The Trinity

[GodsGrace]

As a Catholic they never taught us from the Bible. I remember the nun, telling us about the Trinity, used a large preprinted chart picturing a three-leaf clover. That was probably in the early 1950's.

When I started to read the Bible for the first time in my life in 1976, I immediately started reading the whole Book. I have continued doing that regularly to this day. While I have changed my beliefs on several other points over the many years of reading and studying the Bible, I have never been able to see a Trinity in it... in spite of all those who have insisted it was there. I know their arguments for I have tried to listen to them. Few of them have listened seriously to mine. Only God gives any real increase... but even for that a heart must be open to Him.

You know Amadeus....
I understand that it's not easy to see the Trinity in scripture....
What I have a problem with is that these persons, including yourself, call themselves a Christian.

Doesn't being a Christian mean something?
Anyone can NOT believe the Trinity,,,and I'm not saying they're lost,
you know that I would never do that..it's up to God to know (including me too),
but how do we then determine who is "christian" or not?

 

[tigger 2]

GodsGrace wrote:

You say that whenever God is in a verse in comparison to Jesus, it proves that Jesus is not God.
What does this sentence mean?:
John 20:28
28Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” (referring to Jesus)

Titus 2:13
13looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.
................................................
Like most trinity 'proofs,' these are both translations which are disputed.

Examining the Trinity: MYGOD

Examining the Trinity: 'Sharp's Rule' Primer

 

[Aunty Jane]

GodsGrace wrote:

You say that whenever God is in a verse in comparison to Jesus, it proves that Jesus is not God.
What does this sentence mean?:
John 20:28
28Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” (referring to Jesus)

Titus 2:13
13looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.
................................................
Like most trinity 'proofs,' these are both translations which are disputed.

Examining the Trinity: MYGOD

Examining the Trinity: 'Sharp's Rule' Primer

One shocked expression by a doubting Thomas does not make a doctrine....

 

[amadeus]

You know Amadeus....
I understand that it's not easy to see the Trinity in scripture....
What I have a problem with is that these persons, including yourself, call themselves a Christian.

Doesn't being a Christian mean something?
Anyone can NOT believe the Trinity,,,and I'm not saying they're lost,
you know that I would never do that..it's up to God to know (including me too),
but how do we then determine who is "christian" or not?

Ultimately what does the Christian designation matter to God? It certainly matters not to me that people want to say that I am or that I am not a Christian... so long as I please God and finish my course on His side.

As far as men are concerned, the definition of the word, Christian, was already changing decades ago in this country as the U.S. constitutional protections were being changed and our religious freedoms eroded. It [the definition] is continuing to change in the wrong direction... God is unchanged.

Eventually the freedoms guaranteed will apply only to those people meeting legal definitions, which will have little to do with what is written in scripture. Those already fulling cooperating with the government and those willing to compromise or change to a similar cooperation may retain their constitutional guarantees for a while longer...?

 

[Aunty Jane]

The LXX substituted "curios" for YHWH, not "theos".

“Kyrios.” This Greek word is an adjective, signifying the possessing of power (kyʹros) or authority, and it is also used as a noun. It appears in each book of the Christian Greek Scriptures except Titus and the letters of John. The term corresponds to the Hebrew ʼA·dhohnʹ. As God’s created Son and Servant, Jesus Christ properly addresses his Father and God (Joh 20:17) as “Lord” (ʼAdho·naiʹ or Kyʹri·os), the One having superior power and authority, his Head. (Mt 11:25; 1Co 11:3) As the one exalted to his Father’s right hand, Jesus is “Lord of lords” as respects all except his Father, God the Almighty.—Re 17:14; 19:15, 16; compare 1Co 15:27, 28.

Its use in place of the divine name. During the second or third century of the Common Era, the scribes substituted the words Kyʹri·os (Lord) and The·osʹ (God) for the divine name, Jehovah, in copies of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures."
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002771

So Kyrios and Adonai both mean "Lord"....a title, meaning "Sir" or "Master".

You appear to be suggesting we would, if the Divine Name were in use, that we would restore it to "The Word was with Theos", but not "The Word was Theos." That's not being consistent.

If you think YHHW would be the intended understanding for "Theos", then to be consistent, it would read,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with YHWH, and the Word was YHWH."

No that is not consistent because in the Greek the definite article is used for only one of those two parties.

