True Trinity.

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,496
31,667
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Those who truly 'know' Truth, Love, and Faith, will 'know' the Trinity.
Do you consider this an Absolute Truth [AT] or simply what you believe? Be careful how you answer. No, this is not a trick question. Up front let me say that I do not know a Trinity. No one has over the years given me a good reason that I should. It is one of the things I left behind when I left Catholicism more than 40 years ago. I understand that many people carried it with them when they left, but no one has given me a good reason to pick it back up.

Because you say it or because many church groups proclaim it and insist it is an essential AT, should I and everyone else jump on one of those band wagons and say, Amen?
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@amadeus,

would you kindly give a response as to what you believe about the Trinity in light of what I posted in posts #1-#5 of this thread?

I think that I have shown forth clearly with scripture the true doctrine of the Trinity in these posts.

If you have a disagreement, would you be willing to use the quote feature and express what you are in disagreement with concerning what I have written?

I am also interested in what is your view of the Godhead, since it is not the Trinity. I would appreciate a concise statement as to how you view the Godhead.

Thanks in advance,

@justbyfaith
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: amadeus

Invisibilis

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2017
383
347
63
Northern Rivers
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Do you consider this an Absolute Truth [AT] or simply what you believe? Be careful how you answer. No, this is not a trick question. Up front let me say that I do not know a Trinity. No one has over the years given me a good reason that I should. It is one of the things I left behind when I left Catholicism more than 40 years ago. I understand that many people carried it with them when they left, but no one has given me a good reason to pick it back up.

Because you say it or because many church groups proclaim it and insist it is an essential AT, should I and everyone else jump on one of those band wagons and say, Amen?
Dear amadeus. Let what you know is true within you, to guide you to what is true.

All Truth is Absolute Truth. Truth cannot be divided into partly true, such as a half-truth, for it becomes a deception.
All truth is essentially true, regardless if you believe it or not. Truth does not care if you don't believe it, but it is moved to 'touch' your heart when you do.

All I wrote is what touches me. Truth, Love, and Faith (to me) are intertwined, each cannot be without the other.

If it does not touch you, that does not mean it is not true. It could mean that you may still have an impasse. Or that I might be deluded.

You have the power to choose. Don't let others choose for you, for if you do, it is done out of fear, and not out of faith in a 'knowing' what is true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amadeus

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,496
31,667
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Dear amadeus. Let what you know is true within you, to guide you to what is true.

All Truth is Absolute Truth. Truth cannot be divided into partly true, such as a half-truth, for it becomes a deception.
All truth is essentially true, regardless if you believe it or not. Truth does not care if you don't believe it, but it is moved to 'touch' your heart when you do.

All I wrote is what touches me. Truth, Love, and Faith (to me) are intertwined, each cannot be without the other.

If it does not touch you, that does not mean it is not true. It could mean that you may still have an impasse. Or that I might be deluded.

You have the power to choose. Don't let others choose for you, for if you do, it is done out of fear, and not out of faith in a 'knowing' what is true.
I agree that the truth of God is absolute. Our problem, that of any man, speaking alone, still speaking in faith rather than knowledge is that still sees and understands as through a glass darkly. This to me means that our vision remains less than perfect, blurred in some measure, the degree varying between believers. I have no problem with the importance of Truth, Love and Faith. I would not have even posted to you if you had not mentioned the Trinity.

The Truth is Jesus as per what is written. Love is as per I Cor 13 & I John 4:8 as it is written. Faith is as per Heb 11:1 as it is written.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grailhunter

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,496
31,667
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I will look the posts over. As they are lengthy and my ability to concentrate for long these is diminished, I will look them over. No guarantees beyond that.

@amadeus,

would you kindly give a response as to what you believe about the Trinity in light of what I posted in posts #1-#5 of this thread?

I think that I have shown forth clearly with scripture the true doctrine of the Trinity in these posts.

If you have a disagreement, would you be willing to use the quote feature and express what you are in disagreement with concerning what I have written?

I am also interested in what is your view of the Godhead, since it is not the Trinity. I would appreciate a concise statement as to how you view the Godhead.

Thanks in advance,

@justbyfaith


1 Corinthians 11:19 says, For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

There is a heresy called Tritheism that defends itself by calling the opposing emphasis on the Oneness of God heresy; even though the one who is emphasizing that Oneness is not denying that God is distinctly three Persons (and yet One).

In Acts 24:14 Paul the apostle said, But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets.

I am with Paul in that after a way today that "they" [whoever they are] call heresy, it how I worship.

The true Trinity is held to be heretical by those who think that they believe in the Trinity and yet in all reality they believe in Tritheism. It should be clear from the holy scriptures that there is one God.
By "Tritheism" you mean that they believe in three gods, but name them as being only one?
Deuteronomy 6:4, Hear, O Israel, The LORD our God is one LORD.

Mark 12:29, And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.

Notice here that the Lord is God. And also, we have the following statement in Matthew 11:25:

At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes.

Again, scripture teaches that there is one Lord...

Ephesians 4:5, One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

1 Corinthians 8:6, But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.


Now here there is one God, and a Lord separate from Him, if the Lord isn't God (the Father). However, we have already seen that the Lord our God is one Lord (Mark 12:29) and that the Father is the Lord of heaven and earth. This one Lord is the God who created us, Jesus Christ; and I contend here faithfully that He is the Father.
This part is what they effectively taught when I was with the UPC. I have been moved a bit from there, but I'll leave that for the moment.

Isaiah 9:6-7, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, the everlasting Father, The Prince of peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Luke 10:21, In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
Jesus is the Lord:

1 Corinthians 12:3,
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

There is one Lord:

Ephesians 4:5, One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

That Lord is the Father:

Matthew 11:25,
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Luke 10:21,
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight.


If anyone does not have the Holy Ghost, they do not belong to Christ:

Romans 8:9, But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

No one can say that Jesus is the Lord except by the Holy Ghost:

1 Corinthians 12:3, Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

OK.
The Father is the Lord:

Matthew 11:25, At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Luke 10:21, In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight.


There is one Lord:

Eph 4:5, One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

1Co 8:6, But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

So I think that I have made it clear that there is a Oneness between the Father and the Son:

John 10:30,
I and my Father are one.

It should be clear that both Jesus and the Father are the one Lord of scripture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grailhunter

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,496
31,667
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'm not going to simplify it for you so that you can pull it apart.

The entire message (of posts #1-#5) stands as what you may have to deal with if you are going to deny the Trinity as I have presented it.
Well I guess that I am in trouble then. I read the first post carefully. I tried to read the second, but as often is the case with long posts, I lost track of where I was because I had not yet got hold of your point and you jumped to conclusions which I could not see... not based on what you posted or the verses cited. Finally when you saw you suggest to someone that the key to thing was in post #5 I read that and still did not understand your difference from others.

I have somewhat of an idea as to what many trinitarians believe and having been a oneness Jesus only person myself I also have a pretty good idea as to they believe.

As to you simplifying it so people can get your point, what is wrong with that? Isn't that what you want? For people to understand better? If you are right, what the problem? If you are wrong, wouldn't you want to know why? I won't say you are either right or wrong because I simply don't understand.
 

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,496
31,667
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Maybe when I get some time, I will turn my message into a college essay form like you are asking.

But I don't see the point in doing so; since I would merely be rearranging the information into a format that is more suitable to you.

However, the format that it currently exists in is from the Holy Spirit.

So, feel free to ignore it over the fact that you don't like the way that it is presented.

It will be one less person coming against the message as I have presented it; which means that I will have less of a hassle of responding to contentions that might be leveled against the message.
You seem awfully defensive here without at this point having attackers [I have not read past page 2 yet.]
If you are correct and is all from God via the Holy Spirit then why are you concerned.


"What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?" Rom 8:31
 

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,496
31,667
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@justbyfaith Since I had trouble concentrating on and understanding your OP I will express here briefly where I am on God in this sense. As you pointed our [and others I am sure] there is only one God. I am more of a believer in some kind of a dualism if you need to put a name on it. It is the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit that I see as either equal to the Father or better a manifestation of the Father. In addition to being a Spirit, the Father is also certainly holy. Some people have needed perhaps to divide God in that way and so long as they really believe that and God doesn't mind [assuming He doesn't] I don't. So only one God there.

Very simply Jesus is made God by the One God. Cannot God do that? Is that beyond the power of God? Is it something He has said that He would never do? I see Jesus and the Father as comparable to Joseph and Pharaoh in Egypt as per:

"Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou." Gen 41:40

Jesus is God because God made it so!
 

Invisibilis

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2017
383
347
63
Northern Rivers
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I agree that the truth of God is absolute. Our problem, that of any man, speaking alone, still speaking in faith rather than knowledge is that still sees and understands as through a glass darkly. This to me means that our vision remains less than perfect, blurred in some measure, the degree varying between believers. I have no problem with the importance of Truth, Love and Faith. I would not have even posted to you if you had not mentioned the Trinity.

The Truth is Jesus as per what is written. Love is as per I Cor 13 & I John 4:8 as it is written. Faith is as per Heb 11:1 as it is written.
Sure.

It is also written:

John 16:12-15 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you."

So we keep an open heart and mind for the Holy spirit to guide us, to what is true, according to what we can bear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amadeus

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,260
5,329
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The concepts of the Trinity in motion

Note: Feel free to verify all scriptural references in your own favorite translation.

This is a topic that is easy to prove because it connects to hundreds of scriptures, which will be sited directly and or indirectly through this discussion. Then again, the history of the evolution of the various doctrines of the Trinity and the associated religious politics is another thing, that could be a book in itself. Still worthy of study because it involves the thoughts and beliefs of the Early Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils. But here I am only going to touch on that and give the reasons for the Trinity formula in another post.

Most Christian denominations proclaim a belief in the Trinity, and its existence is certain, it is the details that vary. Some define the Trinity as three persons in one God, some turn the perspective around and believe that the Trinity is one God with three aspects. Some reduce the Trinity to a duo, the Holy Spirit merely being the projection of Yahweh or Yeshua’s spirit. Then there are those that believe Yeshua is the “one” and only God...representing three aspects of God or even Christ being the God that created the Heavens and Earth. (This will be covered with the discussion of the Gospel of John.) Which would pretty much invalidate the entire Old Testament and the Apostle’s Creed, where God the Father is the creator, or even the concept of God being the Father. Now this concept places the Son as the Father! Oddly enough, the “confusion factor” is a “qualifying condition” in this time period, thinking if it makes no sense or cannot be understood, it is of God! This is an interesting topic in itself. Debates over what the Trinity meant, and or what it is, have continued throughout the centuries. The winning point always has been and is, that the Gospels clearly document the presence actions, communications, and movements of three persons. But the most commonly accepted doctrine of the Trinity, is that there are three persons in one God, called God, named God. This is the larger intent and underlying reason for this doctrine of the Trinity, and that is to say “one God” not Gods. This is the political element of the doctrine of the Trinity. That is to change the names of the Gods to God. Rather than a spiritual position, to change it to a proper name. At which point they can manipulate it very easily. The political side of this being that, when they took God’s name (Tetragrammaton) out of the Old Testament and replaced it with Lord or God, they could argue that the Trinity was a functional trio in the Old Testament….because God is now their name! There by nullifying the old arguments that the character of the God of the Old Testament was different than the God of the New Testaments.

But, but, but, as with many official doctrines, what the regional churches and the people believed, were many times different. There is an abstract of “one” but very few believed and today believe that the Trinity is characterized as being an individual presence, personality, or thought, even though the ruling was that they were of the same substance and nature.

The problem with these assumptions is that the scriptures do not support these beliefs. The Church’s frustrations with the scriptures led them to actually adding verses to certain Bibles to clarify their point and add authority to their doctrine. The most well known of these forged scriptures is called “the Comma Johanneum Addition.”

The Comma Johanneum as it is referred to, originated as a common literary explanation or formula for the Trinity. The first discussion of the Comma may have been around the 3rd century. Some mention a connection with some of the early church fathers, like Cyprian which debated the oneness concepts of the Trinity. It first appeared in written form during the 4th century in the Latin homily Liber Apologeticus, which was probably written by Priscillian of Avila. This theological formula was circulated from then on, but was not accepted, or at least was not quoted by most of the early Church Fathers in which there was a continual disagreement on the construct of the Trinity.

At some point this short summary of the Trinity made its way into the margin notes of some of the manuscripts that were written after the 5th century. Unlike other examples of popular margin notes that made their way into the scriptures, the Comma Johanneum found its way into the verses of the Bible by way of another avenue. After the early 16th century, the Byzantines began to recopy and retranslate the available Greek texts of the New Testament. At this point some of these copies became known as the “Textus Receptus.” ---Erasmus--- It was in some of these that the formula was added and then later included in some of the Bibles. Most notably the King James Version, which relied heavily on these texts. On the 2nd of June 1927, Pope Pius XI decreed that the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute. The updated " Nova Vulgata" edition of the Vulgate, published in 1979 as a result of the Second Vatican Council, it does not include the Comma. In the Catholic study Bible I have that was printed around 1960 it includes a combination of these two scriptures, with a side note that explains that it is a re-phrasing of the scriptures by the Holy See, as it is his prerogative.

As it happened the Comma Johanneum Addition was much more than a re-translation, or an addition, but rather a replacement of the original scriptures with a popular theological statement. They kept the verse numbers in sequence so that it would not be as noticeable.

The scriptures involved are 1st John 5:6-8. The original scriptures read as follows... (Quoting 6 through 8, so it can be read in context)

“6. This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. 7. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8. And it is the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”

This was replaced with what came to be called the Comma Johanneum Addition.

6: This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7: For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8: And there are three that bear witness in Earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

As one can see there is no chance that this is simply a different translation, but rather a removal of the scriptures and an insertion of a known theological statement for an intended purpose. Of course and again, there is no question that the Trinity exists, just that the Bible does not support the commonly explained formula or description of it. And this is the larger problem, if everybody changes the scriptures to what they believe, then we do not get an accurate reading of the Word of God, but instead a denominational sermon. The Comma Johanneum Addition is a good illustration of the frustration that some had with trying to promote their beliefs and to what extent they would go to, to promote their beliefs above and over the Bible. This is not a unique observation but rather the option of many scholars and most of the well known reference material explains the Trinity as more of a doctrine than a biblical teaching.

For example:

The McKenzie Bible Dictionary explains it this way.... “The Trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God there are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly or formally a biblical belief.” Which hold true to the fact that the word Trinity does not occur in the Holy Bible.

The Truth is, the Trinity is not the merging or mixing of three entities into one, like you would a cake mix, nor is it a three headed God. It is a condition and a reality that is beyond our understanding, but in loose terms..... I believe and define that there are three Gods in one Godhead which exists simultaneously in an unexplainable spiritual condition of union, that allows for the sharing of traits, principles, powers and abilities, but prevents any possibility of disagreement. Still, this being true, they have their own individual presence, minds, wills, and characters. Three Gods that can sit side by side on three thrones. (I am not going to address spiritual thrones thing, it is just referenced that way in the Bible.) The Trinity makes sense, the scriptures that describe Them, make sense. The following discussion includes scriptures that speak of the Trinity as it is referenced in the Gospels. So we are going to put this in reality and as reality and the truth, it will move through the story of Christ’s mission in the Gospels. The best understanding if the Trinity we have is how the three Gods interacted with each other during the Gospels. What they said to each other and about each other. This is the Trinity in motion.
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,260
5,329
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
1. If Christ’s throne is on the right hand of God, He is not within God and that position although important is second to God the Father. Mark 16:19 “So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into Heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.”

2. If one had to leave before the other could come, as in the case of the Holy Spirit, this would suggest individuality.

3. If there is any conversation at all between the three entities; that would indicate some individuality.

4. If the conversation included a request, like Yeshua asking His Father to bypass the cup (so-to-speak); it indicates individuality and hierarchy.

5. If the conversation is in the form of a pray. For example; Our Father which art in Heaven.....But the Son was standing before them. This indicates individuality and hierarchy.

6. If one God refers to Himself or others refer to Him as the Father and the other God refers to Himself or others refer to Him as the Son; This indicates individuality and hierarchy. This is particularly significant because this is a self defined and self described definition by God Himself. God decided to define their positions as God the Father and God the Son. God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son….

It was God that chose to describe Himself as a Father, so we could understand our relationship with Him and His relationship with His Son, in human terms. There is a clear authoritative aspect associated with the Father. There is no possible way of mistaking this relationship as equal or the same person. Yeshua was the begotten Son of God. God did not begot Himself.

7. Again, for God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son...John 3:16 There is no part of this verse that suggest that He begot Himself, or sent Himself, or that his Son was Him. The meaning of the verse is that, it took a lot of love for God to offer His real Son as a sacrifice for the world. This verse is talking about two Gods. God the Father, gave His Son.

8. If a person can sin against one God worse than the other...as in the case of the un-pardonable sin. This indicates separation of some sort as well as a very special uniqueness in regard to the Holy Spirit.

9. If Yeshua said, “...the father is greater than I.” John 14:28 --- then this is proof of His understanding of individuality and hierarchy.

10. Matthew 20:20….Mark 10:35…When asked by the mother of John and James if they could sit on the right and the left of Christ in the kingdom to come, One of the things Christ said to her (them) was “....this is not Mine to give....” This would indicate that it was someone else’s to give...another God...Not Himself and higher authority. This point is further exemplified by John 3:35 The Father loves the Son, and hath given all things into His hands. John 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come forth from God, and was going back to God; Giving occurs between two persons and so does coming from and going back to. These verses indicate hierarchy and individuality.

11. If the conversation includes an element of surprise, like when Yeshua was on the cross and asked His Father why He had forsaken Him. This would be strong evidence of individuality.

12. If the conversation indicates disparity of location and movement between the two deities, such as ascended to my Father, I came forth from the Father, or because I go to the Father, this would all indicate individuality, hierarchy, and different location.

13. If one knows something that the other does not, like in Matt. 24:36 where Yeshua said, He did not know when the “end of the age” would occur, only the Father knew. This definitely indicates some form of individuality and very conclusive that we are not talking about a single mind.

14. If the Son was sent by the Father. This indicates individuality and hierarchy of authority. One person sent somewhere by another.

15. If Christ said, (John 5:30) “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” The statement regarding the will of the one Who sent Him, occurs in other verses. John 6:38 & 39 Matt 12:50. Then there is Mark 14:36 “And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.” This is a request from one person to another and a designation of two separate wills... “not what I will, but what thou wilt.” The wills and minds of two Gods.


16. The Apostle’s Creed defines God the Father as the creator of Heaven and Earth....not Christ....not the Holy Spirit, and not the three of them.

17. “The My Father verses” are the most prevalent and best examples of Yeshua’s relationship with Yahweh. Over fifty times in the Gospels Yeshua refers to Yahweh as “My Father.” As far as understanding the interconnecting relationship between Yeshua and Yahweh these verse are very important to understand in content, context, and perspective. In most of these verses the differences between Yahweh and Yeshua are expressed, either by hierarchy, authority, interaction, movement, communication, or physical location. In John 2:16, Yeshua indicates that the Temple is His Father’s house.....not His. Christ never indicates that the Temple belongs to Him, the temple belongs to another. Nor did Christ ever suggest that after He left they should worship Him in the Temple. In John 14:2 Christ tells of a place that would await the Apostles. He says, “In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.” Note that He is not saying, His house. In 14 of the “My Father” verses, Yeshua refers to Yahweh as the Father in Heaven, precisely written, “Father which is in Heaven.” In 7 of these verses He is referring to His Father in Heaven, worded “Father in Heaven.” So Christ was standing on Earth referring to God the Father in Heaven, two different places. In John 5:37 Christ says, “And the Father who sent Me, He has borne witness of Me. You have neither heard His voice at anytime, nor seen His form.” In this verse one should understand that it takes someone else to bare witness of another, and the voice and form they were hearing and seeing then, was not that of God the Father. In Matthew 18:10, where Christ was warning not to offend the “little one”....Christ indicates that their Angels constantly behold the face of Yahweh...in Heaven. Now surely, there is an understanding of the concept of omni-presence, but if you notice, Christ is not saying, they behold My face, or Our faces. Throughout the storyline of the Gospel Christ makes it clear that He and His Father are in two different places. Christ’s overall mission on Earth is to fulfill the will of God which is Yahweh....and he makes it clear that Yahweh, His Father sent Him. Yeshua never said in the Gospels that He sent Himself or came on His own behalf, or was doing His own will, or begot Himself. Over 40 times Christ says in the Gospels that His Father sent Him. This denotes the higher authority of the Father and that His Father is another person at a different place. In several verses Christ indicates that God the Father gives or appoints certain things to Him. To appoint or give is an indication of hierarchy, authority, and an indication of two positions, given and received. You will not find a scripture where Christ says He gave anything to the Father, it is not His position to give. Other examples, Christ would not say, I gave Myself, all things, nor would He say that He loved Himself. In John 10:17, Christ says, “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again.” The same is true of honor or glory. Honor is a heartfelt expression from one person to another. Christ does not honor Himself. John 8:54, “If I honor myself, my honor is nothing: it is my Father that honoreth me; of whom ye say, that He is your God. All three of these expressions describe something happening from one....to....another.

18. There is not a single verse that would indicate or suggest that God the Father was crucified, or that they were crucified together, or that all three were crucified. Christ the God was crucified and ascended to His Father.


Apostolic Perspective. There is a continual reference to Father and Son and a designation of God the Father in Heaven while Christ was on earth. And if you look closely the scriptures refer to God the Father and Christ as Lord in the same sentence.

1st Timothy 6:13
“I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate.”

Matthew 5:16
Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 5:48
Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 6:1
Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 7:11
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,260
5,329
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Matthew 7:21
Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

Matthew 10:32
Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 10:33
But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 12:50
For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.

Matthew 16:17
And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 18:10
See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 18:14
So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.

Matthew 18:19
Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 23:9
Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

Luke 2:49
And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” (Note again: His Father’s house, not His house, not Our house.)

The True concept of “oneness” is really not a matter of arithmetic. In modern times we are all about numbers, but a modern first grader would know more about numbers than most of the people of antiquity. The concept of one had a symbology in this time period, not just the literal one, but also the concept of “unity.” The word “one” in regard to relationships can also mean solidarity. Again, in relation to the Trinity it is the unity and the solidarity, in mind, in heart, and in spirit between Yahweh, Yeshua, and the Holy Spirit. God the Father gives us in Genesis 2:24 an idea of how the concept of two people being one can be applied; “For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” Yeshua reiterates this concept in Mathew 19:5 & 6 and Mark 10:8, specifically saying, “And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.” Certainly everyone understands that husbands and wives do not merge to be one physical human, nor do they loose their character. They certainly join physically but they are not absorbed into one person, even though the condition of solidarity may exist between them. So in that case the word one is not denoting “the number one” or the singularity of the two persons in the marriage. Beyond what is listed in the examples above, in the New Testament Yeshua gives us a clearer explanation of the concept of one. Speaking to God the Father (He is not talking to Himself) Yeshua says this about the concept of one...John 17:22 “And the glory which to them; that they may be one just as We are one.” Because Yeshua says “just as” this is an exactness, a duplication of a condition that we can achieve, and He states that this condition of “oneness” can apply to us, but it has nothing to do with absorption or singularity, but rather a condition of spiritual union and solidarity between God and us. The next verse further defines this by describing a unity with Christ that would cause the same condition with us as it did with them, a condition of perfection. Again, not talking to Himself, in John 17:23 “I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that You did send Me, and do love them, even as you do love Me.” In this context millions of people could be made one...one being a abstract concept of one, but a more literal meaning of unity, solidarity, and perfection and even a “body” that is considered one....the body of Christ or the body of the Church. And then, the next verse is probably one of the best verses to put this oneness concept into perspective. The leading verses are speaking of the works of the Holy Spirit and then ends with this explanation. 1st Corinthians 12:11-13 “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.”

The same is true of the Godhead, in this case three, but if there would have been a hundred named Gods that talked with each other and did all the above, the Church would have labeled them one in order to get their theology to work. Certainly multiple persons in one God is a difficult concept, but the more persons the more difficult the concept becomes. If there would have been eight, sixty, or a hundred persons it would have been a concept near to impossible to convey. Tri-unity is difficult enough, but sixty-unity would have been intolerable and unacceptable. But as it was, three aspects of one god was a common scenario in Pagan beliefs, the triple goddess is a good example. The multiple aspects of God was within their mythology and made their conversions comfortable but made matters more confusing for everyone else.

The first documented time the word Trinity was used in relations to Christianity was written in the second century. (Now, the definitions that follow are not that hard to lookup and for anyone that is truly interested, I recommend it.) The Greek word used for Trinity was Τριάς, meaning "a set of three." The only meaning of one in this word was that it was one set of three. As time went on and the Church’s definition for the word Trinity changed, the next word for Trinity came from two Latin words. Trinitas, meaning, "the number three” and Unitas, meaning, unity; state of being one or undivided · sameness, uniformity · agreement, concord. Latin is a very “loose” language, it has a few meanings. Within the meaning of this word the Church could fit its new definition. The English word for Trinity, in the Webster’s Dictionary references Old French and Latin, and I quote..... “1. a set of three persons or things that form a unit. 2. in Christian theology, the union of three divine persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in one Godhead.” end quote..... Which is exactly the definition of the Trinity.

The biblical testament of the authority of the Father has always been a thorn in the side of the Church’s doctrine of the Trinity, because hands down, the Old Testament and Christ Himself testified clearly and definitively, of the authority of the Father, over a hundred times, dozens of these coming from Christ Himself. On the other hand, these biblical proofs of the authority of God the Father in no way conflict with beliefs regarding the Trinity. In the Old Testament it is easy to see that Yahweh proclaims Himself as the ultimate authority and does not define Himself as a trio. In the New Testament after Yahweh begets a Son, His Son repeatedly attests to the authority of the Father. A numerical count of the three Gods occur as the Gospels progress, but descriptions or discussions regarding the trio of Gods does not occur until after Christ ascends to Heaven, and rightly so, the trio did not form until He ascended to Heaven. At which time, God the Father still remains the ultimate authority and all three have equal authority over us. The Truth makes sense. The Shield of the Trinity is still compatible as a representation of a Godhead, in that the God in center is that spiritual unity. But still I see people scratching their heads over it.
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I tried to read the second, but as often is the case with long posts, I lost track of where I was because I had not yet got hold of your point and you jumped to conclusions which I could not see... not based on what you posted or the verses cited.
Could you elaborate on this, please?
 

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,496
31,667
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Could you elaborate on this, please?
I can't really elaborate without trying to read it again. As I have said what you wrote may fine... it may be right [or not], but your point did not jump out at me and the effort tired me out. I'm 76 and only have so much stamina. I avoid most long and/or complex posts. I tried to make an exception here but I could not do it. If it is too long and/or complex I get physically tired. Sorry, but that is it.
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I can't really elaborate without trying to read it again. As I have said what you wrote may fine... it may be right [or not], but your point did not jump out at me and the effort tired me out. I'm 76 and only have so much stamina. I avoid most long and/or complex posts. I tried to make an exception here but I could not do it. If it is too long and/or complex I get physically tired. Sorry, but that is it.
Alright, I suppose that someone who is younger will be able to benefit more from what I have written.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amadeus

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't consider that this understanding is an essential for salvation;

However I would mention to you @amadeus, that within the creeds is the statement that believing in them is indeed an essential for salvation.

So if you must see a biblical precedent for the Trinity in order to believe in it, I would suggest to you that you are in the last chance cafe; if they are at all correct about their statements.
 
Last edited:

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,496
31,667
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't consider that this understanding is an essential for salvation;

However I would mention to you @amadeus, that within the creeds is the statement that believing in them is indeed an essential for salvation.

So if you must see a biblical precedent for the Trinity in order to believe in it, I would say that you are in the last chance cafe.
These days I read and study my Bibles daily and I talk to God. Every morning, 7 days a week, belongs to Him. I may not accomplish much, time wise, like I once did when I was young and strong, but God is also aware of my limitations. Sometimes He gives me things anyway.

I haven't given even lip service to supporting any creed since I left active Catholicism over 50 years ago. I come to forums like this one and when I am able I attend a few church services. I visit with my old pastor for a couple of hours very Wednesday. What time remains to me beyond that I spend time with my wife of almost 48 years and take care of a few secular necessities and/or drink coffee and fellowship with friends who still live. Every year the number my own age diminishes. I can remember being the youngest child in the immediate family. Now am the oldest member.

Whatever is important to God, I do believe He will let us know, if we are open to Him. I strive to be and when I am praying I ask Him to help me to be. What more can a person do? God knows. I try not to tempt or second guess Him.
 

JustAskin

Member
Jan 20, 2020
49
6
8
65
Birmingham
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
justbyfaith, I think there is little hope for your belief - in fact, I know so.

I find your responses vague and inconsistent.

Man is not a Tripartite creature. Man is:
  • A Spirit and a Body
which, together, makes:
  • A Soul
God is Spirit... which part of your ideological three parts of your claim for man equates to Almighty God? Which is the Spirit, which the Body, and which the Soul?

God is ‘One’... not many... I don’t want to refer except by minutest call out: The original Athanasian Creed only applied Godship to the Father and Son. It was only later on in time that it was changed to include a third person. Any ideology that changes over time in its FUNDAMENTAL BELIEF is to be viewed as SUSPECT and on very shaky ground.

You say that the three in your ideology are equal in ESSENCE...

What is ESSENCE? I keep asking Trinitarians this question but none seem able to answer - they do not know what it is but just go along with it because trinitarian preachers tell them to. Perhaps you can give me the definition (please don’t refer to links or what Tom, Dick, or Harry, said. I require SCRIPTURE only: Jesus, God, Disciples, Apostles, Prophets)

Where do you see any reference to Jesus being the first creation of God? The coming into being, the birth of, Jesus, the Son, is a PROPHECY:
  • ‘The son TO BE born...’
  • ‘[He]... SHALL BE...’
And, by the way, the term, ‘Sons as used in scriptures, means:
  • ‘He who does the works of the Father’
Adam, in the day of his creation and up until he sinned, was, ‘Son of God’ (Luke 3:38). He fell to sin and LOST THIS STATUS. When Jesus was born and up until he was baptised with the Holy Spirit, Jesus DID NOTHING but be a perfect Son to Mary and Joseph but more importantly, to ALMIGHTY GOD, the Father. Being so, at his baptism and ANOINTING WITH HOLY OIL: Holy Spirit (Which means: ‘Setting Aside For Kingship and/or Priesthood’ and you know Jesus BECOMES BOTH High Priest to God (therefore cannot BE God!) and KING over creation (Firstborn over creation / Seated on the throne of David)) Jesus is assigned the title ‘CHRIST’ (and ‘Christ’ means, ???) and hence Almighty God says of him:
  • ‘This is my Son in whom I am well pleased’
and:
  • ‘This day, I have become YOUR FATHER, and you have MY SON’
Note carefully that this latter verse is an ADOPTION STATEMENT.

After this baptism, Jesus is EMPOWERED with the Holy Spirit OF GOD, meaning he could ACT WITH the power of God - not that it meant he WAS GOD. He was sent into the wilderness to test if he would MISUSE thd power invested in him: Jesus did not fail the test. Only AFTER THIS did Jesus BEGIN to do miracles in the name of GOD! He would CALL UPON his Father BEFORE he performed any miracle to authenticate it. At lazarus’ resurrection, Jesus expressly state’s his pre-actions TK show that the act he was going to perform WAS NOT OF HIMSELF but from the Father... he publicly stated this but had at all other times PRAYED IN SECRET.

This revelation to you, common reality to all believers in the truth, shows that Jesus was not GOD, nor part of a Tripart personship of equality of power and authority...

You try to over this latter part claiming that the three are not equal in AUTHORITY...
justbyfaith, CO-EQUAL in all things includes and absolutely would be ‘IN AUTHORITY’ as well as POWER. So a RANK SYSTEM cannot accommodate CO-EQUALITY. If you believe so then site me an example? (I’m not holding my breath for an answer!)
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,260
5,329
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
A few of our beliefs were the result of arguments that occurred shortly after the Gospels and some even before the Pauline writings. Some had to do with Christology…was He a man that was a powerful prophet? Was He the Messiah? Many of the Jews thought He was a magician. The Gentiles did not have a prophesied Messiah, so the whole thing was confusing to them. Was he really the Son of God? Or was He somehow mystically zapped into Mary’s womb? Was He a lesser god—a demigod? Was He a God? Was He the Creator God? Was He the Supreme God? Was He the only true God? These things were argued.

The Apostles were tasked to make it clear that He was the Son of God, the Messiah, and a full-fledged God. In their attempt to do this they went a little too far. In their descriptions all authority, all judgment, all creation, and almighty was turned over to Christ and He was the perpetual Son from the dawn of time. By the time they were done everything was taken away from God the Father. They might as well have given Him a broom and let Him sweep the hallways…being a Divine Janitor. Yet Christ said, “The Father is greater than I and that He did nothing on His own but that which was the Will of the Father.” But then He said, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father."


At the same time there were Gentiles that saw the God of the Old Testament as being wrathful, cruel, and murderous, but the God of the New Testament seemed full of Love, Forgiveness, and Wisdom. So there were Gentiles that wanted to drop the Old Testament. Some of these were not Gnostic.

The Gentiles embraced Christianity for many reasons. For one the Golden Rule: “Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.” was a 500 year old philosophy taught by the Ancient Greek Philosophers. Virgin births were common in Greek Mythology. Gods impregnating women occurred in Greek Mythology. And a god having three aspects were common among their goddesses. Apollo and Heracles were seen as savour gods and Heracles was believed to be the son of Zeus, a savior, and a hero. Eirene was a goddess of peace and love. So Christian beliefs were in their wheel-house.

At the same time the Gnostics were challenging the various Christian beliefs and gaining in numbers. Many of them saw the Old Testament God in negative ways. So these debates over all of this continued until the Ecumenical Councils and their solution was the One God formula that had come to be called the Trinity…the One God formula appealed to some of the Jews and a God with three aspects appealed to the Gentiles and there were Gentiles that believed in the need for the moral conduct taught in Christianity. By the turn of the first century most Christians were Gentiles and you would be hard pressed to find any Jews among the Early Church Fathers.

The problem with this concept was that in effect, it nullified the process of God the Father giving anything to Christ….All in One God…had all authority…All in One God would be the judge…All in One God were the Savior God…after all, God the Father called Himself the Savor in the Old Testament. All in One God was Almighty… and then All in One God begot themselves and All in One God was crucified and resurrected….and All in One God was Alpha and Omega…Greek terminology.

So the ruling on the Trinity formula did not stop the arguments and eventually the Church had to threaten everyone with death if they did not believe their formula. In many ways the Gospel of John fueled these debates. But besides the Comma Johanneum Addition there were problems with the Greek concepts of the Logos in John.

I cannot take credit for noting that parts of the Gospel of John has some Greek-Gnostic influences….it was always questioned and a topic for biblical scholars today, but it was noted within the first century. The Word-Logos was a very popular Greek metaphysical term or concept five or six centuries before Christ. That is; a being manifesting as the Word, is a very metaphysical concept. In that period…it was a popular buzz-word or term that appeared in various Greek metaphysical philosophies and then resurfaced in Gnosticism. The concept was used over and over again with different slants on its meaning.

Logos (UK: /ˈloʊɡɒs, ˈlɒɡɒs/, US: /ˈloʊɡoʊs/; Ancient Greek: λόγος, romanized: lógos; from λέγω, légō, lit. 'I say') is a term in Western philosophy, Psychology, rhetoric, and religion derived from a Greek word variously meaning "ground”, “order”, "plea", "truth", "expectation", "message", "speech", "account", "reason", "proportion", and "discourse".

It became a technical term in Greek Western Philosophy beginning with Heraclitus (c.  535 – c.  475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge, of which the Gnostics expanded upon. The writings of Heraclitus seems to be the first occurrence of the concept, where the word logos was given special attention in ancient Greek philosophy. For him the logos provided the link between rational discourse and the world's rational structure.

From there ancient Greek philosophers used the term in different ways. The sophists used the term to mean discourse. Aristotle applied the term to refer to "reasoned discourse" or "the argument" in the field of rhetoric, and considered it one of the three modes of persuasion which included ethos and pathos. Pyrrhonist philosophers used the term to refer to dogmatic accounts of non-evident matters. The Stoics spoke of the logos spermatikos (the generative principle of the Universe, in other words the birth of the Universe.) which foreshadows various related concepts in Neoplatonism.

Within Hellenistic Judaism, Philo (c.  20 BC – c.  50 AD) the term logos was adopted into Jewish philosophy. Philo distinguished between logos prophorikos ("the uttered word") and the logos endiathetos ("the word remaining within"). It is through this path that some connect Gnostic sects to Jewish mysticisms.

The term is also used in Sufism, and the analytical psychology of Carl Jung. Despite the conventional translation as "word", logos is not used for a word in the grammatical sense; instead, the term lexis (λέξις, léxis) was used. However, both logos and lexis derive from the same verb légō (λέγω), meaning "(I) count, tell, say, speak".

Gnostic views--- First as a matter of accuracy, the Gnostics labeled-named themselves in different ways but considered themselves Christians. The term Gnostic was a label given to them from outside sources. And defining the Gnostic sects would be like defining “THE” Protestant denomination today. Since their beliefs were secret….we only know so much about them. What we do know of Gnosticism today is through surviving texts that have been labeled Gnostic and also the writings of the ECF’s about the Gnostics.

Like the Christians, the Gnostics were developing a growing animosity towards the Jews because of the crucifixion…hard to get over the “crucify Him!” thing. Beyond that the Gnostics considered the Old Testament God somewhere between crazy or evil, because of His cruel and wrathful nature. But in both religions there was a focus on Christ and an intent to place Him as the primary God.
 
Last edited: