The Trinity

[Shermana]

Yes, because it isnt. Your claim that OMG is bogus and cannot be backed up and you know this so you put it upon me to prove something that simply is never used anywhere in any writings. Also, for the Holy Spirit to inspire John to put this in writing is also showing Jesus as God and not slang for OMG. John puts it as simple as possible at John 5:18 that Jesus claimed equality to God.

What's bogus is your total dismissal of the fact that it was recognized as such even before the early church was organized as a "Statement of exclamation". What kind of proof do you want other than that when we have VIRTUALLY NO OTHER MANUSCRIPTS FROM THAT TIME PERIOD. John 5:18 was what the Jews accused him of, not what he actually did.

Examining the Trinity: John 5:18 "...making himself equal to God"


[/quote]

What? Show me anywhere in the bible that being Born(Birth) happening anywhere but on earth

Nice try, but the word "Firstborn" doesn't even necessarily mean "Born", it actually means "First timer" and is used in RELATION to the concept of Birth. Check the meaning of Prototokos. What part of Prototokos actually says "born"?

properly, first in time (Mt

http://biblesuite.com/greek/4416.htm

. Luke 2:7 makes it clear when Jesus is Firstborn. You need to think this out... Also Hebrews 1:5 shows that at the time the Father said, "You are my son", that angels were already present and that "days" where already in existant. (Today, you are my Son) Again, think... (I am not pointing these things out for my mere pleasure)

How does the "days" have anything to do with this? By being the "First-timer", Jesus is simply created before the rest of the Angels. By saying that he's his son, THAT is a confirmation of title, not being the "Firstborn" in itself. With that said, there's no reason to believe that the Hebrew idiom of "Firstborn" is the same as the Greek use of "First-timer".

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/col-115.html

Agreed

Glad to see we agree.

bizzare thinking... It seems to me that you can make any passage say what you need it to say in order to fit doctorine... You belief in Jr gods for example. I wonder if the LDS give that same answer on that passage? (They also believe in many gods)

You can't just write off a valid interpretation as "bizarre thinking", it seems Trintiarians do exactly what you accuse me of all the time. I wonder if a Trinitarian apologetics site gave you your answers. I do believe in many lesser gods. So did Josephus. So did Paul. So did the Psalmist.

the Bible says we should gather together, you do not do this with others in worship?

Where? Verse please. It also says to not even bid Godspeed to heathens.

Ok, then answer this: Is Jesus the "Son of Man" and also Man?

Of course. That doesn't mean "Son of god" is also "God", or you're saying the "Sons of god" who are the angels are God.

I believe what you are trying to say is that Jesus isnt God by class, but is God in quality... What JW's say, "godlike" but not God. Their whole breakdown is that they believe "The God" (YHWH) is only of their deffinition of singularity. Where the bible shows "THE God" as Plurality (Like one cluster of Grapes) or like man who is in his image(Body, Soul, And Spirit - 3 in 1)

The Bible does not show "The God" as plurality whatsoever. Only in the "Bizarre thinking" of Trinitarians. I love how they warp Genesis 1:26 to make the "Let us" be God talking to himself for example. And also, I asked you for your definition of "god", did I not? Well clearly, the word "god" refers to Angels.

Theos: "God"/"a god"


Another thing we should know about Phil. 2:6, 7 concerns the phrase "of God" (qeou or theou). A perfectly honest alternate translation of this verse can be: "though he was existing in the form of a god [i.e., `a mighty individual' in a similar sense that the Bible calls angels and Israelite judges `gods' - see the DEF and BOWGOD studies]." The NWT does not translate it that way, but grammatically and doctrinally it is a perfectly honest rendering and probably accounts for the 1959 French translation of Phil. 2:6, "being of divine status" and the NEB's "divine nature" and the renderings in Moffatt and the JB. (See the first part of the DEF study which discusses "god/divine.")

It is our belief that many gods do exist in the minds of the weak. (They dont really exist). God is even the God of those fake gods you have created in your mind. (Thats how I see it, understand?)

Well it's my belief they exist in those who read it correctly. I don't care what your belief is about me having a "weak mind" on this. Accusing me of having "fake gods I created in my mind" doesn't exactly disprove what I showed the Bible clearly says. It seems you dodge completely from my reference of Psalm 136:2 and you dodge from answering what you think the definition of "god" is. Do you not understand that Angels are called Elohim? How many times do I have to explain on this thread.