To be consistent, the definite article "THE" (ho) in that verse speaks volumes, but not to those who do not notice the inclusion in Greek but the exclusion in English.
Mounce Interlinear....
"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos."

The definite article is used four times in that verse...."ho logos" is "the Word"..."ho theos" is "THE God" (the singular God of Israel) but the last mention of "theos" is without the definite article, so can correctly be rendered "a god" or "divine". But reading in the Greek to English, that little word "ho" is there in the Greek but NOT in the English translation.

The Greeks used the definite article because the one God of the Jews had no name. Using the definite article was the only way to distinguish the "LORD God" from his son, "the Lord Jesus Christ"....both came under the Greek definition of "theos"....."a divine mighty one."

If the divine name had been in use back then, John 1:1 would have read...
"In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word was with Yahweh, and the Word was divine".

Where are you getting Jesus is not declared the Son of God in this passage? Son appears in the Greek 'uios, son. Ton uion as it appears above in the Accusative Case, meaning this word receives the action of the verb, He gives His Son the Monogene, the Son of a single generation, meaning, there is only One like Him.

John 1:18, not John 3:16......Mounce Interlinear...
"No one oudeis has horaō ever pōpote seen horaō God theos. The only monogenēs Son , himself God theos, the ho one who is eimi in eis the ho bosom kolpos of the ho Father patēr, he ekeinos has made him known exēgeomai."

This is a deliberate mistranslation because "monogenes theos" means "only begotten god".....there is no "son" ("yhios") or "himself God" in that verse.

 

[Aunty Jane]

When I lived in the states (over 20 years ago) it was known that the JW believed Jesus was the Archangel Michael, or V V
Then there was an in-between belief, which I can't remember.
Now, today, the JWs come to my door and tell me that Jesus is the Son of God.
They tell me they believe He is divine because He is the Son of God.
This tells me there has been a change in their teaching....

No, it tells me that you have either a bad or selective memory...it happens to all of us....

I have been a JW for 50 years and I have never believed anything other than what the scriptures say about Michael. All of Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the same things.
References to him indicate that the pre-human, and post human Jesus could well be Michael in another role as the Logos. (Meaning one who speaks God’s words...a spokesman) He is a being with many names and roles played in the outworking of his Father's purpose. Revelation 3:12 indicates that he now has yet another new name.

As to being Michael, an angel, how does that then make Jesus the Son of God?
And where is this biblically stated? I can't think of anywhere.

There are many "sons of God" mentioned in the Bible...even Adam is called a "son of God" (Luke 3:38) “Sons of God” are created, not born as offspring of Adam. But what makes Jesus unique is the fact that he is "only begotten" (monogenes) which is a word used in the scriptures to describe an "only child". If Jesus was the first of God's creations, then this would indeed make him unique, being the only intelligent creature in existence who was created directly by his Father....everything else was made by the son, working at his Father's side. (Proverbs 8:30-31)

The fact that Jehovah and his Son refer to each other in those human terms indicates that there is seniority of one over the other, (1 Corinthians 11:3) and that one naturally existed before the other, because all those "begotten" in the scriptures, needed a 'begetter' who existed before them. There is no distinction made in the use of this word when applied to Jesus.

The MAN Jesus did not exist before His birth to Mary. This is accepted theology.
But the WORD OF GOD always existed.
In the beginning God spoke into creation the entire universe.
What He spoke is His word.
The WORD was with God and the WORD WAS GOD. John 1:1

John 1:1 does not say that the Word always existed...."in the beginning" cannot refer to the Son being God, because God had no beginning.....Jesus did.

 

[Aunty Jane]

The BEGINNING OF GOD'S creation in Rev 3:12 is a reference to Jesus creating everything...as John says in chapter 1.
Nothing was created without Jesus (the 2nd Person).
John 1:2-3
2He was in the beginning with God.
3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Again, this refers to Jesus being the Word of God.

Revelation 3:14 says Jesus is the "beginning of God's creation", not "the beginner of God's creation"...that is taking license with the text.

Colossians 1:15-17 says....that creation came “through” the Son, not from him. There is only one Creator.....Jehovah.

John is saying that Jesus, as the 2nd Person, always existed and is God.
If you don't believe this, then John was telling us something he himself did not believe and then neither can we trust him for any other reasons and his entire books should be discarded if they are not to be trusted.

