Defending the Trinity

[Floyd]

Nothead:
nothead, on 12 Apr 2014 - 1:43 PM, said:

The Jews never attempted it. Secret: this is what problem arises with Calvinism too, man describing what NO MAN can describe, the Sovereign Will of God at Endgame.
How DETERMINISTIC is God's will after all, in opposition to the will of man.

A few of us here have said the same thing; i.e. the mystery of the 3 in one is not possible for any human to understand. Why do you say this as if it had not been said?
Any Christian would say the same to you; this is not new; it is however the wonder!
Calvinism as you may know has about 800 definitions; a very big scale from one end to the other. Extreme Calvinists are quite dangerous!
This however is not the issue. What has incensed myself and others; is your denigration of the Deity of Christ Jesus!
Hence the questions to you and Purity!
See: Extreme Calvinism Teachings: Calvinist "Works" Teaching


From Purity:
Purity, on 10 Apr 2014 - 2:31 PM, said:

Can you discern the difference between Matt 12:31,32 & Heb 10:29.

I appreciate you are seeking a straight answer but these things are not valued if we do not labour and seek after them in humility.

You have spoken the truth but you are yet to grasp it I feel.

Matt.12:31-32, was spoken to the Jews (Pharisees at that time), "I come only to the lost sheep of Israel". It has relevance now to all people; hence my questions to you.
As regards Heb.10:29; this was written by (probably Paul), in approx. AD54; and was exclusively Jewish! The whole of Hebrews was Paul's attempt to change the heart and mind of the Jews (and the Sanhedrin), and that continued until the end of Acts (approx.AD61-2, see: 28:25-28), when the emphasis changed to the Gentile first!!
Your use of the two is only related in that it was (then) to the Jews only!

See: The Jew, the Gentile, and Christ

Floyd.

 

[Fred Lamm]

Nothead said:

Jesus is the symmetrical opposite of Adam the man, who was 'elohim' and first walked with God, then was made mortal and died as a man. Jesus starts out just 'under the angels' and ends up 'elohim' over the angels due to his great accomplishment. Although he was annointed possibly as no man before or since, from the time the 'dove' descended and John the Baptist saw it, he also extended a great power of personal will and effort to the fullest capacity of his flesh and spirit, mind and soul, of his heart which loved his Father the One True God with the all of him. He is the only man to ever accomplish the Shema as it was meant to be...in ideal fashion, never having sinned.

This allowed him to say to his disciples, "Fear not for I have overcome the world." God would not have had any problem doing this, as He knows all the backdoors to both the hardware and software of Creation. But for Jesus this makes him greater than Clint Eastwood, Charlton Heston and Charles Bronson all at once. Greater than even the Duke. Greater even than Audrey Murphy. Greater than Charlie Chaplin. Well forget this last.

Then he was glorified to the right hand of God. And two will or are sitting at HIS left and right hands. This Throne may be one seat with other lesser seats. This throne may be one seat with NO seats next to. This throne has ONE entity and ONE ONLY sitting at the top. He is YHWH Elohim the One True God.

I have brought you out of Egypt. Thou shalt have no other ELOHIM to my presence (face). Yes Jesus is RIGHT THERE. But not as equal, sir.

You have responded to, but not answered the question. Do you believe that a person who believes that Jesus Christ died on the Cross for their sins has attained salvation and do you believe that Jesus as a sacrifice was able to carry the sin of the entire world? Because if these things are not true then Christians might as well pack up and go home. Why even write the Bible if these things are true? I don't have to be a scriptural expert to know that Gods word does not war against itself. The enemy knows scripture and can defeat any theologian on the face of the earth in a debate, but every tree is known by its fruit and the fruit of where you are going is rotten.

 

[nothead]

You have responded to, but not answered the question. Do you believe that a person who believes that Jesus Christ died on the Cross for their sins has attained salvation and do you believe that Jesus as a sacrifice was able to carry the sin of the entire world? Because if these things are not true then Christians might as well pack up and go home. Why even write the Bible if these things are true? I don't have to be a scriptural expert to know that Gods word does not war against itself. The enemy knows scripture and can defeat any theologian on the face of the earth in a debate, but every tree is known by its fruit and the fruit of where you are going is rotten.

