Is Trinity in the Bible?

[astarath]

Oddly polygamy is in the bible implicitly but not explicitly should i start the search for my second wife?

 

[astarath]

Apostolic tradition is interesting as the apostle themselves were not righteous men. The sinned and held error and unlike the Word are fallable. If they are fallable and the explicit teaching of the trinity comes from Apostolic Tradition alone does that not indicate that there could indeed be realm for error?

 

[athanasius]

Apostolic tradition is interesting as the apostle themselves were not righteous men. The sinned and held error and unlike the Word are fallable. If they are fallable and the explicit teaching of the trinity comes from Apostolic Tradition alone does that not indicate that there could indeed be realm for error?

In your world view that maybe correct. But in the eyes of the Catholic Church, the Apostles spoke the word of God. Simple we just have two different world views.

 

[Quiddity]

Apostolic tradition is interesting as the apostle themselves were not righteous men. The sinned and held error and unlike the Word are fallable. If they are fallable and the explicit teaching of the trinity comes from Apostolic Tradition alone does that not indicate that there could indeed be realm for error?

I think you are confusing infallibility with immpecabality.

Since when is a man required to be perfect to teach truth?

 

[athanasius]

I think you are confusing infallibility with immpecabality.

Since when is a man required to be perfect to teach truth?

I second that notion!

 

[roli]

How equitable is it that a JW can call the trinity concept false but I can't say that JW's have their own problem with false doctrine?

Good point!!

 

[roli]

We know God is one, but there are 3 manifestations of himself on the earth.
The question is do we see the distinction of 3 persons of the Godhead in the following verses below.
Note Jesus is speaking:
Jhn 15:26But when the Comforter (Holy Ghost)is come, whom I (Jesus)will send unto you from the Father,(God) [even] the Spirit of truth,(Holy Spirit) which proceedeth from the Father, (God)he shall testify of me: (Jesus)
Jhn 14:26But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name,(Jesus) he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I (Jesus)have said unto you.

Does anybody see the 3 persons of the Godhead here in this verse



1Jo 5:7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,(Logos greek for Jesus as in John 1) and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Does this verse indicate to anyone that these are the 3 persons of the Godhead , a triune being, but 3 being one.
Man is a type of trinity, body, soul, spirit.

Jesus is the word
Jhn 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jhn 1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

 

[Katzpur]

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

Well, if it means "one in Being," then Jesus' great intercessory prayer (in John 17, if I'm not mistaken) would be a prayer that we would all be merged into the Trinity and become a part of God's substance. It certainly doesn't appear that this is what Jesus was praying would happen.

 

[kmkemp]

Roli has some good verses. You could also check out the Great Commission. Or the story in the OT of Sarah's pregnancy.

 

[McBell]

Roli has some good verses. You could also check out the Great Commission. Or the story in the OT of Sarah's pregnancy.

Comma Johanneum
^^LINK^^
​

Perhaps maybe if I make it an incredibly asinine font size it will be seen?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Comma Johanneum

^^LINK^^​

Perhaps maybe if I make it an incredibly asinine font size it will be seen?

Thanks Mestemia....

1 John 5:7 was thrown out because it either was not in the oldest of text or was just a complete frabrication by the ("church").

The bible was revised by 32 scholars (I believe christian scholars) backed by 50 or so denominations who approved the RSV.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well, if it means "one in Being," then Jesus' great intercessory prayer (in John 17, if I'm not mistaken) would be a prayer that we would all be merged into the Trinity and become a part of God's substance. It certainly doesn't appear that this is what Jesus was praying would happen.

Correct....

He asked me that question and I posted those verses of (unity - one in purpose) from John 17 which incidently in that same book is where we find the phrase "I and the father are one"....Yeshua's prayer to his god was a great clarification as to what he meant by that statement..simply because he repeated himself and prayed to his god that he hoped we'd be one with "them"..........

 

[Dirty Penguin]

We know God is one, but there are 3 manifestations of himself on the earth.
The question is do we see the distinction of 3 persons of the Godhead in the following verses below.
Note Jesus is speaking:
Jhn 15:26But when the Comforter (Holy Ghost)is come, whom I (Jesus)will send unto you from the Father,(God) [even] the Spirit of truth,(Holy Spirit) which proceedeth from the Father, (God)he shall testify of me: (Jesus)

I see no Godhead here. So by this theory.....God is going to send himself from himself and he will testify of himself?????? :sarcastic

Jhn 14:26But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name,(Jesus) he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I (Jesus)have said unto you.

