Is Trinity in the Bible?

[Captain Civic]

To be fair, Christ, while he was on Earth, didn't teach the idea of the Trinity as such because the Holy Spirit was a promised gift after His departure; it only happened after He left. He definitely teached oneness with Himself and God, though.

 

[astarath]

the spirit was most certainly there during his time as the spirit descended upon him at his baptism!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

To be fair, Christ, while he was on Earth, didn't teach the idea of the Trinity as such because the Holy Spirit was a promised gift after His departure; it only happened after He left. He definitely teached oneness with Himself and God, though.

You are correct that Yeshua taught a oneness. That's really the extent of his teachings when positioning himself with God. He taught that they share a oneness (one is purpose). This wasn't exclusive to Yeshua. He also prayed to God that he wanted us to be one in purpose with God as well.

As far as the holy spirit is concerned, as Astarath said, the spirit was with Yeshua from the baptism to the end.

 

[sojourner]

I highly doubt that. There is no cohesiveness in the many denominations. You may believe Yeshua to be God but LDS and JWs don't. The rituals and doctrines you follow may seem way out or wacky to other denominations. Saying they're all together is wishful thinking.

The Church is one Body, because we are all one in Christ. Specific belief or doctrinal stances notwithstanding. Ever seen somebody play the drums? The hands do separate things from each other, and so do the feet. But they all belong to the same body and exist for the same purpose of playing the drums.

What oral teachings would that be?

The doctrines they have come from their interpretation of what is in the book. So I must go to the book to see if the "church's" doctrine of trinity is valid and when I look at what Yeshua taught...He did not teach his followers he was God or equal to God nor did any of them take him to be God.

That's precisely what the Church did a long time ago. They exrapolated the Trinity from the scriptures. It is Biblical, not because it is explicit in scripture, particularly, but it is implicit.
His followers didn't take him to be God? Then why, when he saw the wounds, did Thomas exclaim, "My Lord and my God?" (Hint: He wasn't cursing here.)

There is nothing there in the teaching of Yeshua to show that he or his followers considered him God or equal to God. Martha certainly didn't...His deciples finally got what he was saying when he told them God sent him. Not even Yeshua himself thought he was God, especially when he revealed he had a god but we already knew he did in John 17 (his prayer (one of many) to God).

I don't think that "Jesus' teachings" are particularly cogent to the argument. Jesus came to teach us how to be in relationship, not to teach us about his nature. There are other parts in the narrative that point to his divinity.

I just don't arrive at the conclusion they have because that information is not present. As you say.....from what is written in the book they have ("extrapolated)......(interpreted)...Yeshua to be God but I find it quite clear he wasn't.

But the Church has found that information present. Whether you find it there is a moot point. The Bible is a tool of the Church, by the Church, for the Church. The Church has interpreted what is written therein for its purposes. It is possible to interpret the Bible in a Trinitarian manner. We've been doing that for a long time now.

This is false. There are plenty who look upon the bible and need no help from the church to figure out what Yeshua taught. His teachings were quite clear. There is no mystery in what he taught. Trinitarian theology is not needed in order to understand what Yeshua taught. Again, where is the church getting their information from..????? They're getting it from the book.

False??? Who do you think wrote the gospel accounts? The Church. The Church holds the tradition about Jesus. It is the Church that teaches about Jesus. Therefore, it is the Church who interprets the second-hand information we have about Jesus, and transmits it on. When you read the Bible, you are entering on holy ground -- you are entering the Church. One cannot read the Bible apart from the Church, because the Bible is part of the Church. When one reads the Bible, one is part of the Church. Sorry.

 

[sojourner]

You are correct that Yeshua taught a oneness. That's really the extent of his teachings when positioning himself with God. He taught that they share a oneness (one is purpose). This wasn't exclusive to Yeshua. He also prayed to God that he wanted us to be one in purpose with God as well.

As far as the holy spirit is concerned, as Astarath said, the spirit was with Yeshua from the baptism to the end.

How do you know that Oneness has to do with purpose, and not Being?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That's precisely what the Church did a long time ago. They exrapolated the Trinity from the scriptures.