The answer is the same. Just as ADAM brought the whole world into sin even to the lions eaten them lambs, so too Jesus was the MAN who got us out. Thereore he is greater than Mohhamet Ali and I ain't even black. Greater than Chieh Tsue and I don't even know who he is, and I ain't even Chinese. Oh that's my wife, forget that one.

2x. Did you get it?

The enemy knows scripture and can defeat any theologian on the face of the earth in a debate, but every tree is known by its fruit and the fruit of where you are going is rotten. --Fled.

Jesus said never one time he is God. That would be in fact a bad thing to say bringing bad fruit. Why put this board up if you guys don't allow naysayers?
At least Wormwood is allowing us to argue. Some of you are offended.


Nothead:
nothead, on 12 Apr 2014 - 1:43 PM, said:

A few of us here have said the same thing; i.e. the mystery of the 3 in one is not possible for any human to understand. Why do you say this as if it had not been said?
Any Christian would say the same to you; this is not new; it is however the wonder!
Calvinism as you may know has about 800 definitions; a very big scale from one end to the other. Extreme Calvinists are quite dangerous!
This however is not the issue. What has incensed myself and others; is your denigration of the Deity of Christ Jesus!
Hence the questions to you and Purity!
See: Extreme Calvinism Teachings: Calvinist "Works" Teaching

Yeah, I didn't intend for us to go off the OP here, Calvinism vs. Armenianism debates are prolific. AND fine-tuned for a bunch of clay pots do tell.

AND I do understand many don't necessarily believe in Trinity, at least from a salvific POV. But these same are for the most part still JisG, and this WOULD BE a salvific item to them. All Oneness Pentecostals are in this very same category, and this is my experience, specifically giving up friends, brothers and sisters who have condemned me.

Truth does matter more. One must hate father, mother sister and brother if it comes down to it. Shema demands no less. I loved them and love them. I love God more.

And you who claim to love JESUS do not even heed his words, red letter: This is eternal life, that they know THEE the Only True God and Christ Jesus (ME) whom THOU hast sent.

 

[Floyd]

You have responded to, but not answered the question. Do you believe that a person who believes that Jesus Christ died on the Cross for their sins has attained salvation and do you believe that Jesus as a sacrifice was able to carry the sin of the entire world? Because if these things are not true then Christians might as well pack up and go home. Why even write the Bible if these things are true? I don't have to be a scriptural expert to know that Gods word does not war against itself. The enemy knows scripture and can defeat any theologian on the face of the earth in a debate, but every tree is known by its fruit and the fruit of where you are going is rotten.


Thank you Fred; Good comment.
Floyd.

 

[nothead]

You have responded to, but not answered the question. Do you believe that a person who believes that Jesus Christ died on the Cross for their sins has attained salvation and do you believe that Jesus as a sacrifice was able to carry the sin of the entire world? Because if these things are not true then Christians might as well pack up and go home. Why even write the Bible if these things are true? I don't have to be a scriptural expert to know that Gods word does not war against itself. The enemy knows scripture and can defeat any theologian on the face of the earth in a debate, but every tree is known by its fruit and the fruit of where you are going is rotten.


Thank you Fred; Good comment.
Floyd.

LOlokay, try agin.'

Funny word, that. BELIEVE. Most Christians think this means a certain rational construct has to exist in our bean. Do I believe a person who BELIEVES Christ died on the Cross for my sin has attained salvation...yes and no.

NO since he ain't even been Judged yet. How can he have ATTAINED if the thing is yet to come? If it was a promise then he WILL ATTAIN unless something boogers it up...like a mortal sin or maybe his BELIEF fell short. He has attained a limited, worldly release from sin and death, yeah, baby. If his belief is true and grows to the extent God requires then okaydokay, what is the problem?

Do I believe Jesus as sacrifice can carry the sins of the world? Yeah in theory for those who believe. Faith is required. Continued faith is required. Love is required. Continued love is required.

