The doctrine of the trinity, it's origins

[Waiting on him]

While we wait on DNB response,
Scripture #3 that was posted.

John 15:26 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me”.

GREAT verse, as I have always said, JESUS is the Holy Spirit/the Holy Ghost. lets break this scripture down, here we have Jesus testifying that he will send the “Comforter”… correct, well lets see if this is true. John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you”. HOLD IT, stop the press, the “Father” will send the Comforter? but did not the Lord Jesus said in the scripture given, John 15:26 above that he. the Lord Jesus will sent the Comforter? READ both of those verses again.

now there is only one conclusion, either Jesus is the Father which is a title of the “COMFORTER”, or the Lord Jesus lied. knowing that the Lord Jesus cannot lie, then he, Jesus is the Father who is the Holy Spirit who comes. lets see if this is true

Evidence #1. John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever”. Hold it, Jesus said that the Father, which is him, (diversified), will give you “ANOTHER” Comforter. lets see whom this “ANOTHER” Comforter is, lets keep on reading.
John 14:17 "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you”. (Now keep your hats on, for the very next verse tells us who the Comforter is).

John 14:18 "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you”. BINGO,the Lord Jesus is the “ANOTHER” Comforter to come. man oh man, someone would have to pay you overtime to miss this. did one hear what the Lord JESUS said, “I WILL NOT LEAVE YOU COMFORTLESS…. I WILL COME TO YOU”. how plain can one get.

Evidence #2. the key that unlock JESUS as the “Comforter” is the word “ANOTHER”, as in “ANOTHER” Comforter… (smile). lets see what “ANOTHER” means here. it’s the Greek Word G243 Allos, sound familiar? it should, for this word is the key to understanding God “Diversity” as the ANOTHER comforter. see post #7 again. now back to JESUS as Comforter. for John 14:16 states, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter”. well who was the first Comforter? the “SON”, God, the Holy Spirit …. WITH Flesh, and with bone, and with BLOOD. listen, Luke 2:25 "And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him”. notice the word consolation here it’s the Greek word, G3874 παράκλησις paraklesis (pa-ra'-klee-sis)
1. an imploration, entreaty (urgent request (for mercy or help)).
2. an exhortation (urgent counsel, encouragement, or caution).
3. a comfort, solace.
[from G3870]
KJV: comfort, consolation, exhortation, intreaty
Root(s): G3870
See also: G3875

my source for this definition is the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments. notice definition #1. & #3. definition #1. an imploration, entreaty (urgent request (for mercy or help)). someone who gives “help” is a helper… ;) , and someone who gives “comfort” is a COMFORTER :cool: . the definition also states see G3875, well lets see what G3875 states. G3875 παράκλητος parakletos (pa-ra'-klee-tos) n.
1. (properly) one called near (to give help).
2. an intercessor (one who entreats of behalf of another).
3. a comforter.
[(not given)]
KJV: advocate, comforter

HOLD IT …. a “COMFORTER?” yes, the FIRST comforter is the Lord Jesus in flesh and blood as a man, the SON. now, in John 14:16-18 he returns as the “ANOTHER” Comforter in Spirit, the FATHER. can we prove this? yes, for the term “Comforter” is also MEDIATOR, scripture, 1 John 2:1 "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous”

the term “Advocate” is the same word for “Comforter” G3875 παράκλητος parakletos (pa-ra'-klee-tos) n.
1. (properly) one called near (to give help).
2. an intercessor (one who entreats of behalf of another).
3. a comforter.
[(not given)]
KJV: advocate, comforter

BINGO, JESUS who is “Lord”, and LORD, is the Comforter, and “Advocate”. an Advocate is also a word for, “MEDIATOR”. lets see who this MEDATOR is. Galatians 3:16 "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Galatians 3:17 "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Galatians 3:18 "For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Galatians 3:19 "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Galatians 3:20 "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one”. now the question is why and how?

keep your eyes on verse 20 here as we go to Hebrews and see why God himself in flesh is the “MEDIATOR”. and WITHOUT flesh is "COMFORTER", listen,
Hebrews 6:13 "For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself”, BINGO, JESUS is the COMFORTER, and the MEDIATOR, who is the Father, the Spirit diversifed in Flesh. better kown as the ROOT and the OFFSPRING, at the same time..... my Lord this is too easy.

