Data On The Trinity

[Matthias]

Imagine what it would be like to impose trinitarian doctrine onto monotheist text. That’s the basis of your claim.

That, in my opinion, is why it took several centuries for the Church to work out the doctrine of the Trinity.

The doctrine of the Trinity isn’t a biblical revelation, nor is it a post-biblical revelation; it’s the product of well-intentioned but misguided post-biblical Gentile theologians putting pieces together which don’t fit the historical context.

My beloved paternal grandfather had a saying: If it doesn’t fit, force it.

Using Greek philosophical concepts, the Trinity is forced into scripture.

Trinitarians can’t speak about the Trinity without using it. The authors of scripture didn’t use it and never spoke about the Trinity.

 

[Peterlag]

Correct YHWH said let US make man in OUR image after OUR likeness plus many other such verses . Since man was not made in the likeness of angels that excludes angels in the US/OUR equation .

Make man in our image was to make a human with the spirit of God in him.

 

[Peterlag]

I met Charles Hunting on many occasions; I co-pastored a Church with Anthony Buzzard until I retired in 2016 and moved back to my home state. I’ve known Anthony since 1997 and have travelled extensively (in the US and Africa) with him.

Anthony is fluent in several languages - including Hebrew and Greek - and was employed to teach them.

Did you know Charles? Do you know Anthony?

Did you believe what you believe now before you read their book, or did you come to believe it after reading it?

I came to the belief on my own before meeting them, and before reading their book. There were still, in those days, some things which I hadn’t settled on.

Singular pronouns are a powerful witness to the singularity of the one true God.

P.S.

A link to the Wikipedia entry for Anthony. You’ll find his language credentials mentioned there.

Sir Anthony Buzzard, 3rd Baronet - Wikipedia

I don't know who Anthony Buzzard is or that he has a book.

 

[Peterlag]

smiling wide, broad



That's true! Let me do a small experiment, if you don't mind.

It's a big red truck that carries men who hold hoses of water pointed at fires. Now, I've not said "firetruck", but we know what I'm talking about because of what I've said.

The Bible does not say "Triune God", "Trinity", anything like those words. But it does tell us that the Father is God, and that the Son is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, and that there is One God.

I don't think it's as important whether we say the word trinity, however, I think if we believe the sayings of the Bible, we'll reach that conclusion. Do we have to believe "trinity" to be saved?

What I know is that I'm trusting in Jesus, His death and resurrection that He shares with me, that I can be saved through faith in Him, by being baptized into Him. Do we have to have the same words for everything? I don't think so. But I believe our lives are greatly enriched by understanding these things.

So when we come to the passage where it says, the Holy Spirit said to separate to Him Paul and Barnabas, we can just read it, knowing the Holy Spirit is a Person. And when we come to the place that says, You've lied to the Holy Spirit, not to man but to God, again, we can just read it, and believe it, knowing that the Holy Spirit is God.

And same with those passages about Jesus, and about the Father.

Much love!

Okay I will post data on the holy spirit.

 

[Peterlag]

Adam is called a “type” of Jesus Christ (Romans 5:14). The word translated as “type” in many English versions is the translation of the Greek word tupos (τύπος) which can be defined as “a type, pattern, model, or example of something else.” Although the KJV translates tupos as “figure” most of the more modern versions say “pattern” (NIV), “prototype” (HCSB), or “type” (ESV, NAB, NASB). Adam was a type, prototype, or pattern of Christ because he was fully human and began without a sin nature—and Jesus was the same: fully human and made without a sin nature. The reason no other human male after Adam could be a “type” of Christ is that we are all born with a sin nature. Adam could not be a “type” of Christ if Jesus was 100% man and 100% God because Adam did not have a “God-nature.”