What do you want from me? To think we all got a VIP Card to Heaven? There will be no Judgement for us in that case. Not true. A JUDGEMENT intimates a POSSIBILITY of FAIL.

You know FAIL like on Youtube? Splat, flat on your face, do not pass go, get on outa here I did not know you, lukewarm spittle from my Mouth?

 

[Floyd]

From nothead:

The issue came to a head in 1914 when the minority of Oneness Believers split from the Trinitarians. This was because the Trin formulation in Mt 28:19 was not ever used in Acts, the 4x it was said they were baptised in Jesus' name. Oneness do not deny the verse, they have re-interpreted it to mean the SINGULAR name of God is "Jesus" which IS the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

From Floyd:
Thanks for the history, but it is well known.
It is human, and therefore in error as usual!
When referring back to Scripture; and examining your text above (Mt.28:19); and referring to scholars of eminence and Christ humility with both old Hebrew and Greek; the consensus of that command from Jesus is that of final confirmation of the "Oneness of the Three" , which confirms the later statements in Rev.
This means, that you and others on this pathway are in gross error; and should heed the warnings re the Holy Spirit; as although you and Purity will not answer the questions posed to you; you have vicariously, by denying Christ Jesus' statement!
Floyd.

 

[Purity]

Objection

It would seem that the persons cannot be predicated of the concrete essential names; so that we can say for instance, God is three persons; or, God is the Trinity. For it is false to say, man is every man, because it cannot be verified as regards any particular subject. For neither Socrates, nor Plato, nor Floyd is every man. In the same way this proposition, God is the Trinity, cannot be verified of any one of the supposita of the divine nature. For the Father is not the Trinity; nor is the Son; nor is the Holy Ghost. So to say, God is the Trinity, is false.

 

[lforrest]

Objection

It would seem that the persons cannot be predicated of the concrete essential names; so that we can say for instance, God is three persons; or, God is the Trinity. For it is false to say, man is every man, because it cannot be verified as regards any particular subject. For neither Socrates, nor Plato, nor Floyd is every man. In the same way this proposition, God is the Trinity, cannot be verified of any one of the supposita of the divine nature. For the Father is not the Trinity; nor is the Son; nor is the Holy Ghost. So to say, God is the Trinity, is false.

 

[Purity]

[SIZE=.92em]Hi has been thinking how Trinitarians readily admit that the Trinity is beyond our finite capacity to understand or explain Him in an exhaustive sense. There is simply nothing in this world which is one and three at the same time, in the same sense in which God is One and Three. The Trinity is incomprehensible.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=.92em]It ends in a mystery; something unknown, and like himself now a stone statue..our minds go to Acts 17:23 where Paul speaks concerning the unknown God not one and three and three in one but: [/SIZE]

[SIZE=.92em]The God (Yahweh) who made the world and everything in it, who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by human hands, 25[/SIZE] nor is he served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives life and breath and everything to everyone. [SIZE=80%]26[/SIZE] From one man he made every nation of the human race to inhabit the entire earth, determining their set times and the fixed limits of the places where they would live, [SIZE=80%]27[/SIZE] so that they would search for God and perhaps grope around for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. [SIZE=80%]28[/SIZE] For in him we live and move about and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’ [SIZE=80%]29[/SIZE] So since we are God’s offspring, we should not think the deity is like gold or silver or stone, an image made by human skill and imagination. [SIZE=80%]30[/SIZE] Therefore, although God has overlooked such times of ignorance, he now commands all people everywhere to repent, [SIZE=80%]31[/SIZE] because he has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he (Yahweh) designated, having provided proof to everyone by raising him (a man) from the dead.”

