Proof of the Trinity. No takers?

[Dave L]

I would say the same to you.

Your version of God did not pass the test of scripture when challenged in the early centuries of the New Covenant church.

 

[justbyfaith]

especially if those who know that the first man was formed on day 3 without blood

Adam and Eve were created on the 6th day, as far as I can tell...

What scripture tells you that they were formed on the 3rd?

And also, the fact that blood is not mentioned in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 does not necessarily mean that they were created without blood.

You would think that it is a given that since Adam and Eve were a prototype for the rest of humanity, they were created the same as what would come forth from them.

 

[justbyfaith]

Your version of God did not pass the test of scripture when challenged in the early centuries of the New Covenant church.

Or, the ones who made the final decision as to what the doctrine would entail, did so with hardened hearts.

btw, I am not teaching something that is not the Trinity according to the creeds.

But I do say that I did not get my understanding from the creeds, but from the Bible.

Therefore when I measure the creeds by the Bible, I find that they agree with my biblical understanding.

 

[Blueberry]

You may be misunderstanding what is being said

I appreciate this. Yeah I understand those things. I may have misused triune?

 

[Dave L]

Or, the ones who made the final decision as to what the doctrine would entail, did so with hardened hearts.

btw, I am not teaching something that is not the Trinity according to the creeds.

But I do say that I did not get my understanding from the creeds, but from the Bible.

Therefore when I measure the creeds by the Bible, I find that they agree with my biblical understanding.

You do not align with scripture when you say "But the Holy Spirit is the Father; and the Son is the Father." This is not even close to the biblical doctrine of God called the trinity. If you want to see your errors in detail, study the early NT Church arguments that took place in proving the doctrine of the trinity.

 

[brakelite]

Willful ignorance is not as excusable as you make it out to be. Anyone can clearly see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each called God in scripture, present at Jesus' baptism. And then the rest of scripture lines up with this.

Yes, it is true that at Jesus' baptism there were mentioned the voice of the Father, the presence of the Son, and the outpouring/descent whatever of the holy Spirit. But that is all it says. Nothing about each one being God. Nothing about the indivisible union forming one God. Nothing about their equality in age...power...status...knowledge...authority...nature... all that is pure assumption; making the creedal form of 'trinity' an assumed doctrine. No assumed doctrine can ever be salvational.

 

[Dave L]

Yes, it is true that at Jesus' baptism there were mentioned the voice of the Father, the presence of the Son, and the outpouring/descent whatever of the holy Spirit. But that is all it says. Nothing about each one being God. Nothing about the indivisible union forming one God. Nothing about their equality in age...power...status...knowledge...authority...nature... all that is pure assumption; making the creedal form of 'trinity' an assumed doctrine. No assumed doctrine can ever be salvational.

If you read the rest of your bible, each are called God.

 

[brakelite]

Willful ignorance is not as excusable as you make it out to be.

How...when...in what manner did I suggest that wilful ignorance is excusable...in any degree? I am not arguing the reality of three distinct personages...Father...Son...holy Spirit. However, I must disagree that those distinct separate personages can be persons as we understand them, or persons alike with one another. For example, The Father sent His Son into the world. I do not think it to be presumption to conclude that if the Father sent His only begotten Son into the world, then He had an only begotten Son to send. Nor for example, can I assume that the holy Spirit is a person similar in nature or manner as we think the Son is such. While the Spirit can be grieved, just as a person can, He can also be "poured out". Add to that a Son who is supposedly of the same age as His Father and of equal authority and status...nah. Not buying it.
So while I do not entirely reject the Godhead as comprising Father, Son and Spirit, delving into their nature and ascribing qualities and such to them as individuals and/or union, goes way beyond our pay grade...we are walking upon very holy ground when we discuss the nature of God...to try to put God into a creedal formula and pretend that can be and is the final essential picture of who He is...well sorry, I am not buying that at all.

 

[Dave L]

How...when...in what manner did I suggest that wilful ignorance is excusable...in any degree? I am not arguing the reality of three distinct personages...Father...Son...holy Spirit. However, I must disagree that those distinct separate personages can be persons as we understand them, or persons alike with one another. For example, The Father sent His Son into the world. I do not think it to be presumption to conclude that if the Father sent His only begotten Son into the world, then He had an only begotten Son to send. Nor for example, can I assume that the holy Spirit is a person similar in nature or manner as we think the Son is such. While the Spirit can be grieved, just as a person can, He can also be "poured out". Add to that a Son who is supposedly of the same age as His Father and of equal authority and status...nah. Not buying it.
So while I do not entirely reject the Godhead as comprising Father, Son and Spirit, delving into their nature and ascribing qualities and such to them as individuals and/or union, goes way beyond our pay grade...we are walking upon very holy ground when we discuss the nature of God...to try to put God into a creedal formula and pretend that can be and is the final essential picture of who He is...well sorry, I am not buying that at all.