Still no Godhead here. There is no godhead (trinity) "implied" here....only interpreted.

1Jo 5:7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,(Logos greek for Jesus as in John 1) and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Does this verse indicate to anyone that these are the 3 persons of the Godhead , a triune being, but 3 being one.

This verse (or part of it) has been thrown out and is said to be a fabrication.

Jesus is the word
Jhn 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jhn 1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Yeshua is God's word (his mouthpiece, his representative, his ambassador). Yeshua was taught by God and instructed by God what he should say to the people. He then was sent here from heaven, not by his own will, but by the will of God with a task he was given to complete. The task was to give the lost sheep the word of God. After he did that he, in his prayer to God, informs God thy will is done. He had given them God's word even though the people hated it. They didn't want to listen...but still, his mission was complete.

So in the gospels Yeshua does not reveal himself to be God. He did not teach his followers he was God. He did not imply he was God nor did any of his followers take him to be God.

 

[Captain Civic]

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.

OK no problem. So what is the difference between the coming of the Spirit as quoted above and the Acts record of the dancing flames appearing over the apostles' heads?

 

[kmkemp]

Yeshua is God's word (his mouthpiece, his representative, his ambassador). Yeshua was taught by God and instructed by God what he should say to the people. He then was sent here from heaven, not by his own will, but by the will of God with a task he was given to complete. The task was to give the lost sheep the word of God. After he did that he, in his prayer to God, informs God thy will is done. He had given them God's word even though the people hated it. They didn't want to listen...but still, his mission was complete.

So in the gospels Yeshua does not reveal himself to be God. He did not teach his followers he was God. He did not imply he was God nor did any of his followers take him to be God.

Hmmm, you said a lot there, but you never even addressed the verse. If you submit that "the Word" was Yeshua (and it seems you do by your very first sentence), then you must either think that the quoted verse is a mistranslation or that Jesus and God are one being. It very clearly states that "the Word was God". How do you reconcile that?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Hmmm, you said a lot there, but you never even addressed the verse.

Actually I did. What I said is almost verbatim from the scripture.

If you submit that "the Word" was Yeshua (and it seems you do by your very first sentence),

Then you misunderstood what I said and meant. I said Yeshua speaks for God. He is God's ambassador. It was actually all right there in "the first sentence"

then you must either think that the quoted verse is a mistranslation

You now presume to know my thoughts. Mistranslation? I don't think so. Misinterpreted? Yes.....

or that Jesus and God are one being.

If you know anything of my postings here you'll notice that I think nothing of the sort. They were one in purpose but not one in the same.

It very clearly states that "the Word was God". How do you reconcile that?

"the logos (spoken word, command) was God". What's your point here. Yeshua, like Moses brought God's spoken words or commandments to the people. When Moses came down from the mountain he gave the people God's word. He spoke for God. He was God's ambassasdor. Yeshua says basically the same thing. He comfirms that he speaks for God. Thus he is the word of God. If you are an ambassador for your country and you go to speak in another country, you are speaking on behalf of the person who put you in charge. you aren't coming to speak with your own agenda but an agenda that is approved by the one that sent you. Same with Yeshua.

ohn 7:16
Yeshua answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His
who sent Me.

John 14:24
"He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word
which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

Yeshua came to reavel the word of God to the people. He came on behalf of God. This is straight from the scripture. He was taught and commanded by God as to what he should say. He was sent, not by his own separate will in heaven, but by the will of God.

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

Separate will from God while in heaven. This shows us he is not God if he and God are one being.


8:28 Then said Yeshua unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

God taught him. God can not be taught if he is omniscient.


8:38 I speak that which I have seen (with) my Father:

God can not be shown anything if he is the creator of all things and since he is omniscient he knows what all those things are.

8:40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did.

God can not be informed of that which he already knows. If he can then he is not God.

8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying (his word - his commandments).

This was the nature of Yeshua. He was no more than a servant of God before and after comeing here. His purpose was to deliver God's word. He was the mouthpiece for God as John 14:24 shows us.

Joh 12:49
"For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who
sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.

God can not be commanded.

