1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What are the benefits of the trinity?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Ronald, Aug 1, 2004.

  1. Ronald

    Ronald Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,392
    Ratings:
    +50
    I keep asking this question on different forums, but have yet to get an answer.
    The only benefit I have seen is to be accepted by those who believe in trinity.
    In other words you are not a true Christian if you are not trinitarian.
    It's not a salvation issue. So what do you attain from being a trinitarian?
     
  2. Christ Michael

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Messages:
    88
    Ratings:
    +1

    There is nothing to be attained. Trinity is just the way God is.





    Cheers
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Ronald

    Ronald Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,392
    Ratings:
    +50
    Lets see if someone can answer this now.
     
  4. SPLogan

    SPLogan Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Messages:
    185
    Ratings:
    +22
    I cannot answer this question with any real authority but I'd like to pitch in my initial thoughts on the mater...

    It is clear from scripture that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each essential to salvation. Salvation depends on Their collaborative effort. If They are not one then Scripture is incorrect because “I (Jesus) and the Father are one,” “The Lord our God is one” is stated in many ways throughout the Bible. If Scripture is not absolutely correct then this discussion is mute because the Bible is our only basis for any such discussion.

    John 1 -
    “1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. …

    14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

    Frankly, salvation is an inward affair. If you don’t believe in the Trinity because you’re ignorant of Scripture but you still understand that God’s complete unmerited favor is your only hope of being right with Him you may still be saved.
    If you willfully reject the Trinity and gerrymander God’s Word to fit your fancy for pantheism then obviously the Spirit has not tweaked your will to accept God for who He is. You would therefore be tweaking who God is, creating God in YOUR image. God is not a Phylum or a Species, He is “I AM,” “ONE.”

    To confuse the mater a bit, I’ll throw this in:

    Ephesians 5-
    31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[3] 32This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

    What do you think?
     
  5. Ronald

    Ronald Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,392
    Ratings:
    +50
    Then John 3:16 is bogus? Who lied? God, Jesus or the holy ghost? Trinity is man made.
    The word doesn't exsist outside of commentary.
    Please quote the scripture that says trinity is a salvation requirement.
    I'm sure you can shed light on the Man and Woman becoming one flesh! Why don't I bleed when my wife cuts her finger?
    Also read my signature, and tell me why it is incorrect? And how the speaker is not deemed a liar for saying it.
     
  6. SPLogan

    SPLogan Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Messages:
    185
    Ratings:
    +22
    First of all, Christ and the prophets never spoke any English words. “Bible,” for example, is not mentioned in Scripture, only in “commentary.” Are you going to reject it? The word “Bible” represents the sum of Scripture and “Trinity” represents the sum of the God spoken of therein.

    John 3:16 may be bogus to unbelievers but it presents no tension with the doctrine of the Trinity. I don’t know how to defend that point until you tell me how it contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity. Here’s what it says:

    “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (ESV)

    When man cut the Son’s finger, the Father didn’t bleed either, and when you “cut your finger“ your face doesn’t bleed either. Does it? So what?

    I also appreciate your John 5:24 quote. I cannot tell you how it is incorrect, sorry. Why don’t you tell me? Scripture is ALWAYS right and God CANNOT lie. Yes, I said “cannot.” The Bible is the immovable object in this discussion. We must establish that to continue.

    I think the problem here is that we assume by “Trinity” we both mean the same thing. My belief is that God is one. That includes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. I also believe that the Bible is one. That includes 66 books of Scripture.

    Please help me understand where we differ.
     