They didn't do this solely on what Yeshua was to supposed to have said or taught. If they did they wouldn't have arrived at trinity. Other denominations ("the church"..."the body of christ" as you say) don't arrive at this assumption in their study of the scripture. Most of that came from the commentary or letters /writings of those who never knew Yeshua.

His followers didn't take him to be God? Then why, when he saw the wounds, did Thomas exclaim, "My Lord and my God?" (Hint: He wasn't cursing here.)

Saying it to be taken as a curse is not the same as being exited. We see that when most of the scholars out there have translated that verse with and ( ! ) exclamation mark at the end of it. If you disagree then you may have to take it up with them. Additionally the verses after that one proceed to revert back and describe Yeshua as the Messiah the son of God. I'm convinced, looking at it in context, the writer was not trying to convey that he nor Thomas assumed Yeshua to be God. Martha sure didn't think him to be God when she told him "I Know that whatever you ask God, God will give it too you". He at no point scalded her or had to correct her for her portrayal of God in relation to him. Interesting enough, should you care to look, "the god" or "the divine" (ho theos) is mentioned in 2 Corinthians 4:4 when describing the devil and it is used in the way in John 20:28. Also take note that earlier in that same chapter John 20:17 Yeshua reveals to us he has a god ("My father, your father...My god and your god"). Paul, whom most like to quote, confirms this when he tells us basically the same thing......"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort"

I don't think that "Jesus' teachings" are particularly cogent to the argument. Jesus came to teach us how to be in relationship, not to teach us about his nature. There are other parts in the narrative that point to his divinity.

Well, no one is questioning the divinity of Yeshua. But being divine does not mean that one is God or a god.

But the Church has found that information present. Whether you find it there is a moot point.

See that's the problem right there. I'm not under church dogma and what I find and what others have found is very important to this discussion. You can't dismiss it because I say I don't agree and trinity doctrine is not present amongst the teachings of Yeshua. There are plenty of "Christians" (The church...the body of christ...as you say) who do not share your view and who do not accept trinity and who believe that the catholic church and other denominations that assume Yeshua is God..do not represent them. The church has "found" nothing...they, as you say, "extrapolated (interpreted) the information to mean Yeshua is God.

The Bible is a tool of the Church, by the Church, for the Church. The Church has interpreted what is written therein for its purposes. It is possible to interpret the Bible in a Trinitarian manner. We've been doing that for a long time now.

And you're doing a great job at it to. When I look at what Yeshua taught his followers and what they really thought of him...trinity is not present.

Therefore, it is the Church who interprets the second-hand information we have about Jesus, and transmits it on.

I have never needed the "church" to tell me what I should think. The information contained in the books is not hard....AT ALL.... to understand.

When you read the Bible, you are entering on holy ground -- you are entering the Church. One cannot read the Bible apart from the Church, because the Bible is part of the Church. When one reads the Bible, one is part of the Church. Sorry.

This is solely your opinion. One that I don't share. :sarcastic

 

[Dirty Penguin]

How do you know that Oneness has to do with purpose, and not Being?

Yeshua, man and God are one in purpose
John 10:30
I and my Father are one.

John 17:21
That they all may be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in (us): that the world may believe that you have sent me.

17:22 And the glory which you gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as (we are one):

17:23 I in them, and you in me, that they may be made perfect in one;

One in purpose but not one in the same.

 

[Captain Civic]

As far as the holy spirit is concerned, as Astarath said, the spirit was with Yeshua from the baptism to the end.

What I meant to say was that the Spirit wasn't with us as humans until Jesus went to Heaven. It was certainly with Him, but He promised it as our Comforter when He was gone.

 

[UnityNow101]

Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't there instances in the Old Testament of the Holy Spirit of God descending upon certain prophets of God and servants? I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that the Holy Spirit has always been among us.

As for the trinity, it is not in the Bible, was not mentioned by Jesus or Moses, and thus must be regarded as an idea brought forth by man, and not a God-given revelation. There is not strong enough evidence in the text of the Bible to justify it being the truth, as we are told again and again that God is ONE. I never read anywhere in the Bible that God was anything but ONE. Maybe I missed a particular Bible verse where the trinity is mentioned, but I don't believe that I have. It is like the argument about Jesus being God. Neither the trinity nor his Divinity were mentioned by him, the Messenger of God, so each must be regarded as being man-made traditions.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

amazing dre 007

i wonder if uve heard of the late ahmed deedat!!!

