The Problem With The Trinity

justbyfaith · Oct 23, 2018

If the newer translations did not rely on alternate manuscripts that they are translated from, but used the Textus Receptus, I don't think that I would even have a problem with them. But because they are translated from inferior manuscripts, I do not hold them to be in the same regard (with the same reverence) as any translation that might be translated from the Textus Receptus.

So then, the kjv is an improvement on the earlier translations; but the newer, watered-down, New Age translations are not an improvement on the kjv, because their base is different.

justbyfaith · Oct 23, 2018

gadar perets said:
Since you cannot attack my message successfully, you attack the messenger.

I simply asked you a question: I did not make any kind of offensive statement.

justbyfaith · Oct 23, 2018

edited #1191.

gadar perets · Oct 23, 2018

justbyfaith said:
I simply asked you a question: I did not make any kind of offensive statement.

You implied I don't have the Holy Spirit.

gadar perets · Oct 23, 2018

justbyfaith said:
If the newer translations did not rely on alternate manuscripts that they are translated from, but used the Textus Receptus, I don't think that I would even have a problem with them. But because they are translated from inferior manuscripts, I do not hold them to be in the same regard (with the same reverence) as any translation that might be translated from the Textus Receptus.

So then, the kjv is an improvement on the earlier translations; but the newer, watered-down, New Age translations are not an improvement on the kjv, because their base is different.

Sometimes the base text makes a difference as in 1 Timothy 3:16, but many other times it is not the text, but the translation of the same Greek word. For example, all Greek texts say "pascha" in Acts 12:4, but the KJV erroneously translates it "Easter" whereas newer versions translate it correctly as "Passover". Another example is the KJV's substitution of "the LORD" in place of "YHWH" or "Yahweh". Some newer versions like Rotherham's Emphasized Bible translate the Hebrew correctly. KJV verses that suggest Yeshua created everything translate the Greek word "dia" as "by", but newer versions translate the same Greek word correctly as "through".

amadeus · Oct 23, 2018

"ByGrace" said:
All very true...but the 'argument/discussion' is, whether it makes a difference in our initial salvation...it does NOT. What you quote is fact , but nowhere is there a verse saying " If you don't believe this, or if you don't believe the trinity. Or is you don't believe Jesus was God...you are not saved.
Salvation is in the power of Jesus Christ to take away the sin of the world.
"Slain before the beginning of the world"

< @amadeus Can I loop you in here John ? >

My two cents...

Hello Helen,
What is it you need a boost against the Trinity or for salvation in spite of the Trinity or perhaps a boost in favor of Oneness? There is only One God and scripture does make that clear... hopefully to everyone here. The Trinitarians apparently however want to say that the One God is somehow three persons while only being One God. Are they correct? Do we really need to know the answer in order to please God?
When we speak seriously about a Trinity, should we not be able to explain why the Trinity does not increase to a Multiplicity based on the prayers of Jesus?

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." John 17:20-23

I don't really believe in a Multiplicity but for me this confirms is that a belief in a Trinity cannot be essential a person's ultimate salvation. What does God require of us? He require us to seek first His kingdom and His righteousness. If we really do that what will He not add onto us?

Give God the glory!

amadeus · Oct 23, 2018

farouk said:
I don't understand how you can set aside the truth of God in Three Persons, seen clearly at the end of Matthew 28, John's Gospel, especially chapters 13 thru 17, John's First Epistle, and many other passages.

If you do espouse a Trinity of the One God how can you not also espouse an eventual Multiplicity of God based on the prayer of Jesus in John 17:20-23?

amadeus · Oct 23, 2018

farouk said:
One of your sources is Christadelphian; another is James Martineau the Unitarian.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit have a very strong presence in John's Gospel. Romans 8 is another blessed chapter where Father, Son and Holy Spirit are overtly present.