I dont believe any gods as real but Jehovah God.

Good for you. But Yah most certainly believes in the existence of lesser "gods" (Elohim) that he is the "god of the gods" of.

They only exist in the mind of the weak who believe they do exist. (Rev 9:20)

"Mind of the weak" is pretty much an insult, don't you think?

Rev 9:20 does not say that at all. There's a difference between idols and actual "Elohim" who are the beings they mold their idols after.

The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood--idols that cannot see or hear or walk.

Ps 22:10 says as plainly as one can read that "You have been my God from my mother's womb." Use the Holy Spirit to help you understand. Pray!

Will you pray and ask which of us is right or wrong? I asked last time, I got no answer. Are you just expecting me to pray to ask if your "bizarre" translation here is correct? I explained as well that there's a difference between "a god" and "one's god". "The god of" is not the same as "The god". Satan is called "The god of this world". Mammon is the "god of money". That doesn't make them THE god. It's a very common problem that people don't understand the difference of "having a god" and "believing in the existence of a being called a god".

..and that calling his Father "His God" today is not a problem for us.

The classical Trinity doctrine itself really doesn't say that God the Father is the god of the son, so yes it is a problem.

look at Hebrews 1:5 for example. Angels where already present when the Father said to Jesus, you are my son. The word, "Today" indicates the earth and days where already present as well. Jesus became Gods firstborn son 2000 years ago, not before creation. (Pray! Ask the Holy Spirit for guidence)

Quit demanding me to pray, will you pray what I asked you to? With that said, saying "Today you are my son" does not negate the idea of being the Firstborn of Creation, which is meant to be very literal.

Not Created, not even mentioned as created. Jehovah says there are no Jr gods by his side, where exactly do you believe Jesus is and who he is? It doesnt match up.

Oh, no gods at His side? Try Psalm 82:1. And as you can see, the "gods" here are not Human rulers as the NLT is forced to admit by calling them "Heavenly beings" (Called Divine beings in others).

New International Version (©1984)
A psalm of Asaph. God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the "gods":New Living Translation (©2007)
A psalm of Asaph. God presides over heaven's court; he pronounces judgment on the heavenly beings:

So there's other gods in the Great assembly. And Jesus was most clearly created, what's the difference between "Brought forth" and "Created"?

this is proof that John worshipped Jesus BTW

I'm aware John worshiped Jesus. And King David was worshiped. And Joshua worshiped an Angel. They were still SERVING GOD ONLY by doing so. Had they worshiped Satan instead, they would not be.

 

[AdityaMookerjee]

I thought the Hindu Trinity was being deliberated.

 

[icebuddy]

Private Message

Shermana,
Thank you for going to the private message with me. We deffinatly have some major differences that will not be resolved by man. So we must turn to God through Jesus Christ for the answers we all seek day and night. Jesus will come through for us all! (Already has)

Dont forget to lift Jesus up for I know you love him in your own way. My hopes are not to win an arguement, but to see you in the next life and give you a big hug. (Maybe squeezing harder than normal) Anyways, i will continue to pray for Gods truth in Jesus Christ and hope for you to do the same.

In Love,
tom

 

[Harvey]

The Bible doesn't have trinity in original terminology. Trinity was a term used by pagans in time of Bible writers, and it kind of Caught on.

Bible says God is one.
not three in one.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The Bible doesn't have trinity in original terminology. Trinity was a term used by pagans in time of Bible writers, and it kind of Caught on.
Bible says God is one.
not three in one.

How true ^ above ^ that the Bible does Not have trinity in original terminology.
If we look in any Bible concordance and look up the word 'resurrection' we will find it there. If we look up the word 'faith' we will find it there. If we look up the word 'trinity'......

Also, the word 'Father' means: life giver.
The word 'son' means: receiving life from the Father.

Scripture teaches that 'God sent Jesus'.
Jesus taught at John [ 13 v 16 B ] that the one sent is Not greater than the sender.
Since Jesus is the 'sent one', then how can Jesus also be the Greater ?

 

[sojourner]

The Bible doesn't have trinity in original terminology. Trinity was a term used by pagans in time of Bible writers, and it kind of Caught on.

Bible says God is one.
not three in one.

