Just looked over your site . . .

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author

Comment

GreggArchitect

OK, let me say....

[-]

Posts: 9

(09/01/08 20:56:00)

... I do appreciate the willingness you have to discuss this.
I realize that you can interpret some of these verses to fit the Trinity doctrine, such as those in Proverbs.
But please answer this question for me, if God has a intrinsic "three-ness" as you, and most all of the orthodox systems teach, why is this not a subject that is ever mentioned in the INSPIRED history of the Church, the Book of Acts. This would have been a revolutionary and very different concept about God to the Jews who were the first people to whom the Gospel and the message about the Lord Jesus was sent. There is not a single reference to this ever being taught by the original apostles in Acts. In fact, I find a very human Jesus being presented as the Messiah. He is called in several places "the servant of God" (Acts 3:13, 2:26...also Romans 15:8). He is never spoken of as Almighty God, which you believe him to be. Why is this never mentioned?
The message fo Jesus is called "the Gospel of the Kingdom of God", and as the fullness of this message is revealed to those who believe, a belief in a 3-in-1 Godhead is never once mentioned?
If it is important to believe in a triune, why do they not mention it?
I want to be saved and to believe the truth, the pristine truth without any contamination or traditions of men mixed in......so I exclude the word Trinity, and the idea of God begetting a second person who is also God like the Trinity doctrine expalins.
Is there any place where we are told to believe in this very incomprehensible idea?
I just want to believe what is written, fully and see the entirity of the scripture all fit and make sense. When you profess the Trinity is makes no sense to me....it is poly-theistic and not "pristine".
I fall or I stand before the Lord Himself....as do all of us.
My final conclusion is this, The doctine of 3in1 is not in the scriptures and therefore I do not accept it. The doctrine of just ONE God, the God of Jesus Christ, whom Jesus called the Father, Our Father, is completely and repeatedly presented, so i will stick with that.
"Hear Oh Israel, Yahweh our God is One Yahweh"....there is no other God beside Him.
Plain, simple and believeable!

Yahweh, and His precious Son our Lord Jesus be ever blessed!
May he bless you too!
~gregg

Butch5

[-]

Posts: 472

(09/03/08 19:30:36)

GreggArchitect wrote:
... I do appreciate the willingness you have to discuss this.
I realize that you can interpret some of these verses to fit the Trinity doctrine, such as those in Proverbs.
But please answer this question for me, if God has a intrinsic "three-ness" as you, and most all of the orthodox systems teach, why is this not a subject that is ever mentioned in the INSPIRED history of the Church, the Book of Acts. This would have been a revolutionary and very different concept about God to the Jews who were the first people to whom the Gospel and the message about the Lord Jesus was sent. There is not a single reference to this ever being taught by the original apostles in Acts. In fact, I find a very human Jesus being presented as the Messiah. He is called in several places "the servant of God" (Acts 3:13, 2:26...also Romans 15:8). He is never spoken of as Almighty God, which you believe him to be. Why is this never mentioned?
The message fo Jesus is called "the Gospel of the Kingdom of God", and as the fullness of this message is revealed to those who believe, a belief in a 3-in-1 Godhead is never once mentioned?
If it is important to believe in a triune, why do they not mention it?
I want to be saved and to believe the truth, the pristine truth without any contamination or traditions of men mixed in......so I exclude the word Trinity, and the idea of God begetting a second person who is also God like the Trinity doctrine expalins.
Is there any place where we are told to believe in this very incomprehensible idea?
I just want to believe what is written, fully and see the entirity of the scripture all fit and make sense. When you profess the Trinity is makes no sense to me....it is poly-theistic and not "pristine".
I fall or I stand before the Lord Himself....as do all of us.
My final conclusion is this, The doctine of 3in1 is not in the scriptures and therefore I do not accept it. The doctrine of just ONE God, the God of Jesus Christ, whom Jesus called the Father, Our Father, is completely and repeatedly presented, so i will stick with that.
"Hear Oh Israel, Yahweh our God is One Yahweh"....there is no other God beside Him.
Plain, simple and believeable!

Yahweh, and His precious Son our Lord Jesus be ever blessed!
May he bless you too!
~gregg

Hi Gregg,

Here is an apology from Justin Martyr from about 160, it is a dialog with a Jew named Trypho. Justin uses the Scriptures to show Trypho that Jesus is God. It is long but worth reading.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1

Chap. LVI.-God Who Appeared to Moses Is Distinguished from God the Father. "Moses, then, the blessed and faithful servant of God, declares that He who appeared to Abraham under the oak in Mamre is God, sent with the two angels in His company to judge Sodom by Another who remains ever in the supercelestial places, invisible to all men, holding personal intercourse with none, whom we believe to be Maker and Father of all things; for he speaks thus: 'God appeared to him under the oak in Mature, as he sat at his tent-door at noontide. And lifting up his eyes, he saw, and behold, three men stood before him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the door of his tent; and he bowed himself toward the ground, and said;'" (Gen. 18:1, 2) (and so on;)111VII-3-111 "'Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the Lord: and he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward the adjacent country, and beheld, and, lo, a flame went up from the earth, like the smoke of a furnace.'" And when I had made an end of quoting these words, I asked them if they had understood them. And they said they had understood them, but that the passages adduced brought forward no proof that there is any other God or Lord, or that the Holy Spirit says so, besides the Maker of all things. Then I replied, "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to112VII-3-112 the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things-above whom there is no other God-wishes to announce to them." And quoting once more the previous passage, I asked Trypho, "Do you think that God appeared to Abraham under the oak in Mamre, as the Scripture asserts?" He said, "Assuredly." "Was He one of those three," I said, "whom Abraham saw, and whom the Holy Spirit of prophecy describes as men?" He said, "No; but God appeared to him, before the vision of the three. Then those three whom the Scripture calls men, were angels; two of them sent to destroy Sodom, and one to announce the joyful tidings to Sarah, that she would bear a son; for which cause he was sent, and having accomplished his errand, went away."113VII-3-113 "How then," said I, "does the one of the three, who was in the tent, and who said, 'I shall return to thee hereafter, and Sarah shall have a son,' (Gen. 18:10) appear to have returned when Sarah had begotten a son, and to be there declared, by the prophetic word, God? But that you may clearly discern what I say, listen to the words expressly employed by Moses; they are these: 'And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian bond-woman, whom she bore to Abraham, sporting with Isaac her son, and said to Abraham, Cast out this bond-woman and her son; for the son of this bond-woman shall not share the inheritance of my son Isaac. And the matter seemed very grievous in Abraham's sight, because of his son. But God said to Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the son, and because of the bond-woman. In all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken to her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.' (Gen. 21:9-12) Have you perceived, then, that He who said under the oak that He would return, since He knew it would be necessary to advise Abraham to do what Sarah wished him, came back as it is written; and is God, as the words declare, when they so speak: 'God said to Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the son, and because of the bond-woman?'" I inquired. And Trypho said, "Certainly; but you have not proved from this that there is another God besides Him who appeared to Abraham, and who also appeared to the other patriarchs and prophets. You have proved, however, that we were wrong in believing that the three who were in the tent with Abraham were all angels." I replied again, "If I could not have proved to you from the Scriptures that one of those three is God, and is called Angel,114VII-3-114 because, as I already said, He brings messages to those to whom God the Maker of all things wishes [messages to be brought], then in regard to Him who appeared to Abraham on earth in human form in like manner as the two angels who came with Him, and who was God even before the creation of the world, it were reasonable for you to entertain the same belief as is entertained by the whole of your nation." "Assuredly," he said, "for up to this moment this has been our belief." Then I replied, "Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things,-numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time 224 done115VII-3-115 anything which He who made the world-above whom there is no other God-has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with." And Trypho said, "Prove now that this is the case, that we also may agree with you. For we do not understand you to affirm that He has done or said anything contrary to the will of the Maker of all things." Then I said, "The Scripture just quoted by me will make this plain to you. It is thus: 'The sun was risen on the earth, and Lot entered into Segor (Zoar); and the Lord rained on Sodom sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven, and overthrew these cities and all the neighbourhood.'" (Gen. 19:23) Then the fourth of those who had remained with Trypho said, "It116VII-3-116 must therefore necessarily be said that one of the two angels who went to Sodom, and is named by Moses in the Scripture Lord, is different from Him who also is God and appeared to Abraham."117VII-3-117 "It is not on this ground solely," I said, "that it must be admitted absolutely that some other one is called Lord by the Holy Spirit besides Him who is considered Maker of all things; not solely [for what is said] by Moses, but also [for what is said] by David. For there is written by him: 'The Lord says to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool,' (Ps. 110:1) as I have already quoted. And again, in other words: 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of Thy kingdom: Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity: therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows.' (Ps. 45:6, 7) If, therefore, you assert that the Holy Spirit calls some other one God and Lord, besides the Father of all things and His Christ, answer me; for I undertake to prove to you from Scriptures themselves, that He whom the Scripture calls Lord is not one of the two angels that went to Sodom, but He who was with them, and is called God, that appeared to Abraham." And Trypho said, "Prove this; for, as you see, the day advances, and we are not prepared for such perilous replies; since never yet have we heard any man investigating, or searching into, or proving these matters; nor would we have tolerated your conversation, had you not referred everything to the Scriptures:118VII-3-118 for you are very zealous in adducing proofs from them; and you are of opinion that there is no God above the Maker of all things." Then I replied, "You are aware, then, that the Scripture says, 'And the Lord said to Abraham, Why did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I truly conceive? for I am old. Is anything impossible with God? At the time appointed shall I return to thee according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.' (Gen. 18:13, 14) And after a little interval: 'And the men rose up from thence, and looked towards Sodom and Gomorrah; and Abraham went with them, to bring them on the way. And the Lord said, I will not conceal from Abraham, my servant, what I do.' (Gen. 18:16, 17) And again, after a little, it thus says: 'The Lord said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great,119VII-3-119 and their sins are very grievous. I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to their cry which has come unto me; and if not, that I may know. And the men turned away thence, and went to Sodom. But Abraham was standing before the Lord; and Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt Thou destroy the righteous with the wicked?'" (Gen. 18:20-23) (and so on,)120VII-3-120 for I do not think fit to write over again the same words, having written them all before, but shall of necessity give those by which I established the proof to Trypho and his companions. Then I proceeded to what follows, in which these words are recorded:) "'And the Lord went His way as soon as He had left communing with Abraham; and [Abraham] went to his place. And there came two angels to Sodom at even. And Lot sat in the gate of Sodom;' (Gen. 18:33, 19:1) and what follows until, 'But the men put forth their hands, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door of the house;' (Gen. 19:10) and what follows till, 'And the angels laid hold on his hand, and on the hand of his wife, and on the hands of his daughters, the Lord being merciful to him. And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that they said, Save, save thy life. Look not behind thee, nor stay in all the neighbourhood; escape to the mountain, lest thou be taken along with [them]. And Lot said to them, I beseech [Thee], O Lord, since Thy servant hath found grace in Thy sight, and Thou hast magnified Thy righteousness, which Thou showest towards me in saving my life; but I cannot escape to the mountain, lest evil overtake me, and I die. Behold, this city is near to flee unto, and it is small: there I shall be safe, since it is small; and any soul shall live. And He said to him, Behold, I have accepted thee121VII-3-121 also in this 225 matter, so as not to destroy the city for which thou hast spoken. Make haste to save thyself there; for I shall not do anything till thou be come thither. Therefore he called the name of the city Segor (Zoar). The sun was risen upon the earth; and Lot entered into Segor (Zoar). And the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven; and He overthrew these cities, and all the neighbourhood.'" (Gen. 19:16-25) And after another pause I added: "And now have you not perceived, my friends, that one of the three, who is both God and Lord, and ministers to Him who is in the heavens, is Lord of the two angels? For when [the angels] proceeded to Sodom, He remained behind, and communed with Abraham in the words recorded by Moses; and when He departed after the conversation, Abraham went back to his place. And when he came [to Sodom], the two angels no longer conversed with Lot, but Himself, as the Scripture makes evident; and He is the Lord who received commission from the Lord who [remains] in the heavens, i.e., the Maker of all things, to inflict upon Sodom and Gomorrah the [judgments] which the Scripture describes in these terms: 'The Lord rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.'"