 

[nothead]

From nothead:

The issue came to a head in 1914 when the minority of Oneness Believers split from the Trinitarians. This was because the Trin formulation in Mt 28:19 was not ever used in Acts, the 4x it was said they were baptised in Jesus' name. Oneness do not deny the verse, they have re-interpreted it to mean the SINGULAR name of God is "Jesus" which IS the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

From Floyd:
Thanks for the history, but it is well known.
It is human, and therefore in error as usual!
When referring back to Scripture; and examining your text above (Mt.28:19); and referring to scholars of eminence and Christ humility with both old Hebrew and Greek; the consensus of that command from Jesus is that of final confirmation of the "Oneness of the Three" , which confirms the later statements in Rev.
This means, that you and others on this pathway are in gross error; and should heed the warnings re the Holy Spirit; as although you and Purity will not answer the questions posed to you; you have vicariously, by denying Christ Jesus' statement!
Floyd.

Lettuce take a look at Jesus' statement.

[SIZE=.75em]18 [/SIZE]And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
[SIZE=.75em]19 [/SIZE]Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
[SIZE=.75em]20 [/SIZE]Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

First problem I see: all power IS GIVEN to him. This is consistent throughout NT, that Jesus has BEEN GIVEN power and glory.

Jn 17

[SIZE=.75em]21 [/SIZE]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.
[SIZE=.75em]22 [/SIZE]And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
[SIZE=.75em]23 [/SIZE]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.
[SIZE=.75em]24 [/SIZE]Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

See, forest if all power was his, then why does it have to be GIVEN by another? He is God. He has all glory and if he relinquishes it, then all he has to do is take it back. TO BE GIVEN implies a GIVER who is God. Two Gods do not be kosher, I will repeat.

Second problem, 4x in Acts the baptisms were done IN THE SINGULAR NAME OF JESUS. Now, if there was any way the Split in 1914 could have NOT HAPPENED it would be because the scintillating theologians of the day COULD RECONCILE THIS PROBLEM.

Alas it could not be done then and it cannot be done now. Unfortunately whoever INSERTED this verse is gonna get smacked. Eviller things have been done, but this one establishes your own paradigm. And I feel for you, bro.

The reason why it cannot be reconciled is that the contradiction is just too acute. For the mandate to be given as you think, Jesus saying for them to be baptized into a NEW NAME which encompasses THREE PERSONS of God (and assuming he in a quiet corner explained to them the Trinity paradigm in SOME WAY)...for them to then go out and baptize in HIS NAME is simply untenable.

See, all scripture must make sense. If it don't then MAKE IT. Since otherwise you only consider contradictions in your bean.

I believe therefore the 28:19 verse is an insert. It is no accident this one and the Johannine Comma both speak of your vaunted and false Trinity.

Third problem: The Trinity God is mentioned no where else but these two verses. Funny how He popped up out of nowhere. Maybe He is a figment of a few's imaginations. Yeah, that's the ticket. Whoo Hoo!! Whoops, I guess I was disrespectful. I humbly apologize.

Consideration: Eusebius mentions 18 times a short version of Jesus' mandate without the Trin formula before the Council of Nicea and 3x the long version after Nicea. But these do not reconcile since some of the examples BEFORE have "Jesus" as the name baptized into.

We are either baptized into Jesus or we are baptized into the Trinity God. There's really no leaway here, and even from trin-view it does not make sense.

[SIZE=.92em]Hi has been thinking how Trinitarians readily admit that the Trinity is beyond our finite capacity to understand or explain Him in an exhaustive sense. There is simply nothing in this world which is one and three at the same time, in the same sense in which God is One and Three. The Trinity is incomprehensible.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=.92em]It ends in a mystery; something unknown, and like himself now a stone statue..our minds go to Acts 17:23 where Paul speaks concerning the unknown God not one and three and three in one but: [/SIZE]

[SIZE=.92em]The God (Yahweh) who made the world and everything in it, who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by human hands, 25[/SIZE] nor is he served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives life and breath and everything to everyone. [SIZE=80%]26[/SIZE] From one man he made every nation of the human race to inhabit the entire earth, determining their set times and the fixed limits of the places where they would live, [SIZE=80%]27[/SIZE] so that they would search for God and perhaps grope around for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. [SIZE=80%]28[/SIZE] For in him we live and move about and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’ [SIZE=80%]29[/SIZE] So since we are God’s offspring, we should not think the deity is like gold or silver or stone, an image made by human skill and imagination. [SIZE=80%]30[/SIZE] Therefore, although God has overlooked such times of ignorance, he now commands all people everywhere to repent, [SIZE=80%]31[/SIZE] because he has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he (Yahweh) designated, having provided proof to everyone by raising him (a man) from the dead.”