PICJAG

According too your post the second advent has already occurred.

 

[DNB]

"Thus, all things were created for Christ"....where is that in the Bible?

New Testament.

 

[DNB]

Yep I checked out his other messages.

Thank you!

 

[DNB]

I went back to see what he had been posting, but I think his posts have been deleted, because I got a forum error.

Yes, I think that's what occurs when one gets banned.

 

[DNB]

The umbilical cord is the connection that provides nutrients from the mother's placenta to the baby. I don't know how this can have anything to do with the virgin birth.

That's my point, it was meant to prove his humanity. I was replying to 101G's comment that claimed that because his birth was not of a human father, therefore, he wasn't human.

 

[Waiting on him]

Ok, you are a modalist. I keep pressing the issue, so that i know how to respond to you. Where to refute, and where to agree.
You seem to have a reasonable knowledge of Greek, or you are a good researcher. But, on the other hand, why in the world would you spend time addressing the Comma Johanneum, when anyone with just a cursory knowledge of our manuscript tradition, knows that it's not an authentic Biblical verse? Even the most 'astute' trinitarians would know that.

Spirit cannot die, there is no sacrifice or threat when the immortal 'dies', for the mortal. There is nothing exemplary in such an pseudo act of obedience and sacrifice. You make a farce of God's judicial system by making such claims. Jesus, the 200% human, died on the cross for something that he didn't deserve, in the hope that God will accept his sacrifice, and raise him from the dead. This is the beauty of the Gospel, of Christ's love and faith, and of God's wisdom. Not the utter absurdity of God loving and obeying Himself, and then raising Himself from the dead.
101G, you see my point, right?

What I see is a man orchestrate His own crucifixion.

 

[DNB]

And what annoys me intensely is that people blindly following those that deceive as if they are the fount of all wisdom. I have challenged leadership on more than one occasion because what they were teaching was blatant lies and you should have seen the anger rise up and try to justify their deception.

The fact is they DO NOT like being brought to account about anything. As far as they are concerned they have been approved by the denomination so that is all that needs to be said.

I agree, as long as the have a following, or some sort of authority on their side, they will at all costs do what it takes to preserve that. Very sinister and anti-Christian. Christ came to serve, and set that example for others to follow, denouncing the authority that the leaders imposed on their subjects.

Mark 10:42-45
10:42. Calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, "You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. 43. "But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; 44. and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. 45. "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

 

[Dcopymope]

New Testament.

Ok, where exactly? If you are in contention with what is plainly stated, then you have to prove your interpretation to be at all legitimate by citing it.

 

[marksman]

So what you are claiming is that the recorded words and commands of Christ should be simply ignored by genuine believers. Is that foolishness or blasphemy?

While we do not see that command of Christ repeated in the book of Acts, "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" implies in the name of God. And the name of God includes the three divine Persons of the Godhead (Mt 28:19).

And to prove that this is true, we have the recorded words of Justin Martyr as well as the writer of the Didache establishing the fact that the early Christians did exactly what the Lord commanded.

"St. Justin Martyr (100–165) was a second-century Christian apologist and one of our earliest testimonies to the worship of the Early Church. A pagan convert, he died a Christian martyr in Rome. In St. Justin’s First Apology (ca. 150), he writes regarding Christian Baptism:

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. "

"The Didache On The Baptism Of Converts

Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. And before the baptism let the one baptizing and the who who is to be baptized fast, as well as any others who are able. Also, you must instruct the one who is to be baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.

Didache, ch. 7 (early 2nd century) trans. Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).

But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. (Didache.)

Where does it say to do this in the New Testament?

When you only refer to one or two sources you get into all sorts of problems because you dig a hole for yourself and then you fall in it as is the case here. My study of baptism has covered I don't know how many years and how many books and how many denominations and of course the scriptures in the Greek and having the ministry of a teacher, if I find a claim that is not sustainable because so many others say otherwise, I dig even deeper to find support for the suspect comment. If it doesn't appear to be there I ditch the comment.

Like all my study I always start with what the scripture says and move out from there. And as that comment in the Didache is not in scripture it is suspect. As we all know, denominations have a tendency to make something say what they want it to say so even scripture itself has been altered to say certain things that the church wants to emphasize. I have heard all sorts of wonderful explanations from scripture for what the Catholics believe.

A case in question is the baptism in the trinity which was altered from its original form. As we all know when you lie invariably you have to keep lying to cover up the original lie. That is what has happened. I was brought up in the Baptist denomination and when I was baptized in water the trinitarian form was quoted to me. Not one of the other verses in Acts about baptism was mentioned even though every one of them contradicted the trinitarian baptism.

When I moved to the charismatic brethren, I was taught the whole counsel of God and it was very clear that trinitarian baptism was not supported by scripture overall.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Yes, I think that's what occurs when one gets banned.

I thought my comments were borderline sometimes but his comments must have been right out at left field!

 

[marksman]

Three persons, one essence. Let US (plural) make man in OUR (plural) own image.

I understood this to be God speaking to Jesus. One can have two and make man in OUR image.

 

[Paul Christensen]

That's my point, it was meant to prove his humanity. I was replying to 101G's comment that claimed that because his birth was not of a human father, therefore, he wasn't human.

Oh yes! You are correct. Jesus had to be totally human in order to be our perfect sacrifice for sin. He had to be one of us yet sinlessly perfect.

 

[DNB]

So I have another question.....
What changes in our spiritual beliefs that are based on the Foundation of Christ if we believe in the Trinity Doctrine or the Oneness Doctrine?
I can't see where it alters how we are saved, how we pray, how we receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit and how we live as Christ lived.

Hi H2S, if I was to offer an opinion, i would say that ultimately, it reflects how we perceive God. By stating that this is how we believe that God has revealed his Word to us, says something about Him. i.e. Has He defined the trinity in the Biblical manner that He did?
When we describe His judicial system in any particular manner, eg. God obeyed Himself and raised Himself, it reveals what we think about His wisdom and justice.
When we define His son, as either a deity or a man, again, it says a lot about how we regard God's plan for mankind.
If we claim that God is one, and three-in-one, we have made an extremely profound pronouncement about His ontology, which can be defaming with certain definitions eg: is there redundancy in the Godhead having 3 omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient persons? ..why have 3, when only 1 will suffice to create the universe, answer all prayers, be providential to His creation, interact with immanency, retain his aseity, etc...
In short, everything that we believe about God and His Word, reflects a certain esteem that we have for Him, in His ontology, wisdom and justice.

Also, I feel that the doctrine of the trinity has repelled so many Jews and Muslims from becoming Christians. They take great offense to God becoming a man, and being mocked, ridiculed, slapped and beaten by His own creation.
What one believes, reflects a great deal about where their heart is at.

 

[DNB]

Ok, where exactly? If you are in contention with what is plainly stated, then you have to prove your interpretation to be at all legitimate by citing it.

Colossians 1:16-16
1:16. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Don't ask me again what 'by' means, I already explained that part 'via' (1st sentence, 2nd word)

 

[DNB]

I thought my comments were borderline sometimes but his comments must have been right out at left field!

Me too, (1st part). ...No, not exactly, you don't have to necessarily be rude or aggressive, just deliberately annoying and harassing, like this guy was.

 

[DNB]

Oh yes! You are correct. Jesus had to be totally human in order to be our perfect sacrifice for sin. He had to be one of us yet sinlessly perfect.

Yes, 200% percent agreed, exclusively. ...thus I cannot at all, see a single ground for His need to be God. ....I do not believe in the Penal Substitution Theory, at all.

 

[Dcopymope]

Colossians 1:16-16
1:16. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Don't ask me again what 'by' means, I already explained that part 'via' (1st sentence, 2nd word)

So who is Jesus supposed to be to you?

 

[DNB]

So who is Jesus supposed to be to you?

Seriously, after all this, we've gone back to square one?

 

[Dcopymope]

Seriously, after all this, we've gone back to square one?

Yep, who is Jesus to you? Its a simple question really.

 

[DNB]

Yep, who is Jesus to you? Its a simple question really.

Let's see how simple it is, ...he is the son of Joseph & Mary.