It may not have the terminology, but it has been shown that at least the proto-concept for God as Trinity is implicit in the texts.

 

[sojourner]

How true ^ above ^ that the Bible does Not have trinity in original terminology.
If we look in any Bible concordance and look up the word 'resurrection' we will find it there. If we look up the word 'faith' we will find it there. If we look up the word 'trinity'......

Also, the word 'Father' means: life giver.
The word 'son' means: receiving life from the Father.

Scripture teaches that 'God sent Jesus'.
Jesus taught at John [ 13 v 16 B ] that the one sent is Not greater than the sender.
Since Jesus is the 'sent one', then how can Jesus also be the Greater ?

You're using "Father" and "God" interchangeably, but not using "Son" and "God" interchangeably. "God" refers to all members of the Trinity inclusively. Terms like "Father" and "Son" refer to Persons of the Trinity exclusively. The Son isn't greater than the Father -- and the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't claim otherwise.

It would help your argument if you actually understood what it is you're refuting.

 

[Shermana]

The Bible doesn't have trinity in original terminology. Trinity was a term used by pagans in time of Bible writers, and it kind of Caught on.

Bible says God is one.
not three in one.

Oneness Pentacostal?

 

[kjw47]

It may not have the terminology, but it has been shown that at least the proto-concept for God as Trinity is implicit in the texts.

Mistranslated texts to fit catholicism council false teachings. Every trinity religion knows catholicism is part of babylon the great, yet they refuse to believe they altered Gods word to fit council teachings.

 

[sojourner]

Mistranslated texts to fit catholicism council false teachings. Every trinity religion knows catholicism is part of babylon the great, yet they refuse to believe they altered Gods word to fit council teachings.

Prove it.

 

[kjw47]

Prove it.

At the first council( Nicea) the HS was not taught as being a part of a trinity god. I allready know that doesnt prove it to you so let Jesus,s words prove it to you--John 17:1-6---the one who sent Jesus( John 5:30) is THE ONLY TRUE GOD. So either Jesus lied or catholicism translators made many errors--i will trust Jesus words. Paul backed up Jesus-1 cor 8:6)

 

[sojourner]

At the first council( Nicea) the HS was not taught as being a part of a trinity god. I allready know that doesnt prove it to you so let Jesus,s words prove it to you--John 17:1-6---the one who sent Jesus( John 5:30) is THE ONLY TRUE GOD. So either Jesus lied or catholicism translators made many errors--i will trust Jesus words. Paul backed up Jesus-1 cor 8:6)

Of course God is the "only true God." Isn't that what the doctrine of the Trinity says?

Trust Jesus' words over the church??? As if church members didn't write the gospels! What do you think? That they fell out of the sky??? If the translators have made errors, then those errors are part of the texts you read, so how do you really know whether Jesus said it, or whether someone else said it?

In fact the first Nicean Council did address the Trinity.

 

[icebuddy]

The Bible doesn't have trinity in original terminology. Trinity was a term used by pagans in time of Bible writers, and it kind of Caught on.
not three in one.

Everything could be Pagan if you want it to be... The word Trinity means 3 in unity as one. The word alone is something almost everyone should agree with, what the problem is how one defines the belief we call the Trinity.

Bible says God is one.

Yes! A Trinitarian believes that 100%. The word one used in all passages of Gods being "ONE" can be used like One Cluster of grapes. The problem isnt the word "ONE", the problem is our deffinitions of the word "GOD".

Most people want to define "GOD" in their mind as a single unit, but our God cannot be put in a box. The Trinity is our belief in how we see God in the revealed persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We say persons because thats a human way to express personalities and beings that we know. Im sure God is more complex, but thats what we believe is revealed to us.

For example, If God is 7 spirits, then would it be wrong to say God is One? We put our Faith into the one God through the Father, son, and Holy Spirit.

In Love,
tom

 

[URAVIP2ME]

"God" refers to all members of the Trinity inclusively. Terms like "Father" and "Son" refer to Persons of the Trinity exclusively. The Son isn't greater than the Father -- and the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't claim otherwise.
.

Right, Father and Son are persons. God's holy spirit is Not a person.-Psalm 104 v 30
God's spirit is a neuter being an 'it' [Numbers 11 vs 17,25]

Absolutely the Son is Not greater than the Father because John taught the Father is greater than the Son at John [14 v 28]. At John [13 v 16 B] Jesus says the one doing the sending is greater than the one being sent. [Jesus is the sent one Not the Sender]

 

[icebuddy]

How true ^ above ^ that the Bible does Not have trinity in original terminology.