If you tell me that John 1:1 says A GOD, as your bible does, instead of just GOD, then this has to be wrong too because John would be saying that there is more than one god and since he was a Jew he believed in ONLY ONE GOD,,,not different gods, as your translation would lead one to believe.

Learn what “theos” means in Greek and you will understand exactly what John 1:1 says. (See my last post)

BTW, why do JWs have their own version of the bible?
Doesn't this seem a bit strange to you?
Do the JW leaders not trust any other theologian except their own?

We got so sick of the biased mistranslations, that we published the New World Translation which had no connection to the doctrines of Christendom. We went back to the beginning using scholarly works to determine original language meanings to words twisted by Christendom’s scholars. I will pit the NWT against any translation you like. When I do searches on word meanings, the NWT is always accurate. I can’t say the same for other translations which show bias towards the trinity, or translate different words with one meaning. (Like hell)

Jesus' resurrection was not in spirit form.
He resurrected bodily.
He ate with the Apostles.
Thomas put has finger in Jesus' wound.
Don't you believe what the bible says?
Or is the New World Translation (the JW version of the bible) so different?

Peter clearly states that Jesus was “put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit” (1 Peter 3:18) ....he was not resurrected in the body he sacrificed.....that would be taking it back, and besides he could not have taken a fleshly body to heaven. (1 Corinthians 15:50)

When angels appeared to Abraham at Mamre, he made a feast for them, at which they ate and drank. Two of them went on to Sodom to rescue Lot and these also ate and drank what Lot provided. Spirit beings can materialise at will, as rebel angels did in Noah’s day....they even produced children.

One expression by a shocked doubting Thomas does not make a doctrine. Again, look up the word “theos” in Greek. Were the apostles ever in any doubt as to who their God was? (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

 

[Aunty Jane]

IF you don't make a doctrine out of a belief, why do you believe Jesus is Michael?
You state above that this is only by inference.

A doctrine has to be clearly and unequivocally stated in scripture before we will claim it as such. That Michael is Jesus is inferred but not clearly stated. Which is no big deal for us because we do not believe that Jesus is God. Only Christendom has a hang up with that.

And every Christian believes Psalm 83:18.
The LORD is God Father.
He is the most high over all the earth.
There is only ONE GOD.
Again, this shows no understanding of the Trinity.

There is no “understanding of the trinity” because it is absent from scripture....it’s really that simple. The Catholic Church admits that.
Christendom has made a doctrine out of inference....something we will not do. The inferences are poorly based. That is the plain and simple facts.

Jesus also said
I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE. John 10:30
IF YOU'VE SEEN ME, YOU'VE SEEN THE FATHER. John 14:9
I AM IN THE FATHER AND THE FATHER IS IN ME. John 14:10

At John 17:22 Jesus said of his disciples...”I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one.” Are they all God too?

Well AJ, it hasn't toppled in 2,000 years and Jesus said that the gates of Hades - hell - would not prevail on the church that was built by Jesus since He was rejected by the Jews.

The “gates of hades” meant death......death has not overpowered the Kingdom, in spite of the “weeds” of counterfeit Christianity that were sown by the devil a very long time ago, taking it down a very sad and sorry path. Since Jesus will say that he “never knew” those who were part of that counterfeit faith, it was going to experience a fall, that no one expects....least of all the “church” itself. It’s why we are told to “get out of her” before God delivers her due punishment. (Revelation 18:4-5)

If words suggest there is a trinity -- perhaps there is?
When Jesus was baptized all 3 of the Trinity were present:
Jesus was being baptized
Father made a statement about Him
The Holy Spirit came down from heaven
Matthew 3:16-17
16After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,
17and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”

This is the Trinity before it was named that.

Or it was the mention of the three necessary components of God’s purpose that led Jesus to baptism, and so all three are necessary for our baptism as well. (Matthew 28:19-20)
At John 17:3 Jesus tells us....
“This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” Do you see three there? Why is knowledge of the Holy Spirit not necessary for everlasting life?
When Stephen was being stoned to death, he had a vision of God and Christ in heaven.....no mention of the Holy Spirit there either.

Correct.
And this is why the Sanhedrin wanted Jesus dead.
Because He claimed to be God.
Why do you think Caiaphas tore his tunic?
Because he believed Jesus had uttered pure blasphemy by saying He was God.
Matthew 26:63-66
63But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.”
64Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.”
65Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy;
66what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!”

