ECT Our triune God

[jerzy]

Jesus Christ was raised from death to life by the power of the Holy Spirit:

Hi Nang.

There are few serious problems with your assumptions.

The first one is that you suggest the Holy Spirit is God not the Spirit of God. That clearly precludes your assumption.

“But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you.” Romans 8:11

Here you point out correctly that the Spirit of Him meaning the Father not God the Spirit.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, raised Himself from death to life:

Jesus has never said that he would raise himself from dead.

“Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, 'Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?' But He spake of the temple of His body. When therefore He was risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.” John 2:19-22

As you have clearly pointed out Jesus referred to the OT temple which was about to be replaced by his resurrected body and the body of his followers as is clearly stated in 1Co 3:16, 6:16, 2Co 6:16

Thus, Holy Scripture teaches that all three Persons of the Triune God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, at the same time attributing this resurrection power to the One True GOD:

You didn’t show that the Holy Spirit is a person but that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God not God the Spirit.

You need to note that you make up words against clear warning of God against.

You say that the Spirit of God is a person, is God.

You might be correct if you were saying that the Spirit of God is His power or His universal energy making it an attribute of God not a separate personage.

A similar analogy is made in Jn 1:1 whereby God sends His word from His mouth and commands things to become Isa 55:11, Ps 33:6+9, He 11:3 and so on.

 

[Lon]

Proverbs 19:13b a contentious person is like a constant dripping.

Hi Lon,

Are you still with us? I am sorry to see what has happened to your thread and your noble efforts to discuss the Trinity apart from arguments.

In the spirit of your OP, I will share my favorite Scriptures that reveal, without a doubt, the Holy Trinity of God.

Nang

Thank you very much Nang. I suspected the anti-trinitarians couldn't resist hijacking a thread where they were asked not to attend. It confirms contentious natures, as if the 40+ threads they've started on the matter weren't enough.

This thread was not started for 'continuing' the debate nor rabbit trailing on the gifts of the Spirit. Such also confirms issues of self-control (Galations 5:22-23).

We serve an incredible God who will define Himself as He sees fit.
Nobody can instruct the mind of God, but be instructed by Him as your quotes so adequately present. Thank you again and blessings in Him.

 

[godrulz]

Paul was not in the Body of Christ?! Have you finally given up MAD? Good for you. There are probably men of God that you quote and admire who speak in tongues. Good thing you are not Judge Jesus (being judge judy does not count, godplayer).

The charismatic work of the Spirit was evidenced in the OT, in the life and ministry of Jesus, in the early church, yet you think it/He is irrelevant for the Church Age?! Talk about a false teacher.

There is no exegetical basis for cessationism (nor KJV-only, nor MAD).

Why has it been so quiet on TOL? It has got boring. The only thing happening in the anti-trinitarians.

I see you weren't raptured either. I guess we did not do enough good works?:rapture:

Rather than refute my logic, Nick M. says I am going to hell (presumably for rejecting MAD, but not for rejecting Jesus/Paul). Nick is a sectarian cultist on this non-salvific issue. Many godly believers speak in tongues today, just as Paul exhorted under the inspiration of the Spirit. If one is a Hindu or Satanic tongues speaker, that would be a different issue because it would be a demonic counterfeit and rejection of Christ.

I Cor. 12-14 is Body/Church truth, yet MAD even rejects its own Pauline truths to hyper disp a hyper disp view that is not biblical.

 

[jerzy]

Proverbs 19:13b a contentious person is like a constant dripping.

Thank you very much Nang. I suspected the anti-trinitarians couldn't resist hijacking a thread where they were asked not to attend. It confirms contentious natures, as if the 40+ threads they've started on the matter weren't enough.

This thread was not started for 'continuing' the debate nor rabbit trailing on the gifts of the Spirit. Such also confirms issues of self-control (Galations 5:22-23).

We serve an incredible God who will define Himself as He sees fit.
Nobody can instruct the mind of God, but be instructed by Him as your quotes so adequately present. Thank you again and blessings in Him.

Nobody can reject hundreds of fool proof texts and replace them by a crocked theology.

We are sent here by God to testify about the atrocities man had to embark upon in the past and is eager to even disallow the true worshippers of the Father the only true God to quote from the Trinitarian Bibles today because they need to peddle the crocked theology.

 

[jerzy]

Rather than refute my logic, Nick M. says I am going to hell (presumably for rejecting MAD, but not for rejecting Jesus/Paul). Nick is a sectarian cultist on this non-salvific issue. Many godly believers speak in tongues today, just as Paul exhorted under the inspiration of the Spirit. If one is a Hindu or Satanic tongues speaker, that would be a different issue because it would be a demonic counterfeit and rejection of Christ.

I Cor. 12-14 is Body/Church truth, yet MAD even rejects its own Pauline truths to hyper disp a hyper disp view that is not biblical.

The Trinitarian tongue speaking gurus incited the Trinitarian tongue speaking flowerers to annihilate one another by millions.

The tongue speaking today is most of the time another fraud and nobody may claim that speaking in tongues makes him credible.

 

[-FoC-]

Well, all you have shown so far in support of your theology was the monk's mistake and Thomas' supposed nullification of all the scriptures in one verse.

In vain I have asked you what you find in Jn 20:28 warranting rendition of the multiple meaning theos as God.

Again chap....one passage is NOT to be pitted AGAINST another.
That is your failing.

Jesus IS God.
And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!
(Joh 20:28 MKJV

 

[-FoC-]

Well, one doesn't play games with God.

YOU arent God, friend. Even if you think you are.

Are you saying that neither Jews no Christians have been guilty of perverting God's word?

They pervert the INTENT of the WRITTEN WORD.
Even the Jews who did not UNDERSTAND the written word STILL wrote it down precisely as God gave it.



I don't play games with God and wouldn't imagine anyone sane would do that.

It is a man made concept.

Utter tripe.
Its a concept derived from the scriptures by any HONEST mind.

 

[-FoC-]

My Father the only true God is Almighty.

Ive yet to see the evidence to support this claim.
You deny THE Jesus of scriptures, therefore you do not worship the TRUE God OF those scriptures.

 

[keypurr]

Keypurr, please also note the OP and comply with its directions.
I'm sure it is hard to resist, but this thread isn't made for debate with you guys. There are plenty of threads you've made for that. You needn't clog up one that asks you politely not to do so.

I will follow your request because any one who would follow your request is not interested in truth.

May God enlighten you someday, Peace

 

[-FoC-]

Have you ever supported your "views" with scriptures?

I certainly have...and you clearly cannot handle it.

Are you not aware that Jn 1:1 is a monk's mistake?

complete bull.
You dont like what John has to say about the Son of God so you make up this trash to have an excuse to do precisely what Revelations condemns....taking away from the word.

Are you not aware that 1Jn 5:7-8 is a dirty trinitarian addition?

The Johannine Comma is NOT present in many NT translations, chap...such as the English Majority Text Version...and yet that version STILL SUPPORTS the concept of a triune Godhead...sorry about your luck.

 

[-FoC-]

Zech. 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD against Israel. Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him:

....

Zech 12:10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.

Zechariah is a good one.

Zechariah 11
10 And I took my staff, 7Beauty, and cut it in two, that I might break the covenant which I had made with all the peoples. 11 So it was broken on that day. Thus kthe 8poor of the flock, who were watching me, knew that it was the word of the Lord. 12
Then I said to them, “If it is 9agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain.” So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver.

13 And the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the mpotter”—that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord for the potter. 14 Then I cut in two my other staff, 1Bonds, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

WHOSE price was 30 silver pieces?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

This thread is specifically for triune believers. No other need or should post here.

I'm personally boycotting these cultists threads against our view. I have found none of them are here to learn a thing and they certainly don't make a cogent or compelling presentation. Its a waste of bandwidth and time from my experience. This thread is for posting material to help us on our way.

A good idea for a thread, Lon. Too bad it is marred by so many who refuse your request for Trinitarian believers only to post. I guess good manners is not something one can expect from anonymous users.

Christ's commission to the apostles (see Acts 1:8), "You shall be my witnesses", is an echo of the Lord's commission to all Israel in Isaiah's prophecy. Christ incorporated into his promise of the Spirit's coming (Acts 1:8) the wording of Isaiah 49:6-7, "to the end of the earth." We also see that Christ also included another allusion to Isaiah. Christ's promise that when the Holy Spirit descends "you shall be my witnesses" echoed God's summons to Israel to be witnesses in his charges against the idols (see Isaiah 43:10-12; 44:8). Since the Lord had performed wondrous acts of rescue for Israel, the Israelites should testify that he alone is God, the only Saviour. By this invocation of the Old Testament allusion, Christ identified himself as Yahweh, the covenant God of Israel. In other words, those who are truly Jehovah's witnesses testify about Jesus Christ, just as Yahweh had called ancient Israel to testify. "There is salvation in no one else" (see Acts 4:12).

Lon, see also Reymond's treatment here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2212143#post2212143

AMR

 

[Krsto]

Hmmm.
Little note....pretty much ALL doctrine is 'derived' in that rarely is ANY truth found in whole in ONE short passage. Ive yet to see the COMPLETE truth in any matter presented IN WHOLE in a single verse or short passage.

Those who believe they find Gods whole truth in a verse or two are deluded. Ive been a student of scripture since 1985 and after many tens of thousands of hours of study I am still coming across things not seen before when details are compared together.

The trinity concept IS 'derived' as almost ALL Biblical truths are.
For someone to call themselves 'student' then place these ridiculous demands on the texts exposes the person for being less of a student and more of one who just likes to argue their own position regardless of what the evidence actually shows overall.

I actually agree with you, 100% :thumb: My point with grulz is that being a derived doctrine it is not something where he can say one must believe it or else go to hell, or be a non-Christian cultist to use his words. When Paul said, "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved," he didn't go into specifics about just exactly what that meant. Grulz has fallen into the error of gnosticism, that it is by ones acceptance of certain knowledge (beyond a simple belief in Jesus and his resurrection) that one is saved. God didn't make it that hard for people to get saved. If all this doctrinal precision were necessary for salvation God would have spelled it out plainly rather than leave it for men to figure out and debate about for centuries to come. He wouldn't have given us such a big book and probably wouldn't have used Paul at all since it was his manner, as Peter said of him, to be hard to understand. Grulz wants to make his studied opinions the standard by which all men must be judged and he is just plain out to lunch, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of his Christology.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Lon,

Two resources I consider required reading for digging deeper into the Scripture's teachings about the Triune Godhead:

1. Gerald Bray's The Doctrine of God

2. Robert Letham's The Holy Trinity

Without a Trinitarian Godhead there is no satisfactory explanation of the love of God without diluting the very definition of God. (see here).

Only with the Trinitarian worldview, where God is three and one, can God be described in personal terms without God being made relative to the world. Consider, 1 John 4:8, “…God is love.” What does that mean? Well, the non-Trinitarians will answer “love of the world”. An immediate problem arises. Apparently the divine attribute of Love depends on the existence of the world. Since the attributes of God and the essence of God are co-inherent, such a response is claiming that God Himself depends upon the world. Here we see the slippery slope to a “wholly revealed” God. All right, then should we not say that “love” is metaphorically related to something mysterious? Then here we see the slippery slope to a “wholly other” God. Thus we encounter the heresies of Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, and Arianism. For if God is simply “One”, He is either “wholly other” or God is relative to the world—or somehow is both.

AMR

 

[Krsto]

Lon,

Two resources I consider required reading for digging deeper into the Scripture's teachings about the Triune Godhead:

1. Gerald Bray's The Doctrine of God

2. Robert Letham's The Holy Trinity

Without a Trinitarian Godhead there is no satisfactory explanation of the love of God without diluting the very definition of God. (see here).

Only with the Trinitarian worldview, where God is three and one, can God be described in personal terms without God being made relative to the world. Consider, 1 John 4:8, “…God is love.” What does that mean? Well, the non-Trinitarians will answer “love of the world”. An immediate problem arises. Apparently the divine attribute of Love depends on the existence of the world. Since the attributes of God and the essence of God are co-inherent, such a response is claiming that God Himself depends upon the world. Here we see the slippery slope to a “wholly revealed” God. All right, then should we not say that “love” is metaphorically related to something mysterious? Then here we see the slippery slope to a “wholly other” God. Thus we encounter the heresies of Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, and Arianism. For if God is simply “One”, He is either “wholly other” or God is relative to the world—or somehow is both.

AMR

Your link to the Westminster Confession doesn't come through on my end, I get a blank page. Any way to check it?

 

[jerzy]

By this invocation of the Old Testament allusion, Christ identified himself as Yahweh, the covenant God of Israel. In other words, those who are truly Jehovah's witnesses testify about Jesus Christ, just as Yahweh had called ancient Israel to testify. "There is salvation in no one else" (see Acts 4:12).

Lon, see also Reymond's treatment here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2212143#post2212143

AMR

Mr.

Just to establish if you know what you are talking about, could you tell who and when began using the word Jehovah?

 

[jerzy]

Lon,

Two resources I consider required reading for digging deeper into the Scripture's teachings about the Triune Godhead:

1. Gerald Bray's The Doctrine of God

2. Robert Letham's The Holy Trinity

Without a Trinitarian Godhead there is no satisfactory explanation of the love of God without diluting the very definition of God. (see here).

Only with the Trinitarian worldview, where God is three and one, can God be described in personal terms without God being made relative to the world. Consider, 1 John 4:8, “…God is love.” What does that mean? Well, the non-Trinitarians will answer “love of the world”. An immediate problem arises. Apparently the divine attribute of Love depends on the existence of the world. Since the attributes of God and the essence of God are co-inherent, such a response is claiming that God Himself depends upon the world. Here we see the slippery slope to a “wholly revealed” God. All right, then should we not say that “love” is metaphorically related to something mysterious? Then here we see the slippery slope to a “wholly other” God. Thus we encounter the heresies of Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, and Arianism. For if God is simply “One”, He is either “wholly other” or God is relative to the world—or somehow is both.

AMR

As the Pharisees did so the wise man of today reject the simple truth given by God and seek their own truth.

They have to reject hundreds of fool proof texts like these to promote their own wisdom making God lesser that themselves & establishing themselves in place of God here on Earth:

Isa 11:1-3, 42:1+6, Eze 34:23-24, Mic 5:2, Mt 6:9, 11:25, Jn 6:23, 6:44-45, 6:65, 14:6, 14:10, 17:3, 20:17, 20:31, Ac 2:22, 2:36, 3:21, 10:36, 17:31, Ro 1:7, 1Cor 1:3, 8:6, 2Co 1:2, 5:18+21, Eph 1:3, 2:18, Ga 1:1, 1:3, Col 1:1-3, 1:12-13, Php 1:2, 1Th 1:1-3, 2Th 1:1-2, 1Ti 1:1-2, 2:5, 2Ti 1:1-2, Ti 1:4, Phm 1:3-4, Heb 1:1-2, Jam 1:1, 1Pe 1:2-3, 2Pe 1:2, 1Jn 1:2-3, 2Jn 1:3, Jud 1:1, Re 1:1.

 

[jerzy]

Again chap....one passage is NOT to be pitted AGAINST another.
That is your failing.

Jesus IS God.
And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!
(Joh 20:28 MKJV

So you are aware that there is nothing in the text of Jn 20:28 warranting rendition of multiple meaning word theos as God yet you are adamant to condone the Trinitarians for forging the text against the entire scriptures being against them.

 

[jerzy]

YOU arent God, friend. Even if you think you are.

But you are since you sit here on earth in place of God Almighty and add to His word.

They pervert the INTENT of the WRITTEN WORD.
Even the Jews who did not UNDERSTAND the written word STILL wrote it down precisely as God gave it.

So which of the Trinitarian Bibles was written precisely as God gave them?

I don't play games with God and wouldn't imagine anyone sane would do that.

You are making him an imbecil and a liar by correcting His mistakes placing the monk's blinder and the Trinitarian forgery for His word.

Utter tripe.
Its a concept derived from the scriptures by any HONEST mind.

So you confirm that the Trinity God is a man's concept never mentioned in the scriptures but peddled in the pagan world.

 

[jerzy]

Ive yet to see the evidence to support this claim.
You deny THE Jesus of scriptures, therefore you do not worship the TRUE God OF those scriptures.

You make mockery of God's salvation plan.

You say that a woman gave birth to God whom man like you killed.

This is paganism at it’s highest.