Yes, there was no reason for Paul to explain a MONOTHEISTIC God to these people who had plural Gods galore. He could in fact describe Jesus as God and they would not be offended in the least.

 

[Wormwood]

First problem I see: all power IS GIVEN to him. This is consistent throughout NT, that Jesus has BEEN GIVEN power and glory.

nothead,

This is not a problem. Jesus poured himself out in becoming a man, and I believe that while he was divine, he truly lived as a man. Many times in Scripture it says that Jesus did miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus truly lived as a man and the power he displayed (in my opinion) was not a result of his divinity at work, but was a result of the Holy Spirit moving through him. Jesus grew in wisdom and stature because he was a man. He did miracles by the power of the Spirit, because he was a man. He prayed and sought guidance and direction from the Father, because he was a man. He claimed he did not know the day or hour of his return, because he was a man.

I do not hold to the kenotic view that Jesus gave up his divinity in the incarnation, but I do believe Jesus operated entirely as a human being...even though he preexisted as the divine Word. He had no special advantage because he lived out of his humanity and did not draw upon his divine authority or power to aid him in his mission. Rather, he lived as a man who relied on the Spirit and prayed and sought the Father. Thus, Jesus was not a half-man, half-God who was neither fully either. This is not a Trinitarian view. Jesus was "fully" man. Thus, he was "given" glory and power, but it was the glory and power he had prior to the foundation of the world (John 17:24).

See, forest if all power was his, then why does it have to be GIVEN by another? He is God. He has all glory and if he relinquishes it, then all he has to do is take it back. TO BE GIVEN implies a GIVER who is God. Two Gods do not be kosher, I will repeat.

Jesus was a man who was born in 4 BC. He (the human being) received glory and power as the incarnate Word that had conquered death and the grave...I will repeat.

Second problem, 4x in Acts the baptisms were done IN THE SINGULAR NAME OF JESUS. Now, if there was any way the Split in 1914 could have NOT HAPPENED it would be because the scintillating theologians of the day COULD RECONCILE THIS PROBLEM.

Alas it could not be done then and it cannot be done now. Unfortunately whoever INSERTED this verse is gonna get smacked. Eviller things have been done, but this one establishes your own paradigm. And I feel for you, bro.

This is a silly argument. The book of Acts is not an exhaustive compilation of every event and word spoken in the early church. Tons of arguments could be made like this and they would all be just as silly. We could say, "it is not necessary to believe to be saved." And I could reference Acts 2:38-39 and say, "See, Peter never says, 'believe,' he only says repent and be baptized." I could reference Acts 8:12 says the people believed and were baptized, but did not receive the Holy Spirit until Acts 8:15-16. Then I could point Acts 8 with the Ethiopian and say that the text never explicitly says the Ethiopian "believed" but only says he was baptized. Those texts that spoke of the necessity of belief, I could just say were added later. The argument would be just a silly as the one you have provided.

We all know such an argument is silly. Belief in all of these instances (and others) is clearly implied. Moreover, the baptism in the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is clearly not a rigid formula, but denotes the "name" or particular understanding of God that is expressed in the name of Jesus as well as it is in the full formula of Father, Son and Spirit. This makes perfect sense for Trinitarians since Jesus is God and to be baptized into the name of Jesus is to be baptized into the name of the God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit (as opposed to Judaism that did not recognize Jesus, the Roman gods, etc.) This is only a problem for those in your camp who have to find some alternative reason for Jesus' comments in Matthew 28. There is zero evidence that Matthew 28:19 was added.