The Bible doesnt have allot of things in the original terminology that actualy exist and are true. Take Dinosaurs for one, or Theocratic Organizations, or many alike. As time goes on and we have the collection of scriptures together we see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit working together as our one God. The Father needs the son, the son needs the Father, and the same with the Holy Spirit. One cannot exist and have God be our Saviour. Only together does it all make sense.

If we look in any Bible concordance and look up the word 'resurrection' we will find it there. If we look up the word 'faith' we will find it there. If we look up the word 'trinity'......

There are alot of words that express "TRUE" things that dont exist in bible concordances. Im sure your belief has many. Take the word Gravity for example. We see Gravity in the Bible, we know it exist in the Bible, yet the word Gravity is not in the Bible or any bible concordances. Does that mean Gravity doesnt exist?

Also, the word 'Father' means: life giver.
The word 'son' means: receiving life from the Father.

Yes, once the Word of Eternal life emptied himself and entered Marys womb, Jesus became a son and God became a Father. For to the Father said to Jesus, "Today I have become your Father". Let me ask you a question: When do you believe the Father said this? I believe it is only after he emptied himself and was in Marys womb. Angels where already present and days already existed when the father said this to Jesus. (ps 22:10)

Scripture teaches that 'God sent Jesus'.

Yes, we also believe Jesus is God. Phil 2 says he Emptied "Himself" to become a man. That the Word was Eternal and had life in himself. That the Word was God and in the Nature of God, One truely with God as God. The Word emptied himself to become a man. As a man, the Part of God (For lack of a better expression) that remained in Heaven became a Father. (hebrews 2, ps 22:10, Is 9:6) So yes, God Sent(from within God himself) (Brought Forth) his Son.

Jesus taught at John [ 13 v 16 B ] that the one sent is Not greater than the sender.

When i read John 13:6-17 i see Jesus serving his disiples in washing their feet. Teaching them that they should serve one another, thinking no one is greater than yourself, as Jesus washes their feet as a servant. Jesus is sending them out into the world and expresses that although he is greater, he also washed their feet as a servant. (Later gave his life in love)

The Context was between Jesus and his disiples, not Jesus and the Father God. However, we do believe the Father is greater than Jesus. Just as some parts of your own body are greater or weaker than others, but all part of one body and necessary.(1 Cor 12:23) Jesus also says the reverse is going on. (Matt:20:26-28) That he didnt come to be served but to serve and give his life. So what we see is that our God of love who is love came to us in the form of man(JESUS) and executed the greatest love for us. (John 15:13)

You thoughts are bizzare to me because one could ask the question: who loves us more? Jesus or the Father? (read john 15:13) Now read 1 Cor 12:23 again. Why do people continue to separate them? The Head cannot say to the feet i dont need you or in this case God cant say to his image, you are not part of me.

Since Jesus is the 'sent one', then how can Jesus also be the Greater ?

First off i never said nor do I believe that Jesus is greater than the Father. Equal in being MY Lord and My God, yet in a working Hierarchy within the being we call God. Just as you have body parts greater than others, yet part of the One Man you might call URAMVP2ME, I believe Jesus is Equal in being God and is a vital part of God in being the one who died for you and me. (Our God is the Way and the Truth)

in Love,
Tom

 

[icebuddy]

Right, Father and Son are persons. God's holy spirit is Not a person.-Psalm 104 v 30
God's spirit is a neuter being an 'it' [Numbers 11 vs 17,25]

So now you are saying the Holy Spirit is an "it"? What gives something personality? The Holy Spirit has a mind, has emotions, has a will, Prays for us, loves us, grieves for us, helps us, speaks to people, issues commands, bears witness, and many more. Dont forget that the New Testament reveals the Old testament...

Absolutely the Son is Not greater than the Father because John taught the Father is greater than the Son at John [14 v 28].

Again i dont disagree. No Trinitarian would... Hierarchy

At John [13 v 16 B] Jesus says the one doing the sending is greater than the one being sent. [Jesus is the sent one Not the Sender]

BTW, you are taking this passage out of context. Jesus is sending his disiples into the world and then washes their feet, showing that even the Greatest one should serve. Jesus who is greater than you and me both, would wash our feet, serve, and die for us. Does that mean you are greater that Jesus, No. God in all his greatness expresses the greatest love and dies for all of mankind through Jesus.

Some people here need to reconize their own errors withing seperating the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

EXAMPLE: Some here say God created "Through" Jesus, therefore Jesus didnt create.(a Jr worker) yet these same people dont see that their same logic doesnt work when separating God and Jesus in Salvation. God saves us "Through" Jesus using that logic would be saying that God didnt really save us or express the greatest love for us...

God wants us to be more like him. Gods word says the Greatest should humble themselves and severe. How is this like God? Now Read Philipians 2:5-8

in Love,
tom

 

[sojourner]

Uravip said:

Right, Father and Son are persons.

Yes they are! And there are three of them that make God available to us.

Uravip said:

God's holy spirit is Not a person.-Psalm 104 v 30

I beg to differ. I don't see how your scripture reference dismisses the Holy Spirit as a person. At all.

Uravip Said:

Absolutely the Son is Not greater than the Father

I thought I just said that -- and BTW, so does the Trinity doctrine.

Thus far, you haven't successfully refuted anything about the Trinity as it is explained by the doctrine.

 

[Shermana]

Icebuddy said:

So now you are saying the Holy Spirit is an "it"? What gives something personality? The Holy Spirit has a mind, has emotions, has a will, Prays for us, loves us, grieves for us, helps us, speaks to people, issues commands, bears witness, and many more. Dont forget that the New Testament reveals the Old testament...

It is in fact referred to in the Neuter form. They would have used a masculine form if they felt it wasn't an "it".

Again i dont disagree. No Trinitarian would... Hierarchy

I don't recall the Classical Trinity believing in a Hierarchy, but in believing total equality among them.

Some people here need to reconize their own errors withing seperating the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

What errors exactly? Even the Classical Trinitarians argued and called each other heretics regarding exactly how it worked.

EXAMPLE: Some here say God created "Through" Jesus, therefore Jesus didnt create.(a Jr worker) yet these same people dont see that their same logic doesnt work when separating God and Jesus in Salvation. God saves us "Through" Jesus using that logic would be saying that God didnt really save us or express the greatest love for us...

So when God sent "saviors" in Obadiah 1:28 that wasn't God doing the saving? False strawman. Using Jesus to create the world "Through" does not mean that The Father wasn't orchestrating it.

God wants us to be more like him. Gods word says the Greatest should humble themselves and severe. How is this like God? Now Read Philipians 2:5-8

Form of "a god".

Examining the Trinity: PHIL 2:6

This scripture contrasts Jesus as, first, being in "form of god" (morphe theou) and, then, (2:7) being in "form of slave" (morphen doulou). Both of these phrases use the word "form" followed by an anarthrous genitive noun. This means that we are being given a contrast of two grammatical parallels.



If we should decide to translate the second half of this parallel as "form of a slave," then there can be no honest objection on grammatical grounds for translating the first part of this parallel as "form of a god." In fact it would seem more appropriate to translate it this way instead of "form of [the] God."

In the words of Trinitarian minister Ernst Haenchen:

Ernst Haenchen uses this interpretation in his commentary on the Gospel of John:

"It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ" - John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110, Fortress Press.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Revelation 3 v 14 Jesus is the beginning of the creation by God.

God is UN-created. God had NO beginning.
Jesus is created. Jesus had a beginning.

Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.

 

[Muffled]

Does the Lord Jesus have his own voice ?_______

Whose voice does the Lord [Jesus] have at 1st Thess 4 v 16 ?_______

Doesn't the Lord [Jesus] have the archangel's voice ?_______

Jesus voice is the same as the archangel's voice = Jesus himself is the archangel.

Jesus is also the apostle and high priest according to Hebrews 3 1.

I believe this is as far fetched an interpretation of the verse that one could make. Jesus has His own voice. The Archanagel has his own voice and never the the twain shall meet. You do understand that "with" here means "in the company of" as in John and Jane went with Jill to the store.

I believe He absolutely does not have the archangel's voice or the verse would read Jesus shouted with the voice of an archangel.

I believe your conclusion is false because your premise is false ie that the voice of Jesus is the same as the archangel.