YESSSSSSS....!!!!!!!!!!

He was awesome. I'm not sure I've seen all of his public debates but I have seen probably everything that is on Youtube.

firstly the bible is said to have severe errors(said by the 32 scholars of highest emminence backed by 50 denominations)
they arent muslims,hindus or even jews but pure christians who r scholars in their own religion......................they say it's not even obligatory for one to beleive in trinity...tht's why the word 'trinity' is flipped frm the new version of the bible.........

For the most part here on this forum I put up quotes from the Revised KJV because the KJV is what most use. My primary bible is the RSV. When people throw out random quotes to suggest Yeshua is God I refer to the RSV. Then I cross reference with the KJV. If need be I'll look at other bibles, dictionaries and lexicons. I might even cite a scholar or two. My arabic, hebrew and greek are rusty so I will refer to learned scholars for their translations and commentary. I try to use credible sources.

suprisingly the qur'an mentions the word trinity.. it says something like 'dont say trinity for it is the highest form of insult ,if all the creation had life ,and one happened to beleive so and proclaim so, the skies would split open,the earth crack open and suck them in'

You are correct.

Arberry Translation (From the classical arabic)

4:171
People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to Allah but the truth. The Messiah, Isa son of Mary, was only the Messenger of Allah, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His Messengers, and say not, 'Three.' Refrain; better is it for you. Allah is only One god Glory be to Him -- That He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; Allah suffices for a guardian.

That's a good verse but I like this one a lot better;

Arberry Translation (From the classical arabic)

5:116
And when Allah said, 'O Isa, son of Mary! is it thou who didst say to men, take me and my mother for two gods, beside Allag?' He (Isa) said, 'I celebrate Thy praise! what ails me that I should say what I have no right to? If I had said it, Thou wouldst have known it; Thou knowest what is in my soul, but I know not what is in Thy soul; verily, Thou art one who knoweth the unseen.

NOTE: I'm only posting this because you and I agree. I have refrained from posting anything from the quran because the debate has really been centered around the bible.

 

[sojourner]

They didn't do this solely on what Yeshua was to supposed to have said or taught.

As I said, Jesus' nature was not the thrust of his teachings.

Saying it to be taken as a curse is not the same as being exited. We see that when most of the scholars out there have translated that verse with and ( ! ) exclamation mark at the end of it. If you disagree then you may have to take it up with them.

I have. NT scholars interpret it as an ascription, not an expletive.

Additionally the verses after that one proceed to revert back and describe Yeshua as the Messiah the son of God. I'm convinced, looking at it in context, the writer was not trying to convey that he nor Thomas assumed Yeshua to be God. Martha sure didn't think him to be God when she told him "I Know that whatever you ask God, God will give it too you". He at no point scalded her or had to correct her for her portrayal of God in relation to him.

You obviously don't understand Trinity doctrine. There are three persons in one God. When Jesus spoke of himself, he was speaking out of his human nature, since he was dealing with humans as one of us. All humans have a God. When Martha spoke about him, she was speaking to God the Son, not to God the Father. There is a marked distinction between the two. Jesus would not have scolded her for identifying him as the Son, who has a Father, for that is part of the idea of Trinity.

Well, no one is questioning the divinity of Yeshua. But being divine does not mean that one is God or a god.

Actually, it does.

See that's the problem right there. I'm not under church dogma and what I find and what others have found is very important to this discussion.

But, yet, first-hand information seems to be very important to you. Why, then, do you discount the best (and earliest) source we have...which is the ancient Church?

When I look at what Yeshua taught his followers and what they really thought of him...trinity is not present.

Only if you misunderstand what the Trinity is...

I have never needed the "church" to tell me what I should think. The information contained in the books is not hard....AT ALL.... to understand.

Neither have I.

Apparently, it is difficult to understand, or this conversation would not be taking place.

This is solely your opinion. One that I don't share.

In the same way, I suppose, that listening to an orchestra does not make you part of the music. In the same way that buying and driving a Ford doesn't make you part of the Ford company/family. The Bible was written by the Church, compiled by the Church for the Church. Whenever one encounters the Bible, one enters into the Church's history, tradition and lore. It is our scripture. Welcome to the Church!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What I meant to say was that the Spirit wasn't with us as humans until Jesus went to Heaven. It was certainly with Him, but He promised it as our Comforter when He was gone.

Then it may be up to you to explain who or what the "holy spirit" or "comforter" is.

If the holy spirit could not come or if Yeshua could not send the "holy spirit" until he had ascended then we may have a problem because later in John Yeshua tells the woman he had not ascended so this means the holy spirit should not have been "gifted" to the disciples but just a couple verses later we find;

John 20:22
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit

Mind you, at this point he has not ascended. So we can conclude that BEFORE he left (ascended) they had received the holy spirit.

 

[sojourner]

Then it may be up to you to explain who or what the "holy spirit" or "comforter" is.

If the holy spirit could not come or if Yeshua could not send the "holy spirit" until he had ascended then we may have a problem because later in John Yeshua tells the woman he had not ascended so this means the holy spirit should not have been "gifted" to the disciples but just a couple verses later we find;

John 20:22
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit

Mind you, at this point he has not ascended. So we can conclude that BEFORE he left (ascended) they had received the holy spirit.

Quite right. Also to be considered is the story in Genesis, where God breathed (the word is translated as spirit [ruach]) into the man's nostrils. also, the part where the spirit of God moved over the face of the waters in creation. The Holy Spirit is an old, old concept.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

As I said, Jesus' nature was not the thrust of his teachings.

It was not the mission of Yeshua to expound on his nature. TRUE. But he did anyway. He totally reveals himself separate from God, in heaven and on earth. He constantly had to tell his followers he was sent, taught and commanded by God.

I have. NT scholars interpret it as an ascription, not an expletive.

And mine says otherwise. It seems we are at a stalemate.

You obviously don't understand Trinity doctrine.

Sure I do. Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I don't understand.

There are three persons in one God. When Jesus spoke of himself, he was speaking out of his human nature,

This is incorrect. We know for a fact that before coming here Yeshua, while in heaven, had his own will.

John 6:38
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Then we find that Yeshua will pray (beg) God to send the comforter. We know that the comforter could not come unless he departed. When he left he was supposed to have been taken to heaven (ascended). So we can conclude that this "begging God to send the comforter" is an act that is to take place after his ascension.

John 14:16
And I (Yeshua) will pray (beg) the Father (GOD), and he (GOD) shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

I can not conclude, by your logic, he is God when Yeshua made statements like this.

When Martha spoke about him, she was speaking to God the Son, not to God the Father.

She did no such thing. That kind of information is not even present in her statement. This is an assumption on your part. I can easily look at her statement and conclude that she did not assume Yeshua to be God. She realized given the situation he did not even have to capabilities of God and that's why she knew that whatever he asked God, God would give it to him.

Actually, it does.

Actually, it doesn't.....:sarcastic

Being divine does not mean one has to be God or a god.

But, yet, first-hand information seems to be very important to you. Why, then, do you discount the best (and earliest) source we have...which is the ancient Church?

I discount the opinions of those who assumed Yeshua to be God when the earlier oral teachings that became the four gospels did not make such a claim. These teachings of Yeshua as God were not until after he ascended.

Apparently, it is difficult to understand, or this conversation would not be taking place.

Shucks, you make it seem like it is such a hard thing to understand. There are a lot of people here who truly understand the trinity....They just don't agree with it.

 

[Muffled]

Wow.
All it takes is all three to be mentioned in the same verse to support the Trinity concept?

Seems like many people need to take a refresher course in BASIC English.

Of course not any more than the United Kingdom is equivalent to the grace of God but it is not just a case of all three being mentioed. All three are mentioned as one name.

Take for instance the "Queen" sentence. the "of"s are preceded with "By the grace."
"Grace" is a general word that can include different levels as of God, as of the UK. "Name" is not a general word and it is singular. If there are multiple names it would have to be pluralized into "Names."