The Bible says in many verses that there is only one God and “God” does not have a God. We read in Isaiah 44:6 “…there is no God besides me” and Ephesians 4:6 says there is “one God and Father of all, who is over all.” Jesus has a God in contrast to “God” who alone is God and does not have a God. Jesus spoke about his God after the resurrection to Mary Magdalene, saying “…I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God” (John 20:17). Jesus still called God “my God” after his ascension into heaven when he was standing at the right hand of God.

There are also verses in the New Testament that clearly speak of “God” being the “God” of Jesus Christ. Romans 15:6 says “...you can, with one mouth, glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, and 1 Peter 1:3 all say “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” So the “one God and Father” (Ephesians 4:6) is the God of Jesus Christ. The “one God” of the Bible never says He has a God because He is God, the Father, the Creator, “the Most High God” and He has no equals. Jesus is not “God” because he's a man, the last Adam, the created Son of God, and the God of Jesus is God the Father.

In John 5:44 Jesus called the Father “the only God” and The New American Standard Bible goes so far as to translate it as “the one and only God.” The straightforward reading of this verse is that Jesus did not think of himself as God. Jesus prayed to God on the night he was arrested that people would “know you, the only true God” (John 17:3). It seems disingenuous or at least confusing that Jesus would refer to his Father as “the only true God” if he knew that both he and “the Holy Spirit” were also “Persons” in a triune God and that the Father shared His position as “God” with them. It seems much more likely that Jesus spoke the simple truth when he called his Father “the only true God."

 

[Matthias]

I don't know who Anthony Buzzard is or that he has a book.

That was a poor assumption on my part. Let’s set that aside for the time being then.

Were you ever a trinitarian? Are you presently a member of a non-trinitarian church?

I was raised trinitarian (Southern Baptist), left trinitarianism and then came very close to going back into it. I attended a joint lecture on the Trinity, given by two trinitarian pastors at the Church I was attending at the time, which altered the course of my theological life. It was only marginally connected with what they said about the Trinity, which was a standard presentation. Straight historical orthodox trinitarianism.

I asked a question, publicly, after the lecture and their response to it, which was jarring - even humiliating, certainly intimidating - briefly caused me to dismiss what I asked about, thinking it to be a thought which had never occurred to anyone else before. That’s how uneducated I was at the time.

Ironically, I (accidentally? providentially?) came across someone a year later who actually believed what I had quickly considered - and just as quickly dismissed. That person encouraged me to invest time educating myself, principally by reading the early Church Fathers and Church history. Books on Christology soon followed, with James D.G. Dunn (a Protestant) and Raymond E. Brown (a Catholic) being the two most influential at the time.

I still regularly reevaluate and reconsider what I believe. It is with that purpose in mind, and to that end, that I ask people what they believe and, more importantly, why they believe it.

Most of my reading - apart from the Bible itself, and never a substitute for it - are works written by trinitarian authors; Protestant and Catholic. I’ve learned much from them, can agree with many of the things which they say, and recommend them to trinitarian and non-trinitarian readers alike.

I haven’t been persuaded - yet - by anything written by them which would cause me to change my mind about what I currently believe. I doubt that I ever will, but I leave open the very slim possibility that some day I might.

The more I’ve read trinitarian writers the more convinced I’ve become that what I currently believe is correct. I don’t, however, in any shape, form or fashion make the assertion that that will be the case for everyone who reads them.

I read non-trinitarian writers, but not anywhere near the frequency that I read trinitarian writers - roughly 80% trinitarian / 20% non-trinitarian - and often find them unpersuasive. Non-trinitarian is a much larger category than trinitarian. I haven’t been persuaded - yet - by anything in non-trinitarian writings which would cause me to change my mind. I doubt that I ever will, but I leave open the very slim possibility - even slimmer than the possibility with trinitarian writings - that some day I might.

P.S.

My apologies for the length of this post. If you spend much time reading my posts you’ll find that they’re typically far shorter than this one.

It’s been good talking with you and I look forward to further conversations with you.

 

[Matthias]

“Holy. Holy. Holy.”