[SIZE=medium]In the light of this fulness of the accomplished salvation in Christ, the crucified and resurrected Lord, the argument against the authenticity of the baptismal command on the basis of its trinitarian formula is no longer valid. Rather, we should recognize that Matthew 28:19 is a rich revelation regarding baptism in the context of the trinitarian fulness of God. Baptism is now related clearly to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Undoubtedly there is progress here in the trinitarian revelation, for, although Christ had also spoken of the Father and the Holy Spirit before his resurrection, he speaks now in this explicit form of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since textual criticism provides no evidence whatsoever that this passage is a later interpolation, it is clear that the objectors have simply applied human standards to divine revelation. Their method rests on “a priori assumptions when reading the gospel.”27[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]G. C. Berkouwer, The Sacraments, Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, MN: Eerdmans, 1969), 104–105.[/SIZE]

 

[Floyd]

Wormwood:
We all know such an argument is silly. Belief in all of these instances (and others) is clearly implied. Moreover, the baptism in the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is clearly not a rigid formula, but denotes the "name" or particular understanding of God that is expressed in the name of Jesus as well as it is in the full formula of Father, Son and Spirit. This makes perfect sense for Trinitarians since Jesus is God and to be baptized into the name of Jesus is to be baptized into the name of the God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit (as opposed to Judaism that did not recognize Jesus, the Roman gods, etc.) This is only a problem for those in your camp who have to find some alternative reason for Jesus' comments in Matthew 28. There is zero evidence that Matthew 28:19 was added.


Quote

[SIZE=medium]In the light of this fulness of the accomplished salvation in Christ, the crucified and resurrected Lord, the argument against the authenticity of the baptismal command on the basis of its trinitarian formula is no longer valid. Rather, we should recognize that Matthew 28:19 is a rich revelation regarding baptism in the context of the trinitarian fulness of God. Baptism is now related clearly to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Undoubtedly there is progress here in the trinitarian revelation, for, although Christ had also spoken of the Father and the Holy Spirit before his resurrection, he speaks now in this explicit form of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since textual criticism provides no evidence whatsoever that this passage is a later interpolation, it is clear that the objectors have simply applied human standards to divine revelation. Their method rests on “a priori assumptions when reading the gospel.”27[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]G. C. Berkouwer, The Sacraments, Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, MN: Eerdmans, 1969), 104–105.[/SIZE]

Floyd.

 

[nothead]

nothead,

This is not a problem. Jesus poured himself out in becoming a man, and I believe that while he was divine, he truly lived as a man. Many times in Scripture it says that Jesus did miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus truly lived as a man and the power he displayed (in my opinion) was not a result of his divinity at work, but was a result of the Holy Spirit moving through him. Jesus grew in wisdom and stature because he was a man. He did miracles by the power of the Spirit, because he was a man. He prayed and sought guidance and direction from the Father, because he was a man. He claimed he did not know the day or hour of his return, because he was a man.

Of course I believe this too, and don't add the God part. Fully God. Not in the Bible.

I do not hold to the kenotic view that Jesus gave up his divinity in the incarnation, but I do believe Jesus operated entirely as a human being...even though he preexisted as the divine Word. He had no special advantage because he lived out of his humanity and did not draw upon his divine authority or power to aid him in his mission. Rather, he lived as a man who relied on the Spirit and prayed and sought the Father. Thus, Jesus was not a half-man, half-God who was neither fully either. This is not a Trinitarian view. Jesus was "fully" man. Thus, he was "given" glory and power, but it was the glory and power he had prior to the foundation of the world (John 17:24).

The unitarian view is that he only had it as promise before the foundation of the world. Jn 17 begins by seemingly implying that he SHARED IT as a God with God, but this is not kosher. And the same John who said in v. 3:

This is eternal life that they know thee the only true God and Christ Jesus whom thou hast sent.

...would not say this concept at all, God with God.

Look at the bottom of chpt 17

[SIZE=.75em]24 [/SIZE]Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

See how this verse is more conducive to my paradigm than v. 5. It was the PROMISE which God intended for Jesus to have. He told Jesus (I am speculating) that he Jesus would suffer, be tortured and die in agony, but that He would ALSO give him strength and the power to withstand through the Shekinah spirit of God.

