Is God Three?

[clefty]

.

Php 2:4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.

Php 2:5 G1063 For - G5426 consider - G5124 this - G1722 in - G5213 yourselves - G3739 whosoever - G2532 also - in G1722 - Christ G5547 - Jesus: G2424


Php 2:6 Who G3739 - was G5225 - in G1722 -
morphē / Morph / form / mor-fay' G3444 - God, G2316 -
thought G2233 - no G3756 - robbery G725 - to be G1511 equally G2470 - God: G2316
SEE THE LIE............
The Point is that Trinitarians do lie. They have been lying for 2000 Years.

There is no Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.
This is a false translation. The Greek Word G1063
Γάρ / gar gar - is not the word or meaning
………… L E T ………………..

The Greek word - “ F o r “ - is the very first word that begins Php 2:5
F O R - primary particle; properly assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles): - and, as, because (that), but, even, for indeed, no doubt, seeing, then, therefore, verily, what, why, yet.
There is no L E T in the Hebrew or Greek where the translators slipped it in falsely into the translation - over Two Thousand Times.
2000 times. It is slipped in sand it is never in the original.
You keep repeating The English King James - A Jesuit Copy Cat Translation
THE FACT IS -_ The very, very first word Here in - Php Chapter 3 verse 5 is N O T - the word - “ Let “ ‘
Meaning - -= - 5. { Let } this mind be in you………..Ect.

But _ - There is no L E T In the Greek manuscript text in – Php. 3: 5

The Very first Greek word in Php. 3: 5 is the Greek word - γάρ - Gar "
It is - Greek # 1063 Meaning “ For " F O R ____________________________----_________________________

This Greek word - γάρ - Gar " It is - The Greek # 1063 Meaning “ For " F O R
or it can sometimes mean Because - if there is a clause. .

Here are eXamples of the word that the Translators are claiming
is the word L E T.
But 2000 times it is used correctly as the Greek word meaning F O R.
But in this instance the Translators LIED and switched out the for F O R and inserted the word L E T.
______________________________________________________________
The following words in the eXample verses that say and mean - F O R,
This is not the word or meaning of - L E T.

But the Translators want You to believe that this word L E T - Could be related to the word F O R in the following verses.
Following Verses Rev 22:18 For G1063 I testify unto every man G3956
Rev 17:17 For Greek 1063 God G2316 hath put in G1519 their G848 hearts G2588
Rev 16:14 For Greek 1063 they are G1526 the spirits G4151 of devils, G1142
Rev 9:19 For Greek 1063 their G848 power G1849 is G1526 in G1722 their G848 mouth, G4750
Jud 1:4 For Greek 1063 there are certain G5100 men G444 crept in unawares, G3921
3Jn 1:7 For Greek 1063 his name's sake G5228 G846 G3686 they went forth, G1831
Mat 1:18 When as G1063 his G846 mother G3384 Mary G3137 was espoused G3423 to Joseph, G2501
Mat 7:29 For G1063 he taught G2258 G1321 them G846 as G5613 one having G2192 authority,
Mat 12:8 For G1063 the G3588 Son G5207 of man G444 is G2076 Lord G2962

Mat 10:35 For G1063 I am come G2064 to set a man at variance G1369 G444
Mat 15:4 For G1063 God G2316 commanded, G1781 saying, G3004 Honor G5091 thy G4675 father G3962 and G2532 mother: G3384
This Greek word γάρ - Gar is the word meaning - “ For " -

F O R appears over Two Thousand ( * 2000 ) times in the Greek Manuscripts and this is the eXact same Greek word that begins The Php 3: Verse 5.
It is not LET - / L E T ! -
The Greek word γάρ - Gar is not - L E T

Php 3: Verse 5 begins with the Greek word ( G1063 γάρ Gar }
This Greek word γάρ - Gar - is the word For - “ For " - F O R appears over Two Thousand ( * 2000 ) times in the Greek Manuscripts ) it’s very first word just eXactly as I posted in the previous 4 posts already.
​............................................................
Php 2:5 For - consider - this - in - yourselves - whomsoever - also - in - Christ - Jesus:
REMEMBERR the Greek language used the two words AND and ALSO as the same eXact meaning.


​Php 2:5 For - consider - this - in - yourselves - whomsoever - also - is in - Christ - Jesus:

whomsoever - also - in - Christ - Here Jesus: is a CALLING for all in the FUTURE - who are not Yet entered INTO Christ Yaahoshua..

​This is the meaning of the message to YOU - the current disciples yourselves and also whomsoever also may come into Christ - Jesus:

Good info...

You switched to Ph 3:5 instead of 2:5 did you mean to?

 

[KingdomRose]

Bright Raven's point was that the doctrine of the Trinity was believed and taught long before 325 AD.

He wasn't proving it, rather, disproving the OP.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Bright Raven hasn't gotten the correct understanding of what was going on. Yes, the pagan-influenced doctrine of the Trinity reared its ugly head toward the end of the first century and continued to be argued about for the next 200 years and more, spurred on by the "wolves" that entered in among the true church even when the Apostles were walking the earth (Acts 20:29,30). It was a way of asserting control over people, and continued to be a very important POLITICAL subject to try and polarize the constituent citizens. The Trinity was not a solid doctrine until after 325 A.D., and even then it wasn't as we know it today for another 500 years. The truth is, Jesus' being equal to the Father was debated back and forth, and never taught as an accepted doctrine in the church until Constantine settled the matter for political reasons, in 325.

Tigger has not been disproved. His research is sound.

 

[freelight]

The infinite One I Am

The infinite One I Am

~*~*~

God is One, eternally, infinitely, everpresently

One may divide, differentiate, dissect, personalize, fragment, allocate, diversify, segment, extend, expand, expound, confound the Oneness of Deity all they like.....Deity ever maintains its original indivisible essence.

'God' is also not confined, restricted or limited to your religious tradition or culture, since 'God' is infinite

 

[Bright Raven]

Bright Raven hasn't gotten the correct understanding of what was going on. Yes, the pagan-influenced doctrine of the Trinity reared its ugly head toward the end of the first century and continued to be argued about for the next 200 years and more, spurred on by the "wolves" that entered in among the true church even when the Apostles were walking the earth (Acts 20:29,30). It was a way of asserting control over people, and continued to be a very important POLITICAL subject to try and polarize the constituent citizens. The Trinity was not a solid doctrine until after 325 A.D., and even then it wasn't as we know it today for another 500 years. The truth is, Jesus' being equal to the Father was debated back and forth, and never taught as an accepted doctrine in the church until Constantine settled the matter for political reasons, in 325.

Tigger has not been disproved. His research is sound.

You do not believe truth that is so clear.

John 1:1 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

The Deity of Jesus Christ
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

The Word Made Flesh
14 And the Word became flesh, and [a]dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

1 John 1:1-2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Introduction, The Incarnate Word
1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—

Hope someday that you come to know the truth.

 

[jsanford108]

Bright Raven hasn't gotten the correct understanding of what was going on. Yes, the pagan-influenced doctrine of the Trinity reared its ugly head toward the end of the first century and continued to be argued about for the next 200 years and more, spurred on by the "wolves" that entered in among the true church even when the Apostles were walking the earth (Acts 20:29,30). It was a way of asserting control over people, and continued to be a very important POLITICAL subject to try and polarize the constituent citizens. The Trinity was not a solid doctrine until after 325 A.D., and even then it wasn't as we know it today for another 500 years. The truth is, Jesus' being equal to the Father was debated back and forth, and never taught as an accepted doctrine in the church until Constantine settled the matter for political reasons, in 325.

Tigger has not been disproved. His research is sound.

Tigger's research is not sound. He has conjecture, absent of evidence. Thus, it would be classified as "unsound."

If Jesus was not being equated as being one with God, thus calling Himself God, then why did the Pharisee's crucify Him?

We have evidence from within the first century that Trinity doctrine was being taught. So, claiming it was not solid doctrine until after 325 AD is purely false; especially to extrapolate that to saying it further evolved over 500 years. This is simply not historically accurate, and is a case of arguing a false claim in spite of evidence.

 

[KingdomRose]

~*~*~

God is One, eternally, infinitely, everpresently

One may divide, differentiate, dissect, personalize, fragment, allocate, diversify, segment, extend, expand, expound, confound the Oneness of Deity all they like.....Deity ever maintains its original indivisible essence.

'God' is also not confined, restricted or limited to your religious tradition or culture, since 'God' is infinite

I simply asked that people discuss this within the parameters of the Bible. What does the Bible actually say about God's relationship with His Son?

 

[KingdomRose]

Tigger's research is not sound. He has conjecture, absent of evidence. Thus, it would be classified as "unsound."

If Jesus was not being equated as being one with God, thus calling Himself God, then why did the Pharisee's crucify Him?

We have evidence from within the first century that Trinity doctrine was being taught. So, claiming it was not solid doctrine until after 325 AD is purely false; especially to extrapolate that to saying it further evolved over 500 years. This is simply not historically accurate, and is a case of arguing a false claim in spite of evidence.

Conjecture? I think not. All of Bright Raven's comments are conjecture, especially since he ignores strong evidence concerning the terrible translation of John 1:1 by most Bible versions. Scriptural proof against the idea that Jesus is God has been presented many many times. It is ignored. Now, exactly WHAT EVIDENCE do you have that "within the first century the Trinity Doctrine was being taught?" And what evidence do you have that Jesus and his disciples actually taught the Trinity Doctrine?

What does the Catholic Church itself say about the Trinity? It doesn't agree with you! In The New Catholic Encyclopediawe find the following sentiments: "It is difficult to offer a clear, objective, and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and theological elaboration of the mystery of the Trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette....One should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament with out serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only THEN that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'one God in three Persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought....The formula itself does not reflect the immediate consciousness of the period of origins; it was the product of THREE CENTURIES OF DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT." (1967, Volume 14)

Right from the horse's mouth, so to speak. The doctrine was not solidified into what is now taught, until the 4th century. Before that there was much conjecture and debate, and not based on Christian origins. (I will find my reference to the 8th century, though I can't find it at the moment.) So, we can see that what Tigger has written, and what I also post, is not false.

 

[jsanford108]

You have quite a compact comment, so I will have to break it down in order to highlight several issues. I apologize for the visual hacking, however, it is quite necessary given the quantity of error.

Conjecture? I think not.

Well, let us review the OP. I will not go in depth in my highlighting all the issues of conjecture used by the OP, just the first initial post.
"The trinity, as an official doctrine, began to be developed in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicaea and was completed in 381 at the Council of Constantinople." : You yourself made the claim of " Yes, the pagan-influenced doctrine of the Trinity reared its ugly head toward the end of the first century and continued to be argued about for the next 200 years and more...." So, even you disagree with the claim that was made in the OP.

So, yes; concluding that the OP is conjecture is sound and true, since history, evidence, and even a conspiracy theorist/history revisionist like yourself disagree with the claim that Trinity doctrine began to be developed in 325 AD.

All of Bright Raven's comments are conjecture, especially since he ignores strong evidence concerning the terrible translation of John 1:1 by most Bible versions.

What strong evidence is there that John 1:1 is mistranslated?

I apologize if it has been provided; it has been so long since I have been in this thread.

Scriptural proof against the idea that Jesus is God has been presented many many times. It is ignored.

Most of this "evidence" is classified as eisegesis, as it is doctrine being placed into Scripture, rather than derived from it.

So, I would argue that it is okay to highlight such falsehoods, and if they are repeated continuously, to ignore them (since they have been addressed).

Now, exactly WHAT EVIDENCE do you have that "within the first century the Trinity Doctrine was being taught?" And what evidence do you have that Jesus and his disciples actually taught the Trinity Doctrine?

As far as evidence in the Scripture, it is quite obvious. We have John 1:1 (which has no evidence of mistranslation). We have from the prophetic book(s): Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 43:10-11, and Isaiah 44:6, just to give a few. These are paralleled in Revalation 1:17-18 and Revelation 2:8.

From the Gospels (which includes Gabriel the Angel, and Jesus, Himself): Matthew 1:23, John 1:1-14, John 5:17-23(here, we see Jesus equating Himself with God, a grave sin if it were not true), John 8:24 & 58 (Jesus uses the recognizable, especially to Hebrews, name of "I AM" in reference to Himself; another declaration of Himself as God), John 10:30-33, John 14:6-11, John 20:28, etc.

From the New Testament Books: Acts 4:12, Acts 20:28, paralleled in Revelation 1:5-6 & Revelation 5:8-9.

To continue, we have: Philippians 2:5-7, Colossians 2:9 (this specifically references the Godhead), 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 Timothy 6:14-16, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8-9, 2 John 1:7, etc.

And, a few more from Revelation: Revelation 1:8 - “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Revelation 22:13 & 16: “I AM the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”... “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches.”

These are just Jesus and His Apostles equating Christ with God, as equals; being One.

These writings of the New Testament were composed within the first century. To add on to this, the Apostles' disciples, who would have written post 100 AD. These disciples who wrote about the Trinity include Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Theophilus of Antioch, etc.

Why would these disciples have taught and wrote doctrines contrary to their teachers, the Apostles, who were charged by Christ Himself, to preach that which they bore witness to? To claim that such actions occurred is illogical and not trusting in Christ's words to the Apostles, and thus, not trusting Christ Himself.

What does the Catholic Church itself say about the Trinity? It doesn't agree with you! In The New Catholic Encyclopediawe find the following sentiments: "It is difficult to offer a clear, objective, and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and theological elaboration of the mystery of the Trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette....One should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament with out serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only THEN that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'one God in three Persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought....The formula itself does not reflect the immediate consciousness of the period of origins; it was the product of THREE CENTURIES OF DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT." (1967, Volume 14)

This is not what is taught by the Catholic Church.

I myself have never read the Catholic Encyclopedia, so I cannot speak on its authenticity. However, no such claims or doctrines are declared by the Catholic Church in their ecumenical documents, including the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

So, you are incorrect on this claim.

The doctrine was not solidified into what is now taught, until the 4th century. Before that there was much conjecture and debate, and not based on Christian origins. (I will find my reference to the 8th century, though I can't find it at the moment.) So, we can see that what Tigger has written, and what I also post, is not false.

Please, provide this evidence. Thus far, we have Scripture, composed within the first century, the writing of the Apostles and their disciples, and a continuous line of Apostolic succession which confirms and teaches Trinity doctrine.

No evidence has been provided, from historical source material, that contradicts the Trinity being held and taught by the Apostles and their disciples. Therefore, it can logically be concluded that any claim to the contrary is conjecture and not of Christian origin.

In conclusion, one can reasonably conclude that what Trigger 2 has written/declared, and yourself, is false, due to the lack of evidence, historical proofs, and early Christian sources/writings in support for your posits.

 

[KingdomRose]

You have quite a compact comment, so I will have to break it down in order to highlight several issues. I apologize for the visual hacking, however, it is quite necessary given the quantity of error.

Well, let us review the OP. I will not go in depth in my highlighting all the issues of conjecture used by the OP, just the first initial post.
"The trinity, as an official doctrine, began to be developed in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicaea and was completed in 381 at the Council of Constantinople." : You yourself made the claim of " Yes, the pagan-influenced doctrine of the Trinity reared its ugly head toward the end of the first century and continued to be argued about for the next 200 years and more...." So, even you disagree with the claim that was made in the OP.

No, I do not disagree with that. I said that there were stirrings of the doctrine at the end of the first century, and there came to be disagreements over the years about Jesus' relationship to his Father, and the argument was seemingly settled in 325 when Constantine decided that Arius was wrong. It was a political decision. Constantine cared little for anything spiritual. You apparently aren't really concerned for what I am really saying, and I don't care to argue fruitlessly.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

No, I do not disagree with that. I said that there were stirrings of the doctrine at the end of the first century, and there came to be disagreements over the years about Jesus' relationship to his Father, and the argument was seemingly settled in 325 when Constantine decided that Arius was wrong. It was a political decision. Constantine cared little for anything spiritual. You apparently aren't really concerned for what I am really saying, and I don't care to argue fruitlessly.

You are a member of the 'Jehovah Witness Cult' and hopefully, no one will be listening to you.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Everyone needs to Google what the JWs believe and they'll see the truth about this disturbing CULT.

 

[Marbleyes]

I agree that God is not three but as the Scripture makes clear - He is one. { 1. }

If You were to please take a closer look at Php 2:4-7 You would see that what a previous poster said was correct.

The manuscripts here say Php 2:4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.

Php 2:5 For think or regard this in yourself who are also in Christ Jesus.

Php 2:6 Who, was in the form / morph of God, thought it not robbery or seizing, taking (by force) being or eXisting as equal to the God:

Php 2:7 But a vanity / voided / non-effect, reputation Himself, taking or receiving the form / morph of a servant was in the likeness of men:

Please Compare this to Your translation as the poster said and look at the original Greek. You will find Your translation is in error.

 

[keypurr]

I agree that God is not three but as the Scripture makes clear - He is one. { 1. }

If You were to please take a closer look at Php 2:4-7 You would see that what a previous poster said was correct.

The manuscripts here say Php 2:4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.

Php 2:5 For think or regard this in yourself who are also in Christ Jesus.

Php 2:6 Who, was in the form / morph of God, thought it not robbery or seizing, taking (by force) being or eXisting as equal to the God:

Php 2:7 But a vanity / voided / non-effect, reputation Himself, taking or receiving the form / morph of a servant was in the likeness of men:

Please Compare this to Your translation as the poster said and look at the original Greek. You will find Your translation is in error.

Being in a form of God does not make another God. The form of God is a creation. Not another God.

 

[Apple7]

Being in a form of God does not make another God. The form of God is a creation. Not another God.

Scripture never says that Jesus was created.

 

[keypurr]

Scripture never says that Jesus was created.

Everything except YHWH is a creation. That includes his logos son.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

The trinity, as an official doctrine, began to be developed in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicaea and was completed in 381 at the Council of Constantinople.........

When the true nature of God was understood by man is beside the point. God is Trinity. That is the eternal truth of our existence. The Bible makes it plain and clear.

"God in his deepest mystery is not a solitude but a family, since he has in himself fatherhood, sonship and the essence of the family which is love" - Saint Pope John Paul II

 

[freelight]

When the true nature of God was understood by man is beside the point. God is Trinity. That is the eternal truth of our existence. The Bible makes it plain and clear.

"God in his deepest mystery is not a solitude but a family, since he has in himself fatherhood, sonship and the essence of the family which is love" - Saint Pope John Paul II

All is One,...yet a manifold One of course,...since out of the Original Unity emerges and inter-relates an infinitude of multiplicity and diversity

 

[freelight]

Scripture never says that Jesus was created.

A 'Son' is a generated being, by definition, no way around it - if that 'being' is fathered in anyway, it does have a 'beginning' in that context. You can add any metaphysical gymnastics or presuppositional theology into the mix as you fancy. Just know every term has its meaning within a given relational-context, no matter what further embellishments you add thereon

 

[Catholic Crusader]

All is One,...yet a manifold One of course,...since out of the Original Unity emerges and inter-relates an infinitude of multiplicity and diversity

I'm not really sure what that means, but I am fairly sure it is not in line with my beliefs.

When the true nature of God was understood by man is beside the point. God is Trinity. That is the eternal truth of our existence. The Bible makes it plain and clear.

"God in his deepest mystery is not a solitude but a family, since he has in himself fatherhood, sonship and the essence of the family which is love" - Saint Pope John Paul II

This is very simple:
First, we all agree that the Father is God, so I will not bother to proof that.

Second, the Bible is explicit that Jesus also is God. In John 5:18 we are told that Jesus’ opponents sought to kill him because he "called God his Father, making himself equal with God."

In John 8:58, when quizzed about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM"—invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God—"I AM" or YHWH (Ex. 3:14). His audience understood exactly what he was claiming about himself. "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple" (John 8:59).

Perhaps most important are passages that apply the title "the First and the Last" to Jesus. The "First and the Last" is an Old Testament title of Yahweh: "Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Yahweh of armies: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god’" (Is. 44:6; cf. 41:4, 48:12). This title is directly applied to Jesus three times in the book of Revelation: "When I saw him [Christ], I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the First and the Last’" (Rev. 1:17). "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the First and the Last, who died and came to life’" (Rev. 2:8). "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end" (Rev. 22:12–13). This last quote is especially significant since it applies to Jesus the parallel title "the Alpha and the Omega," which Revelation earlier applied to the Lord God: "‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8).

So that wraps up number 2, that Jesus is God.

Third, the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible is pretty clear on that in 1 Cor. 2:10–13, Acts 5:3–4, 28:25–28, and many other places so I won't go into depth on that one here.

THEREFORE: Since the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God (cf. John 8:58, 10:38, 14:10; Col. 2:9), and it also clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is God (cf. Acts 5:3–4, 28:25–28; 1 Cor. 2:10–13), and since we all agree that the Father is God, and at the same time we know there is only one God (Mark 12:29, 1 Cor. 8:4–6, Jas. 2:19), the only way we hold all four truths is by saying that all three are one God.

HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?

We have to grasp the difficult concept that one being does not necessarily equate to one person.

A cat or a dog is one being and NO persons. A bird or a fish is one being and NO persons. A human is one being and ONE person. God is one being and THREE persons.

"Being" refers to what we are. "Person" refers to who we are. God, the Bible states, is Father, Son, Holy Spirit. WHO he is is three persons. WHAT he is is one God.

** Also, those who deny the Trinity usually also deny the Divinity of Christ, and this too is an old heresy

 

[keypurr]

When the true nature of God was understood by man is beside the point. God is Trinity. That is the eternal truth of our existence. The Bible makes it plain and clear.

"God in his deepest mystery is not a solitude but a family, since he has in himself fatherhood, sonship and the essence of the family which is love" - Saint Pope John Paul II

That is an evil doctrine. It dishonors the one true God that Jesus spoke of in John 17:3.