As stated earlier, Yeshua was the word of God. The word was sent to earth with Yeshua to a lost people. He was "given" the authority in heaven and on earth to do what he did. For the faithful followers they did believe that God sent Yeshua and they kept his word (his commandments) but the rest of the people did not want to hear the word of God which Yeashua came to give to them. They hated it. Regardeless. He was sent with a task to complete and he did it.

John 17:4
I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work which you gave me to do.


John 17:14
I have given them your word; and the world has hated them (God's word) because they (God's word - not Yeshua or Yeshua's word) are not of the world, even as I (Yeshua) am not of the world.


He brought the word of God. We look upon him as the "the word"...The one that was given authority to speak for God as he was instructed and commanded to by God.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

OK no problem. So what is the difference between the coming of the Spirit as quoted above and the Acts record of the dancing flames appearing over the apostles' heads?

hmmmm....my response was merely to show that the "holy spirit" had been there the whole time. Yeshua had not ascended when he gave them the holy spirit. I was merely addressing the statement made that Yeshua had to ascend in order to give them the gift of the holy spirit. That was simply not the case.

 

[kmkemp]

Actually I did. What I said is almost verbatim from the scripture.

Even after a third reading, I don't see how your reply is a response to that particular scripture. I understand what the Word means, but that is not what's important here. What IS important is that, in this context, "the Word" was clearly Jesus Christ.

Then you misunderstood what I said and meant. I said Yeshua speaks for God. He is God's ambassador. It was actually all right there in "the first sentence"

Hmmm, you said this: "Yeshua is God's word". There is no misunderstanding here. You are very clearly making a definitive statement that Jesus was "the Word".

You now presume to know my thoughts. Mistranslation? I don't think so. Misinterpreted? Yes.....

When I said "you", I really meant "one", but I can see how you would think that. Nonetheless, you also qualify as "one". I was simply stating that you must believe that one or the other of two options is true. I don't see any room for your conclusion of misinterpretation. It says very clearly that "the Word was God" [emphasis mine]. Perhaps you can explain to me how there is a misinterpretation here? It seems very clear to me that, if Jesus = the Word and the Word = God, then Jesus = God.

If you know anything of my postings here you'll notice that I think nothing of the sort. They were one in purpose but not one in the same.

Your postings are of no consequence when you seemingly contradict them. I wouldn't think from your previous posts that you would submit that "the Word" here was referring to Jesus Christ, but since you have, then I consider your post to contradict everything else that you've said in light of that scripture.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Even after a third reading, I don't see how your reply is a response to that particular scripture. I understand what the Word means, but that is not what's important here. What IS important is that, in this context, "the Word" was clearly Jesus Christ.

Then we just have a difference of opinion as to what the "word" is. You believe Yeshua is physically God in the flesh of a man. I see it as God's word manifest (brought forth) through Yeshua. I see him as God's ambassador given the power to speak for God here on earth.

Matthew 28:18
.........All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.

God can not be "given" power if he is omnipotent.

Hmmm, you said this: "Yeshua is God's word". There is no misunderstanding here. You are very clearly making a definitive statement that Jesus was "the Word".

Sure there's a misunderstanding. It's on your part. I mean if you really want to quote me then do it in full because you misinterpreted what I said and what I meant by snipping a piece of what I said. Here's what I said.....in full...

DreGod07
"Yeshua is God's word (his mouthpiece, his representative, his ambassador). "

Do you see the (.) period at the end of my own quote above? I wasn't finish with my chain of thought until then.

Strong's Greek Lexicon
3056. logos log'-os from 3004; something said (including the thought); by implication, a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension, a computation; specially, (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ):--account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say(-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

Yeshua is God's mouthpiece. He speaks for God. His task was to give the word of God to the people.

And we clearly see how Yeshua informs us of this.

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

John 7:16
Yeshua answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His
who sent Me.

John 8:28
............I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.


John 8:38
............I speak that which I have seen (with) my Father:

John 17:14
I have given them your word; and the world has hated them (God's word) because they (God's word - not Yeshua or Yeshua's word) are not of the world, even as I (Yeshua) am not of the world.

So, again....He is God's ambassasdor. Yeshua came giving them truth, God's truth, God's word.

John 17:17
Make them holy in your truth; your word is truth.

When I said "you", I really meant "one", but I can see how you would think that. Nonetheless, you also qualify as "one".