  7. true blood

    true blood Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    848
    Ratings:
    +36
    Absolutely zero benefits unless you consider confusion a benefit and I'm sure you know who the author of confusion is. Why not study the origin of the trinity concept of a 3-in-1 God which existed long before the founding of Christianity because it was common belief in ancient religions. The Babylonian trinity, Hindu trinity, Greek trinity, Egyptian, Indian, Chinese, Icelandic, Siberian and others. You probably get the point that the concept evolved from pagan worshipping that now evilly permeats so called Christian doctrine even though it was not part of the dogma and formal documents of the first 3 centuries after Christ. In fact the opposite was the case because they spoke of the Father as supreme, the true and only God, without beginning, invisible, unbegotten and immutable and of the Son as inferior, a real person, having a beginning, visible, begotten and mutable. Until the forth century did the christians establish a trinity and that is a fully documented historical fact. Here's an example of the crazy documents in which the "trinity" idea came from inspiring "The Didache". "Now as regards baptism, thus baptize ye: having first rehearsed all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. But if thou hast not running water, baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then warm. But if thou hast neither, pour water upon the head thrice, in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism, let the baptizer and the baptized fast, and any other who can; but the baptzed thou shalt command to fast for one or two days before." You see the baptismal practices of water in the name of Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost replaced the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. Obviously a corruption of the orginal text. In my opinon the "benefits" were to corrupt the church from the truth.
     
  8. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    "In other words you are not a true Christian if you are not trinitarian."

    That's what they tell you, it is a simple lie.Scripture doesn't say to be a 'christian' you must believe yeshua was almighty, and i know why.

    "The only benefit I have seen is to be accepted by those who believe in trinity."

    yeah, narrow is the path.

    --S
     
  9. Christy

    Christy Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    35
    Ratings:
    +2
    God is Spirit. We live in three dimensions; He lives in dimensions that we cannot begin to imagine, much less understand. We know that time is not problem for Him at all; we know that space is not a problem for Him. He is present in all places and at all times. He created everything; He has control over all the elements of nature on our planet and everywhere else in the universe.

    What is the best way for God to explain Himself to us? He has all the abilities in the above paragraph, and yet He cares and loves for us - the beings He created in His own image. Being present in all places and at all times we have trouble understanding. However, we DO understand father and son relationships. We have a small understanding of love.

    I believe that the writers of an old, short story about birds had all this Trinity stuff absolutely theologically correct. In a nutshell, the story is about a family on Christmas eve. The father, as usual, does not want to go to church, so his wife and children go alone. The father stays home and notices that a large, destructive snowstorm is approaching.

    The father owns a warm barn and has a strong love for the birds who live around him. He has seen the death the birds suffer with large winter storms, so he attempts to get the birds to come into his barn for protection, food, and warmth. All his attempts to have the birds fly into his barn are unsuccessful.

    He thinks to himself: if only I could become like one of the birds. I would fly around and tell them that I love them and that my barn is warm and comfortable and that I will take care of them there. They would not be afraid of me then because I would be one of them. If only - I could become like one of them.

    Christmas eve church bells ring out at this moment. The father falls to his knees in complete understanding (now). On that first Christmas, God Himself became one of us so that He could gently gather us into his barn to save us from the approaching storm.

    In what other way beside the Trinity could God so completely explain to us what He is doing? We wouldn't understand a God in Heaven and the same God at the same time on Earth, and the same God at the same time living in the hearts of believing people. We only understand our three dimensions. We only accept those concepts we find possible.
     
  10. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    i couldn't find scripture saying the father depends on anyone, would you mind clarifying that this belief is unscriptural?or note where it comes from.can the father do nothing unless he sees the son doing it?hah.did the son raise the father from the dead?is the son ever called the 'god' of the father?interdependence...i suppose this is like 'god the son' and 'trinity' in that it is a manmade idea pertaining to the nature of the almighty.

    true, the inquisition is over...in A sense.non-trinitarians are still called blasphemers and heretics but it's ok, yeshua said this would happen.

    yes they are, but the belief that they are each uncreated individuals is simply not the same as the belief in their existance/ability.

    yeah

    if this somehow proves to you that they are each uncreated as obviously the father is, then i beg of you to explain John17:11,21,22,23
    "..that they may be one, even as we are one..that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us..that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one"

    are you mormon?are we all going to become 'gods'?are we going to become uncreated since we are to scripturally be one in the same sense that yeshua and his father are/were?

    Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated “Word” (some versions even write “Jesus Christ” in John 1:1). However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it). When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is based on a translators bias.

    As it is used throughout Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought. One is the mind and products of the mind like “reason,” (thus “logic” is related to logos) and the other is the expression of that reason as a “word,” “saying,” “command” etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meaning logos has, and some of the ways it is translated in Scripture are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, say, saying, sentence, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word and words.

    Any good Greek lexicon will also show this wide range of meaning from logos(italisized):

    1-speaking; words you say (Rom. 15:18, “what I have said and done”).
    2-a statement you make (Luke 20:20 - (NASB), “they might catch him in some statement).
    3-a question (Matt. 21:24, “I will also ask you one question”).
    4-preaching (1 Tim. 5:17, “especially those whose work is preaching and teaching).
    5-command (Gal. 5:14, “the entire law is summed up in a single command”).
    6-proverb; saying (John 4:37, “thus the saying, ‘One sows, and another reaps’”).
    7-message; instruction; proclamation (Luke 4:32, “his message had authority”).
    8-assertion; declaration; teaching (John 6:60, “this is a hard teaching”).
    9-the subject under discussion; matter (Acts 8:21, “you have no part or share in this ministry.” Acts 15:6 (NASB), “And the apostles... came together to look into this matter”).
    10-revelation from God (Matt. 15:6, “you nullify the Word of God ”).
    11-God’s revelation spoken by His servants (Heb. 13:7, “leaders who spoke the Word of God”).
    12-a reckoning, an account (Matt. 12:36, “men will have to give account” on the day of judgment).
    13-an account or “matter” in a financial sense (Matt. 18:23, A king who wanted to settle “accounts” with his servants. Phil. 4:15, “the matter of giving and receiving”).
    14-a reason; motive (Acts 10:29 - NASB), “I ask for what reason you have sent for me”).

    furthermore, if the 'word' referred to yeshua all the time, i would like an explanation of his multiplying and growing.Acts 12:24"..the word of God grew and multiplied..".Even if it was referring to yeshua, which john could of simply clarified by using his name as he did later in the chapter, it only refers to the beginning, it in no way says that the word did not have a beginning or was not created.keep in mind that gender is not in the remaining manuscripts, it is an addition of biased translators, check lexicons and interleniers(sp), even older versions such as tyndalle(sp)?geneva? and others use 'it' instead of he/him, i do not wonder why.if the trinity was in original scripture, why are trinitarian changes made the translations?the almighty's logos(word,will,purpose,ect.) was certainly for this being to become or be begotten(born) so their is no contradiction for non trinitarians in these verses.do you wonder why yeshua was never adressed as 'word'?or why he never said "i am the word of 'god'"?

    well non-trinitarians could say the same of you, yeshua was scripturally 'annointed above his bretheren','made better than the angels', ect.

    If you willfully accept the Trinity and gerrymander God’s Word to fit your fancy for polytheism then obviously the Spirit of this world has tweaked your will to accept God for who He is not.

    actually, you are the one claiming he was a man.soooo....i must ask, is hypocrisy cozy?

    he is one, not three, maybe you're on the right path.

    Exodus 3:14 “ And Elohim said to Mosheh , “ eh’yeh asher eh’yeh” And he said,” Thus shall you say to the children of Isra’el , eh’yeh ( I shall/will be)Has sent me to you.” Moreover Elohim said to Mosheh, “Thus you shall say to the children of Isra’el : YHWH Elohei your fathers, Elohei Avraham, Elohei Itzchak, and Elohei Yaakov has sent me to you. This is my Shem forever, and this is my memorial to all generations.

