillage. When He was in the form of God His glory was too bright to be gazed upon by men. The apostle John presents Him as the audible Word, but Paul shows Him as the visible Image of the Deity, too bright for mortal gaze and seen only by our spiritual perception. As such He is seen in this epistle.
7 Empties cannot refer to a partial relinquishment of His previous state, but a total change of form, in which none of God's glory was apparent to the physical sight.
The Example of Christ
The enormous sweep of this synopsis of Christ's service and suffering takes in the whole universe and all the eons, from the beginning to the consummation. Being in the form of God, He was above the heavens, under the curse of the cross He was beneath all. Yet, as He voluntarily descended from the highest to the lowest place, so, too, shall be His exaltation. Every tongue will acclaim Him Lord for God the Father's glory. This cannot be until every heart will have been subdued at the consummation (1Cor 15:28). Until then there are enemies who oppose His rule. Ever since His resurrection God has been engaged in His exaltation. Even now, many celestial powers are subordinate to Him (1Pet 3:22). When He comes again the earth will be added to His domain, until finally the whole universe will be reconciled to God by the blood of His cross (Col 1:20). This is His reward. It is as Jesus (Jehovah the Saviour), the name of His humiliation, that He will be exalted to the place supreme. He Who was lowest shall become the highest.
A. E. Knoch