Truth is well defined in scripture, If you reject it, you reject Christ. Which is the case for all who reject the doctrine of the trinity.

 

[brakelite]

If you read the rest of your bible, each are called God.

The holy Spirit is called the spirit of God. The spirit is also called the spirit of Christ. Jesus is called the Son of God. There is a powerful inference of ownership here which the trinity formula ignores. The supposedly co-equal nature the trinity teaches is impossible.

 

[brakelite]

Truth is well defined in scripture, If you reject it, you reject Christ. Which is the case for all who reject the doctrine of the trinity.

You are not reading and/or answering my objections...simply shotgunning blanket statements.

 

[Dave L]

The holy Spirit is called the spirit of God. The spirit is also called the spirit of Christ. Jesus is called the Son of God. There is a powerful inference of ownership here which the trinity formula ignores. The supposedly co-equal nature the trinity teaches is impossible.

If you think of God materialistically, you'll not understand the Godhead.

 

[Dave L]

You are not reading and/or answering my objections...simply shotgunning blanket statements.

Your objections have already been answered in any standard church history book.

 

[justbyfaith]

You do not align with scripture when you say "But the Holy Spirit is the Father; and the Son is the Father." This is not even close to the biblical doctrine of God called the trinity. If you want to see your errors in detail, study the early NT Church arguments that took place in proving the doctrine of the trinity.

I'll show you where I get my doctrine from the Bible.

God the Father is a Spirit (John 4:23-24). There is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4). Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Him (John 14:7-11). Therefore the Spirit of Jesus is the Father, the Spirit that dwells in and dwelt in Jesus is the Father.

Now, when Jesus said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit" (Luke 23:46), He released His Spirit back to the Father (the 1st Person of the Trinity), who could not have vacated eternity when He descended (for understanding on this read Ephesians 3:11). Thus, the Holy Ghost is the Father, even His "future" (for lack of better terminology since God is outside of time): the Person of the Trinity who is that one Spirit but who has behind Him all the experiences of indwelling Jesus (and therefore He understands humanity wherein the 1st Person of the Trinity does not). This is why the Son and the Holy Spirit make intercession for us (Hebrews 7:25, Romans 8:26).

Now, in this, the Father is not the Son and is not the Holy Ghost: for He has not become them yet. But the Son is the Father (Isaiah 9:6) and His name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor (also Isaiah 9:6). The Spirit that He released back to the Father, who came to us on the day of Pentecost, is the Wonderful Counsellor, the Holy Ghost!
.
.
.
Now I am certain that you are aware of the arguments that you are speaking of; and therefore if any of them have addressed what I am setting forth here, then I am certain that you can bring them up. And I challenge you to do so.

 

[Dave L]

I'll show you where I get my doctrine from the Bible.

God the Father is a Spirit (John 4:23-24). There is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4). Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Him (John 14:7-11). Therefore the Spirit of Jesus is the Father, the Spirit that dwells in and dwelt in Jesus is the Father.

Now, when Jesus said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit" (Luke 23:46), He released His Spirit back to the Father (the 1st Person of the Trinity), who could not have vacated eternity when He descended (for understanding on this read Ephesians 3:11). Thus, the Holy Ghost is the Father, even His "future" (for lack of better terminology since God is outside of time): the Person of the Trinity who is that one Spirit but who has behind Him all the experiences of indwelling Jesus (and therefore He understands humanity wherein the 1st Person of the Trinity does not). This is why the Son and the Holy Spirit make intercession for us (Hebrews 7:25, Romans 8:26).

Now, in this, the Father is not the Son and is not the Holy Ghost: for He has not become them yet. But the Son is the Father (Isaiah 9:6) and His name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor (also Isaiah 9:6). The Spirit that He released back to the Father, who came to us on the day of Pentecost, is the Wonderful Counsellor, the Holy Ghost!
.
.
.
Now I am certain that you are aware of the arguments that you are speaking of; and therefore if any of them have addressed what I am setting forth here, then I am certain that you can bring them up. And I challenge you to do so.

But you disregard the fact that God is Spirit. And you confuse the person of the Holy Spirit, called God, with the person of the Father called God and with the person of the Son also called God. These are not modes of God's presence, they are distinct persons in the Godhead. All present and as distinct persons, manifest at the same time during Jesus' baptism.

 

[justbyfaith]

You do not align with scripture when you say "But the Holy Spirit is the Father; and the Son is the Father."

Scripture declares concerning the son that was given, that His name shall be called Everlasting Father.

So you are the one not aligning with scripture (no doubt you will have to weasel your way around Isaiah 9:6 by trying to make it say something other than what it plainly says) when you say that the Son is not the Father.

 

[justbyfaith]

These are not modes of God's presence, they are distinct persons in the Godhead.

I am in agreement.

