Is Trinity in the Bible?

[sojourner]

I've talked to plenty of Mormons who consider themselves christians as well as JWs and NO....they do not believe Yeshua is God. There are other christians on this forum who just list christian under their title and a lot of them don't think Yeshua is God. I am NOT talking about ALL of christianity because christianity on a WHOLE do not believe Jesus is God. I give you that alot of christians do but not all.

Most -- by far, most.

But that still doesn't mean that Yeshua in the gospels said he was God, equated himself with God or any of the followers thought him to be God.

But we say that it is clear in the gospels that Jesus is God. In several places. And the interpretation is valid.

Compelling? Yes...but to what degree? It was no mystery they called him "The Messiah." That title can be found numerous times throughout the four gospels. That's not in question at all. What's in question is, is he God which would make him part of a trinity? Looking at the beginning of Simon's answer is trivial to this discussion. The latter part of his answer is the meat. Yeshua is the son OF God. He did not see Yeshua as God or God in the flesh.

The argument was made by me that Christianity is not predicated upon eyewitness fact, but upon revelation. The passage here is compelling, in that it is a prime example of revelation.

That's all that's there. At first you didn't believe and because I have shown myself to you and you see me and can physically touch me you now believe that I am alive.

Again -- revelation.

What he said was not takig God's name in vain or an act of cursing God. There are other places in the scripture where people were in grief etc and call out to God. That exclaimation he made was jut one of many that can be found in scripture.

This is absurd. And it's clearly eisegetical. Yes, people cry out to God -- not into the air, using God's title. This is clearly a case of recognition. Most reputable Bible scholars will bear me out on that. If Thomas was "crying out to God," he was talking to Jesus, who was right in front of him -- the one whom Thomas had always called, "Lord."

Well this is not my statement. That was a quote from another trinitarian.

Whoever it was, is mistaken, I think.

 

[sojourner]

Luke 24:12 Kepha
Luke 24:18 Clepas

But if you read further, even their eyes were opened, and revelation occurred. And Jesus disappeared. Human beings don't do that.

 

[sojourner]

I agree that Paul was "inventing" the doctrine that Jesus was Goad, but I do not believe that was a revelation from God, but rather an invention on Paul's part--a simple over-enthusiasm.

Regards,
Scott

Which is why you're not Christian.

 

[Popeyesays]

Which is why you're not Christian.

My name clearly lists me as Baha`i.

I would point out this is not a same faith debate board.

I would also point out that I believe Jesus is the Son of God, the Spirit of God, and a Manifestation of God. He was as close to God as we will ever see. However, He was not God, and if Paulo says He was then Paul is mistaken.

Regards,
Scott

 

[sojourner]

My name clearly lists me as Baha`i.

I would point out this is not a same faith debate board.

I would also point out that I believe Jesus is the Son of God, the Spirit of God, and a Manifestation of God. He was as close to God as we will ever see. However, He was not God, and if Paulo says He was then Paul is mistaken.

Regards,
Scott

I (and most of the Body of Christ) disagree.

 

[Muffled]

My name clearly lists me as Baha`i.

I would point out this is not a same faith debate board.

I would also point out that I believe Jesus is the Son of God, the Spirit of God, and a Manifestation of God. He was as close to God as we will ever see. However, He was not God, and if Paulo says He was then Paul is mistaken.

Regards,
Scott

Thank you Scott for giving us a synopsis of the beliefs of those heretics. I agree with some things and disagree with others. Considering how sophisticated the debate can become it is a wonder that the council at Nicea could formulate a creed. I think the simplicity of the creed reflects the fact that there was not much they could agree on.

The problem with the Athanasian creed is that He convolutes the doctrine trying to oppose the heresy and ends up in error himself.

The Spirit of God is God by definition, so you are in effect saying that Jesus is God in the flesh. However I would disagree with you because Jesus is the Spirit of God in the flesh, meaning that there is a part of Jesus that is consubstantial with God and a part that is creation. Here is where I would agree with the Nestorians that the flesh is not to be worshipped as though it were God but Jesus can be worshipped because God is identifiable in Him.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

But if you read further, even their eyes were opened, and revelation occurred. And Jesus disappeared. Human beings don't do that.

The point is in Luke 24:19 The deciples did not take him to be God. It is clearly shown that he was a prophet and God's word to the people.

I have no problem with him disappearing. But that in no way is a proof that he is God. You seem to be making the assumption a lot of people make that because Yeshua did things we mere humans could not do he must be God. If that's the case then before Yeshua the bible is filled with people doing things others couldn't. But even Yeshua himself reveals that the things he was able to do was because his god gave him to power and authority to do so.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

But we say that it is clear in the gospels that Jesus is God. In several places. And the interpretation is valid.

It is clear that it isn't and obviously the interpretation is not as valid as you believe since there are those out there to contest it. There are scholars on both sides rendering their expertise on the matter. As far as the four gospels no one has come forward with the verses you speak of. Some try to do it with John 8:58 and that is an obvious misinterpretation of the verse.

The argument was made by me that Christianity is not predicated upon eyewitness fact, but upon revelation.

Again, I'm not arguing against that. That is certainly your belief. As I said, mormons and muslims etc. believe their way of life was through revelation as well. Will you be reading from the quran and adhering to the tenets of Islam or picking up a BOM and using it as a companion to the bible? I don't think so. Especially since you have already let mormons know how you felt about their way of life in another thread.

The passage here is compelling, in that it is a prime example of revelation.

What was in question was if that disciple thought Yeshua to be God and clearly it was revealed to him that he wasn't.

If Thomas was "crying out to God," he was talking to Jesus, who was right in front of him

And as I have said before when people bring this verse that we shall agree to disagree. Some scholars translate the verse with an exclamation mark and some others don't. The beginning of the verse starts out "And Thomas answered ([SIZE=-1]apokrinomai)"....interesting enough is that no one asked him anything. Which, for me, gives the impression that he was not responding to a question but simply remarking to a chain of events as I described in a earlier post.

[/SIZE]

the one whom Thomas had always called, "Lord."

So he was called lord. He wasn't the only one referred to as lord. Off the top of my head a couple verses come to mind;

1Samuel 25:24
And she fell at his feet, and said: 'Upon me, my lord, upon me be the iniquity; and let thy handmaid, I pray thee, speak in thine ears, and hear thou the words of thy handmaid.


Genesis 44:16
And Judah said: 'What shall we say unto my lord? what shall we speak? or how shall we clear ourselves? God hath found out the iniquity of thy servants; behold, we are my lord's bondmen, both we, and he also in whose hand the cup is found.'

 

[Popeyesays]

Thank you Scott for giving us a synopsis of the beliefs of those heretics. I agree with some things and disagree with others. Considering how sophisticated the debate can become it is a wonder that the council at Nicea could formulate a creed. I think the simplicity of the creed reflects the fact that there was not much they could agree on.

The problem with the Athanasian creed is that He convolutes the doctrine trying to oppose the heresy and ends up in error himself.

The Spirit of God is God by definition, so you are in effect saying that Jesus is God in the flesh. However I would disagree with you because Jesus is the Spirit of God in the flesh, meaning that there is a part of Jesus that is consubstantial with God and a part that is creation. Here is where I would agree with the Nestorians that the flesh is not to be worshipped as though it were God but Jesus can be worshipped because God is identifiable in Him.

One must wonder what the purpose of the "creed" was intended to be: create an understanding among brothers or to wield power over some of the brothers. I believe it was largely the latter and so it was a corrupt act. It is not power which corrupts--but seeking power that corrupts.

As to the Spirit of God and God, Himself. Look at it like this: It is God which radiates and provides warmth for all that is. But the beams of radiation which reach out to every part of all that is are not God, Himself. They are but beams of light radiating from the sun.

I believe God is eminently identifiable in Christ, but that does not make Jesus God.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

I (and most of the Body of Christ) disagree.

Well, if you have the right to disagree with me, do I not have the right to disagree with you? Whether I am a Christian or not?

Regards,
Scott

 

[astarath]

No...The movie was called the Matrix...the Matrix.

 

[sojourner]

Well, if you have the right to disagree with me, do I not have the right to disagree with you? Whether I am a Christian or not?

Regards,
Scott

Since you're not a Christian, why should you care about the Trinity? It's a Christian doctrine.

I certainly don't care whether you disagree with me or not. What I do care about is someone who is not a professed Christian having the hubris to "correct" my doctrinal beliefs.

 

[Popeyesays]

Since you're not a Christian, why should you care about the Trinity? It's a Christian doctrine.

I certainly don't care whether you disagree with me or not. What I do care about is someone who is not a professed Christian having the hubris to "correct" my doctrinal beliefs.

I care because I believe in the Divinity of Christ as staunchly as you do. One cannot BE Baha`i if He does not accept Jesus Christ as the instrument of Divine Revelation.

The Bab's maternal uncle put it like this just before his martyrdom:

"The remaining seven who remained
steadfast became known as the "Seven Martyrs of Tihran." The Báb's
uncle was one of the seven. His business friends urged him to deny
his Faith and save his life. God winks His eyes at such things,
they said. Several rich merchants offered to pay a ransom to free
him, but the Báb's uncle rejected their offer. Finally, he was
brought before the Prime Minister. "A number of prominent people
have interceded in your behalf," the Prime Minister told him.
"Wealthy merchants from Shiraz and Tihran are willing, nay eager,
to pay your ransom. A word of denial from you will set you free,
and we shall return you to your native city with honors." The Báb's
uncle boldly replied to these words. "Your Excellency," he said,
"my rejection of the truths which are given in this Revelation
would be the same as rejecting all the Revelations that have
preceded it. If I refuse to acknowledge the mission of the Báb,
I must also deny the divine character of the message which
Muhammad, Jesus, Moses and all the Prophets of the past have
revealed." The Prime Minister did not try to hide his impatience
as the Báb's uncle continued. "God knows that whatever I have
heard and read concerning the lives of these past Messengers of
God, the same have I been privileged to witness from this Youth,
this beloved Kinsman of mine, from His earliest boyhood to this,
the thirtieth year of His life. I only request that you allow me to
be the first to lay down my life in His path."