Christodelphians are strong Bible scholars. Several years ago I belonged to a Christodelphian forum and learned a lot from them. I could never be one because even then I was a tongue talker and they don't accept that. I remember that initially they did not even have a formal name, but Uncle Sam needed a name to classify them among the multitude of denominations so they became Christodelphians which means something like "brothers in Christ". They were and I suppose still are sincere believers. You cannot become a member without really understanding the scriptures as they do and of course affirming some of their conclusions.

brakelite · Oct 23, 2018

justbyfaith said:
Consider that the 1st Person of the Trinity exists outside of time, and is Omnipresent. Now if God the Father decided to descend in order to become the Son (see Ephesians 3:11), He cannot VACATE ETERNITY in order to do so. The 1st Person of the Trinity would remain in eternity, outside of time, while after having lived one eternal moment He would descend to become Jesus Christ our Lord, who is the Son of God. The Son would be on earth in such a case while the Father is still in heaven. For you must realize that in the Bible Codes in Genesis 1, Jewish scholars have discovered the existence of ten dimensions of which time is only the fourth...that means there are six more that ascend up into realms of possibility that we can never understand as finite human beings with limited capacity in our finite human brains.

That is all sounding very wise and spiritual but very little of it is actually taught in scripture... Most of what you relate above is conjecture and guesswork right? We are speaking about the nature of the Holy one here. We need to be extremely careful not to go beyond what God himself in his goodness has revealed about Himself. Guessing at any aspect is a risky Business. The creeds themselves, although based on evidence in scripture, are also assumptions when speaking of the Trinity.
God sent His only begotten Son to become flesh and die in our place. His Spirit is the Spirit OF God. The Spirit OF the Father and OF Christ. We should leave it at that.

bbyrd009 · Oct 24, 2018

gadar perets said:
That would be the easiest thing to do, but my love for them forces me to endure their personal attacks and mistreatment of Scripture in order to help them see the truth.

hmm, well or something is maybe forcing you anyway, might even be your love for something or someone, i mean we tend to make assumptions, but assumptions tend to be wrong i guess. For an example i haven't noticed any personal attacks or mistreatment here, not even from BoL have i been mistreated imo. i go willingly every time, and he hasn't had me banned or fined or anything.

about this helping others see the truth, i think this kinda goes hand-in-hand with the perceived attacks and mistreatment tbh, you might reflect on being a human who can see less than 1% of everything that exists in the universe attempting to help someone else 'see the truth.' Not even saying that you might not be able to do that, so much as the...um, the optics, the impression, is not so good maybe? Plus if you say it enough the danger imo is you might start to believe it too right?

so, i know this post maybe seems non-sequitur, but you come across as a pretty empathetic person;
and i hope...your current standing does not prevent you from considering the points,
as it's nice to have a Messianic pov here imo,
and prolly no one much stays around perceived personal attacks and mistreatment for long

bbyrd009 · Oct 24, 2018

amadeus said:
and of course affirming some of their conclusions.

of course right, the conclusions must be affirmed

amadeus · Oct 24, 2018

bbyrd009 said:
of course right, the conclusions must be affirmed

It is certainly like other places I have been or observed. The question I ask is what does God want me to conclude?

justbyfaith · Oct 24, 2018

brakelite said:
That is all sounding very wise and spiritual but very little of it is actually taught in scripture... Most of what you relate above is conjecture and guesswork right? We are speaking about the nature of the Holy one here. We need to be extremely careful not to go beyond what God himself in his goodness has revealed about Himself. Guessing at any aspect is a risky Business. The creeds themselves, although based on evidence in scripture, are also assumptions when speaking of the Trinity.
God sent His only begotten Son to become flesh and die in our place. His Spirit is the Spirit OF God. The Spirit OF the Father and OF Christ. We should leave it at that.

It is based on a long reading of scripture over many years with the concept of the Trinity in the back of my mind and always in view.

There is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4) and that Spirit is the Father (God)...John 4:23-24. Now Christ also dwells in us (Colossians 1:27); and the Holy Ghost is also that one Spirit (John 7:39). The Father dwells in us (Ephesians 4:6), the Son dwells in us (Colossians 1:27) and the Holy Ghost dwells in us (2 Timothy 1:14). Do they dwell in us as three Spirits? Or are Father, Son, and Holy Ghost one Spirit dwelling in us (see Ephesians 4:4)?

