Is the Trinity taught in scripture?

[whatistruth07]

Jesus’ example shows us what Jehovah is like. Jesus so perfectly reflected his Father that he could say: “He that has seen me has seen the Father also.” (John 14:9) Thus, when we read in the Gospels about Jesus—the feelings he displayed and the way he dealt with others—we are in a sense seeing a living portrait of his Father. Jehovah could hardly have given us a clearer revelation of his qualities than that. Why?

To illustrate: Imagine trying to explain what kindness is. You might define it with words. But if you can point to someone actually performing a kind deed and say, “That is an example of kindness,” the word “kindness” takes on added meaning and becomes easier to understand. Jehovah has done something similar to help us grasp what he is like. As well as describing himself in words, he has provided us with the living example of his Son. In Jesus, the qualities of God are seen in action. Through the Gospel accounts describing Jesus, Jehovah is, in effect, saying: “That is what I am like.”

Again, Jesus’ following explanation shows that this was so because he faithfully represented his Father, spoke the Father’s words, and did the Father’s works. (Joh 14:10, 11; compare Joh 12:28, 44-49.) It was on this same occasion, the night of his death, that Jesus said to these very disciples: “The Father is greater than I am.”—Joh 14:28.Yet the trinitatian theory says that they are all co-equal??

That Jesus’ statement about seeing the Father was meant to be understood figuratively and not literally is evident from his own statement at John 6:45 as well as from the fact that John, long after Jesus’ death, wrote: “No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him.”—Joh 1:18; 1Jo 4:12.

 

[Enoch07]

Your looking at the Trinity all wrong. It consist of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is 3 different aspects of the Godhead. God is the Godhead or mainbody so to speak where all his unlimited power and being is. Jesus represents a part of God here on earth which is not going to be as powerful as the Godhead, else anyone who saw Jesus would have been vaporized for miles around. The Holy Spirit is the ethereal essence of God, like when you have a supernatural experience i.e. birth, saved, baptized or when God performs a miracle, some might even say it is what causes women to seemingly glow when pregnant. God is of course ominipotent, so the other 2 aspects could not and are not entirely equal.

 

[McBell]

Your looking at the Trinity all wrong. It consist of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is 3 different aspects of the Godhead. God is the Godhead or mainbody so to speak where all his unlimited power and being is. Jesus represents a part of God here on earth which is not going to be as powerful as the Godhead, else anyone who saw Jesus would have been vaporized for miles around. The Holy Spirit is the ethereal essence of God, like when you have a supernatural experience i.e. birth, saved, baptized or when God performs a miracle, some might even say it is what causes women to seemingly glow when pregnant. God is of course ominipotent, so the other 2 aspects could not and are not entirely equal.

Sounds like you are describing the villian in a fantasy book...

 

[whatistruth07]

I noticed that in your reply you never refute any of the scriptures!! Nor can you explain them. The atahanasian creed says" ‘the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.’ In this Trinity . . . the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.”

Scriptures I quoted from the Bible show that the Bible does nott each this.

Jesuit Joseph Bracken observes in his book What Are They Saying About the Trinity?: “Priests who with considerable effort learned . . . the Trinity during their seminary years naturally hesitated to present it to their people from the pulpit, even on Trinity Sunday. . . . Why should one bore people with something that in the end they wouldn’t properly understand anyway?” He also says: “The Trinity is a matter of formal belief, but it has little or no [effect] in day-to-day Christian life and worship.” Yet, it is “the central doctrine” of the churches!

However, contending that since the Trinity is such a confusing mystery, it must have come from divine revelation creates another major problem. Why? Because divine revelation itself does not allow for such a view of God: “God is not a God of confusion.”—1 Corinthians 14:33, Revised Standard Version (RS).

In view of that statement, would God be responsible for a doctrine about himself that is so confusing that even Hebrew, Greek, and Latin scholars cannot really explain it?

Furthermore, do people have to be theologians ‘to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent’? (John 17:3, JB) If that were the case, why did so few of the educated Jewish religious leaders recognize Jesus as the Messiah? His faithful disciples were, instead, humble farmers, fishermen, tax collectors, housewives. Those common people were so certain of what Jesus taught about God that they could teach it to others and were even willing to die for their belief.—Matthew 15:1-9; 21:23-32, 43; 23:13-36; John 7:45-49; Acts 4:13.

Catholic theologian Edmund Fortman says about this in The Triune God: “Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers [of the Hebrew Scriptures] never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person.”

In the Scriptures it is not unusual for something to be personified. Wisdom is said to have children. (Luke 7:35) Sin and death are called kings. (Romans 5:14, 21) At Genesis 4:7 The New English Bible (NE) says: “Sin is a demon crouching at the door,” personifying sin as a wicked spirit crouching at Cain’s door. But, of course, sin is not a spirit person; nor does personifying the holy spirit make it a spirit person.

Similarly, at 1 John 5:6-8 (NE) not only the spirit but also “the water, and the blood” are said to be “witnesses.” But water and blood are obviously not persons, and neither is the holy spirit a person.

In harmony with this is the Bible’s general usage of “holy spirit” in an impersonal way, such as paralleling it with water and fire. (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8) People are urged to become filled with holy spirit instead of with wine. (Ephesians 5:18) They are spoken of as being filled with holy spirit in the same way they are filled with such qualities as wisdom, faith, and joy. (Acts 6:3; 11:24; 13:52) And at 2 Corinthians 6:6 holy spirit is included among a number of qualities. Such expressions would not be so common if the holy spirit were actually a person.

Then, too, while some Bible texts say that the spirit speaks, other texts show that this was actually done through humans or angels. (Matthew 10:19, 20; Acts 4:24, 25; 28:25; Hebrews 2:2) The action of the spirit in such instances is like that of radio waves transmitting messages from one person to another far away.

At Matthew 28:19 reference is made to “the name . . . of the holy spirit.” But the word “name” does not always mean a personal name, either in Greek or in English. When we say “in the name of the law,” we are not referring to a person. We mean that which the law stands for, its authority. Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament says: “The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.” So baptism ‘in the name of the holy spirit’ recognizes the authority of the spirit, that it is from God and functions by divine will.

 

[ayani]

whatistruth ~

why should a Christian worship only the Father as distinct from the Son, when Jesus has said that He and the Father are One, and that we are to honor Him as we honor the Father?

we have never seen God. yet men have seen Jesus, who has made it clear that if we have met Him, we have met God. God wants us to honor, follow, and know His Son, and to understand that only through knowing Jesus can we really know Him. the more we know about Jesus, the more we will love Him. and the more we love Him, the closer to Him and more like Him we can become.

take into account also that Jesus is Someone who is alive, and who has done very specific and wonderful things for us. He has promised to be with us, even till the end of the age. so why not talk to Him? He calls us friend, and calls Himself the Good Shepherd. He is risen, and Someone we can turn to, commune with, and cry out to for help and guidance. in the NT He appears to people and guides them even after His ascension. so why not talk to Him, praise Him, seek His help and guidance, and worship Him, as even His disciples worshiped Him (Matthew 14:31-33 and John 20:28)?

and besides, God's New Covenant name is not Jehovah. in the OT He is called Yah or YHWH or Adonai. in the new, He is called by Jesus "Abba".

when i talk to God, i call Him Father or Lord. when i talk to Jesus, i call Him Lord, or Jesus.

what is true, is that God is the Maker of the heavens and the earth, that He has come to us through Immanuel His Son, and that His Spirit is still at work and vital to Christian life. all three are real, all three work as One. hence, the trinity.

Jesus Himself has said whoever us not against us is with us. He was against sectarianism, and all for unity in Him, brotherhood, meekness, and peace between believers. a Christ-follower can be a Seventh-Day Adventist, a Catholic, a Lutheran, a Baptist, a Coptic, a Marthoma, or none of the above. what matters, whatistruth, is being baptized with His Spirit, knowing Him, and following Him.

i honor Him as i honor the Father. i realize there's a hierarchy between the two, on some level i don't claim to fully grasp at all. yet i also know that Jesus is my Lord and Savior, the only way to the Father, and the Son of God. He did for me what only the power of the Living God could ever do.

and if we are truly Christians, we can not emphasize Him enough.

 

[Catadiotric]

Colossians 2:9 "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"(NIV)
I realize that there will be some issues with this verse as the New World Translation has Diety as "divine quality.

But then again there is also Isaiah 9:6 claims that his is mighty God.

Another thing is that Jesus forgave sins, which only God could do (see Mark 2:5) and accepted worship of himself (John 9:38). I don't see how he could be filled with the fullness of the divine quality, accept worship of himself (which god is very clear that only he is to be worshiped, even then angels do not accept worship of themselves), and not be god. Someone full of the divine quality would not do something that is against god because, as you said, Jesus is such a good reflection of who god is.

 

[Riverwolf]

So basically, whether or not the Trinity is in the Bible is up for interpretation; therefore, either one is correct, and neither one is incorrect.

 

[roli]

John 1:1 You cannot be WITH someone and at the same time Be that person. In Koine greek there is no definite article so it could have read and he was A God.

Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:

1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

Are you telling us that you have full comprehension of what that verse is actually saying, because that is a very deep opening word from John.
Remembering that John did have revelations from God being caught up into visions etc.

 

[McBell]

So basically, whether or not the Trinity is in the Bible is up for interpretation; therefore, either one is correct, and neither one is incorrect.

I am not sure how much the 'trinity' concept is in the scriptures.
Or at least the originals.
Funny how Augustine, being a big supporter of the trinity, never used some of the verses that trinitarians use these days...
I wonder exactly how many of the verses that are used today were somewhat different back when Augustine was arguing for the trinity?

 

[*Paul*]

What's the point of debating someone who's best answer is to find a few of the myriad of english translations out there that suit them best whilst ignoring the ones that don't? I love a good Jesus is God /Trinity debate but if you can't agree on a book of reference that you are proving from then you are wasting your energy and putting your faith in one translator being better than another, which unless you are qualified to judge is a matter of faith anyway.

 

[ayani]

The Bible clearly indicates, however, that our worship—in the sense of religious reverence and devotion—must be addressed solely to God. Moses described him as “a God exacting exclusive devotion.” And the Bible exhorts us to “worship the One who made the heaven and the earth and sea and fountains of waters.”—Deuteronomy 4:24; Revelation 14:7.

yet Jesus also receives worship, even while saying clearly that we are to worship only God.

Jesus *is* God- through His birth of God's Spirit He shares in His Father's holiness, power, and divinity. and if Jesus says we are to worship only God, yet receives worship from His followers and does not rebuke them, and also says out loud that if we have seen Him we have seen God, why on earth not worship Jesus?

when i thank Jesus for being my Lord and Shepherd, and thank Him for what He did for me on the cross, i am worshiping Him. when i cheerfully hum or sing a Chris Tomlin song, i am worshiping Him. when i meditate on His words and ministry, i am worshiping Him.

so it is not wrong to worship Jesus. Jesus does not worship Himself, but the Father. at the same time, Jesus is not only a man or a prophet, but Imannuel. so for us humans, He certainly is God, with a face, hands, and feet. i would argue that as the relationship between Him and God is wholly unique in human history, that our own relationship with God in Christ ought not to focus on God's unity, but on His incarnation in His Son. Jesus is the point, worthy of worship, Someone we can pray to and talk to and get to know personally, and be saved by.

yes, worship the Father. Jesu taught us to do this beautifully. but i would contend, also worship the Son, through whom we know God, see God, and are saved by God's own grace.

 

[whatistruth07]

When Jesus was on earth, persons would prostrate themselves before him to petition and to do obeisance to him, and he did not reprove them. (Lu 5:12; Joh 9:38) This was because he was the appointed King, the King-Designate, as he himself said: “God’s royal majesty has approached” (ED); “The kingdom of God has drawn near.” (NW, Mr 1:15) Jesus was the heir to the throne of David and therefore was rightfully honored as a king.—Mt 21:9; Joh 12:13-15.

John 20:23 Does this mean that the disciples could also forgive sins? When King David sinned, from whom did he seek forgiveness? In his time there were God-ordained Jewish priests serving at the tabernacle. Still, David wrote: “I said: ‘I shall make confession over my transgressions to Jehovah.’ And you yourself [God] pardoned the error of my sins.” (Ps. 32:5) Did Jesus change this when he came? No, for he taught us to pray: “Our Father in the heavens, . . . forgive us our debts [or trespasses].” (Matt. 6:9, 12) And that is how Jesus’ disciples understood the matter. They knew that it was not some man, but God, who could ‘forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.’—1 John 1:9.
(1st Corinthians 15:28)

"Now when all things are made subject to him, (The Father) then the SON HIMSELF WILL BE SUBJECTED TO HIM who put all things under him, that God may be all in all." Now we ask, if Jesus is part of some "godhead" why would he ever be "subjected" to another?

[FONT=&quot]"Of that day and hour (when God's kingdom is set up fully) knoweth no man, no not angels, neither the Son, but my Father only." (Mark 13:32) How is it that Jesus does not know?

ONE of the main reasons why Jesus came to earth also has a direct bearing on the Trinity. The Bible states: “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all.”—1 Timothy 2:5, 6.

Jesus, no more and no less than a perfect human, became a ransom that compensated exactly for what Adam lost—the right to perfect human life on earth. So Jesus could rightly be called “the last Adam” by the apostle Paul, who said in the same context: “Just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45) The perfect human life of Jesus was the “corresponding ransom” required by divine justice—no more, no less. A basic principle even of human justice is that the price paid should fit the wrong committed.

If Jesus, however, were part of a Godhead, the ransom price would have been infinitely higher than what God’s own Law required. (Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:19-21) It was only a perfect human, Adam, who sinned in Eden, not God. So the ransom, to be truly in line with God’s justice, had to be strictly an equivalent—a perfect human, “the last Adam.” Thus, when God sent Jesus to earth as the ransom, he made Jesus to be what would satisfy justice, not an incarnation, not a god-man, but a perfect man, “lower than angels.” (Hebrews 2:9; compare Psalm 8:5, 6.) How could any part of an almighty Godhead—Father, Son, or holy spirit—ever be lower than angels?
[/FONT]

 

[McBell]

As I have already stated...
If one reads the Bible without any preconceived notion of the trinity, the trinity would not be found.