(William Sears, Release the Sun, p. 135)



Regards,
Scott

 

[sojourner]

I care because I believe in the Divinity of Christ as staunchly as you do. One cannot BE Baha`i if He does not accept Jesus Christ as the instrument of Divine Revelation.

The Bab's maternal uncle put it like this just before his martyrdom:

"The remaining seven who remained
steadfast became known as the "Seven Martyrs of Tihran." The Báb's
uncle was one of the seven. His business friends urged him to deny
his Faith and save his life. God winks His eyes at such things,
they said. Several rich merchants offered to pay a ransom to free
him, but the Báb's uncle rejected their offer. Finally, he was
brought before the Prime Minister. "A number of prominent people
have interceded in your behalf," the Prime Minister told him.
"Wealthy merchants from Shiraz and Tihran are willing, nay eager,
to pay your ransom. A word of denial from you will set you free,
and we shall return you to your native city with honors." The Báb's
uncle boldly replied to these words. "Your Excellency," he said,
"my rejection of the truths which are given in this Revelation
would be the same as rejecting all the Revelations that have
preceded it. If I refuse to acknowledge the mission of the Báb,
I must also deny the divine character of the message which
Muhammad, Jesus, Moses and all the Prophets of the past have
revealed." The Prime Minister did not try to hide his impatience
as the Báb's uncle continued. "God knows that whatever I have
heard and read concerning the lives of these past Messengers of
God, the same have I been privileged to witness from this Youth,
this beloved Kinsman of mine, from His earliest boyhood to this,
the thirtieth year of His life. I only request that you allow me to
be the first to lay down my life in His path."

(William Sears, Release the Sun, p. 135)



Regards,
Scott

Again, the Trinity is a Christian doctrine. We're allowed to promote what has been revealed to us -- without help from those who have not received the revelation.

Question: If you believe in the "Divinity of Christ," do you deny his humanity?

 

[Popeyesays]

Again, the Trinity is a Christian doctrine. We're allowed to promote what has been revealed to us -- without help from those who have not received the revelation.

Question: If you believe in the "Divinity of Christ," do you deny his humanity?

Absolutely not. Moses was human, Abraham was human, etc., etc.. What they were not is GOD. They had a Divine nature not because they were God, but because the illumination of God was reflected in a perfect mirror for me to behold.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Quiddity]

Absolutely not. Moses was human, Abraham was human, etc., etc.. What they were not is GOD. They had a Divine nature not because they were God, but because the illumination of God was reflected in a perfect mirror for me to behold.

Regards,
Scott

Yup...that would deffinately not be Christian Doctrine.

 

[Popeyesays]

Yup...that would deffinately not be Christian Doctrine.

I'm not a Christian after all. I am a Baha`i. Trinity may be a Christian Doctrine, but it's not doctrinal for all Christians, and it is obviously extra-Biblical in origin. The problem with allowing tradition to become doctrine is that you can't really count on tradition to be truth rather than convenience.

Regards,
Scott

 

[sojourner]

The rub is, you fudge on the understanding and application of the term "divine." We don't. We take it at face value. I'm not saying, "You're right and I'm wrong," or vice-versa. What I'm saying is that it's interesting that God reveals God's self in so many different ways.

Again, why do you care about a Christian doctrine? Can you not be happy with your own revelation without destroying what has been revealed to others? I don't have a particular problem with your understanding of the divinity of Christ. I don't accept it, myself, but I have no problem with you accepting it. Why should you come out so strongly against that which many reputable and worthy people hold dear?

 

[YmirGF]

I'm not a Christian after all. I am a Baha`i. Trinity may be a Christian Doctrine, but it's not doctrinal for all Christians, and it is obviously extra-Biblical in origin. The problem with allowing tradition to become doctrine is that you can't really count on tradition to be truth rather than convenience.

Regards,
Scott

Fair enough Popeyesays, but you should try to keep in mind that Baha'i viewpoints are not given the time of day in most religious circles, therefore the Baha'i POV is, in essence, amusing but definitely lacking in recognized credibility.

 

[Popeyesays]

The rub is, you fudge on the understanding and application of the term "divine." We don't. We take it at face value. I'm not saying, "You're right and I'm wrong," or vice-versa. What I'm saying is that it's interesting that God reveals God's self in so many different ways.

Again, why do you care about a Christian doctrine? Can you not be happy with your own revelation without destroying what has been revealed to others? I don't have a particular problem with your understanding of the divinity of Christ. I don't accept it, myself, but I have no problem with you accepting it. Why should you come out so strongly against that which many reputable and worthy people hold dear?

Why do you take the discussion so personally? Have I destroyed YOUR beliefs? I doubt it.

Most would welcome discussing, it's how we best come to understanding of ourselves and others. In the end, your beliefs are your own, and I have no fear God will treat you kindly. Would you as a Christian say the same for me? Or am I beyond God's good pleasure?

Regards,
Scott