You do understand that they wanted to pin a charge of blasphemy on him because then they would then have an excuse to put him to death? Jesus had already branded them as liars. (John 8:44)
John 10:33-36...
“The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— 36 do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”

They claimed that he said he was making himself a god....he said no such thing....what did he call himself? If ever there was a prime opportunity to admit that he was God...there it was...they were going to do away with him for blasphemy anyway....but he never did.

Where is the problem?
Jehovah is God.
The Word was with God.

Almighty God is God Father - the bearer of the Trinity.
Jesus is not Almighty God, but the 2nd Person of the Trinity

It is NOT 3 gods.
It is ONE GOD, the Trinity speaks of God's natures and how we could understand them.

The trinity speaks of nothing...it is not mentioned in the Bible at all.....it is a creation of an apostate church. One direct statement from either God or his Son explicitly stating that there is a three headed God is all that is needed to put this issue to bed. The fact that we are still arguing about it, is because that is completely missing.

If there is “God the Father”....”God the Son”....and “God the Holy Spirit” then you have three gods. That is polytheism.

 

[Brakelite]

Catholic means universal - the only church present at the time...the UNIVERSAL church.

The Nicean Creed was formulated under the auspices of a pagan emperor who them persecuted and threw out the dissenters. The 'Catholic' church you speak of was in no way universal by the time of the 4th century. It was a name the bishops of Rome held on to to give the impression of originality, but there were earlier churches in existence long before Rome became prominent... Jerusalem, Antioch for example. The purpose of the Creed was to forge a political unity and unite what remained of the empire under the pretense of spirituality.
Arius, a bishop whose core beliefs only come to us through the writings of those who opposed him, wasn't alone. And his teachings that converted an entire nation, the Ostrogoth, were converted by a missionary named Wulfila whose writings clearly support a non trinitarian mindset, but a pro divine deity of the Son, Jesus. So Catholicism wasn't the only shop in town.
And those Ostrogoths were declared Arian...barbarian... By the power that had them destroyed... The Catholic Church. Which suggests the Trinity debate for many was more about politics than spiritual truth.

 

[Wrangler]

It is not absent in scripture.
There are others that believe as you do,,,but before we proceed,,,
could I ask you Who you DO believe Jesus is?

And then I could show you where the Trinity is found in scripture.

Scripture states repeatedly and explicitly that Jesus is the (adopted) son of God - as we all are.

 

[Wrangler]

The above is for @farouk

But it's kind of funny...
If someone said IN THE NAME OF MOTHERHOOD, APPLE PIE AND THE FLAG...

It WOULD mean that:

MOTHERHOOD exists
APPLE PIE exists
THE FLAG exists

I see. You exist. Therefore you are God?

 

[Davy]

The JWs don't state anymore that Jesus is the Archangel Michael.
They're much more sophisticated these days.

I agree with everything you've said !

I'm becoming a little softer in this salvation question.
I can state emphatically that if a person does not believe Jesus is God he cannot be considered to be a Christian.

What I cannot state emphatically is that the person is lost.
What if they believe in God, the Father, and believe that Jesus is the Messiah, or the Annointed One, but cannot believe
he is God?

Are you sure that person is lost?

Oh no, I never implied that a person won't ever believe on Lord Jesus. We still have Christ's future thousand years reign yet to go, and that is when God is going to remove the spiritual blindness He put upon the unbelieving Jews per Romans 11.

But in that time, if a soul still rejects Christ Jesus, then it's over for them, they will go into the lake of fire at the end of the thousand years. This is why Apostle Paul said he had hope there will be both resurrection of the just and also of the unjust in Acts 24.

 

[Grailhunter]

A doctrine has to be clearly and unequivocally stated in scripture before we will claim it as such. That Michael is Jesus is inferred but not clearly stated. Which is no big deal for us because we do not believe that Jesus is God. Only Christendom has a hang up with that.


There is no “understanding of the trinity” because it is absent from scripture....it’s really that simple. The Catholic Church admits that.
Christendom has made a doctrine out of inference....something we will not do. The inferences are poorly based. That is the plain and simple facts.


At John 17:22 Jesus said of his disciples...”I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one.” Are they all God too?


The “gates of hades” meant death......death has not overpowered the Kingdom, in spite of the “weeds” of counterfeit Christianity that were sown by the devil a very long time ago, taking it down a very sad and sorry path. Since Jesus will say that he “never knew” those who were part of that counterfeit faith, it was going to experience a fall, that no one expects....least of all the “church” itself. It’s why we are told to “get out of her” before God delivers her due punishment. (Revelation 18:4-5)


Or it was the mention of the three necessary components of God’s purpose that led Jesus to baptism, and so all three are necessary for our baptism as well. (Matthew 28:19-20)
At John 17:3 Jesus tells us....
“This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” Do you see three there? Why is knowledge of the Holy Spirit not necessary for everlasting life?
When Stephen was being stoned to death, he had a vision of God and Christ in heaven.....no mention of the Holy Spirit there either.


You do understand that they wanted to pin a charge of blasphemy on him because then they would then have an excuse to put him to death? Jesus had already branded them as liars. (John 8:44)
John 10:33-36...
“The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— 36 do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”

They claimed that he said he was making himself a god....he said no such thing....what did he call himself? If ever there was a prime opportunity to admit that he was God...there it was...they were going to do away with him for blasphemy anyway....but he never did.


The trinity speaks of nothing...it is not mentioned in the Bible at all.....it is a creation of an apostate church. One direct statement from either God or his Son explicitly stating that there is a three headed God is all that is needed to put this issue to bed. The fact that we are still arguing about it, is because that is completely missing.

If there is “God the Father”....”God the Son”....and “God the Holy Spirit” then you have three gods. That is polytheism.

You speak of heresy. And yes some may debate you, but I, knowing the methods of the Jehovah's Witnesses I know your mind is twisted and entangled in these blasphemies. Lies drilled into their minds every time they meet. It will do no good to debate with you and tell you to repent of these lies against God. But it is my obligation to God and Truth that I have to say, Repent of this anti-Christ belief! Believe in the true Christ, the only begotten Son of God, that was born of a God....and born a God and now sits at the right hand of God Almighty as His Son and He is the God that awaits the appointed time to judge us all.

That is the most correct response to you. And now when you stand in front of Christ on Judgment Day, you cannot say that no one told you to repent. That no one warned you. May God have mercy on your soul.

It is common knowledge that the Jehovah's Witnesses deploy "brainwashing" technics. Even professional interventionists call it brainwashing. I am thinking that actual brainwashing requires drugs and equipment, but I will go with mind conditioning and control. A systematic method to make every Jehovah's Witness a professional blasphemer of Christ.

And you do not want to try to shake this on your own, you need professional help because they do a good job on your head. More than your average preacher can deal with.

Here is a directory of Cult Recovery professionals.
Directory of Cult Recovery Resources

Again not that Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult in the truest sense but they do exhibit some of the characteristics. Mind and physical control and abuse and a lot of twisting the truth of the Bible but, not so much sexual abuse and drugs that is all controlled by a central leader or master. Which defines true cults.

 

[Brakelite]

A doctrine has to be clearly and unequivocally stated in scripture before we will claim it as such. That Michael is Jesus is inferred but not clearly stated. Which is no big deal for us because we do not believe that Jesus is God. Only Christendom has a hang up with that.


There is no “understanding of the trinity” because it is absent from scripture....it’s really that simple. The Catholic Church admits that.
Christendom has made a doctrine out of inference....something we will not do. The inferences are poorly based. That is the plain and simple facts.


At John 17:22 Jesus said of his disciples...”I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one.” Are they all God too?


The “gates of hades” meant death......death has not overpowered the Kingdom, in spite of the “weeds” of counterfeit Christianity that were sown by the devil a very long time ago, taking it down a very sad and sorry path. Since Jesus will say that he “never knew” those who were part of that counterfeit faith, it was going to experience a fall, that no one expects....least of all the “church” itself. It’s why we are told to “get out of her” before God delivers her due punishment. (Revelation 18:4-5)


Or it was the mention of the three necessary components of God’s purpose that led Jesus to baptism, and so all three are necessary for our baptism as well. (Matthew 28:19-20)
At John 17:3 Jesus tells us....
“This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” Do you see three there? Why is knowledge of the Holy Spirit not necessary for everlasting life?
When Stephen was being stoned to death, he had a vision of God and Christ in heaven.....no mention of the Holy Spirit there either.


You do understand that they wanted to pin a charge of blasphemy on him because then they would then have an excuse to put him to death? Jesus had already branded them as liars. (John 8:44)
John 10:33-36...
“The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— 36 do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”

They claimed that he said he was making himself a god....he said no such thing....what did he call himself? If ever there was a prime opportunity to admit that he was God...there it was...they were going to do away with him for blasphemy anyway....but he never did.


The trinity speaks of nothing...it is not mentioned in the Bible at all.....it is a creation of an apostate church. One direct statement from either God or his Son explicitly stating that there is a three headed God is all that is needed to put this issue to bed. The fact that we are still arguing about it, is because that is completely missing.

If there is “God the Father”....”God the Son”....and “God the Holy Spirit” then you have three gods. That is polytheism.

A doctrine has to be clearly and unequivocally stated in scripture before we will claim it as such. That Michael is Jesus is inferred but not clearly stated. Which is no big deal for us because we do not believe that Jesus is God. Only Christendom has a hang up with that.


There is no “understanding of the trinity” because it is absent from scripture....it’s really that simple. The Catholic Church admits that.
Christendom has made a doctrine out of inference....something we will not do. The inferences are poorly based. That is the plain and simple facts.


At John 17:22 Jesus said of his disciples...”I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one.” Are they all God too?


The “gates of hades” meant death......death has not overpowered the Kingdom, in spite of the “weeds” of counterfeit Christianity that were sown by the devil a very long time ago, taking it down a very sad and sorry path. Since Jesus will say that he “never knew” those who were part of that counterfeit faith, it was going to experience a fall, that no one expects....least of all the “church” itself. It’s why we are told to “get out of her” before God delivers her due punishment. (Revelation 18:4-5)


Or it was the mention of the three necessary components of God’s purpose that led Jesus to baptism, and so all three are necessary for our baptism as well. (Matthew 28:19-20)
At John 17:3 Jesus tells us....
“This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” Do you see three there? Why is knowledge of the Holy Spirit not necessary for everlasting life?
When Stephen was being stoned to death, he had a vision of God and Christ in heaven.....no mention of the Holy Spirit there either.


You do understand that they wanted to pin a charge of blasphemy on him because then they would then have an excuse to put him to death? Jesus had already branded them as liars. (John 8:44)
John 10:33-36...
“The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— 36 do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”

They claimed that he said he was making himself a god....he said no such thing....what did he call himself? If ever there was a prime opportunity to admit that he was God...there it was...they were going to do away with him for blasphemy anyway....but he never did.


The trinity speaks of nothing...it is not mentioned in the Bible at all.....it is a creation of an apostate church. One direct statement from either God or his Son explicitly stating that there is a three headed God is all that is needed to put this issue to bed. The fact that we are still arguing about it, is because that is completely missing.

If there is “God the Father”....”God the Son”....and “God the Holy Spirit” then you have three gods. That is polytheism.

While I agree with you that they're are only inferences and assumptions with regards the Trinity as taught in the creeds, there is no inference nor any assumption regards the divinity of Christ, the only begotten Son of God. As a Son, begotten, born of the Father, being the express image of the Father's person, character, and being, what else can Jesus be of not God Himself in the person of His Son?

 

[Grailhunter]

@Davy
You might want to re-read that because I was still working on it and added to it.

 

[Davy]

The unbelieving Jew's idea that Jesus Christ is not God come in the flesh, Immanuel, is even a suggestion in some modern Bible translations from Wescott and Horts 1880s New Testament Greek translation. It pushes the humanist attributes of Jesus, trying to delegate Jesus to just a human like us only.

But the matter is actually very simple, only God has the Power to save and forgive sins. So if Jesus is not God, then it would mean He wouldn't have the power to save anyone. This is why John said those who refuse to believe Jesus came in the flesh are antichrists.

 

[Davy]

@Davy
You might want to re-read that because I was still working on it and added to it.

Nah, I understood what you said and I agree. I'm not JW, and I have debated with them when my wife invited them in. That's how I learned they have a different Bible that the JW organization promotes.

 

[GodsGrace]

No, In fact it might be just the opposite?

Joh 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Jesus calls himself "a man" (John 8:40) "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. and the apostles call him "a man" (Acts 2: 22; 1 Tim. 2:5). Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- 1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, He is constantly contrasted with and distinguished from God, his Father.

Jesus was sent by the Father.
God performed miracles through Him.

Jesus is contrasted because He is NOT the Father. He is the Son.
A MAN, which He was also on earth - 100% man and 100% Divine;God.
Through this man that was approved and appointed by God so that powerful miracles could be worked.

Jesus was not born by a human father...and so He cannot be properly called a "man"....but only in the sense that He was also human while on earth.

The Apostles might have called Him a man, at some point or other, but 1 Timothy 2:5 states that Jesus is Lord.
And if the Apostles believed Jesus was ONLY a man, then something is wrong with the entire N.T. WHICH THEY WROTE.

John wrote in
John 8:24
"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

Quite a statement for a mere man to make.
What man could save YOU from your sins?
None.
Only God can forgive us our sins....not man.

I asked another member here why Jesus was killed.
Jesus was killed by the Jews because He asserted Himself to be God.
Matthew 26:63-65
61and said, “This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.’” 62The high priest stood up and said to Him, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?” 63But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.”
65Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; 66what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!”

Could you tell us why the high Priest Caiaphas tore his robes?

The Hebrew Bible or OT, predicted Jesus would be a man (Is.53:3). But never does the scriptures use the term "God-Man" to tell us who Jesus is. The Greek language of the day had a perfectly good word for “God-Man” (theios aner) but it never appears in the New Testament. So why do we persist with these extra-biblical terms? Why do we continue to employ non-biblical (i.e. unbiblical) language to describe Jesus?

Because the ECFs, those who learned from the Apostles, and those that learned from them, believed Jesus to be God.
They were Jews, they understood what this meant...Jesus was put to death because He claimed to be God.
It took some time to put this together as a doctrine and a creed for Christianity -- there was no TV and no internet back then. Ideas took time to gather and discuss from such far distances.


Here is the Trinity in the N.T. before it was called that to make it easier to speak....
2 Corinthians 13:14
14The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

I see 3 in this verse.
3 Gods?
NO. The Apostles did not believe in 3 gods....

What did Jesus mean here?:
Matthew 28:19
19“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

IN THE NAME OF....names seem to be important to the JWs....
Was Jesus incorrect to name all 3?

The Bible verse saying is true which says that we are very quick to spot the speck in the eye of another's theology, but how blind we are to the beam in our own. Mary is not the mother of God, according to the scriptures. And neither is Jesus God the Son, nor is he the "God-Man" according to the Bible. And he is nowhere called "God of from God" as the later Nicene Creed called him. Protestants, people of the Bible ought to know that the contentious extra-biblical word used at Nicea, homoousios, meaning ‘of equal substance,’ “did not come from Scripture but, of all things, from Gnostic systems.” Quote from Born Before All-Time? p. 500. Kuschel.

Who's Kuschel?
What happened to the N.T.?
How's this for being called God from God?:

John 10:30
I and the Father are One.

John 14:9
...if you've seen Me, you've seen the Father.

The Nicene Creed clarified what we read in the N.T.
Everything in the N.C. could be supported by scripture.

The result was that such terminology introduced alien notions into Christian understanding of God. In other words, "an epoch-making paradigm shift has taken place between Scriptures and Nicea.” Born Before All-Time? p. 503. Kuschel

No Pierac.
It's the other way around.
The notions were in the N.T.
Terminology clarified it, as I've shown above.

To the Jewish mind, accustomed to Old Testament teaching on the principles of agency and representation by which God appoints a man to speak or act on his behalf, such a concept was both familiar and acceptable. Whilst it is true that some of Christ's enemies believed him to be usurping or laying claim unlawfully to certain Divine rights or powers, not a single Jew ever thought that the miracles performed by Christ proved that he was a Divine being, and the gospel record indicates that many recognised that he was a man Divinely appointed to exercise power and authority on God's behalf.

Please show me where.
Thanks.

 

[GodsGrace]

I see. You exist. Therefore you are God?

You've lost the point of @farouk s post.

It means that THE FATHER EXISTS
THE SON EXISTS
THE HOLY GHOST EXISTS

 

[GodsGrace]

Scripture states repeatedly and explicitly that Jesus is the (adopted) son of God - as we all are.

See your post no. 91

How is Jesus adopted if the Holy Spirit created Him?
Did the Holy Spirit come upon YOUR mother and YOU were born?

Please try to make serious comments.