(Isaiah 6:3)

Behold, the Trinity?

No.

Behold, “repetition for emphasis.” - John Calvin

 

[Peterlag]

That was a poor assumption on my part. Let’s set that aside for the time being then.

Were you ever a trinitarian? Are you presently a member of a non-trinitarian church?

I was raised trinitarian (Southern Baptist), left trinitarianism and then came very close to going back into it. I attended a joint lecture on the Trinity, given by two trinitarian pastors at the Church I was attending at the time, which altered the course of my theological life. It was only marginally connected with what they said about the Trinity, which was a standard presentation. Straight historical orthodox trinitarianism.

I asked a question, publicly, after the lecture and their response to it, which was jarring - even humiliating, certainly intimidating - briefly caused me to dismiss what I asked about, thinking it to be a thought which had never occurred to anyone else before. That’s how uneducated I was at the time.

Ironically, I (accidentally? providentially?) came across someone a year later who actually believed what I had quickly considered - and just as quickly dismissed. That person encouraged me to invest time educating myself, principally by reading the early Church Fathers and Church history. Books on Christology soon followed, with James D.G. Dunn (a Protestant) and Raymond E. Brown (a Catholic) being the two most influential at the time.

I still regularly reevaluate and reconsider what I believe. It is with that purpose in mind, and to that end, that I ask people what they believe and, more importantly, why they believe it.

Most of my reading - apart from the Bible itself, and never a substitute for it - are works written by trinitarian authors; Protestant and Catholic. I’ve learned much from them, can agree with many of the things which they say, and recommend them to trinitarian and non-trinitarian readers alike.

I haven’t been persuaded - yet - by anything written by them which would cause me to change my mind about what I currently believe. I doubt that I ever will, but I leave open the very slim possibility that some day I might.

The more I’ve read trinitarian writers the more convinced I’ve become that what I currently believe is correct. I don’t, however, in any shape, form or fashion make the assertion that that will be the case for everyone who reads them.

I read non-trinitarian writers, but not anywhere near the frequency that I read trinitarian writers - roughly 80% trinitarian / 20% non-trinitarian - and often find them unpersuasive. Non-trinitarian is a much larger category than trinitarian. I haven’t been persuaded - yet - by anything in non-trinitarian writings which would cause me to change my mind. I doubt that I ever will, but I leave open the very slim possibility - even slimmer than the possibility with trinitarian writings - that some day I might.

P.S.

My apologies for the length of this post. If you spend much time reading my posts you’ll find that they’re typically far shorter than this one.

It’s been good talking with you and I look forward to further conversations with you.

I was never a trinitarian and I'm not a member of any non-trinitarian church. I wrote what I thought was good data on my very own website and you can read it all if you would enjoy doing so at...

Data On The Trinity

 

[marks]

The Bible says in many verses that there is only one God and “God” does not have a God. We read in Isaiah 44:6 “…there is no God besides me” and Ephesians 4:6 says there is “one God and Father of all, who is over all.” Jesus has a God in contrast to “God” who alone is God and does not have a God. Jesus spoke about his God after the resurrection to Mary Magdalene, saying “…I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God” (John 20:17). Jesus still called God “my God” after his ascension into heaven when he was standing at the right hand of God.

Interestingly, though, we can see from a number of passages that YHWH is in fact Jesus Himself.

YHWH spoke through Malachi that He would send Elijah to prepare the way before Him. Jesus affirmed this spoke of none other than Himself.

Zechariah prophesied that YHWH will stand on the Mount of Olives, just as the angels said Jesus would return the same way He left.

YHWH spoke through Isaiah that He alone is Savior, He and all will bow to Him. Paul in Phillipians affirms this is Jesus Christ. Peter told the Sanhedrin, speaking of Jesus Christ, there is no other Name given by which men must be saved.

Jesus still called God “my God” after his ascension into heaven when he was standing at the right hand of God

On this part, what is the passage for this? I can't think of it right now. Thanks!

Much love!

 

[ScottA]

Make man in our image was to make a human with the spirit of God in him.

No...it was to expand His glory, that He should not be alone.

As for the image, it is just that--an image. Yes, including all of creation. Just as to see Christ is to see the Father, our image is also an image of His character made manifest: Having two feet, legs, arms, hands, ears, and eyes, etc., and the fulness of ten fingers and toes...but one heart, one Head, and one mind. And history is His story.

 

[PinSeeker]

Imagine what it would be like to impose trinitarian doctrine onto monotheist text. That’s the basis of your claim.

Not at all. But on that note, I'm trying to imagine being ignorant (or simple-minded, or hard-headed) enough to think that trinitarians are not monotheists, but it's quite hard...

Grace and peace to you.

 

[marks]

Adam is called a “type” of Jesus Christ (Romans 5:14). The word translated as “type” in many English versions is the translation of the Greek word tupos (τύπος) which can be defined as “a type, pattern, model, or example of something else.” Although the KJV translates tupos as “figure” most of the more modern versions say “pattern” (NIV), “prototype” (HCSB), or “type” (ESV, NAB, NASB). Adam was a type, prototype, or pattern of Christ because he was fully human and began without a sin nature—and Jesus was the same: fully human and made without a sin nature. The reason no other human male after Adam could be a “type” of Christ is that we are all born with a sin nature. Adam could not be a “type” of Christ if Jesus was 100% man and 100% God because Adam did not have a “God-nature.”

I like what you wrote here, except that whether or not Jesus and Adam were to be direct correlation in the way you mean, why does that have to be the "rule"?

Adam is a type of Christ, but after that we have to go to Scripture to identify in what exact way. Crossing the red sea was seen as being baptized into Moses, which was given to us as a type, though our baptism into Christ involves much more than that.

As the Bible tells us about the first Adam and the Last Adam, God gives us this information.

1 Corinthians 15:45-49 KJV
45) And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46) Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47) The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48) As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49) And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

... I'm trying to imagine... that trinitarians are not monotheists

What takes imagination is that 3 is 1. It's not simple minded, it's nonsense.

Fact is, 1 is 1 and 3 is 3 and 1 <>3.

 

[PinSeeker]

What takes imagination is that 3 is 1.

No, that would be faith, which, as the Bible says, is the assurance (given by God, via His Holy Spirit) of things hoped for, the conviction (again, given by God, via His Holy Spirit) of things not seen. But we can see it in earthly things, too, as what can be known about God is plain to us, because God has shown it to us (Romans 1:19).

Facetiously ~ but instructively ~ There is only one... uh... Green Bay Packers (NFL franchise), but at any given time, there are 53 men on the team's active roster... If they all play together well ~ and are one in that sense ~ then they... win games, and maybe the Super Bowl. So, is one 53 and 53 one? Well, not woodenly speaking, no (in personhood), but yes, in desire, purpose, and unity ("teamhood"). Again, facetious ~ God did not create the Green Bay Packers, of course (although He did create each man on the roster ) ~ but instructive...

It's not simple minded, it's nonsense.

To those who are perishing (as Paul says), yes.

1 is 1 and 3 is 3 and 1 <>3.

Well, in pure mathematical terms, yes, but, the triune Jehovah (God ~ YHVH) is one God in three Persons and three Persons in one God. Quite the difference ~ 'in' as opposed to 'is'. This is what Jesus says:

"...the Father is in me and I am in the Father..."
[John 10:38, John 14:10, John 14:11]​

So, yes, again, Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Wrangler]

No, that would be faith, which, as the Bible says, is the assurance (given by God, via His Holy Spirit) of things hoped for, the conviction (again, given by God, via His Holy Spirit) of things not seen.

The Bible does not say to have faith in the trinity.

 

[Wrangler]

Facetiously ~ but instructively ~ There is only one... uh... Green Bay Packers (NFL franchise), but at any given time, there are 53 men on the team's active roster

You are changing your reference point. This always has to happen whenever one asserts 1 is something other than 1, e.g., Being from person or man to NFL franchise.

 

[PinSeeker]

The Bible does not say to have faith in the trinity.

Agreed. But it does say that faith is the (God-given) assurance of things hoped for, the (God-given) conviction of things not seen. And, God is a plurality.

You are changing your reference point. This always has to happen whenever one asserts 1 is something other than 1, e.g., Being from person or man to NFL franchise.

Not at all. I did say I was being somewhat facetious, but instructive nonetheless. Consider it a PinSeeker parable.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Wrangler]

God is a plurality.

That God is referred to 5,000 times in the Bible using singular pronouns show He is singular.

 

[Wrangler]

Not at all. I did say I was being somewhat facetious,

Being facetious does not mean you were not changing the reference point

There are many verses where God - in his wholeness, in his unitarian nature is juxtaposed with Jesus, where God is the subject of the sentence and Jesus is the object, passively being acted upon.

For instance, Acts 17:31 God selected his servant Jesus and raised him from the dead. Can you explain why the Bible is filled with so many meaningless verses IF Jesus were God?

 

[Peterlag]

Interestingly, though, we can see from a number of passages that YHWH is in fact Jesus Himself.

YHWH spoke through Malachi that He would send Elijah to prepare the way before Him. Jesus affirmed this spoke of none other than Himself.

Zechariah prophesied that YHWH will stand on the Mount of Olives, just as the angels said Jesus would return the same way He left.

YHWH spoke through Isaiah that He alone is Savior, He and all will bow to Him. Paul in Phillipians affirms this is Jesus Christ. Peter told the Sanhedrin, speaking of Jesus Christ, there is no other Name given by which men must be saved.



On this part, what is the passage for this? I can't think of it right now. Thanks!

Much love!

What you speak about are what was given to Christ. Here's a bit more on this subject...

The Bible says the Son will be subject to the Father even in the future “When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him [God] who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28). The teaching that the two of them are “co-equal” must be wrong if Jesus is subject to the Father even in the eternal future. John 10:36 says “do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, You are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of God?” The fact that Jesus was consecrated, or as it's translated in other versions as “sanctified” by God shows he's not God because God does not need to be sanctified. Philippians 2:6 says that Christ “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” The point of the verse is that Jesus Christ was highly exalted by God because he was humble and did not seek equality with God. Jesus would never have needed to seek equality with God in the first place because it would have been inherent in him if he was God.

We read in John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.” Jesus repeated that in several different ways. “I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge… because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me” (John 5:30). “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me” (John 7:16). “I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me” (John 8:28). “For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak” (John 12:49). Jesus would not have needed to be directed by his Father if he was God, and co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

The Old Testament referred to the Messiah as the servant of God, and we see this in Isaiah 52-53, which speaks of the suffering and death of the Messiah when referring to the Messiah as God’s “servant.” They called King David God’s “servant” when the disciples prayed to God in Acts 4:25 and later in that same prayer they called Jesus “your holy servant” (Acts 4:30) CSB; ESV; NAB; NASB; NET; NIV; NJB). They equated the Messiah as a servant of God just like David was rather than referring to Jesus as if he was God himself. There are many verses indicating that the power and authority Jesus had was given to him by the Father. Jesus Christ would have always had those things that the Scripture says he was “given” if he was the eternal God. Christ was:

• Given “all authority” Matthew 28:18).
• Given “a name above every name” (Philippians 2:9).
• Given work to finish by the Father (John 5:36).
• Given those who believed in him by the Father (John 6:39, 10:29).
• Given glory (John 17:22, 24).
• Given his “cup” [his torture and death] by the Father (John 18:11).
• “Seated” at God’s own right hand (Ephesians 1:20-21).
• “Appointed” over the Church (Ephesians 1:22).