The Trinity

You did not say "perhaps."
Nonetheless, I may have misunderstood the intention of your opening post.

I'm going to make a few points, then I won't be returning to these threads about the trinity.

DEITY OF CHRIST:

1.) The doctrine that Jesus is God, the doctrine called "The Deity of Christ", has been orthodox Christian doctrine for 2,000 years.

2.) Any doctrine contrary to this, claiming Christ is NOT God, has been considered heresy for 2,000 years.

3.) This an ESSENTIAL doctrine, and is non-negotiable:
a.) without this doctrine we are literally believing in the "wrong Jesus"... not the Jesus of the Bible.
b.) if Jesus was not God, then he had no power to forgive our sins.

4.) There are many many passages where people call Jesus God, and where Jesus calls himself God... and this is stated in many different ways, and in many different terms... just so it's impossible to miss.

5.) If we study 2nd Temple Judaism, and Judaic culture and teaching of this time period (when Jesus lived) we will find many Jewish idioms and expressions used in scripture, which if understood, will prove, beyond a doubt, that Jesus was declaring himself to be God, and that ALL THE JEWS KNEW exactly what he was declaring of himself.
(That is literally why the Jews wanted to kill him, they clearly stated Jesus was declaring himself to be God.)

6.) There is no way to make an honest study of the New Testament, and look at all the pertinent scriptures, and at the teachings and culture of 2nd Temple Judaism, and come away with any other conclusion than Jesus declared he was God, and the New Testament declared he was God.

7.) Any other view of Christ has been considered heresy for 2,000 years... and it is still considered heresy today.
It is the worst of all doctrinal errors.... it should be taken very very seriously.

8. Without this doctrine... one is not a Christian.


God Bless, and I hope you really look at this thoroughly.

.

Thank you for this.

Yes, I believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

I said perhaps, but maybe that should be purhaps. What do you think? Did I say perhaps?

You have not argued that Jesus is God the Son. Instead you have argued that Jesus is God. But Jesus said I and the Father are one and the Father is greater than I.

Hello Jacob, as far as your purpose in this thread to establish the Trinity (or not), no, these various titles all point to the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ (even His title, the "Son of God", does, as well, as the Pharisees and the Scribes make clear for us .. e.g. John 10:32-33).

Yes, Oneness Pentecostals do.

As far as other places in the Bible that speak to the Lord Jesus' Deity and/or the Trinitarian Godhead, here's one.

God bless you!!

~Deuteronomy (David)

John 1:1 TR - Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and God was the word.

Verse 36 Jesus said I am the Son of God.

What is a Trinity doctrine. It is clear that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are One. The word, trinity, has come to name the Three at once, but it is hardly a doctrine, it is simply true.

Why are people making it into a stumbling block for some? Is it a sin to call God the Father The Son and the Holy Spirit in lieu of Trinity? Why is there not a Yahweh doctrine? After all Our Father gave this title to be called to Moses. It also means God will Be what He will be.

Interesting. Thanks.

Do you believe in the Trinity or know how or how not to present it? You don't have to believe in it if you have knowledge, you can discuss. Thank you so much.

Yes. God has a name. YHVH. Yahveh. Or, YHWH. Yahweh. Or, I don't know.

Hello again Jacob, that is true

Here's another, somewhat "off the beaten path" passage that, in a very real sense, "shows" us who the Lord Jesus actually is, a fact that is confirmed for us by the Apostle in John 12 (specifically, John 12:41).
The "who will go for Us?" in v8 above is not as strong as the clearly Trinitarian statement of "Us"/"Our" in Genesis 1:26 (because it does not have a following verse to qualify it as such, like Genesis 1:27 does for v26), but we know that angels are not beings who "send" us out (of their own accord anyway) as missionaries, rather, they are servants who, just like us, are "sent" by God.

So, the entire scene (in the opening passage of Isaiah 6) points to the Lord Jesus (as God sitting on His throne), and the "Us" (in v8) to the nature of the Godhead.

God bless you!!

~Deuteronomy (David)

I didn't intend to return to this thread, but these are terrible arguments, and people need to know.


This is a non-argument.

1.) The word "was" is a verb that denotes being, a form of "to be" or "is".
2.) It denotes EQUIVALENCE in BEING.
3.) When two things are equivalent (such as God and Word) it does not matter what order you place them in.
4.) The word "was" as used here, denotes equivalence in being... when things are equal they are equal, the order doesn't matter.

This is a non-argument... it's meaningless.


CONCLUSION:
1. This is a non-argument:
When two things are equivalent they are equivalent, the order doesn't change the value.
(An example of equivalence is being on opposite sides of the verb "is"... and "was" is just a variation on this verb. So "God was the Word" and "the Word was God" have the same value.)
2.) This is a bad argument:
Virtually all English translations put this phrase in the classical order "the word was God", so if we check the Greek grammar, we'll probably find some grammatical rules regarding this construct which would explain the classical order to be correct when translated. Virtually all translations, by the best Greek scholars in the world, have in the past, and continue to, translate these words into this order when moving them into English.
3.) This is an irrelevant argument:
If we simply read the rest of the chapter, we find it later refers, clearly, to Christ as "the word", and it clearly refers to Christ as the creator... making him God. These are both very clear if we simply read down the page.


.




.

Instead of a Godhead can you accept the Elohiym is a plural word for our English but that it means God?

God is before all things, so the order does matter.

Peace to you.

That rebutted nothing.

The ORDER of these two words has nothing to do with, and has no effect upon, the doctrine that God is the cause of all contingent being.
1.) Regardless of how we order these 2 words, it does nothing to change this biblical doctrine throughout scripture.
2.) Regardless of how we order these 2 words, it does nothing to change this biblical doctrine even within the passage... as two words placed into a position of equivalence have equivalent value.


You have no sound arguments for your denial of the Deity of Christ.

You really need to be honest with scripture... this is a very serious doctrine.



.

I accept the Deity of Christ. Remember Colossians 2:9 NASB. I don't believe that Jesus is the Father, God.

The doctrine of the Deity of Christ is that JESUS IS GOD.
He is God.
He is not a lesser being, or a lesser deity, or a partial deity... he is God.

The Father is God the Father, and the son is God the Son.
Both are distinct, but both are God... fully God.

That is what the Deity of Christ means... that Jesus is God.

I don't think that's what you believe.

.

I believe the following.

Colossians 2:9 NASB20 - For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Both "Elohiym"/God and "Theotes"/Godhead are used in the Scriptures, so I see no reason to use the word "Elohiym" instead of/as a replacement for the word "Godhead" (unless I am misunderstanding what you are asking me, that is ).

If so, please let me know.

Thanks

--David

That's not what I meant, but it is a good thing for you to check me. I don't find or use the word Godhead in the NASB.

all the fullness... but not that much?

I'm not sure what you mean so I gave you a thumb's up.

The Father is in Him and He in the Father.
It seems that you believe that Jesus only has "some" deity and not "all the fullness" of deity.