 

[McBell]

1 John 5:5
7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Comma Johanneum

Interesting that St. Augustine never once mentions 1 John 5:5 to support his belief in the Trinity.

Of course not any more than the United Kingdom is equivalent to the grace of God but it is not just a case of all three being mentioed. All three are mentioned as one name.

Take for instance the "Queen" sentence. the "of"s are preceded with "By the grace."
"Grace" is a general word that can include different levels as of God, as of the UK. "Name" is not a general word and it is singular. If there are multiple names it would have to be pluralized into "Names."

Post #578

 

[Dirty Penguin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

Post #578

...........

 

[sojourner]

It was not the mission of Yeshua to expound on his nature. TRUE. But he did anyway. He totally reveals himself separate from God, in heaven and on earth. He constantly had to tell his followers he was sent, taught and commanded by God.

Why do you suppose he revealed himself as separate from God? Because he was fully human, as Trinity doctine states. Why did he tell them that he was sent by the Father? Because the Father is the impetus, and sends the Son...again, as Trinity doctrine states.

Sure I do. Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I don't understand.

The statements you make seem to indicate otherwise.

This is incorrect. We know for a fact that before coming here Yeshua, while in heaven, had his own will.

What in the world does free will in heaven have to do with Jesus speaking out of his human nature?

She did no such thing. That kind of information is not even present in her statement. This is an assumption on your part. I can easily look at her statement and conclude that she did not assume Yeshua to be God. She realized given the situation he did not even have to capabilities of God and that's why she knew that whatever he asked God, God would give it to him.

It's also easy to take a cursory look at Demi Moore and clonclude that her boobs are real.
Martha was talking to Jesus, in his humanity, not in his divinity.

Being divine does not mean one has to be God or a god.

Then what do you suppose it means???

I discount the opinions of those who assumed Yeshua to be God when the earlier oral teachings that became the four gospels did not make such a claim.

yes they did. It's right there. If you choose not to see it, that doesn't mean that it's not there. it just means that you choose not to see it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Why do you suppose he revealed himself as separate from God?

Because he knew he wasn't God and he taught his followers as such.

Why did he tell them that he was sent by the Father?

Because he was......:sleep:.......(I mean that is what he told them right?)

The statements you make seem to indicate otherwise.

I understand...I really do. I just don't agree. Do you live as the hindus do? Do you believe Yeshua not to be God as a lot of other christians do? Do you live as the muslims or the Jews. I don't think so. Is it because you don't understand their way of life? No. I believe you do understand how others live. I believe you even have a respect for their way of life. You simply don't agree that their way of life is for you. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I don't understand.

What in the world does free will in heaven have to do with Jesus speaking out of his human nature?

Well, if he has his own will separate from God before coming here then he isn't God. Before coming here Yeshua tells us he speaks the things that God taught him to say and he spoke that which he has seen with God.

It's also easy to take a cursory look at Demi Moore and clonclude that her boobs are real.

You could have used a diffrent analogy. This is something I care not to discuss.

Martha was talking to Jesus, in his humanity, not in his divinity.

This is peer speculation. She spoke from what she knew and that Yeshua was not God. She didn't take him to be God nor did he teach his followers he was. She knew that whatever he asked of God, God would give it to him. There is nothing in that statement she made to conclude that Yeshua was God but rather he would have to ask God to give him the power to do what he did. Anything else is you..speculating...

yes they did. It's right there. If you choose not to see it, that doesn't mean that it's not there. it just means that you choose not to see it.

Nothing is there to suggest Yeshua is God. Yeshua didn't teach his followers trinity. After his departure is when people began to think him to be God. Most of which never knew him or heard him speak.

 

[athanasius]

The Blessed Trinity is in the bible implicitly but not explicitly. There is no explicit statement that says "Trinity" in the bible. But why should there be for a Christian to believe it? We are not limited to Scripture alone as revelation. The Trinity is found in apostolic Tradition explicitly as evidenced by the Fathers and councils.To limit everything to Scripture alone is illogical an cannot be proven by scripture or Christian history itself.