All present and as distinct persons, manifest at the same time during Jesus' baptism.

None of this contradicts my theology.

But you disregard the fact that God is Spirit.

How so, I mentioned specifically, and even brought up scripture that says, that God is a Spirit. Did you even read the post?

 

[mjrhealth]

GINOLJC, to all.
First thanks for the reply.
NO, but the bible do said God was "MADE" flesh. I only go with what the bible says.

What do "made" here means in the verse?
G1096 γίνομαι ginomai (ǰiy'-no-mai) v.
1. to cause to be (“gen”-erate).
2. (reflexively) to become (come into being).
3. (of events) to happen.
{used with great latitude (literal, figurative, intensive, etc.):}
[a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb]
KJV: arise, be assembled, be(-come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought

definition #1 is the FLESH being GENERATED, or other words, 9 months in the bread basket.
definition #2 is the continuing of the spirit that now is found to dwell in it, meaning the spirit that's in that body of flesh is a continuing spirit which means it has no beigning, and it has no end. supportive scriptures,

Hebrews 2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man". one more,
Psalms 8:5 "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

now that we know that a BODY of flesh was "MADE" for God to come in, was he a MAN? lets see.
"be found?" as a man, let's check the record.

Philippians 2:7 "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Philippians 2:8 "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

the scriptures states "in Fashion "as" a man. "as" here with only one "s" ... (smile) is an adverb, this is important, because "as" state he is a man, but a LIVING man WITH BLOOD, meaning NATURAL LIFE, and not a dead man like us, who live by blood only, (meaning a natural temporal existance). this is important to know, because the First MAN Adam was a LIVING MAN/Soul, without SIN, and he was given BLOOD. so did the First Adam have two NATURES? NO. (I'll Stop there because that's another whole subject matter in itself, especially if those who know that the first man was formed on day 3 without blood). but a man, yes, a man with continued LIFE, with blood. well that just shot the false doctrine of hypostatic union out of the water.

Jesus was MADE flesh, meaning that he is a man, as the scriptures states,
1 Corinthians 15:45 "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
This scripture just told us that Christ is a man by the use of the term "ADAM". Adam in the Hebrew mans "ANOTHER"
H120 אָדָם 'adam (aw-dawm') n-m.
ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.).
[from H119]
KJV: X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.
Root(s): H119

so, by taking on flesh with blood, which he "TOOK PART" in and was not a "PARTAKER" of it, this meand as a man with NATURAL LIFE/BLOOD, he, as God is now capable of dying ..... a NATURAL death, meaning a loss of BLOOD. which the blood is the LIFE of the Flesh, supportive scripture,
Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Leviticus 17:14 "For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

with this NATURAL LIFE as, as, as, a man he as the Greeks states, he G2758 κενόω kenoo himself in this flesh with blood so that he could suffer and and overcome death in it, (the flesh). supportive scripture,
Philippians 2:8 "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. hence his victory over DEATH, which is unnatural for man.


let me say this in closing, there has only been TWO Adam's on this planet, the first one and the Last one. all was, was in the the first one, or all, all, all are in the Last one.

Hoped this helped.

yes no understanding. Have you ever bothered to ask God for teh truth??

 

[Dave L]

Scripture declares concerning the son that was given, that His name shall be called Everlasting Father.

So you are not aligning with scripture (no doubt you will have to weasel your way around Isaiah 9:6 by trying to make it say something other than what it plainly says) when you say that the Son is not the Father.

This title must not be taken in an anachronistic Trinitarian sense. (To do so would be theologically problematic, for the “Son” is the messianic king and is distinct in his person from God the “Father.”) Rather, in its original context the title pictures the king as the protector of his people. For a similar use of “father” see Isa 22:21 and Job 29:16. This figurative, idiomatic use of “father” is not limited to the Bible. In a Phoenician inscription (ca. 850–800 B.C.) the ruler Kilamuwa declares: “To some I was a father, to others I was a mother.” In another inscription (ca. 800 B.C.) the ruler Azitawadda boasts that the god Baal made him “a father and a mother” to his people. (See ANET 499–500.) The use of “everlasting” might suggest the deity of the king (as the one who has total control over eternity), but Isaiah and his audience may have understood the term as royal hyperbole emphasizing the king’s long reign or enduring dynasty (for examples of such hyperbolic language used of the Davidic king, see 1 Kgs 1:31; Pss 21:4–6; 61:6–7; 72:5, 17). The New Testament indicates that the hyperbolic language (as in the case of the title “Mighty God”) is literally realized in the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy, for Jesus will rule eternally

Biblical Studies Press. (2005). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

 

[justbyfaith]

And you confuse the person of the Holy Spirit, called God, with the person of the Father called God and with the person of the Son also called God.

I see them as distinct from each other; I am not confusing or blending the Persons at all; but you might be dividing their essence.