    Here in this verse, YHWH refers to himself as “eh’yeh” ( I shall be). Eh’yeh is the first person singular, simple future tense of the Hebrew verb Hayah ( to be). Since YHWH him self is the only one who can say “I will be” Mosheh is instructed to refer to Him as “He was, He is, and “He will be” ( hayah, hoveh, yihyeh). “He will be” is the third person singular simple future tense of the same Verb and is called “ Atid”.

    check as many versions of the scriptures as you can find(studylight.org has like 30+ and they have sidenotes) and notice that there is a difference in opinion even though most are translated by trinitarians.also see interleniars/lexicons/and hebrew dictionaries pertaining to the phrase used in ex3:14.While the Greek phrase in John does mean “I am,” the Hebrew phrase in Exodus actually means “to be” or “to become.” In other words God is saying, “I will be what I will be.”

    continued below

    --S
     
  11. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    continued

    i think scripture best explains scripture.and your verse paints no equality between the father and son.

    1co11:3
    But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

    yes i reject it, no it did not originally refer to the sum of scriptures.

    The term "Scripture (or Scriptures)" is used once in the Book of Daniel and fifty-four times in the New Testament. It refers to the whole book, which is commonly known as "the Bible." The parts of The Scripture, or individual books, are called "books" or "scrolls," which are biblos or biblion in Greek. These words do not refer to the complete writ, which are The Scriptures. The word "Bible" for The Scriptures was first used about AD 400. The papyrus, on which all documents were written, was imported from Egypt through the Phoenician seaport Gebal, which the Greeks called Byblos or Byblus. This seaport was the home of the Phoenician Sun-deity. This city was founded by Baal Chronos and was the seat of Adonis and once contained a large temple of Adonis. The Sun-god was associated with the "Lady of Biblos." Both the city of Byblos in Phoenicia and the city Byblis in Egypt were named after the female deity Byblis (also called Byble or Biblis). This deity was the granddaughter of Apollo, the Greek Sun-deity. Byblia was also a name for Venus, an astral goddess and a goddess of sensuality among the ancient Greeks. 'The Scriptures' is the correct term to use when referring to the whole of the Sacred Writings.

    what do you think?

    it says '..only begotten son..' in nearly every version, any version that reads 'only son' is completely in error, the scriptures note very many other 'sons of god'.

    this verse denies the trinity, because scripture never said god would or could be 'begotten' which means 'born' btw.also, equal members of a hierchy(sp) do not sacrafice eachother, logically that is.

    i really think you should do some research on the use of the term 'holy ghost', even though holy should read set-apart, i am more concerned with you calling 'god' a ghost.

    the father is one, him and his son are one in the same fashion they desire us to be one with them(according to scripture [joh17:11]) which doesn't mean we will become uncreated like you claim john10:30 makes yeshua, that's very bogus.

    (hypothetically because i'm single)my chest is one, i am one, me and my wife are one, me and my wife/children are one, me and my family(mom/dad/siblings) are one, me and my family(grandparents/cousins/aunts/uncles/ect.) are one, me and my friends are one, me and my assembly of believers are one.this doesn't mean by any stretch of the immagination that we are all equal or that we have all existed for the same amount of time.to use the 'one' argument making the equal is utterly complete rubbish.



    --S
     
  12. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    yeah, sending one of the children that dwell with him, to show us how to serve him.

    like uh...if the man were to train a bird to do as he wants those birds to do(fly/lead into the barn?).

    well since scripture says the father in heaven simply sent his son, i have no problem understanding him.how do you think moses,job,ect. could relate to him before our messiah was sent?are you saying that nobody before yeshua was saved or knew the father?

    does scripture ever say the son is a manifestation of the father?or that the father was to come and dwell with us in the flesh?does scripture ever say the father was not immortal or that he could be tempted?or does 2sam7:12- read
    "When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever.I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men"

    did this prophesy of 'god''s son claim that he would come and be that offspring?that he would be his own son?i also ask, that if it was the almighty, how, just how could he threaten to chasten himself?i don't even want to get into the whole christmas issue.

    --S
     
  13. Ronald

    Ronald Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,392
    Ratings:
    +50
    To quote Yogi, "Deje vous, all over again"
    I read this same canned speech on another Forum, so you are the author of both or it is passed along by the leadership. Either way it is meant to divide and conquer, a "Truth" to prop up a "Lie"! Yep you're right the words Bible is not in the Bible, Your truth statement. Therefore believe me when I tell you trinity is just the same. The lie!

    Jn.5:24 is correct and the speaker did not lie. Result, Yeshua/Jesus establishes belief in Elohim results in everlasting life, meaning Moses,Abraham, Issac, Jacob and all the other Godly men of the Older Testament were/are saved by faith!

    I do not assume any trinity. HaShem is one/echad.
    Yeshua/salvation is of Elohim/God, the word of God, the Torah, the sent one/schliach, the Lamb of God/sacrifice once for all and the redemption Fee/redemption of Israel.
    The Spirit of God is not a ghost! Does it bother you that there is no Holy Ghost in the Older Testament? It does bother me!
    The Spirit of God is his presance/power/love/hand and a myiad of other words to describe Gods activity.I believe just like Paul, God the father and Yeshua the son. "Grace to you and peace from God our father and the Lord Yeshua HaMashiach." And he goes on and on, God and son, and not a single mention of the power of God.
    Every time in the New Testament an allussion to anything like a trinity, we find that it is added. Both testaments say do not add or subtract, that doesn't hamper the father of lie's, he tosses a peice of (truth) chum, followed by the (lie) hook. "Gottcha!"
     
  14. (Q)

    (Q) Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    558
    Ratings:
    +12
    God is Spirit. We live in three dimensions; He lives in dimensions that we cannot begin to imagine, much less understand. We know that time is not problem for Him at all; we know that space is not a problem for Him. He is present in all places and at all times. He created everything; He has control over all the elements of nature on our planet and everywhere else in the universe.

    Actually, we live in a 4-dimensional universe.

    And how exactly do you know those things about your god?
     
  15. SPLogan

    SPLogan Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Messages:
    185
    Ratings:
    +22
    It is aparent to me that we have mutual misunderstandings as to what each other believe is the meaning of "trinity."

    It seems that basically what is being argued against is not the unity of the Father, Son, and Spirit. The anti-trinitarian arguement being presented here is that The Father is God, and The Son and The Spirit are not God. In essence, what is being denied is the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. You are saying that God created Jesus and the Holy Spirit to do His dirty work for Him (ie. intervine in people's wills and die for sins) and that God did/does not personally/directly do that work.

    Is this a fair observation or are we still on different wave lengths?
     
  16. Ronald

    Ronald Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,392
    Ratings:
    +50
    As always your observation is like a cork screw. Twist, Twist, Twist!
    Are my words on this post, ME? Of course not! I created them, they are of me, but they are not me!
    Is the term, "First born of all creation" in you Bible? Isn't this pertaining to Yeshua/Jesus? To me this is as the Bible states the Word of God/Torah/Yeshua.
    The Word made flesh! Hence Genesis 1 and John 1, God by the words from his mouth. Creation.
     
  17. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    God or Elohim, means mighty one(s) is applied to men,messengers(angels), and the almighty, i do not in anyway deny that yeshua was elohim.or that he was perfect(divine), i do as scripture shows hold that he was created and is/was always in subjection to his father(john15), not to do 'god''s dirty work, at least not any more than we are.i do not believe the 'holy spirit' is a seperate person from the father.
    Deity=A god or goddess....no problem there.guess i'm not denying anything...



    Q?...scripture states so.


    --S
     
  18. SPLogan

    SPLogan Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Messages:
    185
    Ratings:
    +22
    Yes, I believe that it is refering to Jesus (God the Son), the manefest image of the Father and Spirit on Earth...