So then, that one Spirit (God the Father) descended and became one with the egg in the womb of the virgin Mary; and the holy thing that came forth was the Son of God. In His Spirit He was and is the Father (John 4:23-24, John 14:7-11); in His humanity and Deity together (called the hypostatic union) He is the Son of God.

And the explanation that I gave is a valid explanation of the intellectual problems that you were having about how Jesus can be God on earth while the Father is in heaven and answering the prayers of the Son. It is scriptural to believe in one God (Deuteronomy 6:4) who exists in the form of three distinct individuals within the Triune Godhead (Matthew 28:19, Isaiah 6:3). So if I have come up with an explanation that satisfies, as to how this can be, and which gives understanding to the reality of the Trinity of God, why would you reject it? You say it is not scriptural, perhaps because there is no single scripture that proclaims the reality of my explanation. Yet if you search, I think that you will find that this explanation in no way contradicts anything in scripture and that it is in fact a good general synopsis according to what the scripture generally teaches about the Triune nature of God.

justbyfaith · Oct 24, 2018

gadar perets said:
Sometimes the base text makes a difference as in 1 Timothy 3:16, but many other times it is not the text, but the translation of the same Greek word. For example, all Greek texts say "pascha" in Acts 12:4, but the KJV erroneously translates it "Easter" whereas newer versions translate it correctly as "Passover". Another example is the KJV's substitution of "the LORD" in place of "YHWH" or "Yahweh". Some newer versions like Rotherham's Emphasized Bible translate the Hebrew correctly. KJV verses that suggest Yeshua created everything translate the Greek word "dia" as "by", but newer versions translate the same Greek word correctly as "through".

If the contention is that "the LORD" or "YHWH" is referring to the Father alone, then I think you should consider that in Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21 Jesus identifies the Father as "the Lord of heaven and earth." So it is not inaccurate to refer to the Father as "the LORD".

Also, the subject of Easter in the kjv seems to me to be so inconsequential that it is unbelievable. Easter happens around the same time as Passover every year, so it is not talking about a different time of the year. The only real contention, that I can see, is that the devil hates the idea of resurrection Sunday because he was defeated by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So I can see why he would be attempting to have it removed from the Bibles that we read: he would be quite happy if he could eradicate Easter as holiday; and its mention in the kjv is a primary reason why it will be preserved as a holiday for many centuries to come.

It seems to me that someone went through a load of trouble just to find one thing wrong with the King James version of the Bible; and when they did, they just kept harping on it, even though it makes no difference in our understanding except that the way it is rendered in the kjv is for good and not for evil in that it preserves resurrection Sunday as a holiday for all of us to keep! Yet there are those who would contend that Easter should not be the rendering: and why? Do they also want to eradicate Easter as a holiday? It may be that they have other issues with the kjv, such as its translation in many places of what is rendered as "perfect" or "perfected"; because the devil most assuredly doesn't like that either! And neither do certain people of his who want to keep going on in their sins without that word in the Bible being there to tell them that they are wrong!

justbyfaith · Oct 24, 2018

"ByGrace" said:
What you quote is fact , but nowhere is there a verse saying " If you don't believe this, or if you don't believe the trinity. Or is you don't believe Jesus was God...you are not saved.

What do you interpret John 8:24 to be saying?

It seems pretty clear to me that that verse is saying that if you do not believe that Jesus is the great I AM, you will die in your sins...

But evidently you have an alternate interpretation, so let's hear what that is...

justbyfaith · Oct 24, 2018

gadar perets said:
You implied I don't have the Holy Spirit.

You're right I did; and I suppose that you might consider that offensive.

But if you consider that I implied that with a motivation of love, it might be expedient for you to do whatever it might take to become a true recipient of the Holy Spirit in your life; because my implication that you do not have Him did not come from my natural thinking, but from an understanding of what it says in scripture (specifically John 8:24).