Jesus HAD it with God in the past tense because that was when God promised him, even before Creation. This is completely in line with Jewish thought concerning pre-existence, BELIEVERS being in the Book of Life, Saints being foreordained to be annointed to do great works, etc.

He speaks MORE PERSONABLY to YHWH Elohim than any man would dare to, this intimate HAVING even before he was born, yet for him it WAS PERSONAL, the promise was made TO NO OTHER BUT HIM.

And he needs it, he NEEDS it, he already knew the agony of trepidations concerning, his drops like blood falling...THIS is what he asks for which has not come yet.

Jesus was a man who was born in 4 BC. He (the human being) received glory and power as the incarnate Word that had conquered death and the grave...I will repeat.

A God with God before the Foundation of the World is just too not Jewish. John would not say it. Two Gods to begin with. Only Philo the Jew ever seems to have no shame. HE said this was reality. John would not.

This is a silly argument. The book of Acts is not an exhaustive compilation of every event and word spoken in the early church. Tons of arguments could be made like this and they would all be just as silly. We could say, "it is not necessary to believe to be saved." And I could reference Acts 2:38-39 and say, "See, Peter never says, 'believe,' he only says repent and be baptized." I could reference Acts 8:12 says the people believed and were baptized, but did not receive the Holy Spirit until Acts 8:15-16. Then I could point Acts 8 with the Ethiopian and say that the text never explicitly says the Ethiopian "believed" but only says he was baptized. Those texts that spoke of the necessity of belief, I could just say were added later. The argument would be just a silly as the one you have provided.

If God told me or you to baptize in this new NAME OF GOD, a three part synthesis of names making a name, would YOU or I go out and then do this ONLY in his name? The text clearly says so. 4x to be exact, and NO times in this new 'name.'

We all know such an argument is silly. Belief in all of these instances (and others) is clearly implied. Moreover, the baptism in the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is clearly not a rigid formula, but denotes the "name" or particular understanding of God that is expressed in the name of Jesus as well as it is in the full formula of Father, Son and Spirit. This makes perfect sense for Trinitarians since Jesus is God and to be baptized into the name of Jesus is to be baptized into the name of the God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit (as opposed to Judaism that did not recognize Jesus, the Roman gods, etc.) This is only a problem for those in your camp who have to find some alternative reason for Jesus' comments in Matthew 28. There is zero evidence that Matthew 28:19 was added.

You say it isn't RIGID but all knew even Paul how very important the name which was used was. He was glad he baptized FEW since they would have or might have said they were baptised in HIS OWN name. THAT would be blasphemy to Paul.

1 Cor 14

[SIZE=.75em]12 [/SIZE]Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
[SIZE=.75em]13 [/SIZE]Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
[SIZE=.75em]14 [/SIZE]I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
[SIZE=.75em]15 [/SIZE]Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

 

[Wormwood]

Of course I believe this too, and don't add the God part. Fully God. Not in the Bible.

So why are you using it as an argument against Trinitarians if you are in agreement with our views in this matter?

The unitarian view is that he only had it as promise before the foundation of the world. Jn 17 begins by seemingly implying that he SHARED IT as a God with God, but this is not kosher. And the same John who said in v. 3:

This is eternal life that they know thee the only true God and Christ Jesus whom thou hast sent.

...would not say this concept at all, God with God.

Have you noticed how many of your arguments have really nothing to do with what Scripture actually teaches but your continual referrals to what you think would have been "kosher." Here are some other issues that the Jews would not have viewed as "kosher" that are clear teachings of Jesus and the early church.