    I believe that the above passage exorts that Christ made everything in the beginning. All of God was in Christ and all of Christ was in God. They are one, the first to exist, and made everthing in the seen and unseen Universe.

    Why all three? They are one but they are distinct and work together in the single devine Being.

    Is not "He" in the phrase "He has an evil spirit" Christ? Why would Christ react the way he did in verses 28 & 29 to such an accusation? It looks like he took the Spirit thing personally. Maybe Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same person. (but distinct)

    On and on...

    My understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity is too plain from Scripture. It is simply the nature of who God is: three in one.

    Compel me.
     
  19. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    how many things were made before the son on the earth?i could ramble off quite a few right now.but anyway, i must conciet the term is actually firstborn, meaning most prominent, and i must also notify you that the firstborn of any group, in this instance 'creation' is always part of that group, never part of another group.quick example, i could be better than a chimp at everything he does, but i could never be firstborn of the chimps.in this same light, 'christ' is part of creation, or 'created' if you will.

    For example, 1 John 2:20 (KJV) says of Christians, “ye know all things.” Surely there is no Christian who actually believes that he knows everything. The phrase is taken in a limited sense of “all” according to the context.

    these verses cannot be affirming the Trinity because they open with Christ being “the image [eikon] of the invisible God.” If Christ were “God,” then the verse would simply say so, rather than that he was the “image” of God. The Father is plainly called “God” in dozens of places, and this would have been a good place to say that Jesus was God. Instead, we are told that Christ is the image of God. If one thing is the “image” of another thing, then the “image” and the “original” are not the same thing. The Father is God, and that is why there is no verse that calls the Father the image of God. Calling Jesus the image of God squares beautifully with his statement that, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9 and 10).

    Many people think that because Colossians 1:16 says, “For by him all things were created” that Christ must be God, but the entire verse must be read carefully with an understanding of the usage of words and figures of speech. The study of legitimate figures of speech is an involved one, and the best work we know of was done in 1898 by E. W. Bullinger. It is titled Figures of Speech Used in the Bible and is readily available, having been reprinted many times.

    First, the student of the Bible (indeed, of language and life) must be aware that when the word “all” (or “every” or “everything”) is used, it is often used in a limited sense. People use it this way in normal speech in countries and languages all over the world. I (John S.) had an experience of this just the other day. It was late at night and I wanted a cookie before bed. When I told my wife that I wanted a cookie, she said, “The kids ate all the cookies.” Now of course our kids did not eat all the cookies in the world. The implied context was the cookies in the house, and our kids had eaten all of them. This is a good example of “all” being used in a limited sense, and the Bible uses it that way too.

    For example, when Absalom was holding a council against his father, David, 2 Samuel 17:14 says that “all the men of Israel” agreed on advice. “All” the men of Israel were not there, but the verse means “all” who were there. Another example is Jeremiah 26:8, which says that “all the people” seized Jeremiah to put him to death, but the context makes it very clear that “all the people” were not even present, and people who came to the scene later wanted to release Jeremiah. 1 John 2:20 (KJV) says of Christians, “ye know all things.” Surely there is no Christian who actually believes that he knows everything. The phrase is using a limited sense of “all,” which is determined by the context.

    The point is that whenever one reads the word “all,” a determination must be made as to whether it is being used in the wide sense of “all in the universe,” or in the narrow sense of “all in a certain context.”

    Before creation, YAHushua existed in the foreordained plans of YAHWEH. He was "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev.13:8). Even before creation YAHWEH knew that YAHushua had to be slain. Even before the creation period mentioned in Genesis, YAHWEH knew that He would create all things on account of and for His Son. And so it is written and correctly translated in Collosians.1:16,

    Col 1:16"For in him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created on account of him, and for him:"

    Without YAHushua in YAHWEH's plan, the creation of genesis would never have occurred.

    you may also note that 'god' and his 'angels' existed before the heavens and earth.job38:1-7

    i may ask why the almighty would need authority to be given to him, but i already know the answer, the actual almighty is given no authority.it is his to do with as he pleases.

    Eusebius (c. 260—c. 340) was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as “the Father of Church History.” Although he wrote prolifically, his most celebrated work is his Ecclesiastical History, a history of the Church from the Apostolic period until his own time. Today it is still the principal work on the history of the Church at that time. Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings, and Matthew 28:19 is one of them. He never quotes it as it appears today in modern Bibles, but always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.”

    If Matthew 28:19 is accurate as it stands in modern versions, then there is no explanation for the apparent disobedience of the apostles, since there is not a single occurrence of them baptizing anyone according to that formula. All the records in the New Testament show that people were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, just as the text Eusebius was quoting said to do. In other words, the “name of Jesus Christ,” i.e., all that he represents, is the element, or substance, into which people were figuratively “baptized.” “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins’” (Acts 2:38). “They had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16). “So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48). “On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). We cannot imagine any reason for the Apostles and others in Acts to disobey a command of the risen Christ. To us, it seems clear that Christ said to baptize in his name, and that was what the early Church did.

    No passage of Scripture asserts that God is three. If it be asked what I intend to qualify by the numeral three, I answer, anything which the reader pleases. There is no Scripture which asserts that God is three persons, three agents, three beings, three Gods, three spirits, three substances, three modes, three offices, three attributes, three divinities, three infinite minds, three somewhats, three opposites, or three in any sense whatever.

    It is sometimes stated that in order to be baptized into something, that something has to be God, but that reasoning is false, because Scripture states that the Israelites were “baptized into Moses” (1 Cor. 10:2).

    In reading the book of Matthew, we note that there is no presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Some prominent Trinitarians doubt that the apostles were even introduced to the doctrine until after they received holy spirit. It would be strange indeed for Christ to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity here in the next-to-last verse in the book without it being mentioned earlier.

    he would respond in the same way any believer would, that in no way show they are the same person, yet distinct, whatever that means.

    is this supposed to be pro trinity?

    --S
     
  20. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

    In this passage, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are said to share one name (notice that the term "name" is singular, not plural), and that name is almost certainly Yahweh, the personal name of God in the Bible. We know this because the name Yahweh is applied to both the Father and the Son in the New Testament.

    Peter tells us, "David did not ascend into the heavens; but he himself says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies a stool for your feet.’ Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:34–36). Here God is "the Lord" who speaks to "my Lord," Jesus. When one looks at the Old Testament quotation, one finds, "Yahweh says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool’" (Ps. 110:1); so here the Father is called Yahweh.

    In Philippians 2:10–11, we read: "[A]t the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." This is a reference to Isaiah 45:18–24, which tells us: "I, Yahweh, speak the truth . . . I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn. . . . To me every knee shall bow, every tongue confess. ‘Only in Yahweh,’ it shall be said of me, ‘are righteousness and strength.’ " Here Paul applies the prophecy of every knee bending and every tongue confessing to Jesus, resulting in the prophecy that they will "confess that Jesus Christ is Yahweh." The stress on Christ as God is also picked up by the early Church Fathers (e.g., Ignatius, below).

    Jesus himself declares that he is Yahweh ("I AM," in English translation). In John 8:58, when questioned about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." His audience understood exactly who he was claiming to be. "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple" (John 8:59).

    With the personal name of God, Yahweh, being applied to both the Father and the Son, it is almost certainly applied to the Spirit, and thus to all three members of the Trinity.

    The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14, Heb. 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians, who clearly understood them in the sense that we do today—that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God).


    What did the Christians who lived just a bit closer to the time than you and I think?
    Here's two examples:

    Ignatius of Antioch

    "[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

    "For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

    Justin Martyr

    "We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).

    www.catholic.com Catholic Answers

    Peace,
    Scott
     
Loading...