There are two ways to receive the Holy Spirit, both of which involve humbling yourself:

1) Ask (Luke 11:9-13)

2) Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts of the Apostles 2:38-39).

gadar perets · Oct 24, 2018

bbyrd009 said:
hmm, well or something is maybe forcing you anyway, might even be your love for something or someone, i mean we tend to make assumptions, but assumptions tend to be wrong i guess. For an example i haven't noticed any personal attacks or mistreatment here, not even from BoL have i been mistreated imo. i go willingly every time, and he hasn't had me banned or fined or anything.

I consider telling me I'm seeking to be justified by the law, saved by the law, without the Holy Spirit, going to hell, condemning everyone to hell, etc., as personal attacks.

bbyrd009 · Oct 24, 2018

gadar perets said:
I consider telling me I'm seeking to be justified by the law, saved by the law, without the Holy Spirit, going to hell, condemning everyone to hell, etc., as personal attacks.

i understand, but i would suggest some latitude there as we have very limited means of expression in a forum, and you should not be offendable anyway imo

gadar perets · Oct 24, 2018

justbyfaith said:
If the contention is that "the LORD" or "YHWH" is referring to the Father alone, then I think you should consider that in Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21 Jesus identifies the Father as "the Lord of heaven and earth." So it is not inaccurate to refer to the Father as "the LORD".

Seriously? It is not inaccurate to refer to the Father as "Lord" because that is the translation of "Adonai", but "the LORD" is NOT a translation OR transliteration of the Tetragrammaton. It is a MAN-MADE SUBSTITUTION for the Tetragrammaton. It is an impossibility to argue against that FACT. The Tetragrammaton does NOT have "the" in Hebrew. How can those four letters that transliterate as YHWH in English letters have "the" attached to it? It is UTTER NONSENSE; the foolishness of men who do not know the truth or don't care enough about it to preserve it.

Also, the subject of Easter in the kjv seems to me to be so inconsequential that it is unbelievable. Easter happens around the same time as Passover every year, so it is not talking about a different time of the year. The only real contention, that I can see, is that the devil hates the idea of resurrection Sunday because he was defeated by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So I can see why he would be attempting to have it removed from the Bibles that we read: he would be quite happy if he could eradicate Easter as holiday; and its mention in the kjv is a primary reason why it will be preserved as a holiday for many centuries to come.

It seems to me that someone went through a load of trouble just to find one thing wrong with the King James version of the Bible; and when they did, they just kept harping on it, even though it makes no difference in our understanding except that the way it is rendered in the kjv is for good and not for evil in that it preserves resurrection Sunday as a holiday for all of us to keep! Yet there are those who would contend that Easter should not be the rendering: and why? Do they also want to eradicate Easter as a holiday? It may be that they have other issues with the kjv, such as its translation in many places of what is rendered as "perfect" or "perfected"; because the devil most assuredly doesn't like that either! And neither do certain people of his who want to keep going on in their sins without that word in the Bible being there to tell them that they are wrong!

The problems with the translation "Easter" are five-fold.

1) It is NOT a translation of the Greek "pascha". "Passover" is.
2) It does not refer to Yeshua's death or to the Feast of Unleavened Bread as pascha does. It only erroneously refers to the anniversary of the day Yeshua resurrected.
3) It changes the meaning of the text from waiting until after the Feast of Unleavened Bread ended to bring Peter before the people to waiting until after the man made Easter holiday to bring Peter before the people.
4) It encourages the keeping of the anniversary of Yeshua's resurrection on the wrong day since Easter does not always coincide with the day the wave sheaf was to be offered.
5) It causes "KJV Only" people to have to lie in order to support their false belief in the infallibility of the KJV.

gadar perets · Oct 24, 2018

bbyrd009 said:
i understand, but i would suggest some latitude there as we have very limited means of expression in a forum, and you should not be offendable anyway imo

There is only one acceptable means of expression on this thread; that is, to address the subject matter and not make personal comments about those who oppose us.

The Problem With The Trinity

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

brakelite

Guest

Groper

Groper

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Groper

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads