The Trinity

[Davy]

I believe in the Trinity and I believe Jesus is God.
However, here's the problem that was presented in the O.P. and why I said it is not a salvation issue:

The Christ and Messiah are the same title.
It means the One sent by God...or the Annointed One.

Well, Jesus has more titles that just The Christ (or Messiah), and they are even more proof that He is God come in the flesh. His name 'Immanuel' tells us that, which means, 'with us is God'.

That's different than just saying Jesus was 'an' anointed one, like king David or God's prophets. And didn't the orthodox Jews understand His name "Immanuel" from the Book of Isaiah? including the Isaiah 9:6 Scripture pointing to Messiah? Thus Matthew 1:23 declares what His name Immanuel means explicitly, but the orthodox unbelieving Jews don't recognize The Gospel of Jesus Christ, so they don't read The New Testament Scriptures that shows that emphatically that Jesus is God come in the flesh.

Even JWs state that Jesus is the son of God...of course they don't mean the SON OF GOD, as we understand it.

I don't keep up with what all the JWs believe. But I do know one of their ideas is they believe Lord Jesus is the Archangel Michael, which is not Biblical.

Because someone cannot grasp the Trnity but they believe in God and follow what they believe to be His rules/laws...
can we say they are lost?

What gives us the right to say anyone is lost?
We can only give an opinion as to whether or not they're Christian...
but only God knows who is saved or not.

I think you well know this matter is not... simply about whether or not one understands the trinity of The Godhead.

It is about 'believing'... that Jesus of Nazareth is GOD The Son come in the flesh, to die on the cross for the remission of the sins of those who believe. Anyone who doesn't believe that Jesus of Nazareth is Immanuel, God come in the flesh, defaults to believing just on a man no different than us that cannot save.

That's actually what the unbelieving Jews and children of darkness think about us in Christ who do believe Jesus of Nazareth is God come in the flesh. They even think we have added another God to The Bible with our belief on Jesus as God, all because they believe Jesus of Nazareth was just a man like us, and not God. Don't you remember that is the main point the scribes and Pharisees used to deliver Jesus up to be crucified, the fact that Jesus declared He is God? (John 5:18; John 10:30-33)

Right.
But where does it say in any of your verses that Jesus is the 2nd Person of the Trinity and that this is what we MUST believe to be saved?

It's the very subject Apostle John was pointing to about believing that Jesus is God come in the flesh.

1 John 2:22-23
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
KJV

What John showed there is that if one denies The Son, they do not have The Father. That is a type of declaration that Jesus is co-equal with The Father. And didn't Jesus say that He and The Father are One? (John 10:30). Thus John also says there that to believe ("acknowledgeth") on The Son also has The Father, again showing they are co-equal. It's pretty much an emphatic example of Apostle John declaring that Jesus of Nazareth is God.

2 John 7
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
KJV

The 1 John 2 Scripture should have been understood first before getting to this 2 John 7 Scripture, where John makes it very clear what he is saying, that the unbelievers that are antichrists deny that Jesus of Nazareth is God come in the flesh.

 

[GodsGrace]

my objection to "Trinity" centers more on the doctrine than the practice, gg; it is used to divide rather than unite

I give you that this idea of the Trinity developed over some time.
If we read scripture carefully we find that a clear statement that Jesus is God is nowhere to be found.
We have verses like Thomas saying: My Lord and My God.
Titus also has another very good verse.

It's a problem if someone believes that Jesus is just one more "light" from God sent to let God be known.
He came back from the dead and claimed to be divine.
No other light from God has done this.

So if it divides us, maybe it should?

I'm OK to separate those that have some special understanding about Jesus and have a problem with the Trinity but still
believe that He is God in the flesh.

But too many want to state that Jesus is not God but still call themselves Christian.

Is this right?
Then what makes us be Christian?
And who decides?

 

[GodsGrace]

Matthew 28: 19

Baptize them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

The New American Bible says:

"This is perhaps the clearest expression in the New Testament of Trinitarian belief."

In a few seconds you will see how preposterous this statement really is. This verse has absolutely nothing Trinitarian about it. It is about Jesus sending them out to proclaim the gospel to the nations. First, a few definitions according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words:

Baptize - The phrase in Matthew 28: 19, "baptizing them into the name" would indicate that the baptized person was closely bound to, or became property of, the one into whose name he was "baptized."

Name - Represents the authority, character. Expressing attributes. In acknowledgment or confession of.

This verse has nothing to do with water baptizing. With these definitions we can safely paraphrase this verse as follows:

"Go out into the world and introduce or bring them into the knowledge of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"

Which is exactly what they did. The Apostles went out into the Gentile world and brought them the knowledge of who the only God is, who the Messiah is, and about the gifts of the Holy Spirit which they were going to receive. But as you can see, this has nothing to do with the three being one. Human tradition has made this a Trinitarian verse.

There is also a very strong position held by many scholars that this verse was not part of the original text of Matthew’s Gospel, as Eusebius, a third century Christian apologist, quoted the text in a shorter form: "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in my name" rather than the form which now appears in the gospel. One commentator writes,

"There is much probability in the conjecture that it is the original text of the gospel, and that in the second century the longer clause supplanted the shorter ‘baptizing them in my name.’ An insertion of this kind, derived from liturgical use, would have rapidly been adopted by copyist and translators" (The International Critical Commentary, by Willoughby C. Allen Volume 26, pp. 307-308).

This position has strong Biblical support by the fact that the Apostles at no recorded instance baptize using the formula of "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" as Jesus supposedly commanded them to do. They always baptize "In the name of Jesus Christ."

Act 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Also the parallel passage in Mark 16:15-18 does not mention in any way this trine formula, and the Gospel of Mark is believed to be written before Matthew.

Paul

Hi Paul,
Could you read my post no. 22 and comment please?

IOW,,,I'm not saying it's important to understand the Trinity...
but do you agree that it's important to believe that Jesus is divine?

 

[farouk]

I give you that this idea of the Trinity developed over some time.
If we read scripture carefully we find that a clear statement that Jesus is God is nowhere to be found.
We have verses like Thomas saying: My Lord and My God.
Titus also has another very good verse.

It's a problem if someone believes that Jesus is just one more "light" from God sent to let God be known.
He came back from the dead and claimed to be divine.
No other light from God has done this.

So if it divides us, maybe it should?

I'm OK to separate those that have some special understanding about Jesus and have a problem with the Trinity but still
believe that He is God in the flesh.

But too many want to state that Jesus is not God but still call themselves Christian.

Is this right?
Then what makes us be Christian?
And who decides?

God in Three Persons is deeply present in the New Testament....

 

[JohnPaul]

Christ is the son of God, God is the Father, Creator of all.

 

[GodsGrace]

Well, Jesus has more titles that just The Christ (or Messiah), and they are even more proof that He is God come in the flesh. His name 'Immanuel' tells us that, which means, 'with us is God'.

That's different than just saying Jesus was 'an' anointed one, like king David or God's prophets. And didn't the orthodox Jews understand His name "Immanuel" from the Book of Isaiah? including the Isaiah 9:6 Scripture pointing to Messiah? Thus Matthew 1:23 declares what His name Immanuel means explicitly, but the orthodox unbelieving Jews don't recognize The Gospel of Jesus Christ, so they don't read The New Testament Scriptures that shows that emphatically that Jesus is God come in the flesh.




I don't keep up with what all the JWs believe. But I do know one of their ideas is they believe Lord Jesus is the Archangel Michael, which is not Biblical.




I think you well know this matter is not... simply about whether or not one understands the trinity of The Godhead.

It is about 'believing'... that Jesus of Nazareth is GOD The Son come in the flesh, to die on the cross for the remission of the sins of those who believe. Anyone who doesn't believe that Jesus of Nazareth is Immanuel, God come in the flesh, defaults to believing just on a man no different than us that cannot save.

That's actually what the unbelieving Jews and children of darkness think about us in Christ who do believe Jesus of Nazareth is God come in the flesh. They even think we have added another God to The Bible with our belief on Jesus as God, all because they believe Jesus of Nazareth was just a man like us, and not God. Don't you remember that is the main point the scribes and Pharisees used to deliver Jesus up to be crucified, the fact that Jesus declared He is God? (John 5:18; John 10:30-33)



It's the very subject Apostle John was pointing to about believing that Jesus is God come in the flesh.

1 John 2:22-23
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
KJV

What John showed there is that if one denies The Son, they do not have The Father. That is a type of declaration that Jesus is co-equal with The Father. And didn't Jesus say that He and The Father are One? (John 10:30). Thus John also says there that to believe ("acknowledgeth") on The Son also has The Father, again showing they are co-equal. It's pretty much an emphatic example of Apostle John declaring that Jesus of Nazareth is God.

2 John 7
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
KJV

The 1 John 2 Scripture should have been understood first before getting to this 2 John 7 Scripture, where John makes it very clear what he is saying, that the unbelievers that are antichrists deny that Jesus of Nazareth is God come in the flesh.

The JWs don't state anymore that Jesus is the Archangel Michael.
They're much more sophisticated these days.

I agree with everything you've said !

I'm becoming a little softer in this salvation question.
I can state emphatically that if a person does not believe Jesus is God he cannot be considered to be a Christian.

What I cannot state emphatically is that the person is lost.
What if they believe in God, the Father, and believe that Jesus is the Messiah, or the Annointed One, but cannot believe
he is God?

Are you sure that person is lost?

 

[JohnPaul]

The JWs don't state anymore that Jesus is the Archangel Michael.
They're much more sophisticated these days.

I agree with everything you've said !

I'm becoming a little softer in this salvation question.
I can state emphatically that if a person does not believe Jesus is God he cannot be considered to be a Christian.

What I cannot state emphatically is that the person is lost.
What if they believe in God, the Father, and believe that Jesus is the Messiah, or the Annointed One, but cannot believe
he is God?

Are you sure that person is lost?

I say you’re wrong, Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Father.

Who are you to say who is Christian and who isn’t? That is blasphemous what you are saying, it is up to God the Father and his only begotten son to determine that, not a mere mortal like you or me to determine such things.

 

[GodsGrace]

God in Three Persons is deeply present in the New Testament....

It's not God in 3 Persons...
It's 3 Persons in ONE God.

And I agree.
I also see these 3 persons in scripture.

 

[farouk]

It's not God in 3 Persons...
It's 3 Persons in ONE God.

And I agree.
I also see these 3 persons in scripture.

Actually, those terms have historically been used interchangeably...

 

[GodsGrace]

I say you’re wrong, Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Father.

Who are you to say who is Christian and who isn’t? That is blasphemous what you are saying, it is up to God the Father and his only begotten son to determine that, not a mere mortal like you or me to determine such things.

I think you misunderstood my post JP.

What makes a Christian is not determined by me...
It's determined by the early Creeds...
Here's one:

Nicene Creed


I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.


1. The Nicene Creed was written in 325AD at the Council of Nicea.
2. Catholic means universal - the only church present at the time...the UNIVERSAL church.
3. The Nicene Creed was written to establish what a Christian had to believe.

 

[tigger 2]

It's not God in 3 Persons...
It's 3 Persons in ONE God.

And I agree.
I also see these 3 persons in scripture.

.............................................................

It's not unusual for people to 'see' what they want to see.

Examining the Trinity: David and the 'Holy' Quadrinity

 

[GodsGrace]

Actually, those terms have historically been used interchangeably...

If God is in 3 persons...
then there are 3 gods and not one.

There is only one God...
IN HIM are 3 persons.

It should not be used interchangeably even if it is at times.
Many make this mistake.

 

[farouk]

If God is in 3 persons...
then there are 3 gods and not one.

There is only one God...
IN HIM are 3 persons.

It should not be used interchangeably even if it is at times.
Many make this mistake.

One God.

Three Persons.

This is Biblical...

 

[JohnPaul]

I think you misunderstood my post JP.

What makes a Christian is not determined by me...
It's determined by the early Creeds...
Here's one:

Nicene Creed


I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.


1. The Nicene Creed was written in 325AD at the Council of Nicea.
2. Catholic means universal - the only church present at the time...the UNIVERSAL church.
3. The Nicene Creed was written to establish what a Christian had to believe.

Sorry GodsGrace, yeah I read all of that already. I still don’t agree, I’m sorry.

God Is God and Christ his only begotten Son our Lord and Savior.

 

[Aunty Jane]

The JWs don't state anymore that Jesus is the Archangel Michael.
They're much more sophisticated these days.

“Sophisticated”? What on earth does that mean?
We still maintain the belief that Michael is the pre-human and post-human Jesus. Before his birth as a human, Jesus the man did not exist. The man Jesus died and his resurrection in spirit form allowed him re-entry into heaven. He resumed his former position at God’s right hand. But interestingly the Holy Spirit is never once said to be at God’s left hand. In fact, when Jehovah and his son are mentioned together, the Holy Spirit is invariably missing. (John 17:3)

But understanding the difference between a belief and a doctrine is important. You see, we will not make a doctrine out of a belief that is not clearly stated unequivocally in scripture. It is indicated by inference that Michael is Jesus, since only two beings in heaven are said to command the Angels....Micheal and Jesus. It is also said that Jesus has many names, depending on the role that he is engaged in...whereas Jehovah has one role and though he has many titles, he only has one name. (Psalm 83:18)

The resurrected Jesus still calls the Father “my God” even in heaven. (Revelation 3:12) and he goes on to say that he is the “beginning of God’s creation”. (Revelation 3:14; Colossians 1:15)

The trinity is based on conjecture and inference but is stated as a doctrine by Christendom. That is the difference. There is no trinity expressly stated in any scripture...only words that might suggest it.
Yet when you understand the flimsy nature of that belief and then see that all of Christendom’s beliefs rest on this one shaky unproven foundation, it wouldn’t take much to topple the whole structure.

I'm becoming a little softer in this salvation question.
I can state emphatically that if a person does not believe Jesus is God he cannot be considered to be a Christian.

To insist that Jesus is Almighty God is actually a breach of the first Commandment. Another two gods are placed in the same position as Jehovah, who alone is “the Most High” and has no equal.

Understanding what the word “theos” means in Greek allows a whole different view of this situation.
To the Greeks, who had a multitude of gods, “theos” is simply a “divine mighty one”. All of their flawed gods had names but there was no word for the singular God of Israel, so at the time when the Greek scriptures were penned...Jehovah was nameless. The Jews had long ceased using the divine name in their speech, although it was still written in their scripture. They were just forbidden from uttering it. Jesus said he had come to make his Father’s name known to his disciples. (John 17:26)

If the Jews had continued to use the divine name to identify Jehovah, then the trinity could never have been invented.

The prime scripture used to promote the trinity (John 1:1) would therefore say.....
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Jehovah and the Word was divine.”

There is no disputing that Jesus was of divine origin, but being divine, did not make him Almighty God.
If he was the Almighty, he surely would have said so....but he never did...not once.

What I cannot state emphatically is that the person is lost.
What if they believe in God, the Father, and believe that Jesus is the Messiah, or the Annointed One, but cannot believe he is God?

Are you sure that person is lost?

I am sure that they are not, since they are not guilty of breaking God’s law. (Exodus 20:3)
He did not say you shall have “no other Gods but us”....he said you shall have “no other gods but ME”.

The Jewish Shema stated..... “Yahweh our God is one Yahweh” (Deuteronomy 6:4) If God is one, then there cannot be three. The trinity teaches “God the Father”, “God the Son” and “God the Holy Spirit” that is three gods. Nowhere in scripture will I find the second two titles ever mentioned.

 

[Pierac]

Christians, your input please: Here's a question I probably wouldn't have had had I not beensurfing the internet on "Christian" sites. I was good with what I thought before but nowI am a bit confused.I always thought and am almost sure that it is not a salvation issue.Tell me what you thinkoes it really matter if we beleive that God is 3 seperate persons in one God, all equalin power and majesty ORIs it okay to beleive that God is one God ( like above ) yet has three seperate roles or offices, all equal in power and majesty although ( like concept above) Christ is half human from a virgin human mother; Father: God.Jesus said if you've seen me you've seen the Father.Isn't it semantics and not a salvation issue anyway; to believe one or the other or even both could be the answer?Thanks in advance for input.

Hi Paul,
Could you read my post no. 22 and comment please?

IOW,,,I'm not saying it's important to understand the Trinity...
but do you agree that it's important to believe that Jesus is divine?

No, In fact it might be just the opposite?

Joh 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Jesus calls himself "a man" (John 8:40) "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. and the apostles call him "a man" (Acts 2: 22; 1 Tim. 2:5). Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- 1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, He is constantly contrasted with and distinguished from God, his Father.

The Hebrew Bible or OT, predicted Jesus would be a man (Is.53:3). But never does the scriptures use the term "God-Man" to tell us who Jesus is. The Greek language of the day had a perfectly good word for “God-Man” (theios aner) but it never appears in the New Testament. So why do we persist with these extra-biblical terms? Why do we continue to employ non-biblical (i.e. unbiblical) language to describe Jesus?

The Bible verse saying is true which says that we are very quick to spot the speck in the eye of another's theology, but how blind we are to the beam in our own. Mary is not the mother of God, according to the scriptures. And neither is Jesus God the Son, nor is he the "God-Man" according to the Bible. And he is nowhere called "God of from God" as the later Nicene Creed called him. Protestants, people of the Bible ought to know that the contentious extra-biblical word used at Nicea, homoousios, meaning ‘of equal substance,’ “did not come from Scripture but, of all things, from Gnostic systems.” Quote from Born Before All-Time? p. 500. Kuschel.

The result was that such terminology introduced alien notions into Christian understanding of God. In other words, "an epoch-making paradigm shift has taken place between Scriptures and Nicea.” Born Before All-Time? p. 503. Kuschel

To the Jewish mind, accustomed to Old Testament teaching on the principles of agency and representation by which God appoints a man to speak or act on his behalf, such a concept was both familiar and acceptable. Whilst it is true that some of Christ's enemies believed him to be usurping or laying claim unlawfully to certain Divine rights or powers, not a single Jew ever thought that the miracles performed by Christ proved that he was a Divine being, and the gospel record indicates that many recognised that he was a man Divinely appointed to exercise power and authority on God's behalf.

 

[bbyrd009]

So if it divides us, maybe it should?

ok, but imo dont be too surprised when Yah does not honor the divisions we have made

I'm OK to separate those that have some special understanding about Jesus and have a problem with the Trinity but still
believe that He is God in the flesh.

But too many want to state that Jesus is not God but still call themselves Christian

I said “you are Elohim”

Is this right?

right or wrong i dont know, but there are tests; are their borders increasing, those who accept that that is “right?” And what might even being able to ask that q say about our use of English sub-titles to refer to Christ? Iow where is your “lord” now?

Then what makes us be Christian?
And who decides?

The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the gospel of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it huh?

What makes a Christian is not determined by me...
It's determined by the early Creeds...
Here's one:

Nicene Creed


I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.


1. The Nicene Creed was written in 325AD at the Council of Nicea.
2. Catholic means universal - the only church present at the time...the UNIVERSAL church.
3. The Nicene Creed was written to establish what a Christian had to believe

so i mean there you go, in your own words even

 

[bbyrd009]

Actually, those terms have historically been used interchangeably...

isn't Gnosticism comforting? But see neither of y’all are able to Quote “persons” at all, imo for a very good reason. Dont get me wrong, im sure it is innocently enough believed, but i would lose this perspective asap

 

[bbyrd009]

.............................................................

It's not unusual for people to 'see' what they want to see.

Examining the Trinity: David and the 'Holy' Quadrinity

HA!

 

[amadeus]

isn't Gnosticism comforting? But see neither of y’all are able to Quote “persons” at all, imo for a very good reason. Dont get me wrong, im sure it is innocently enough believed, but i would lose this perspective asap

We can all be right to "me". I guess the right question to answer is, "What is right to God?" Will the logical mind alone of any man be able to correctly answer it?