-
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.
Matthew 28:19 does not support a trinity,but actually refutes a trinity,by telling us that Jesus is the name of the Father,Son,and Holy Ghost,who created all things,came in flesh,and dwells in the saints,which the Bible declares,so we don't try to make a trinity out of the titles of God.
The book of Luke says baptism is to be done in Jesus' name.
In the book of Acts,Jews,Samaritans,and Gentiles,were all baptized in Jesus' name.
Everything we do in word and deed,we are to do in Jesus' name.
Jesus is the only saving name given to us under heaven.
Father,Son,and Holy Ghost,are titles to designate the three relationships God has with mankind.
Father-parent of the saints.
Son-God's visible relationship with the saints.
Holy Ghost-God's invisible relationship with the saints.
Jesus is the name of the Father,Son,and Holy Ghost.
The Father said that one day He would reveal His new name to the Jews and speak to them.Jesus said He came in His Father's name.
The Bible says the Son inherited the name from the Father.
The Bible says the Holy Ghost comes in the name of Jesus.
Jesus is the one who created all things,came in flesh,and dwells in the saints.
The book of Luke says baptism is to be done in Jesus' name.
In the book of Acts,Jews,Samaritans,and Gentiles,were all baptized in Jesus' name.
Everything we do in word and deed,we are to do in Jesus' name.
Jesus is the only saving name given to us under heaven.
Father,Son,and Holy Ghost,are titles to designate the three relationships God has with mankind.
Father-parent of the saints.
Son-God's visible relationship with the saints.
Holy Ghost-God's invisible relationship with the saints.
Jesus is the name of the Father,Son,and Holy Ghost.
The Father said that one day He would reveal His new name to the Jews and speak to them.Jesus said He came in His Father's name.
The Bible says the Son inherited the name from the Father.
The Bible says the Holy Ghost comes in the name of Jesus.
Jesus is the one who created all things,came in flesh,and dwells in the saints.
All of this is absolutely true except the titles part, the F-S-HS are much more than titles; and the "modes" of God's manifestations are the key to all Godhead doctrinal conflict. It's better than Trinity's "persons" by a country mile, though. I affirm 95+% of Oneness doctrine, as I do for Trinity doctrine. They can be reconciled through one simple thing missing from each; and it's related to understanding the means of propagation of souls. Perhaps I'll share that at some point.
scott.
i get your devotion to your EO church.
but if possible, please don't misrepresent it as perfectly in line with Jesus and the Twelve, ok?
it has ALOT of problems, and is NOT the only assembly of Christians.
EO & Rome make a lot of claims about apostolic succession, and i wish they'd both cool it.
saying the EO (alone?) teaches the 'true faith' is just as silly as Rome or Joe's drive-in chapel saying that.
the Lord's church is invisible, universal (small c catholic) and includes all kinds of folks.
i get your devotion to your EO church.
but if possible, please don't misrepresent it as perfectly in line with Jesus and the Twelve, ok?
it has ALOT of problems, and is NOT the only assembly of Christians.
EO & Rome make a lot of claims about apostolic succession, and i wish they'd both cool it.
saying the EO (alone?) teaches the 'true faith' is just as silly as Rome or Joe's drive-in chapel saying that.
the Lord's church is invisible, universal (small c catholic) and includes all kinds of folks.
There is only one God,who is an omnipresent Spirit,and is the same throughout His omnipresent Spirit with no distinction of persons.
There is only one God who is a Holy Spirit.When God the Holy Spirit created mankind He became the Father of spirits and Father to all who follow Him.The Son is the man Christ Jesus,who was a plan of God to have born in the future,so it is the same as if the Son was in the beginning before He was born,because God calls things that have not happened as though they already happened.
There is only one God the Holy Spirit.Father is a title for God the Holy Spirit.The Son is the man Christ Jesus.
It is the same God will no distinction of persons that created all things,manifest all His attributes to the Son,the man Christ Jesus,and dwells in the saints.
God is our Father for He is our parent.
The Son,the man Christ Jesus,is God's visible relationship to the saints,for we can see God in a bodily manifestation,the only way we can see the invisible Father.
The Holy Spirit is God's invisible relationship to the saints,and is what God is,a Holy Spirit.
It is one God with no distinction of persons that is doing it all.
By saying there is 3 persons to avoid saying there is 3 Gods so not to disobey the scriptures that say there is one God,still means that they are saying there are 3 and not one,and they straight out say God the Father,God the Son,and God the Holy Spirit,and disobey that there is one God anyway,by saying 3 Gods.
There is only one God who is a Holy Spirit.When God the Holy Spirit created mankind He became the Father of spirits and Father to all who follow Him.The Son is the man Christ Jesus,who was a plan of God to have born in the future,so it is the same as if the Son was in the beginning before He was born,because God calls things that have not happened as though they already happened.
There is only one God the Holy Spirit.Father is a title for God the Holy Spirit.The Son is the man Christ Jesus.
It is the same God will no distinction of persons that created all things,manifest all His attributes to the Son,the man Christ Jesus,and dwells in the saints.
God is our Father for He is our parent.
The Son,the man Christ Jesus,is God's visible relationship to the saints,for we can see God in a bodily manifestation,the only way we can see the invisible Father.
The Holy Spirit is God's invisible relationship to the saints,and is what God is,a Holy Spirit.
It is one God with no distinction of persons that is doing it all.
By saying there is 3 persons to avoid saying there is 3 Gods so not to disobey the scriptures that say there is one God,still means that they are saying there are 3 and not one,and they straight out say God the Father,God the Son,and God the Holy Spirit,and disobey that there is one God anyway,by saying 3 Gods.
C
people still do not get what persons mean.....huh not human but person...that definition for persons does not imply a human.
There is many definitions for person, there is the human definition, and there is the christian definition. the Christian definition for person is "Christian Theology each of the three modes of being of God, namely the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, who together constitute the Trinity." this is looked up in the dictionary....i am showing a point please do not receive this as aggressive approach. my opinion
Shalom
There is many definitions for person, there is the human definition, and there is the christian definition. the Christian definition for person is "Christian Theology each of the three modes of being of God, namely the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, who together constitute the Trinity." this is looked up in the dictionary....i am showing a point please do not receive this as aggressive approach. my opinion
Shalom
Last edited by a moderator:
Although I appreciate your zeal, I encourage you to continually make sure it is according to knowledge; and knowledge (ginosko/gnosis) is an experiential progression.
Etymologies of modern pan-European derivative languages are in no way sufficient to express a definition of God and His nature. A current dictionary derives such a definition from cultural usage, etc. Webster's et al have built their etymology for person upon Trinity formulation and usage, and therefore can't be retrospectively applied to define what has determined that meaning. As an analogy, a parent doesn't derive from a child; likewise a modern non-original language can't determine a much earlier meaning. The "christian" meaning of person in today's English isn't the foundation for 1st-century Greek.
God has already expresed Himself by the Word. Logos is the intelligent thought and expression of the content and substance of Rhema. That Word became flesh and the written record of the logos has been given to us through inspiration as scripture. A word (person-s) is not THE Word; and person (prosopon G4383) is only used in reference to the Incarnate Word. Nowhere is there any reference to the Father, the Holy Spirit, or the eternally-pre-existent Word as person. God doesn't stutter, mispeak, or omit anything about Himself when speaking.
Modern 21st century dictionary definitions don't trump the Word or early Koine Greek. God as three "persons" is purely inference, both in early Christendom and in modern church culture. God's expression of Himself was NOT incomplete, requiring extra-biblical terminology to represent Him. THE Word reveals His constitution and nature without being supplemented by A word.
Etymologies of modern pan-European derivative languages are in no way sufficient to express a definition of God and His nature. A current dictionary derives such a definition from cultural usage, etc. Webster's et al have built their etymology for person upon Trinity formulation and usage, and therefore can't be retrospectively applied to define what has determined that meaning. As an analogy, a parent doesn't derive from a child; likewise a modern non-original language can't determine a much earlier meaning. The "christian" meaning of person in today's English isn't the foundation for 1st-century Greek.
God has already expresed Himself by the Word. Logos is the intelligent thought and expression of the content and substance of Rhema. That Word became flesh and the written record of the logos has been given to us through inspiration as scripture. A word (person-s) is not THE Word; and person (prosopon G4383) is only used in reference to the Incarnate Word. Nowhere is there any reference to the Father, the Holy Spirit, or the eternally-pre-existent Word as person. God doesn't stutter, mispeak, or omit anything about Himself when speaking.
Modern 21st century dictionary definitions don't trump the Word or early Koine Greek. God as three "persons" is purely inference, both in early Christendom and in modern church culture. God's expression of Himself was NOT incomplete, requiring extra-biblical terminology to represent Him. THE Word reveals His constitution and nature without being supplemented by A word.
No offense was intended. I was agreeing that the EOC or GOC aren't the only true Christians. I wouldn't use the terminology "invisible", so no trip to Strong's, etc. is necessary. I don't "claim to know the Bible so much"; I simply share whatever truth I have by the Spirit.
I'm not EOC/GOC, and I'm part of the Body, the Church. Others are, too. Just a simple point of fact. I'm in no way disrespecting you, I can assure you.
I'm not EOC/GOC, and I'm part of the Body, the Church. Others are, too. Just a simple point of fact. I'm in no way disrespecting you, I can assure you.
Matthew 28:19
This “Great Commission” of Yeshua is stated with varying emphases at Mk 16:15–20, Lk 24:46–49, Joh 20:21–23 and Ac 1:8.
Make people from all nations into talmidim. This must have shocked his hearers, who surely thought that the Messiah was only, or at least primarily, for Jews. Today the situation is reversed, for many Christians think it wrong to evangelize Jews. But their position is inconsistent; for if they really respect Yeshua they should obey his command to make people from all nations, including the Jewish nation, into talmidim.
Immersing them (see 3:1N) into the reality of the Father, the Son and the Ruach HaKodesh. KJV has “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Christianity has tended to regard this phrase as a “baptismal formula” to be pronounced when someone is baptized. This understanding leads to such questions as: What is this “name” of the Father, Son and Spirit? Is it Jehovah? Jesus (compare Ac 2:38, 8:16)? or something else? Must all three “persons of the Godhead” be mentioned for a baptism to be valid?
So far as I am concerned, these questions miss the point. First of all, Greek eis generally means “into” rather than “in.” Secondly, although “name” is the literal meaning of Greek onoma, “immersing into a name” describes no possible literal act. My rendering expresses what I believe to be the intended meaning, since in the Bible “name” stands for the reality behind the name. While “in the name of” can mean “on the authority of,” that seems weak here; more is meant than identifying who authorizes immersion. It is possible that the Greek for “into the name” renders Hebrew lashem, “for, for the sake of, with reference to”; if so, the JNT renders the sense well.
The Father, the Son and the Ruach HaKodesh. This is the closest the New Testament comes to stating the proposition that YHVH, Adonai, the one God of Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya‛akov, consists of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (compare 2Cor 13:14). The word “trinity” appears nowhere in the New Testament; it was developed later by theologians trying to express profundities which God has revealed about himself. The New Testament does not teach tritheism, which is belief in three gods. It does not teach unitarianism, which denies the divinity of Yeshua the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It does not teach modalism, which says that God appears sometimes as the Father, sometimes as the Son and sometimes as the Holy Spirit, like an actor changing masks. It is easy to wander astray into error or nonsense in thinking about God, since his ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8). Some Messianic Jews use the term “triunity” in conscious avoidance of the word “trinity,” which has such a non-Jewish, traditionally Christian ring to it, and in order to emphasize the unity of God as proclaimed in the Sh˒ma without neglecting what this verse highlights. But the bottom line is that it is more important to believe God’s word and to trust him than to argue over particular doctrinal or verbal formulas used in attempting to describe the nature of God.
There is also a textual issue. Although nearly all ancient manuscripts have the trinitarian formula, Eusebius, the Church historian, who may have been a non-trinitarian, in his writings preceding the Council of Nicea in 325 c.e., quotes the verse without it. Most scholars believe the formula is original, but papers by Hans Kosmala (“The Conclusion of Matthew,” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, 4 (1965), pp. 132–147) and David Flusser (“The Conclusion of Matthew in a New Jewish Christian Source,” ibid., 5 (1966–7), pp. 110–119) take the opposite view.
This “Great Commission” of Yeshua is stated with varying emphases at Mk 16:15–20, Lk 24:46–49, Joh 20:21–23 and Ac 1:8.
Make people from all nations into talmidim. This must have shocked his hearers, who surely thought that the Messiah was only, or at least primarily, for Jews. Today the situation is reversed, for many Christians think it wrong to evangelize Jews. But their position is inconsistent; for if they really respect Yeshua they should obey his command to make people from all nations, including the Jewish nation, into talmidim.
Immersing them (see 3:1N) into the reality of the Father, the Son and the Ruach HaKodesh. KJV has “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Christianity has tended to regard this phrase as a “baptismal formula” to be pronounced when someone is baptized. This understanding leads to such questions as: What is this “name” of the Father, Son and Spirit? Is it Jehovah? Jesus (compare Ac 2:38, 8:16)? or something else? Must all three “persons of the Godhead” be mentioned for a baptism to be valid?
So far as I am concerned, these questions miss the point. First of all, Greek eis generally means “into” rather than “in.” Secondly, although “name” is the literal meaning of Greek onoma, “immersing into a name” describes no possible literal act. My rendering expresses what I believe to be the intended meaning, since in the Bible “name” stands for the reality behind the name. While “in the name of” can mean “on the authority of,” that seems weak here; more is meant than identifying who authorizes immersion. It is possible that the Greek for “into the name” renders Hebrew lashem, “for, for the sake of, with reference to”; if so, the JNT renders the sense well.
The Father, the Son and the Ruach HaKodesh. This is the closest the New Testament comes to stating the proposition that YHVH, Adonai, the one God of Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya‛akov, consists of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (compare 2Cor 13:14). The word “trinity” appears nowhere in the New Testament; it was developed later by theologians trying to express profundities which God has revealed about himself. The New Testament does not teach tritheism, which is belief in three gods. It does not teach unitarianism, which denies the divinity of Yeshua the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It does not teach modalism, which says that God appears sometimes as the Father, sometimes as the Son and sometimes as the Holy Spirit, like an actor changing masks. It is easy to wander astray into error or nonsense in thinking about God, since his ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8). Some Messianic Jews use the term “triunity” in conscious avoidance of the word “trinity,” which has such a non-Jewish, traditionally Christian ring to it, and in order to emphasize the unity of God as proclaimed in the Sh˒ma without neglecting what this verse highlights. But the bottom line is that it is more important to believe God’s word and to trust him than to argue over particular doctrinal or verbal formulas used in attempting to describe the nature of God.
There is also a textual issue. Although nearly all ancient manuscripts have the trinitarian formula, Eusebius, the Church historian, who may have been a non-trinitarian, in his writings preceding the Council of Nicea in 325 c.e., quotes the verse without it. Most scholars believe the formula is original, but papers by Hans Kosmala (“The Conclusion of Matthew,” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, 4 (1965), pp. 132–147) and David Flusser (“The Conclusion of Matthew in a New Jewish Christian Source,” ibid., 5 (1966–7), pp. 110–119) take the opposite view.
Z
Thank you Floyd.
Man...I really can't believe so many people deny the Trinity...
How do you take Genesis 1:26 into your belief? Because "our likeness" doesn't include angels, which would make them equal with God.
How do you explain that one away?
So many people want to be able to fully comprehend God, to put Him in a little box.
He is one being in three persons. Yes, our brain explodes when we really, really think about it, but He's not supposed to be fully comprehensible, is He?
Man...I really can't believe so many people deny the Trinity...
How do you take Genesis 1:26 into your belief? Because "our likeness" doesn't include angels, which would make them equal with God.
How do you explain that one away?
So many people want to be able to fully comprehend God, to put Him in a little box.
He is one being in three persons. Yes, our brain explodes when we really, really think about it, but He's not supposed to be fully comprehensible, is He?
S
People like Sir Anthony Buzzard not only deny the belief in any sort of complex unity in God but he denies the fact Jesus is God. That is where the major error and concern is.
Were you able to see Dr White and Dr Brown debate Sir Anthony and Joseph Good? That was about a 3 hour debate and they go into extreme detail why it's important to believe Jesus is God.
Part 1 is right here and just keep clicking part 2,3, etc etc.
YouTube - Deity of Messiah 1
youtube.com/watch?v=L15VqpH-KYs&feature=related
Were you able to see Dr White and Dr Brown debate Sir Anthony and Joseph Good? That was about a 3 hour debate and they go into extreme detail why it's important to believe Jesus is God.
Part 1 is right here and just keep clicking part 2,3, etc etc.
YouTube - Deity of Messiah 1
youtube.com/watch?v=L15VqpH-KYs&feature=related
S
BTW scholars like Michael Brown or James White wouldn't quote Genesis 1:26 either. It's not that it doesn't point to a trinity or triunity but the fact that in Hebrew or rather - any semitic language you can speak in plurality to magnify power, majesty, etc. But there are plenty of other examples that give a clear picture of the Trinity. Anyway if you haven't seen that debate I sent you in the previous post please watch it all. I think it will really edify you and answer your questions.
God bless you.
God bless you.
Ge 1:26, 27 — Is G-d a singular entity (Deut. 6:4; 32:39; Is. 45:5, 6; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6) or a plural entity (Gen. 3:22; 11:7; Ge 18:1-3; Is. 6:8; 48:16; John 10:30, 34-38)? The Hebrew word for G-d is ˒elōhīm (), a plural noun. In Genesis 1:1 it is used in grammatical agreement with a singular verb bārā˒ (), “created.” When plural pronouns are used, “Let us make man in our image after our likeness,” does it denote a plural of number or the concept of excellence or majesty which may be indicated in such a way in Hebrew? Could G-d be speaking to the angels, the earth, or nature, thus denoting Himself in relation to one of these? Or is this a germinal hint of a distinction in the divine personality? One cannot be certain. Until Yeshua came, the essential (internal) unity of the G-dhead was not understood to a great extent, though it was intimated (Is. 48:16).
G-d is essentially Spirit (John 4:24). Therefore, man, who is similar to G-d, possesses an immortal spirit. Men resemble G-d in certain respects (Gen. 1:26) without being equal with Him (Is. 40:25). Man’s likeness to G-d is what truly distinguishes him from the rest of creation. Man is a personal being with the power to think, feel, and decide. He has the ability to make moral choices and the capacity for spiritual growth or decline. In the beginning, man loved G-d and was a holy creature. The Fall changed this. Man’s spirit was so altered by sin that he fled from G-d and now loves evil more than righteousness (John 3:19, 20). After Avraham’s time, only those who lived uprightly before G-d were considered to be his offspring (see Matt. 3:7-10; 13:38; John 12:36; Acts 13:10; Col. 3:6). Man is no longer in the perfect state of innocence as he was at the time of his creation. Therefore, he does not have the same spiritual, G-d–like attributes and qualities of that original state. Yeshua, the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), came to undo Satan’s works (1 John 3:8) and to restore in man a spiritual likeness to G-d (2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10)
G-d is essentially Spirit (John 4:24). Therefore, man, who is similar to G-d, possesses an immortal spirit. Men resemble G-d in certain respects (Gen. 1:26) without being equal with Him (Is. 40:25). Man’s likeness to G-d is what truly distinguishes him from the rest of creation. Man is a personal being with the power to think, feel, and decide. He has the ability to make moral choices and the capacity for spiritual growth or decline. In the beginning, man loved G-d and was a holy creature. The Fall changed this. Man’s spirit was so altered by sin that he fled from G-d and now loves evil more than righteousness (John 3:19, 20). After Avraham’s time, only those who lived uprightly before G-d were considered to be his offspring (see Matt. 3:7-10; 13:38; John 12:36; Acts 13:10; Col. 3:6). Man is no longer in the perfect state of innocence as he was at the time of his creation. Therefore, he does not have the same spiritual, G-d–like attributes and qualities of that original state. Yeshua, the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), came to undo Satan’s works (1 John 3:8) and to restore in man a spiritual likeness to G-d (2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10)
Z
Floyd, you should look at this page for more information on this (Gen 1:23):
View topic - The Old Testament Concept of God • Evidence for God from Science
Yes, Genesis 1:23 is referring to one God. One God in, as we would later see, three Persons (though I guess you could look at Gen 1:2 and Genesis 18 to see the other two persons, the Word and the Spirit...in Genesis 18, I realize this is not referring to the Trinity, by the way. The other two were angels, but the Lord physically did come to Abraham. He also was said to have walked in the Garden of Eden.)
And you're right, I don't believe people in the OT understood the Trinity, or tri-unity, as we do now. That doesn't mean that God wasn't and isn't a Trinity, though, as you know.
View topic - The Old Testament Concept of God • Evidence for God from Science
Yes, Genesis 1:23 is referring to one God. One God in, as we would later see, three Persons (though I guess you could look at Gen 1:2 and Genesis 18 to see the other two persons, the Word and the Spirit...in Genesis 18, I realize this is not referring to the Trinity, by the way. The other two were angels, but the Lord physically did come to Abraham. He also was said to have walked in the Garden of Eden.)
And you're right, I don't believe people in the OT understood the Trinity, or tri-unity, as we do now. That doesn't mean that God wasn't and isn't a Trinity, though, as you know.
Last edited: