Is the Trinity Biblical?

[Ronald]

The Westminster Confession quote above covers it, but if you want to see the Trinity mentioned in the Bible in the same sentence, well, here you go:

Matthew 28

19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[1] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

This was the risen Christ speaking to his disciples at the end of the book of Matthew.

To quote Yeshua, You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel! Yes, you have a spot where three are named, you also have (He declared all foods clean). The problem is that you have no place to verify or corroborate your scripture. Believe what ever you feel is right. But, when you teach someone a false doctrine there is a penalty to pay. Just be careful what you teach, I, myself would hate to be "least in the kingdom". It is your choice!

 

[Ronald]

"I believe in God the father almighty CREATOR of Heaven and Earth. " Now that is contrary to the Word, which teaches in the Gospel of John, "All things were made by the WORD [Incarnate Jesus] and without the WORD was nothing made that was made." Jehovah God is the Word, and became Man under the name Jesus Christ. Amen

Harry

Not contrary!
Torah is the "Word of God" Yeshua/Jesus is the first born of creation/Word of God! Ge. 1- Jn. 1- Col 1:16 All say Yeshua/Jesus is the word of God, the Word of God created the heavens and Earth. God sent His Word into the World as the written Torah, as the Word made flesh.
Yeshua is the "Sent One".

 

[dharveymi]

Ronald,

The same chapter of John says concerning the Word: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

If the Word is the Torah, how did the Torah make all things?

It says concerning the Word that, "He came unto his own, and his own received him not."

Is the author talking about how the Torah was put on the shelf with other books?

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but the Word is Jesus. He made everything through the power of God. They both can rightly claim the title of Creator, Jesus spoke the words that brought the worlds into existence, but it was the power of the Father that He used to do it and for His glory.

 

[Ronald]

Ronald,

The same chapter of John says concerning the Word: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

If the Word is the Torah, how did the Torah make all things?

It says concerning the Word that, "He came unto his own, and his own received him not."

Is the author talking about how the Torah was put on the shelf with other books?

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but the Word is Jesus. He made everything through the power of God. They both can rightly claim the title of Creator, Jesus spoke the words that brought the worlds into existence, but it was the power of the Father that He used to do it and for His glory.

First, Yeshua is the word of God, not God. God sent his word/Yeshua as the living word, the impress image of God. God used his word to create heaven and the Earth. His word by his own admission can do nothing except what the Father/God wills. So the word being sent to create the universe doesn't claim authorship of the word nor creation.
How does he or did did he do all these things? I was not there, so I must take his word for what I see! The Hebrews have recorded the word, I have no doubt it is true. This is the term faith.

 

[dharveymi]

That makes sense to me.

 

[Scott1]

Hiya all,

The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

but, it is not that easy........ the Catechism teaches:

237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the "mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God". To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel's faith before the Incarnation of God's Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.


It seems that some here need an education about the early Christian church.....

dharveymi The doctrine of the trinity is a perverse pagan heresy. It was formulated through political strife and warfare in the Catholic church in the 3rd century. The authors of the Bible did not believe in the trinity, and neither do any true Christians.

3rd Century???????? Not even close:

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

Justin Martyr
"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).

Theophilus of Antioch
"It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

There are several more early Christian (Catholic) writers to add to this LONG before the 3rd century. Commentary about the Council of Nicea is often misleading. Everyone needs to understand that just because something is defined at a council does not mean that it was not COMMON knowledge to Christians at the time. Most councils were held when a heretical group forced the Church to infallibly define something as doctrine........ and in this case:

The early Christians were quick to spot new heresies. In the third century, Sabellius, a Libyan priest who was staying at Rome, invented a new one. He claimed there is only one person in the Godhead, so that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one person with different "offices," rather than three persons who are one being in the Godhead, as the orthodox position holds.

Of course, people immediately recognized that Sabellius’s teaching contradicted the historic faith of the Church, and he was quickly excommunicated. His heresy became known as Sabellianism, Modalism, and Patripassianism. It was called Sabellianism after its founder, Modalism after the three modes or offices which it claimed the one person of the Trinity occupied, and Patripassianism after its implication that the person of the Father (Patri-) suffered (-passion) on the cross when Jesus died.

Because Modalism asserts that there is only one person in the Godhead, it makes nonsense of passages which show Jesus talking to his Father (e.g., John 17), or declaring he is going to be with the Father (John 14:12, 28, 16:10) One office of a person cannot go to be with another office of that person, or say that the two of them will send the Holy Spirit while they remain in heaven (John 14:16-17, 26, 15:26, 16:13–15; Acts 2:32–33).

Modalism quickly died out; it was too contrary to the ancient Christian faith to survive for long. Unfortunately, it was reintroduced in the early twentieth century in the new Pentecostal movement. In its new form, Modalism is often referred to as Jesus Only theology since it claims that Jesus is the only person in the Godhead and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are merely names, modes, or offices of Jesus. Today the United Pentecostal Church, as well as numerous smaller groups which call themselves "apostolic churches," teach the Jesus Only doctrine.

Hope this helps....

Peace,
Scott

 

[Ronald]

SOGFPP,
Feel free to believe anything you wish, I find nothing in scripture that condemns beliefs about God/Creator, There are a multitude of warnings about false teachings, false witness and causing some one to sin. I can't see any value in teaching as doctrine the precepts of men. The Lord and Savior severely derided those who did so. Trinity was not SPOKEN by GOD or YESHUA/Jesus, the only place you find it is in writings/commentaries of men about the Bible. I will believe and teach it when God chooses to direct my eyes to a scripture telling me to teach a trinity doctrine.

 

[Scott1]

Ronald,

Feel free to believe anything you wish

Why, thank you my friend!!

Trinity was not SPOKEN by GOD or YESHUA/Jesus

Not the WORD "Trinity", but it can't be more clearly presented than by the words of Christ himself:
Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

There are a multitude of warnings about false teachings, false witness and causing some one to sin. I can't see any value in teaching as doctrine the precepts of men. The Lord and Savior severely derided those who did so.

Precepts of men???? Was Paul a man? Was Peter, James....etc...? So many Christians seem to forget that the same Holy Spirit that Simon wanted to purchase:
Acts 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
is the same Holy Spirit that wrote the Holy Bible, formed the early Christian churches, and established the doctrine of the TRINITY.

Can your pastor show a direct line from of Apostolic authority (laying of hands) for the last 2000 years?

Mine can.

Peace in Christ,
Scott

 

[Ronald]

I pray you Be Right!
Shalom

 

[dharveymi]

SOGFPP,

I am glad to hear that you do not believe in modalism. This, like the orthodox trinity doctrine, is also a heresy. I can always learn more about church history. I do not deny that the heresy of the trinity began very early, I just do not believe that it began to be widely accepted until the third century. John warned against anti-christ which was even active in his day:

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 1 John 2:18

John described what these antichrist would teach:

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 1 John 2:22

This is what the trinity heresy teaches. Jesus is not really a son, and the Father is not really his father.

Concerning your quotes, the quote from Justin Martyr does not suggest that he believed in the Trinity. I too believe that Christ holds a place next to His father; he sits on the right hand of his Father in heaven, but to say that therefor Martyr believed in the Trinity is a stretch.

If the reader would like to find out what really happened at the Council of Nicea, follow this link. It describes the effect of two heresies that arose in the early church. These heresies have become to be known as Arianism and orthodox Trinitarianism. These two camps fought for two centuries following the Council, but neither represented the majority view at that time. The majority view was summed up by Eusebius. A quote from his book follows.

http://www.presenttruth.info/books/Form_Trin/Form_Trin.htm

ÒFor as no one hath known the Father, but the Son, so no one on the other hand, can know the Son fully, but the Father alone, by whom He was begotten. For who but the Father hath thoroughly understood that Light which existed before the world was-that intellectual and substantial wisdom, and that living Word which in the beginning was with the Father, before all creation and any production visible or invisible, the first and only offspring of God, the prince and leader of the spiritual and immortal host of heaven, the angel of the mighty council, the agent to execute the FatherÕs secret will, the maker of all things with the Father, the second cause of the universe next to the Father, the true and only Son of the Father, and the Lord and God and King of all created things, who has received power, and dominion with divinity itself, and power and honour from the FatherÉ Where he introduces the Father and maker as the Ruler of all, commanding with His sovereign nod, but the divine word as next to Him, the very same that is proclaimed to us, as ministering to His FatherÕs commandsÉ The Son Himself, however, by no means indifferent to the worship of the Father, is appointed to teach the knowledge of the Father to allÉ Of Him, Moses obviously speaks as the second after the Father,É intrusted with the second rank of sovereignty and rule over all, Ôthe captain of the LordÕs host,ÉÕÓ (EusebiusÕ Ecclesiastical History, pages 15-17)

Eusebius expressed the view of most Christians at that time that Jesus was the only born Son of God, and not the only true God, not the only immortal God, not the one and only Potentate, not the supreme ruler of the universe. These early Christians (actually none of the camps) believed that the Holy Spirit was a third person as we think of one today, but instead was the Spirit of God, in much the same way that man has a spirit within him, the thing that knows a man's thought, and not a third seperate being.

P.S. Concerning the instruction for baptism, the apostles who heard what Jesus said, never followed the instruction as we believe it today. These holy men baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Chirst, seemingly ignoring the rest of the instruction. They understood that Jesus was not promoting a new doctrine, the Trinity, Jesus was talking about the character that must be displayed in the one baptized and the effect that would be apparent in the changed life. In the name of Jesus, the old man is buried. In the name of the Father, the a new man is raised to newness of life, and when hands are layed on the new man, the Holy Spirit of God fills the new life, that he may live the life of Christ, who will not leave us alone but will come onto us.

 

[Scott1]

dharveymi,

I do not deny that the heresy of the trinity began very early, I just do not believe that it began to be widely accepted until the third century.

That's great if you just want to post your opinions, but don't expect anyone to care if you can't back it up with proof............

This is what the trinity heresy teaches. Jesus is not really a son, and the Father is not really his father.

I am not really sure you understand the Catholic doctrine on the Trinity:

Jesus is really a son.

The Father is really his father.

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary." "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son." They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds." The divine Unity is Triune.

Concerning your quotes, the quote from Justin Martyr does not suggest that he believed in the Trinity.

Hoo boy......... but the others were ok? Want 10 more? 30?

How many Christians, some tought by the Apostles or their IMMEDIATE succesors, got it wrong?

Pride is a a dangerous sin.............

Concerning the instruction for baptism, the apostles who heard what Jesus said, never followed the instruction as we believe it today.

Again, I love to hear your opinions, but the problem continues to be that HISTORY AND TRUTH prove them wrong.

I do respect your right to post your opinion, so feel free to continue.......

Peace in Christ,
Scott

 

[Ronald]

Apostolic succession is also unBiblical, "Precepts of Man."

 

[Scott1]

Ronald,

I am not sure what Bible you are refering to:

Apostolic succession is also unBiblical, "Precepts of Man."

Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
Acts 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Acts 1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

So, here your incorrect assertion is proven false, as the Apostles (as the Scriptures dictated) appoint the replacement for Judas Iscariot.

Acts 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
Acts 6:6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.

and here...... further shows that the Apostles chose those who would "work" for them and that the laying of hands was the method to grace those called to serve.

Keep on reading that Bible, Ronald, with prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit it will start to stick.....

Peace,
Scott

 

[Ronald]

Yes, I've read that, as I read, (He declared all food clean), but the words apostolic succession, scores 0/zip/nada/zilch, to me this says it's not Biblical, Precepts of men.
One other thing. Why does your Bible not have a "Holy Ghost" in the the Older Testament?

 

[Scott1]

Ronald,

Was your last post directed at me????

Yes, I've read that, as I read, (He declared all food clean),

All food clean??? What does that have to do with the topic????????

), but the words apostolic succession, scores 0/zip/nada/zilch, to me this says it's not Biblical, Precepts of men.

Ok..... I will remember that and hold you to it. Gotta see the EXACT words in Scripture for it to be Biblical....... fine... we'll see how you do.

One other thing. Why does your Bible not have a "Holy Ghost" in the the Older Testament?

WHAT? I don't understand the question.

Peace,
Scott

 

[Ronald]

Maybe, your last line of the next to last post should apply to you also?
I stand by my statement!
Mt 4:4 Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

 

[dharveymi]

That's great if you just want to post your opinions, but don't expect anyone to care if you can't back it up with proof............

I did back it up with proof. I listed a link to a site that includes a quite detailed history of the heresy of the trinity, but if you would like it again here it is:

http://www.presenttruth.info/books/Form_Trin/Form_Trin.htm

I am not really sure you understand the Catholic doctrine on the Trinity:

Jesus is really a son.

The Father is really his father.

Frankly, no one understands the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. It was designed that way, but if you understand it so well, maybe you can explain how two "beings" who are consubstantial can be "two beings," much less father and son. The Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, the orthodox view, teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are consubstantial, sharing the same substance, maybe like Siamese twins or something. There are hundreds of other similar contradictions which are inherent in any concept of the Trinity. Every teaching about the Trinity obscures the true nature of God, His relationship with His Son, what happened at the cross, and therefore how much God loves us.

Hoo boy......... but the others were ok? Want 10 more? 30?

How many Christians, some tought by the Apostles or their IMMEDIATE succesors, got it wrong?

I'm afraid you are seriously mistaken if you believe that the majority of Jews or Chirstians in any period leading up to a period following the third century taught or believed in the trinity. It is certainly not what the apostles taught. It's most definiately what Jesus taught. All of the Bible writers would have considered it idolatry.

Consider what Paul said, "But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him."

Consider what Jesus said, "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God."

Consider what the author of Deuteronomy said and Jesus quoted, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD"

I may not be an expert in early church history, but I don't think it would be too difficult to match you with quotes from early church writers (prior to Nicaea) who did not belive in the Trinity. I can also find many Catholic theologions that admit that the doctrine did not originate from anything in the Bible.

P.S. Even following Nicaea, the controvery did not end, it just began. A war broke out, at one point Trinitarians had even lost, the Catholic church was Arian for a period of twenty years, but the war continued and the trinity eventually ended up the victor.

This is not simply my opinion this is the truth.

 

[Ronald]

I did back it up with proof.

This is not simply my opinion this is the truth.

AMEIN, AMEIM.

 

[Scott1]

dharveymi,

I will end my part in this topic here................ we don't seem to be getting anywhere.

I did back it up with proof. I listed a link to a site that includes a quite detailed history of the heresy of the trinity, but if you would like it again here it is:

If this is your idea of "proof", I won't waste my time with this any more.....

Just because you see it on the web, does not mean it's true..... This is not even close to proof.

Peace,
Scott

 

[dharveymi]

That is of course true. Just because it is on the Internet, it does not logically follow that is is necessarilly true, but the implication is that because it is on the Internet, it is of questionable verocity. This is also illogical. It might be on the Internet as a public service, for convenience of those who use it, or for many other reasons. The references quoted in the article are from respectible sources, and from my research are not taken out of context. So, unless someone can demonstrate that it is wrong, I will continue to recommend it.

P.S. Concerning "proof", this is a religious matter, there may be a lot of evidence for a certain position, but it would be impossible to "prove" this or most other religious questions in the classical sense. I choose to believe and recommend that others believe those positions for which we have the most evidence.

Concerning a wasting time, only those who do not have their minds open to truth will every waste their time in an open and honest discussion of the facts.