• The Messiah dying on a Roman cross (Paul classifies as "foolishness" to Jews and Greeks)
• The Messiah establishing a spiritual kingdom rather than overthrowing the Romans
• The virgin birth of a Messiah born to peasants
• Teaching that circumcision was not necessary to be a part of God's faithful
• Entering into the home of Gentiles
• Considering Gentiles as grafted into Israel through faith in Jesus alone.
• The view that sacrifice was no longer necessary in the Temple after the sacrifice of Jesus
• The idea that someone could be a child of God and eat "unclean" foods
• The idea that the Sabbath was no longer necessary but fulfilled in the work of Christ

Should I go on? Your arguments against the Trinity are regularly in lines of, "Yeah I know that's what it says and what it looks like, but that is obviously not what Jews would have expected." This idea that the Word was really a prespoken Word, or that the preexistant glory of Christ was not really due to Christ's pre-existence but simply that God thought about him prior to his existence. Well, if that is the case, aren't we all preexistant? I mean, God knows all things and knew that he would create each of us before he actually did....so does that mean we all have existed from eternity past? How about our furture glory we will inherit? If we will be glorified in God presence because of faith in Christ, does that mean we had glory before the foundation of the world since God knew beforehand who would believe? This whole "God knew beforehand" as a means to explain these Scriptures simply doesn't hold water nothead. Only nodders nod to such nodsense.

If God told me or you to baptize in this new NAME OF GOD, a three part synthesis of names making a name, would YOU or I go out and then do this ONLY in his name? The text clearly says so. 4x to be exact, and NO times in this new 'name.'

You are thinking like a Western American in formulas and replicable patterns like making disciples is some sort of industrialized program that follows a 3-step program and specific phrases. Moreover, as I said, we don't have an extensive detailed account of everything that happened. For instance, read Paul's conversion story in Acts 9 and Paul's retelling of this account in Acts 22. There are details we do not get in one instance that we do get in another. So on two counts I think you are making major theological leaps about the nature of God based on a host of invalid assumptions.

 

[Purity]

But wormwood we are yet to see your Scriptural argument and in fact you bowed out because of the volume of quotes and their interpretation against Trinitarian teaching clearly overwhelmed you - you personally got as far as Phil 2 and no further - go back and re-read our interactions - you ended up saying "maybe" and well "this might be so, but". Its a bit rich of you to suggest Nothead has not been dealing with the text though I doubt this will have any influence on your understanding - the mould has been cast.
Purity

 

[Wormwood]

Yes, well your interpretation of my being "overwhelmed" in my writing is similar to your interpretation of Scripture. I am not surprised you have this take on our conversation.

 

[Purity]

Yes, well your interpretation of my being "overwhelmed" in my writing is similar to your interpretation of Scripture. I am not surprised you have this take on our conversation.

What other take is there Wormwood? You started a thread in defence of the Trinity, which I was looking forward too, only to wet our appetite with Phil 2 and then you pull the pin.

I have no doubt whatsoever you actually learned something about the true context of Phil 2...if not, it open your eyes to the possibility you "may" be wrong...and that's saying something!

I have searched the Scriptures for a context which enables even the slightest hint of the Trinity but to no avail.

Overall the thread has been disappointing.

 

[Floyd]

From Purity:
But wormwood we are yet to see your Scriptural argument and in fact you bowed out because of the volume of quotes and their interpretation against Trinitarian teaching clearly overwhelmed you

From Floyd.:
But Purity we are yet to see your Scriptural argument and in fact you bowed out because of the specific question and its interpretation for Trinitarian teaching clearly overwhelmed you:

Vis: do you treat the Holy Spirit in the same way you treat our Lord Christ Jesus?
I think this is the 8th time of asking! We expect the usual silence!
Floyd.

 

[Purity]

Vis: do you treat the Holy Spirit in the same way you treat our Lord Christ Jesus?
I think this is the 8th time of asking! We expect the usual silence!
Floyd.

Floyd,

When you say "treat" what do you imply? 2 Tim 2:15

 

[Floyd]

Floyd, on 14 Apr 2014 - 07:09 AM, said:

Vis: do you treat the Holy Spirit in the same way you treat our Lord Christ Jesus?
I think this is the 8th time of asking! We expect the usual silence!
Floyd.

Floyd,

When you say "treat" what do you imply? 2 Tim 2:15 (Purity)

Floyd:
I think you know what I mean!
The question remains the same!
Floyd.