Butch5

[-]

Posts: 473

(09/05/08 05:41:44)

GreggArchitect wrote:
... I do appreciate the willingness you have to discuss this.
I realize that you can interpret some of these verses to fit the Trinity doctrine, such as those in Proverbs.
But please answer this question for me, if God has a intrinsic "three-ness" as you, and most all of the orthodox systems teach, why is this not a subject that is ever mentioned in the INSPIRED history of the Church, the Book of Acts. This would have been a revolutionary and very different concept about God to the Jews who were the first people to whom the Gospel and the message about the Lord Jesus was sent. There is not a single reference to this ever being taught by the original apostles in Acts. In fact, I find a very human Jesus being presented as the Messiah. He is called in several places "the servant of God" (Acts 3:13, 2:26...also Romans 15:8). He is never spoken of as Almighty God, which you believe him to be. Why is this never mentioned?
The message fo Jesus is called "the Gospel of the Kingdom of God", and as the fullness of this message is revealed to those who believe, a belief in a 3-in-1 Godhead is never once mentioned?
If it is important to believe in a triune, why do they not mention it?
I want to be saved and to believe the truth, the pristine truth without any contamination or traditions of men mixed in......so I exclude the word Trinity, and the idea of God begetting a second person who is also God like the Trinity doctrine expalins.
Is there any place where we are told to believe in this very incomprehensible idea?
I just want to believe what is written, fully and see the entirity of the scripture all fit and make sense. When you profess the Trinity is makes no sense to me....it is poly-theistic and not "pristine".
I fall or I stand before the Lord Himself....as do all of us.
My final conclusion is this, The doctine of 3in1 is not in the scriptures and therefore I do not accept it. The doctrine of just ONE God, the God of Jesus Christ, whom Jesus called the Father, Our Father, is completely and repeatedly presented, so i will stick with that.
"Hear Oh Israel, Yahweh our God is One Yahweh"....there is no other God beside Him.
Plain, simple and believeable!

Yahweh, and His precious Son our Lord Jesus be ever blessed!
May he bless you too!
~gregg

Hi Greg,

In further researching the discussion that Justin puts forth, here is what I found.

Genesis 19:24 ( KJV ) ²⁴Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Both occurances use the Strong's number 3068,

Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries

H3068 יְהֹוָה yehôvâh yeh-ho-vaw' From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God:-Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069.

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions

H3068 יְהֹוָה yehôvâh BDB Definition: Jehovah = "the existing One" 1) the proper name of the one true God 1a) unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of H136 Part of Speech: noun proper deity

I also looked at the Septuagint, which is the copy the apsotles used, it uses the Strong's Greek number 2962.

Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries

G2962 κύριος kurios koo'-ree-os From κῦρος kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title):-God, Lord, master, Sir.

Thayer's Greek Definitions

G2962 κύριος kurios Thayer Definition: 1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord 1a) the possessor and disposer of a thing 1a1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master 1a2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor 1b) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master 1c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah Part of Speech: noun masculine A Related Word by Thayer's/Strong's Number: from kuros (supremacy)

The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament

G2962. κύριος kurios; gen. kuriou, masc. noun from kuros (n.f.), might, power. Lord, master, owner. Also the NT Gr. equivalent for the OT Hebr. Jehovah. See kuroō (G2964), to give authority, confirm, which is also from kuros (n.f.).

I hope this helps.

GreggArchitect

Matthew 28:19 - What authority was given to Jesus and what did Jesus say?

[-]

Posts: 10

(09/05/08 09:17:49)

"And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and disciple all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you." ~Matthew 28:19

The Issue: Whether or not this verse identifies a three person God

The Trinitarian Claim

Trinitarians claim that Matthew 28:19 is identifying the three persons of their Triune God. This claim is made by making a further claim that the word "name" in the singular means that we are to understand these three are one, that is, the one Triune God.

What the Evidence will Show

The facts will show that Trinitarians are relying on a questionable text of Scripture since we have early church testimony which suggests this passage may have been corrupted. Indeed, the very earliest quotation of this verse that we can find is in the late fourth century when Trinitarian doctrine was under development. And indeed that particular document in which it is found is also under suspicion by textual critics.

Despite the doubt cast upon the authenticity of this text, we will assume here that it is indeed quite authentic. We have no reason to believe the Didache, nor Justin Martyr's statements on baptism are corrupt statements and they indicate a baptism in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, the facts will show that we are not to understand this as one Triune God but as God, His Son, and His Spirit. The facts will reveal that the word "name" is singular because it is a reference to the one and same authority given by God the Father to the Son through his Spirit.

Examination of the Evidence

Questionable Authenticity

A certain irregularity occurs in this particular passage. Here Jesus has just declared "all authority has been given to "ME." But he then goes on to say, "Go, therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit." One would expect him to say "... all authority has been given to me. Go, therefore, and baptize in my name." Furthermore, we only find that people baptized in the name of Jesus in the Book of Acts. We find absolutely nobody baptizing in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Even further, Jesus goes on to say in this passage, "teaching them to observe all the things I commanded you..." The instruction to keep "all I have commanded" reflects back on the fact that all authority had been given to "me." The phrase "baptizing them in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" seems out of place in the context

All authority is give to ONE

Baptize in the name of THREE

Teach them to observe all ONE commanded

And even further yet, we find this statement in Luke that Jesus makes after he rises from the dead.

Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Here we have a very similar concept. Notice the reference to all nations also here in Luke. And on the Day of Pentecost we find the following:

Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ whom you crucified." Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:36-38).

Notice that the concept here in Acts of God making Jesus "Lord" in his resurrection is the same concept as Jesus words in Matthew, "all authority... has been given to me" at Matthew 28:18. And here we find Peter instructing these men to be baptize in the name of Jesus Christ.

And there is yet one more consideration. It is a well known fact that the ending of Mark is highly questionable. In fact, manuscripts have three completey different endings for the book of Mark. And here we are in a similar situation at the end of Matthew. Matthew and Mark are very similar books. Did somebody intentionally corrupt the endings of Matthew and Mark?

Now one might be quick to dismiss this irregularity as being mistrustful of the Bible. But this problem is further exacerbated by the fact that Eusebius, the great church historian of the early fourth century, appears to have quoted this passage in a form that would not cause this irregularity:

"But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."" (History, Book III, IV, 2).

And he does it again in another work:

What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name." (Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine16, 8).

In fact, Eusebius refers to this passage well over a dozen times and consistently in the same for as the above. Now you must also be aware that this quotation by Eusebius is also earlier than our earliest manuscripts for this verse. Hence, it is quite possible that a corruption occurred around the time the Arian controversy broke out under Constantine's reign. The following quotation is particularly interesting:

Jesus said, "Go, therefore." The word "therefore" refers back to the fact he had been given all authority. It seems out of context for Jesus to say the reason they should baptize in the name of three because he, one person, had been given this authority. And when we look at the Scriptural fact that nobody baptizes in this manner but they did baptize "in the name of Jesus" in perfect harmony with Eusebius' quotation. It then certainly appears the reasons for questioning the authenticity of this verse is well founded.

For he did not enjoin them "to make disciples of all the nations" simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition "in his name". For so great was the virtue attaching to his appellation that the Apostle says, "God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth." It was right therefore that he should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, "Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations in my name.' (Demonstatio Evangelica, col. 240, p. 136)

Obviously, the manuscript which Eusebius was using was different than the words we find in today's Bibles. Eusebius is not the only one to provide us with clues concerning this issue:

"In Origen's works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words 'the nations'; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, 'in my name', struck out." - Conybeare

And even more interesting quotation comes from Clement of Alexandria who is citing a Gnostic and not the canonical text:

And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptize those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.'" - Excerta cap. 76, ed. Sylb. page 287, quote from Conybeare.
The evidence that indicates this verse may be a corruption is quite weighty. It is presented here since you may yourself discern that it is in fact a corruption. However, while early church testimony does not quote this verse, the Didache, and other early church testimony, does indicate people should be baptized "in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Therefore, we need to determine whether or not this passage would indeed lend any support to the doctrine of the Trinity if it is authentic.
Three is a trinity but not the Trinity

Whenever Trinitarians can count "one, two, three" they somehow imagine this amounts to their three in one God. Why they should think that all three together are to be identified as one "God," when one of them is already identifiable as "God," is a fascinating study in eisegesis. Non-Trinitarians also believe that a unity exists between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and so there is nothing unusual about mentioning these three. The issue is the nature of that unity and whether or not these three constitute one Triune God. You will note the passage does not refer to these three as "God." Trinitarians impose that preconceived idea into the passage. Trinitarians want to believe that if the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned together, this means we are talking about a three in one God in unity of being. However, if only the Father is God and Matthew had intended to illustrate the unity of purpose of God the Father, His Son, and His Holy Spirit, he would need to mention them together. And only the Father would be the only God. Having a relationship with God and having a unity of purpose with God does not thereby mean one is "God" by identity. Moreover, in this passage, the Son of God declares he has been given all authority in heaven and earth, an obvious reference to the Father handing authority over to the Son. And the Father is already Lord of heaven and earth and does not have to be given any authority since He is already above all since we he is "God" (Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21). Jesus was given this authority upon his resurrection and this is precisely what it means for him to have ascended to the right hand of the throne of God (see also Acts 2:36).

The word "name" is singular

The Greek word for "name" in this passage is singular and not plural. It does not say, "into the names of," but "into the name of." Because it is singular, the Trinitarian argues that it must refer to one thing. This is absolutely correct. However they also claim that because three persons follow, it also therefore follows that the one thing to which this word refers is one identity which is therefore the one Trinity of three persons, that is, one "God."

Here Jesus commands his disciples to baptize "in the name of." In the ancient Jewish world, to do something in someone's name meant to do something under another person's authority, character, reputation, plan and purpose. It implies the idea that a subject of that authority is doing the authority's will for that authority. For example, the phrase "Stop in the name of the Monarchy" does not refer to the King's personal name, his surname nor the King and Queen's personal or surnames together. It refers to the plan and purpose and law of the Monarchy as established by their authority. And now we shall see this is exactly how the term is used at Matthew 28:19. In verse 18, Jesus declares, "all authority in heaven and earth is given to me." He then says, "therefore go." It is a basic tenet of hermeneutics that when one sees the word "therefore" one asks what the word "therefore" is there for. Jesus is expressing a cause and effect statement. Because he has been given all authority, the disciples are therefore to go out and baptize all nations "in the name of." As Jesus says in the Gospel of John, "As the Father sent me, now I also send you. Receive the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22). In other words, Jesus has been given the authority to have them do things in the name of his Father, who gave him that authority by the Holy Spirit in his resurrection, with the goal of bringing all nations into subjection to the authority of God. The authority of the Father is given to the Son in the Holy Spirit in which he rose from the dead in the very same way Jesus gives his apostles authority. This is why Peter says in reference to Jesus' resurrection, "God has made this Jesus.... 'Lord.'" The word 'Lord' is a word which indicates authority and Jesus was made Lord in his resurrection. This is the same idea as Matthew 28:18, "all authority... is given to me."

The Flow of the Immediate Context

Now let us notice something very carefully here. Jesus first says all authority is given to "me." He then says to go and baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Why would he indicate he himself had been given all authority and then name three into which to baptize all nations instead of himself? This does not even work in the Trinitarian mindset because Jesus is only one of those three persons in Trinitarian dogma. Indeed, when we come to the book of Acts, we find that they baptized simply into the name of Jesus. And then he says the disciples are to remember to observe everything "he" Jesus has commanded them and that "he" would be with them to the end of the age. Carefully regard this singularity. If the Trinitarian mindset and flow of thought really made any sense, it should follow that since all authority had been given to Jesus then the disciples should baptize in the name of Jesus and be careful to observe everything Jesus had commanded them and that Jesus would be with them to the end of the age. But this is not what it says. The question is "why?"

Baptism Confusion

Trinitarians are often very confused by the fact that here the disciples are commanded to baptize in the name of "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," but when these Trinitarians come to the book of Acts, they see that every single occurrence of baptism illustrates the disciples baptized "in the name of Jesus." The very fact that Trinitarians are confused about this situation betrays their complete lack of understanding and their corresponding misinterpretation of this passage, not to mention the significance of the resurrection of Jesus with respect to his authority. Trinitarians often suppose Jesus is giving his apostles a "baptism formula," that is he is telling them what to say when they baptized people. But if we understand Jesus properly, the reader of the Bible is left completely without any such confusion when he comes to those passages in Acts which describe people being baptized "in the name of Jesus." In fact, Peter tells us that there is no other name by which we can be saved but the name of Jesus. And indeed, Jesus said all authority had been given to him so one would expect that baptism would be into his name if by the word "name" he meant what you were supposed to say when you baptized someone. But that is not what he meant. Jesus was not giving the disciples some words to say when they baptized the nations. Let us now demonstrate what is really being said in Matthew 28:19.

What Jesus was saying in Matthew 28:18 is that the Father has given him, the Son, all authority. We must ask how that occurred. This authority is administered by the Holy Spirit in the disciples who baptize all nations. The reason Father, Son, are mentioned together here is because we have just been told all authority has been given by the Father to the Son. The reason Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned altogether is because this authority given to Jesus is administered by his servants via the Holy Spirit. There is absolutely no reason to suppose we have a three person God on our hands.

So when we come to the book of Acts and see them baptize in the name of Jesus we should not see this as contradicting Jesus' instructions in Matthew. Baptizing them in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was not something they were suppposed to say out loud when they were baptizing. Jesus was explaining on what terms they would be doing this baptizing. Since Jesus had been given all authority he would now send out these disciples in HIS name because HE had been given that authority by the Father. And Jesus sent them out by filling them with the Holy Spirit (John 20:22).

Conclusion

To try and claim this passage indicates that that all men should be baptized into a three person God is quite ignorant of the facts and the whole message of the Bible and therefore the meaning of the words in this passage. And to insist that "name" here is a term used to indicate that "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" are one God is a hermeneutic violation of the immediate context ignoring the fact that all authority had been given to Jesus alone. The one thing that name is pertaining to, is not the identity of a Triune God, but the one authority, the one plan and purpose, of God the Father through the authority of God's Son in God's Holy Spirit. The disciples are to do these things in the name of the authority of the Father, given to the Son, by the Holy Spirit. And this is why Jesus commanded his disciples to do nothing until they had received the Holy Spirit from on high (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4-5,8; 2:33,36). The interpretation presented here is demanded not only by the ancient concept of "name" but the force of the immediate context and the consistent testimony of the Scriptures. We don't need to understand the nature and signficance of the resurrection to simply see that Jesus tells us plainly what he means by "the name of" when he says, "all authority... is given to me. Go therefore and baptize all nations the name of. As such, the word "name" is not a reference to one identity, but to one plan and purpose of authority.

Butch5

[-]

Posts: 474

(09/05/08 15:34:28)

Gregg,

I don't know why you posted this, I never used this verse to try to prove the Trinity. Let me restate this because it seems the author has the same idea. I am not saying that Jesus and the Father are one being, they are not. The word God means diety. The Father is fully divine, Jesu is fully divine. When I say Jesus is God I mean He is divine, he is deity. Both Jesus and the Father are deity. They are not the same being, as you pointed out, Jesus said the Father is greater than I. However He didexist before His earthly birth. Look at what Justin says using the OT Scriptures. Read Gen 18 and 19. Three angels appeared to Abraham, two went on to Sodom and Gomorrah, one stayed. The Scripture says and the Lord spoke to Abraham, after leaving Abraham the lord went to Sodom and Gomorrah and we see Gen 19:23

Genesis 19:24 ( KJV ) 24Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Both occurances use the Strong's number 3068,

Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries

H3068 יְהֹוָה yehôvâh yeh-ho-vaw' From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God:-Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069.

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions

H3068 יְהֹוָה yehôvâh BDB Definition: Jehovah = "the existing One" 1) the proper name of the one true God 1a) unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of H136 Part of Speech: noun proper deity

I also looked at the Septuagint, which is the copy the apsotles used, it uses the Strong's Greek number 2962.

Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries

G2962 κύριος kurios koo'-ree-os From κῦρος kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title):-God, Lord, master, Sir.

Thayer's Greek Definitions

G2962 κύριος kurios Thayer Definition: 1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord 1a) the possessor and disposer of a thing 1a1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master 1a2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor 1b) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master 1c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah Part of Speech: noun masculine A Related Word by Thayer's/Strong's Number: from kuros (supremacy)

The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament

G2962. κύριος kurios; gen. kuriou, masc. noun from kuros (n.f.), might, power. Lord, master, owner. Also the NT Gr. equivalent for the OT Hebr. Jehovah. See kuroō (G2964), to give authority, confirm, which is also from kuros (n.f.).

tacothedog

[-]

Posts: 1

(11/25/08 11:01:43)

To those on the board:

I found this webpage while browsing and thought I would post the following information to get a response:

I am taking this information from the following page (http://www.trumpetcallbooks.com/trinity_truth.html) and what is worthy of noting is that there seem to be various "Christian Scholars" that readily express that the doctrine of God being Triune (Whether it be Trinity or Oneness) is "not explicitly stated in the Bible." Now, again, I am referring to main stream scholars of Christianity!

The webpage refers to it as "Shocking Admissions", from those that are not from the New Way folks, JW's, Mormons, Islam etc, again and instead, from mainstream Christian faiths. Therefore, this matter does not appear to be as cut and dry as some here would have you believe! It reminds me of the evolution controversy where you can compare two reputable and equally educated scientists that have two completely different views (one for evolution meaning here in context, that we came from apes or other lower life forms, verses that we did not) and yet take the position that the other one is wrong! However, in that controversy (evolution as life from other forms of lower life) there are issues over what is perceived as facts! However, unlike evolution there are historical documents, and records that provide insight as to when and where such a topic (Triune God, Trinity which gave birth to Oneness) was first used, introduced, meaning, coming to the fore in a historic time line that cannot be denied, any more than actually denying say, the Holocaust, which some do, though it is not reasonable to do so especially in view of the historical evidence and living survivors etc!

Now, on the website page I mentioned above, at the outset, the following names and information are provided, "Trinitarians Roger Olson and Christopher Hall say of the doctrine in their book, "The Trinity:" state, "It is understandable that the importance placed on this doctrine is perplexing to many lay Christians and students. Nowhere is it clearly and unequivocally stated in Scripture. How can it be so important if it is not explicitly stated in Scripture?" (p. 1). "The doctrine of the Trinity developed gradually after the completion of the N.T. in the heat of controversy. The full-blown doctrine of the Trinity was spelled out in the fourth century at two great ecumenical councils: Nicea (325 A.D.) and Constantinople (381 A.D.)." (p. 1-2)"

Further, "Trinitarian Douglas McCready in his work "He Came Down From Heaven" states: "New Testament scholars disagree whether the N.T. directly calls Jesus God. In terms of first century Judaism, it would be understandable if no N.T. writer described Jesus as God because of the difficulty such language would create for early Christians with a Jewish background... It is important to note that every passage that identifies Jesus as 'theos' can be translated other ways or has variants that read differently" (p. 51). "In biblical Judaism the term 'messiah' did not necessarily carry any connotation of divine status, and Jews of Jesus' day were not expecting their messiah to be other than human." (p. 55). "While some have used the title ('Son of God') to denote Jesus' deity, neither the Judaism nor the paganism of Jesus' day understood the title in this way. Neither did the early church "(p. 56)."

Also, "Writing as a Trinitarian in his best selling book "Christian Doctrine," Prof. Shirley C. Guthrie Jr., makes these strong admissions:" "The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word 'trinity' itself nor such language as 'one-in-three,' 'three-in-one,' one 'essence' (or "substance"), and three 'persons' is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy " (p. 76-77). "But there is an obvious problem here (calling Jesus Lord and Savior) . There is only one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, the Lord and Savior of Israel. If we say that God is really present and at work in Jesus, how can we avoid saying that there are in fact two God's - one 'up in heaven' and one who appeared down here on earth? The N.T. does not solve this problem" (p. 78-79). "The doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible" (p. 80)."

Note, "Trinitarian G.W. Bromiley is quoted in "The Evangelical Dict. of Theology" edited by Walter Elwell, as saying:" ""In the New Testament there is no explicit statement of the doctrine..." (p.1112) "Respected Trinitarian Evangelical Biblical scholar Prof. Charles C. Ryrie, writing in his well known work "Basic Theology" admits:" ""The N.T. contains no explicit statement of the doctrine of the triunity of God (since "these three are one" in I John 5:7 is apparently not a part of the genuine text of Scripture )" (p. 60). "A definition of the Trinity is not easy to construct. Some are done by stating several propositions. Others err on the side of oneness or threeness" (p. 61). "Even with all the discussion and delineation that we attempt in relation to the Trinity, we must acknowledge that it is in the final analysis a mystery" (p. 61). "In the second half of the fourth century , three theologians from the province of Cappadocia in eastern Asia Minor gave definitive shape to the doctrine of the Trinity " (p. 65). "But many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity . In fact, there is not even one proof text , if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that 'clearly' states that there is one God who exists in three persons" (p. 89). "The above illustrations prove the fallacy of concluding that if something is not proof texted in the Bible we cannot clearly teach the results... If that were so, I could never teach the doctrine of the Trinity or the deity of Christ or the deity of the Holy Spirit "(p. 90)."

And know that there are several others quoted as taking the same position, or admission, such as "Trinitarian Millard J. Erickson, research professor of theology at S.W. Baptist Theological Seminary (Southern Baptist)" , "the noted Catholic scholar Graham Greene", Adam Clarke, a Trinitarian Methodist" and other names, however, the point is, that none of these people are coming from the sources from which one would normally expect there to be opposition to the thought of God being Triune!

Therefore I would like some feedback regarding the point I make here, that some of mainstream Christianity clearly and plainly state that the doctrine of God being Triune is not explicitly, plainly expressed or taught in the Bible.

Sincerely.

TTD

P.S. Please email me to let me know you responded.....at: praetorian_g@hotmail.com

GreggArchitect

The point is well made . . .

[-]

Posts: 11

(11/25/08 11:42:49)

Thank you for that post.
I history of the doctrine of the Trinity clearly indicates that it is a later developement....neither God Himself, the Jews, Jesus or the Apostles ever taught this confusing doctrine....so where did it come from?
As the gospel spread, believers began quite early to be contaminated by other teachings, as the epistles of Galatians and Timothy clearly state. The Trinity was one of these corruptions....and continues to be to this day.
How the ONE God of Jesus and the Abraham and the Church could become 3-in-1, as most denominations believe, is really an amazing crafting of deciet.
This is just my belief of course.....most Bible readers would disagree.
In my thinking the Trinity makes no sense.
~Gregg

tacothedog

GA thanks for you input....

[-]

Posts: 2

(11/25/08 11:50:59)

Dear GA:

Thank you for your reply.

I am posting the obvious, which cannot be denied, and that is, that the controversy over this is issue within mainstream Christianity itself, and so therefore, people cannot be dogmatic about this teaching as though it were FACT and or has no problems as the issues of contention come from within their own ranks. In the end, it is not about what I or you personally feel (opinion) verses, what is stated in history and also what is plainly and clearly stated in scripture!

Thanks again.

TTD

Butch5

[-]

Posts: 480

(11/25/08 13:13:32)

tacothedog wrote:

Dear GA:

Thank you for your reply.

I am posting the obvious, which cannot be denied, and that is, that the controversy over this is issue within mainstream Christianity itself, and so therefore, people cannot be dogmatic about this teaching as though it were FACT and or has no problems as the issues of contention come from within their own ranks. In the end, it is not about what I or you personally feel (opinion) verses, what is stated in history and also what is plainly and clearly stated in scripture!

Thanks again.

TTD

Can you explain this Scripture to me?

Genesis 19:24-25 ( KJV ) ²⁴Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; ²⁵And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

The word LORD is the same Greek word,

Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries

H3068 יְהֹוָה yehôvâh yeh-ho-vaw' From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God:-Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069.

rhawes73

For Tacothedog

[-]

Posts: 50

(11/25/08 14:17:20)

Tacothedog,

In response to your private message requesting feedback on the information you posted...

First, as a Trinitarian, I readily admit that the doctrine is not mentioned by name in the New Testament. Neither will you find any direct references to the persons of the Trinity being "one in essence", etc. However, the fact that it is not explicitly named or systematized in the New Testament does not mean that it cannot be accurate theology.

Second, take a look at the information I posted on the first page of this discussion, and tell me how you reconcile it outside of the Trinity. I'll re-list it here for you:

Gregg,

If Jesus is not God, I'm curious how you would explain the following:

John 20:26-29 - "After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, "Peace {be} with you." Then He *said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing." Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus *said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed {are} they who did not see, and {yet} believed." (NASB)

Note that Thomas called Jesus "my God", and Jesus did not correct him. Why not?

Other passages:

Exodus 3:14 - God identified Himself to Moses as "I AM", and Jesus later referred to Himself in this same manner: John 8:58 - "Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." The Jews clearly understood what He meant here, because they took up stones to kill Him for speaking what they thought was blasphemy. Again, in John 10:30, Jesus claimed equality with the Father - "I and the Father are one." Again the Jews tried to kill Him, and when He asked them why, they said, "Because you, being a man, make yourself out to be God." On this same specific topic, note also the reaction of those who came to take Jesus when He said "I am," in the Garden of Gethsemane: John 18:6 - So when He said to them, "I am {He,}" they drew back and fell to the ground."

Isaiah 42:8 - "I am the Lord [Yahweh], that is my name; I will not give my glory to another" - Yet, in John 17:5, Jesus prayed: "Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." What right does Jesus have to the glory that belongs to the Father alone?

Isaiah 44:6 - "I am the first, and I am the last; apart from me there is no God." But this title is also used of Jesus several times in the book of Revelation: Rev 1:11 - "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last." Rev 2:8, Jesus introduces Himself to the church in Smyrna as "The first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life." Rev 1:17 - "Fear not; I am the first and the last." And lastly in Rev 22:13 - "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

Jesus created the universe (John 1:3), forgave sins (Mark 2:5), accepted worship (Matthew 8:2), claimed the power to give eternal life (John 10:27-28), and claimed ownership of everything that belonged to the Father (including His glory) - John 17:5. The apostle Paul called Jesus, "the fullness of the Godhead bodily," in Col 2:9, and the Father commanded the angels to "worship Him" - Hebrews 1:6.

Isaiah 45:23-24 - "I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance." Compare this to Philippians 2:9-11 - "Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Notice that Paul even uses the term "God the Father."

In Hebrews 1, God the Father clearly calls Jesus both "God" and "Lord":

Hebrews 1:8 - "But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands."

The New Testament is clear: Jesus is God, but it is equally clear that He is not the Father.

Lastly, the Holy Spirit is also called "God" in Acts 5:3-4 - "But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit...You have not lied to men but to God."

The word Trinity is not found in the Bible, but we do have words like "Godhead," "God the Father," the occurrence in Matthew 28:19 where Father, Son and Holy Spirit appear together, and passages where in Jesus and the Holy Spirit are referred to as "God". How do you explain these passages, and the unity thereof, apart from the Trinity? If the Trinity is not biblical, then Jesus and those who worshiped Him were blasphemers, and they were either lying or else mistaken about the nature of the Holy Spirit. There is no way around this.

GreggArchitect wrote:

And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding,
so that we may know Him who is true; [the Father, not Jesus His Son]
and we are in Him who is true, [the Father]

in His Son Jesus Christ. [the Father]

He is the true God and eternal life. [the Father]

This completely agrees with the words of Jesus in John 17:3

"Now this is eternal life:
that they may know you [Father], the only true God,
and Jesus Christ [Messiah], whom you have sent."

Jesus says that His Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD !
Gregg,

If God is in fact a triune being consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (distinct in persons but one in essence) then there is no problem here. Yes, the Father is God. But the Son and the Holy Spirit are also God. Thus a statement about the deity of any of them individually (for example, "The Holy Spirit is the only true God"), or corporately ("The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the only true God") is true by definition, for God is a triune being. For this reason, Jesus was able to call the Father "God" and, at the same time, distinguish Himself from the Father, and yet not diminish His own deity. There is nothing contradictory here, nothing that invalidates the Trinity, either by outright statement or by logical implication.

Jesus' statements in these passages also underscore the New Testament teaching that He subordinated Himself in the incarnation. It wasn't that He surrendered His divinity somehow, but that He "humbled Himself" and became both our savior and our example. Philippians 2:5-8 - "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

In this passage, Paul clearly tells us that Jesus was equal (isos - "equal, in quantity or quality") to "God" (usually a reference to the Father in the N.T.) prior to His incarnation. Now, I'm sure you would agree that God is a unique being. Logically, He must be; for, the fundamental attributes ascribed to Him: omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, are, by definition, absolute, and that which is absolute is, by necessity, solitary. You can no more have two things that are both absolute in knowledge, power, or presence than you can have two North Poles. Therefore, the only way in which it could be logically said that Jesus could be equal with God (the Father) is if He is one with the Father in some way. As it happens, this is exactly what Paul tells us when he says that Jesus was "in the form of God."

"the form of God" - morphe theos in the Greek. Regarding morphe, Vines Expository Dictionary says the following:

denotes "the special or characteristic form or feature" of a person or thing; it is used with particular significance in the NT, only of Christ, in Phl 2:6,7, in the phrases "being in the form of God," and "taking the form of a servant." An excellent definition of the word is that of Gifford: "morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists. ... Thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ. ... For the interpretation of 'the form of God' it is sufficient to say that
(1) it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is inseparable from them, since they could have no actual existence without it; and

(2) that it does not include in itself anything 'accidental' or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation, or conditions of glory and majesty, which may at one time be attached to the 'form,' at another separated from it. ...

The true meaning of morphe in the expression 'form of God' is confirmed by its recurrence in the corresponding phrase, 'form of a servant.' It is universally admitted that the two phrases are directly antithetical, and that 'form' must therefore have the same sense in both." * [* From Gillford, "The Incarnation," pp. 16,19,39.]

"I and my Father are one." - John 10:30. Distinct, but equal. This is the heart of the doctrine of the Trinity, and it is the only explanation that makes complete sense when you compare what Jesus said about Himself and the Father. Anything else is either gobbledygook or blasphemy.

Also, I'm curious to know how you think Jesus could humble Himself or give up that which was rightfully His if He existed only in God's "counsels" prior to the incarnation? Only an actual person can humble himself. It seems to me that if Jesus existed only in God's mind at that time, that He would have been fully formed for one purpose and, therefore, would not have had a former state to give up and would not have needed to humble Himself to serve His intended role. By way of example (I don't intend any disrespect here), to say that Christ was created in the mind of God and yet had to put His own will aside in order to do the Father's will would be roughly equivalent to saying that my computer has to humble itself to work for me, when the truth is that it was designed for that sole purpose. Your view of Jesus makes Him more of a tool than a person, in my opinion.

GreggArchitect wrote:

Now, when the writer of Hebrew quotes Psalm 45, and calls Jesus "God" on his own throne,
we are prompted to go back and look at the Psalm to get the context.

Read it and see for yourself, who is the subject of the Psalm?
It is a King elevated to a high position and therefore God figuratively calls him "God"....just like in Psalm 86, the Sons of God are called Gods, figuratively.
Psalm 86, the "ye are gods" passage. Yes, I'm familiar with it, and, yes, the usage of the term "god" is figurative in it. But this won't save your argument with regard to Hebrews 1 because the language used in that passage can only apply to deity.

Start a few verses before the quotation from Psalm 45:

Hebrews 1:1-2 - "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds."

Who "made the worlds"? Who is the Creator of all things?

Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
Genesis 2:4 - "These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens."
Psalm 102:24-25 - " I say, "O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days, Your years are throughout all generations. "Of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands." (NASB)
Isaiah 48:12-13 -
"Listen to Me, O Jacob,
And Israel, My called:

I am He, I am the First,

I am also the Last.

Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth,

And My right hand has stretched out the heavens;

When I call to them,

They stand up together." (NKJV)

The Bible clearly tells us that God is the Creator of all things. Notice in the last passage I listed where God says that His own hand laid the foundation of the earth. Now, as a spirit God does not have physical hands, so, yes, that is a figurative reference, but the statement that God Himself did the work of creation is not figurative. How does this fit in with the N.T. passages where we're told that Jesus created all things? You think that John 1:3 is a reference to the Father, so what about Colossians 1:15-18?

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell..." (NKJV)

This passage is quite obviously referring to Jesus, and it ascribes the act of creation to Him (indeed, it says that all things actually consist in Him). Yet, how can Jesus have created that which God says He created Himself? Maybe John 1:3 isn't corrupt after all?

Now, going back to Hebrews it could be argued that Jesus was God's "hand", His instrument in the act of creation, but this still contradicts God's repeated statements that He created everything Himself, and it would also present another problem for you in that you don't think that Jesus existed prior to the incarnation.

Hebrews 1:8-10 - "But of the Son {He says,} "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. "YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS." And, "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS." (NASB)

In these verses the Father not only refers to the Son as "God", but He also calls Him "Lord" and ascribes the creation to Him. The Son is the one whom the Father says "laid the foundation" and made everything as "the works of your hands." Compare these descriptions to Psalm 102 and Isaiah 48 as I quoted them above, wherein we are told that God did these things Himself. Either the Son must be God, distinct yet equal to the Father, or we have a serious problem.

If the Trinity is not biblical, then who and what is Jesus Christ, in your opinion?

- Robert

tacothedog

For Butch5

[-]

Posts: 3

(11/25/08 14:46:08)

Butch5

Thank you for reply, however it is not appropriate to my post. Someone might ask here, 'what does this have to do with the price of bananas?' (My post) If I wanted to discuss this verse or exchange other thoughts, I would have posted that, alas I did not, however, doing so at the appropriate time would be a pleasure!

In the circles I run and work in, it is not appropriate to ignore the crux of someone else's (the guest) discussion as it is not only rude, but smacks of clandestine sinister designs---in other words, motive!!! So, before I address your post, yours needs to be on point. I trust you may have attended classes in a University, College, High School or grade school so you would know, that one does not address a reply by ignoring the issue as doing so, tends to confirm it as accurate, and telling the class (in this case, the world) that you have no reply, so you had to give them your best shot and fake it! With that said….

The point of my post, which should be the point of your reply, has to do with the fact, that the controversy of God being Triune, ironically enough, is not settled within mainstream Christianity in general, even though the masses (people in the pews) think and speak as though it is! Now, do you agree with the post or not? If so, fine, if not, then please provide me with the reasons why and then and only then will I be more than happy to respond to your changing of the goal posts!

Does this tactic really work for you?

Let us settle this matter first, and then move onto your simple obvious post!

Tata…

TTD Woof, Woof….

tacothedog

For Rhawes73

[-]

Posts: 4

(11/25/08 14:50:08)

Dear Rhawes:T

Thank you for your reply..I look forward to posting a response tomorrow!

TTD

GreggArchitect

Who is Jesus?

[-]

Posts: 12

(11/25/08 15:04:07)

Hi Robert:
That is the crucial question indeed.
Jesus asks that same question of his disciples in Matthew 16, and Peter answers:
"You are the Christ [the Messiah], the Son of the living God."
Jesus then says, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you,
but My Father who is in heaven."
Jesus does not claim to be "the Living God", but "the Son of the Living God."
Who then is the Living God ? That is Yahveh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and now to be known as "the God and Father of Jesus the Messiah". How many of the Epistles use this as the releationship of Jesus to God....all of them!
Peter then on the Day of Pentecost gets up in front of the crowd and says, "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know - Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken* by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it."

Why didn't Peter ever teach to them that Jesus was "the second person of the Trinity" if that is important to know?

Jesus is a Man, but not just a mere man or an ordinary man. He is the Man that God has annointed and ordained to one day rule the world in righteousness. He died for our sins and invites us to believe in him, and follow him into the world that God is preparing for all those who choose the truth. Jesus is our "all" and is "in all"....but as Jesus said "The Father is greater than I".

That's what the scriptures say.......can any religious tradition be clearer than that? I don't think so.

Isn't is strange that not only is the term Trinity absent from the Bible, but also the terms "God the Son", "eternally begotten" "God of God" and others that religion has given to him.......why is that?

The scriptures are truth, not to be added to.

Every word of God [is] pure:
He [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

~Proverbs 30:5-6

When they invented the term "Trinity" didn't "add" to the scriptures?
Also, those creeds, the Nicene and the Athanasian, do they not add to the revealed words of God?
Those are not scripture, are they?

What say you my friend?
~g regg

rhawes73

[-]

Posts: 51

(11/25/08 17:13:16)

tacothedog wrote:
The point of my post, which should be the point of your reply, has to do with the fact, that the controversy of God being Triune, ironically enough, is not settled within mainstream Christianity in general, even though the masses (people in the pews) think and speak as though it is!

Taco,

Given that trinitarians rather overwhelmingly outnumber non-trinitarians, I think it's misleading to say that there is "controversy" within mainstream Christianity where the Trinity is concerned. Oneness Pentacostals and some other groups deny the Trinity, but they are outside of the Christian mainstream in doing so, at least if you define "mainstream" as holding to doctrines that are the most widely accepted and considered "major". That's not meant to be an insult, just a statement of fact. Most protestants are trinitarians; so are Catholics, if you want to throw them into the mix. If you want to find genuine controversies within "mainstream" Christianity, check into such issues as the baptism debate and the role of women in the church. There is widespread disagreement on these issues among Christians who are, nonetheless, united on other core doctrines.

Again, this is not meant to be insulting, merely descriptive. On certain issues, such as eschatology, I am also outside of the Christian mainstream.

As to the exact quotations you've cited, it's clear that many of them are lead-ins to longer discussions, and, for that reason, should not be quoted in isolation. The following is one such example:

Now, on the website page I mentioned above, at the outset, the following names and information are provided, "Trinitarians Roger Olson and Christopher Hall say of the doctrine in their book, "The Trinity:" state, "It is understandable that the importance placed on this doctrine is perplexing to many lay Christians and students. Nowhere is it clearly and unequivocally stated in Scripture. How can it be so important if it is not explicitly stated in Scripture?" (p. 1).

I haven't read the book in question, but it sounds very much like the authors are simply setting the stage for a discussion of the Trinity by explaining why the discussion is important and what place it holds in Christian doctrine.

"The doctrine of the Trinity developed gradually after the completion of the N.T. in the heat of controversy. The full-blown doctrine of the Trinity was spelled out in the fourth century at two great ecumenical councils: Nicea (325 A.D.) and Constantinople (381 A.D.)." (p. 1-2)"

Further, "Trinitarian Douglas McCready in his work "He Came Down From Heaven" states: "New Testament scholars disagree whether the N.T. directly calls Jesus God. In terms of first century Judaism, it would be understandable if no N.T. writer described Jesus as God because of the difficulty such language would create for early Christians with a Jewish background... It is important to note that every passage that identifies Jesus as 'theos' can be translated other ways or has variants that read differently" (p. 51). "In biblical Judaism the term 'messiah' did not necessarily carry any connotation of divine status, and Jews of Jesus' day were not expecting their messiah to be other than human." (p. 55). "While some have used the title ('Son of God') to denote Jesus' deity, neither the Judaism nor the paganism of Jesus' day understood the title in this way. Neither did the early church "(p. 56)."

For info on the perspective of the early church, consider this PFRS position paper: http://www.pfrs.org/oneness/op04.html

Also, "Writing as a Trinitarian in his best selling book "Christian Doctrine," Prof. Shirley C. Guthrie Jr., makes these strong admissions:" "The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word 'trinity' itself nor such language as 'one-in-three,' 'three-in-one,' one 'essence' (or "substance"), and three 'persons' is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy " (p. 76-77).

By "classical Greek philosophy," I assume he is referring to belief in Fate, which was later divided into "the Fates," three beings known as the "Moirae". The problem with this though is that I see no evidence that the Greeks ever believed that "Fate" was one being with three distinct persons. They initially believed in Fate as one being, and later as three. This is not equivalent to Christian trinitarianism.

"But there is an obvious problem here (calling Jesus Lord and Savior) . There is only one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, the Lord and Savior of Israel. If we say that God is really present and at work in Jesus, how can we avoid saying that there are in fact two God's - one 'up in heaven' and one who appeared down here on earth? The N.T. does not solve this problem" (p. 78-79). "The doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible" (p. 80)."

This is a trinitarian talking?

First, although I disagree with him, he undoes himself with his own weird logic. If Christ was simply God present and at work in a man, Jesus, then you basically have what the Oneness pentacostals teach: namely, that Jesus was the Father manifested in flesh. But you don't need to invent two gods, even by that standard. Second, I'd need to see more than just the snippet "The doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible" to judge what Guthrie is actually saying, particularly if you got these quotes from a list someone compiled on the web. For all I know, he could be quoting someone.

Note, "Trinitarian G.W. Bromiley is quoted in "The Evangelical Dict. of Theology" edited by Walter Elwell, as saying:" ""In the New Testament there is no explicit statement of the doctrine..." (p.1112) "Respected Trinitarian Evangelical Biblical scholar Prof. Charles C. Ryrie, writing in his well known work "Basic Theology" admits:" ""The N.T. contains no explicit statement of the doctrine of the triunity of God (since "these three are one" in I John 5:7 is apparently not a part of the genuine text of Scripture )" (p. 60). "A definition of the Trinity is not easy to construct. Some are done by stating several propositions. Others err on the side of oneness or threeness" (p. 61). "Even with all the discussion and delineation that we attempt in relation to the Trinity, we must acknowledge that it is in the final analysis a mystery" (p. 61). "In the second half of the fourth century , three theologians from the province of Cappadocia in eastern Asia Minor gave definitive shape to the doctrine of the Trinity " (p. 65). "But many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity . In fact, there is not even one proof text , if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that 'clearly' states that there is one God who exists in three persons" (p. 89). "The above illustrations prove the fallacy of concluding that if something is not proof texted in the Bible we cannot clearly teach the results... If that were so, I could never teach the doctrine of the Trinity or the deity of Christ or the deity of the Holy Spirit "(p. 90)."

These are merely admissions that the doctrine is not named or clearly taught in any one passage. However, as you can see from what Ryrie wrote, the fact that it it not outright stated is not proof that it is not theologically correct. There are other issues to consider, particularly the passages that I and others have quoted in this thread, passages that very clearly teach that Jesus is divine, yet separate from the Father and the Holy Spirit.

- Robert

rhawes73

[-]

Posts: 52

(11/25/08 17:17:49)

GreggArchitect wrote:
When they invented the term "Trinity" didn't "add" to the scriptures?
Also, those creeds, the Nicene and the Athanasian, do they not add to the revealed words of God?
Those are not scripture, are they?

What say you my friend?

Gregg,

First, what do you make of the passages that I've cited? I'm curious how you explain them, if Jesus is not divine; particularly the passages where various the various attributes and deeds of Yahweh are attributed to Christ.

Second, I think it might be valuable to take an incremental look at the issue. Let's start by you answering two questions for me:

1. Was Jesus virgin-born?
2. If so, why?

- Robert

Last Edited By: rhawes73 11/25/08 17:21:23. Edited 1 times.

tacothedog

For Rhawes73

[-]

Posts: 5

(11/26/08 09:27:25)

Dear Rhawes73:

I want to thank you for responding to my invitation via email and post! If I understood your introduction correctly, (Post # 30) you acknowledge what is stated in the quotes above (Post # 26) as reference. If not, please explain. I very much appreciate your admission that the doctrine is not mentioned by name in the (NT) though I extend that to mean the Bible, and that one will not find any direct references to the doctrine either, which I take to mean, is compatible with the way it is put by other mainstream Christian scholars, that the doctrine itself is not explicitly stated in the Bible. Your reply is silent on the obvious historicity of the Trinity (for these discussion(s) I will include to mean Oneness as the Trinity gave birth to this theory without getting into the specific differences) which should be integral to a discussion such as this, as if the foundation of a building is poor, or is doubtful, it would be silly to build! Lastly, I note you also remained silent on the focal issue pointed out in Post 26 and that is, that this controversy is within the ranks of Christendom itself, from reputable sources within those ranks!

With that said, I note you take the position that most Trinitarians do, which is fair to take, and that is; regardless of origin and its lack of explicit, clear and plain support in the Bible, that it is "theology" that we are dealing with here, and you are indeed correct! I very much appreciate your post as it clearly distinguishes the belief in this doctrine as it relates to the Trinity in theology, verses how it compares with the Bible itself!

[On a separate note, I applaud you for making this distinction that many do not make, or take for granted and thus add to the labyrinth, of the confusion and mayhem of this doctine!]

In effect, you are controlling the environment of the subject matter, no different than setting the parameters of a laboratory experiment, by narrowing the field, using as a divining rod, "theology", so you are indeed correct, that one does not need anything to be stated explicitly in the Bible (or other source) as the basis for making determinations for this particular subject matter is "theology", and not Bible. Or put another way, the lead standard for the discussion, from your standpoint is theology first, and Bible second, wherein one must now work backward, from a fixed position into another, thereby making things fit that may tend to infer and or support this particular theological view! I respect that.

I therefore submit to you, that having a discussion in this manner revolving around scriptures is irrelevant as the outcome of scripture is determined by the "theology" and not what the Bible plainly and clearly expresses! Thus my attempt at a reeply-discussion of what the Bible clearly and plainly states becomes moot! So, I will not waste any more of your time by addressing your reply (with regards to the scriptures) as it would be a dishonor to you, myself and those on the board.

Setting a parameter like this, by controlling one's environment, or ruling standard, will only allow for one fixed conclusion with many component subparts within the environment that I submit, can be made to support any hypothesis and it is not one I will engage in, as I accept Bible over theology, as in the end, they are not the same.

Thank you again for your kind and thoughtful reply.

Sincerely,

TTD

tacothedog

For Rhawes73

[-]

Posts: 6

(11/26/08 09:57:13)

Rhawes73:

I look forward to your reply to post 36.

I note that in your post 34, your focus is one paragraph of my post 31, which states, repeat and quote here; "The point of my post, which should be the point of your reply, has to do with the fact, that the controversy of God being Triune, ironically enough, is not settled within mainstream Christianity in general, even though the masses (people in the pews) think and speak as though it is!" and it does.

Your response to the above is in effect, "majority rule." If this is what you use to base your decision on, then you are in slim company and shaky ground as nothing we have today of any innovation, originates with the thinking of platform of "majority rule" nor does it work in many issues related to life and sciences, and disciplines of all kinds! It certainly would not have worked if you were a Jew living in Hitler's time and control!!!

This then, kind of spoils what you go on to express as it is built on unsound reasoning, taken for an accurate postulate! I instead apply these humble words in response to you, taken from Proverbs 10:19, (NASB) "When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise."

You must also decide if you are speaking "theology" or "Bible", as entertaining a discussion or post-exchange without knowing is pure folly!

Sincerely,

TTD.

rhawes73

Whoa Nelly

[-]

Posts: 53

(11/26/08 14:34:04)

tacothedog wrote:
Your response to the above is in effect, "majority rule." If this is what you use to base your decision on, then you are in slim company and shaky ground as nothing we have today of any innovation, originates with the thinking of platform of "majority rule" nor does it work in many issues related to life and sciences, and disciplines of all kinds! It certainly would not have worked if you were a Jew living in Hitler's time and control!!!

This then, kind of spoils what you go on to express as it is built on unsound reasoning, taken for an accurate postulate! I instead apply these humble words in response to you, taken from Proverbs 10:19, (NASB) "When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise."

You must also decide if you are speaking "theology" or "Bible", as entertaining a discussion or post-exchange without knowing is pure folly!

Taco,

You're misunderstanding what I've said. My position on this issue has nothing to do with majority rule, nor am I advocating some human contrivance over biblical authority.

My remark that most Christians are trinitarians was, again, simply a statement of fact. I wrote this in reply to your statement that the Trinity is controversial to the point of being unsettled in "mainstream" Christianity. This is demonstrably untrue; most Christians accept the doctrine. There are far more contentious issues within "mainstream" Christianity: namely, baptism, spirit gifts, women in the church, etc. Now, the simple fact that trinitarians constitute a majority does not necessarily make them right in their adherence to the doctrine. Issues of right and wrong are not determined by majority vote. Whether trinitarians are right or wrong is an entirely separate issue from whether they are a majority or whether the doctrine is the source of much controversy within "mainstream" Christian ranks.

As to speaking of "theology" or "Bible," I'm afraid that it's not as simple as you make it out to be. I don't know what position others take, but, as for me, my theology is based on my understanding of the Bible, not just whatever I wish were true or feel like defending from one day to the next. Where the doctrine of the Trinity is concerned, I do maintain that it is biblical, even though the term itself is not used in the scripture and there is no concise, undisputed "Trinity" passage. If you read my responses to Gregg, I think you would have to agree that I do appeal to scripture in defense of the Trinity. Disagree with my use of those passages or the conclusions I draw from them, if you see fit, but don't argue that my position is somehow extra-biblical until you show me -- from the Bible -- that the passages in question cannot mean what I interpret them as meaning.

I hope this helps to clarify my position on the standing of the doctrine of the Trinity.

- Robert

tacothedog

For Rhawes73/Robert..

[-]

Posts: 7

(11/28/08 11:04:55)

Dear Rhawes73/Robert:

Thank you for your response. I appreciate though do not agree, with your taking the position that I misunderstood what you stated in your post numbers 30, 34 and now 38 where you "selectively respond to what you choose to, and ignore and or inadvertently distort the reason what I contacted you in the first place regarding my original post number 26.

Before I begin my response, I quote two paragraphs in my original post 26, which states below:

QUOTE, "I am taking this information from the following page (http://www.trumpetcallbooks.com/trinity_truth.html) and what is worthy of noting is that there seem to be various "Christian Scholars" that readily express that the doctrine of God being Triune (Whether it be Trinity or Oneness) is "not explicitly stated in the Bible." Now, again, I am referring to main stream scholars of Christianity! END QUOTE and also the last paragraph where I stated, QUOTE "Therefore I would like some feedback regarding the point I make here, that some of mainstream Christianity clearly and plainly state that the doctrine of God being Triune is not explicitly, plainly expressed or taught in the Bible." END QUOTE. (Emphasis added, underlining and bold)

With the above quotes in mind, you mention in the opening words of your second paragraph, "My remark that most Christians are trinitarians was, again, simply a statement of fact" is does not harmonizes with what I state in my first post (26), from which I quote from above. It was in fact, after stumbling onto this website, and after reviewing comments this string, that it became patently clear that the persons posting including you, believe that the ones not believing in a Triune God, are "ONLY" found form those who come from non-mainstream Christian religions and others, (i.e. The Way, JW's, Mormons, Islam etc.) and is the primary reason why I pointed out in post 26 that this matter of disagreement, can also be found by "some" from mainstream Christian religions and by making that statement I did not state, nor do I have to show "most" but rather that it simple exists and it is really that simple when it comes to establishing the same! Thus the reason for quoting the comments under the title, "Shocking Admissions" to further emphasize that this issue clearly exists. You even remarked, or rather appeared to question a quote(s) by the Trinitarian(s) I quoted, regarding their beliefs' as Trinitarians. I submit that if you were take the time to verify and validate the information (as there are names listed) you will indeed find these persons are not only Trinitarians, but that they come from what is termed mainstream Christianity, like Baptists and the like!

Thus, again, while folks like this are in the minority, it goes to establish that the doctrine is not as cut and dry as one would mistakenly take it to be and only found among the non-conforming Christians! Therefore, this serves to expand the controversy passed the obvious non mainstreamer, by pointing out that such an issue exists, albeit admittedly few when compared to the numbers (most) in Christendom that do accept and believe that God as Triune!

This is why I purposely made a comparison to those of Evolution (the part of TOE, meaning those who believe that life sprang from lower forms of life) to illustrate vividly, that even though most scientists believe in Evolution, that some, or relatively few compared to the numbers that do, serve to make the matter a controversy due to their being no precise manner in which to settle the matter as a FACT once and for all. Thus drawing from what is established in controversy on TOE, from within the ranks of the "scientific community", and not the so called "ignorant" or "non scientific community". Therefore, in this analogy, I have compared "scientific community" to "mainstream Christianity" and the "ignorant" (in this example not calling anyone ignorant) and or "non scientific community" to the "non mainstream" of Christendom, to establish this as part of our discussion. NOTE: If you do not believe this, about TOE, feel free to view the movie "Expelled" available at your local Blockbuster video store. Therefore, such an admission was and is clearly missing from all of the posters on this string, and must be taken in account by all who comment on the same to avoid getting sidetracked by confining this to some and turning it into an emotional issue based on blind credulity rather than FACT.

Your statement, QUOTE "You're misunderstanding what I've said. My position on this issue has nothing to do with majority rule, nor am I advocating some human contrivance over biblical authority." End QUOTE does not necessary characterize your own reply! Also the last part of this (your) sentence just quoted, and post stands in stark contrast to the admission and statement made by you, where you admit in post 30 QUOTE "First, as a Trinitarian, I readily admit that the doctrine is not mentioned by name in the New Testament. Neither will you find any direct references to the persons of the Trinity being "one in essence", etc. However, the fact that it is not explicitly named or systematized in the New Testament does not mean that it cannot be accurate theology. End QUOTE, in your own words, a Trinitarian by admission, I submit that this would be a similar "Shocking Admission" to those who believe like you, as this statement readily states the parameters of how this matter or controversy of God being Triune is decided, and that is, on the basis of theology and it's view of the Bible and not the other way around! Thus, I submit that if taken the other way around, you will not be able to get to the same place as it is not reciprocal. It can't be, as the term Trinity is not Bible based though interestingly enough can be found in pagan religions and also according to history, can be found in Christendom after the counsel of Nicaea that presided over by a pagan.

And yes while there may be far more contentious issues within QUOTE "mainstream" Christianity", END QUOTE, this is NOT the one I have chosen to post about!

Keeping in mind the quote above from your words as underlined by me, you state, QUOTE "As to speaking of "theology" or "Bible," I'm afraid that it's not as simple as you make it out to be…" END QUOTE and reply, what I point out is indeed a simple fact, the existence of controversy from within the ranks, rarely pointed out (like with evolutionists) and further, I quoted you in reference to the same, and pointed out how it harmonizes with the quotes of others including scholars from mainstream Christianity, as I did in my first post number 26, not to mention non religious encyclopedias and other historical sources that harmonize with this as well.

Now here you revise, what you state above that I quoted and underlined, by explaining that for you, QUOTE "…theology is based on my understanding of the Bible…" END QUOTE and reply that you are now, in your explanation, you are somewhat departing from you own words in underline above, and that you take what "you" believe from "theology" and not Bible to understand the Bible, and I submit that taking it from Bible alone, from it's plain and simple words, and working backward, is not possible nor appropriate.

After this you state QUOTE "Where the doctrine of the Trinity is concerned, I do maintain that it is biblical, even though the term itself is not used in the scripture and there is no concise, undisputed "Trinity" passage" END QUOTE, and submit in reply that such a statement in any discipline would be a cause for pause, and at the very least, should make one less dogmatic and emphatic about the way they express their support to this position in the first place!

You then state, QUOTE "If you read my responses to Gregg, I think you would have to agree that I do appeal to scripture in defense of the Trinity. Disagree with my use of those passages or the conclusions I draw from them, if you see fit, but don't argue that my position is somehow extra-biblical until you show me -- from the Bible -- that the passages in question cannot mean what I interpret them as meaning" END QUOTE and submit, that first and foremost, you are again attempting to control the outcome by setting up the beginning, and I am simply stating that instead, one should first acknowledge and admit to the foundation for one's belief as with anything else, meaning that one needs to keep in upper most in mind this foundation when discussing scripture (or anything else) as to ignore it, serves no value other than to support ignorance.

Now, before we resort to discussing scriptures it is critical to note the following by way of summary along with a few other issues that need to be dealt with that will serve to guide or control the discussion as to fairness;

We have agreed that there is no explicit teaching of Trinity, Oneness, God being Triune in the Bible.
We have agreed and established that besides those in non mainstream Christendom, that there are those (minority, some, few etc.) from mainstream Christendom that supports the statement in sentence one.

Now, we need to settle the matter of its origin and history that the scholars I quoted from in my very first post, number 26, also mention, that historically speaking, this teaching of God being Triune (as to Christianity ONLY as the belief in God being Triune dates back before Christ and the OT) rests with the Nicene Creed which was presided over by a pagan. I would like your thoughts on the same.

I trust you will allow for us to set a consensus on the above matters, which will end up being only three for this discussion, (unless you have some to add to it) which will allow us to fairly and reasonably exchange thoughts on scriptures accordingly.

Looking forward to your reply and know that I am leaving the office for the weekend, and will be available to digest your response on Monday.

May you enjoy the Holiday weekend!

TonyP

tacothedog

P.S. I apologize for any mistakes in grammar and misspellings as I did this in haste.

[-]

Posts: 8

(11/28/08 11:12:31)

P.S. I apologize for any mistakes in grammar and misspellings as I did this in haste.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Just looked over your site . . .

Quick Reply