No biggy...but now do you see how mis-interpretation can lead to "one" being confused as to what the other person said?

I was simply stating that you must believe that one or the other of two options is true.

And what I'm saying is that you are wrong for suggesting that is what I believe. I think neither are true. I do not see Yeshua and God as one being and I don't really think that the verses have been mistranslated. In the majority of bibles those verses, translated by diffrent scholars are pretty much consistent with each other with the exception of the NWT.

I've addressed your first assumption (that I believe it to be a mistranslation). Here's what I see on your second.

I'm going to quote you fully since people have the nack of not doing the same for me.

You said;

If you submit that "the Word" was Yeshua (and it seems you do by your very first sentence), then you must either think that the quoted verse is a mistranslation or that Jesus and God are one being

I do not believe they are one being. I believe they are one in purpose. Yeshua clearly states in his prayer the oneness they have and he prayed to God that his followers would also share that oneness of purpose. The statement made earlier in John that Yeshua and God are one is clarified by Yeshua in his prayer in John 17.

John 10:30
I and my Father are one.
ego kai ho pater hen esmen

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. Surely his followers were not to be taken as God as well (co-equal)?

ego kai ho pater hen esmen
The greek /hen/ for one is neuter, and points to a compound unity, as having a mutual goal (one in purpose).

I don't see any room for your conclusion of misinterpretation. It says very clearly that "the Word was God" [emphasis mine]. Perhaps you can explain to me how there is a misinterpretation here? It seems very clear to me that, if Jesus = the Word and the Word = God, then Jesus = God.

The clarification was given by Yeshua in John 17:14. He finished the task God gave him to do. He had given the "word" to the people. Some took heed and believed him and believed that God sent him to relay a message and some didn't. Those that didn't take heed were the ones who hated what he had to say. If I am to believe your mathmatical abilities above when it comes to scripture then Maybe you can tell us why Yeshua says he has his own will in heaven separate from God if we are to belive Yeshua is God. Maybe you can tell us why Yeshua and Paul say Yeshua has a god. You've presented it as if it is supposed to be straight forward but when he says he has a god or when Paul said it...now we need to interpret what that really means???? I submit that Yeshua is not God, he had his own will in heaven and he has a god.

Yeshua in heaven has his own will and a god = Yeshua is not God.

Your postings are of no consequence when you seemingly contradict them.

I guess it would appear that way when you don't fully quote me. This gives other readers the impression you actually did quote me perfectly but we've already seen that's not the case.

I wouldn't think from your previous posts that you would submit that "the Word" here was referring to Jesus Christ,

The word is from God and Yeshua brings it. Yeshua speaks for God... so Yeshua is the word of God (he speaks for God). It's like my ambassador analogy. A representative from your state argues issues in congress on your behalf. He or she isn't you in the flesh rather they speak for you. You both are one in purpose. It's like when some one says "voice of the people"......The people aren't speaking but rather one person speaking for them in a (unified) voice.

 

[kmkemp]

You are throwing a ton of scripture out there and asking questions that would take many pages to cover. Let's get back to what is actually being discussed here...

"1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

So, let's consider your position with just this passage. If, in fact, 'the Word' here simply means that Jesus was God's messenger, then that has simple implications that I find illogical:

1: Jesus existed before creation, before he actually had a purpose (since there was no one there to give the message to).
2: Creation included the host of heaven, so unless you want to put Jesus in a special class all to himself between angel and God, then you must conclude that he was, in fact, God. To do otherwise would contradict mountains of scripture explicitly stating the existence of one, and only one, God.
3: I can't think of anything that can simultaneously be "with" someone and actually "be" someone. Your analogy must mean that the second and third clauses are referring to the same noun in a different way, which is in no way explicit in that verse. You can't just say that "this scripture means this" or "that scripture means that" without having something other than a nice tight fit with your message. I want to know one example of something that can be both "with" someone and actually "be" that same something simultaneously.

Another thing that I've noticed in this thread as a constant theme is people pointing to scripture to disprove the Trinity. But even that is only logical in a limited way... the entire concept of Trinity was a conclusion made from scripture to describe the relationship that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost portray in scripture. You cannot say that "the Father and Son had different wills so Trinity is out" for example, because the concept of Trinity came into being to explain this difference (in light of the rest of scripture).