Trinity Proof Scriptures

[Idolater]

I suggest that it does present a problem for Trinity doctrine, at least for the former passage.Within Trinity doctrine, all "persons" are equal in rank and status and so forth, and it would be "God" or "the Trinity" (the sum of the persons) that is greater than I, not "my Father" is greater than I... Just think of the Trinity diagrams that you see drawn out everywhere.

Unless you have a different understanding of what is meant by "greater" in that context?

As I wrote in an above post, God is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The Father is not the Son, and not the Spirit. The Son is not the Spirit. The Father generates the Son, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and from the Son. That's the whole doctrine.

 

[Dartman]

See, this is why you should apply the thread theme to your own self, of recognizing why most of your arguments don't find any ground against anyone. They are simply bad arguments that unaware of to whom you are speaking. For example, I cannot even imagine why you think that John 18:5 is significant and it's a demonstration that you're rather desperate for anything to bolster your verse roster.

Just for the record, John's gospel is probably the single most hated part of the bible that is despised and argued against by Unitarians, precisely because he has the divinity of Christ as one of his specific emphasis.

John NEVER discusses "the divinity of Christ" in ANY of his writings. That is a phrase entirely created by trinitarian/oneness disciples, not Scripture.
Jesus makes it VERY clear, his God is "the ONLY true God".
The rest of the NT makes it equally clear ... Jesus isn't God ... he is a man ...... which is BETWEEN God and men.

Both trinitarian and oneness theories are utterly ludicrous.

The tenets unique to those theories contradict Scripture, and God's Creation.

There are several reasons they don't get laughed out of existence however;

1) the doctrine has the full backing of "the workings of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders" (2 Thes 2:1-12).
2) Historically the threat of violence to those opposed to trinity, and the actual murder of many that were opposed, quickly entrenched the doctrine.
3) for centuries oneness/modalism/ sabellianism and monarchianism theories were ALSO dangerous positions to teach, since trinitarians had military might, and inquisitions on their side, and have slaughtered MILLIONS without compassion, sometimes in the most hideous ways possible!
4)in the roughly 18 centuries since the doctrine began to be developed, the Scriptures have been SCOURED for ANY support for the theory.... and
ANYTHING that could be warped to appear to support the theory has been brainwashed for 1.8 thousand years.

 

[Dartman]

God is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The Father is not the Son, and not the Spirit. The Son is not the Spirit.
The Father generates the Son, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and from the Son. That's the whole doctrine.

Not quite. You left out the "coequal, coeternal and consubstatial" element of the theory. Please explain how the Father being "greater" than the son is "coequal".

(I deleted some of your opinion, since it didn't contribute to the discussion)
.... the substance of the Trinity is Apostolic.

Oh, I've heard the claims .... they are not persuasive.

Not one single tenet that is UNIQUE to the trinity has EVER been stated, explained or preached to ANY audience in the Scriptures.

And as for "oneness," idk anybody arguing for "Oneness." .

Then you aren't paying attention.

 

[Dartman]

1. Jesus was not the first to be raised from the dead,

He was the first to be raised from the dead to Eternal Life.

... and he is not the last to be raised from the dead.

He was the last sacrifice for sins, and he was the first spotless human sacrifice for sins. He was the last prophet to Israel, and the first prophet of the New Testament. (John the Baptist was dead before the New Testament was in effect.)
Jesus is the first and last Christ.
Jesus is the first and last immortal king.

 

[Silent Hunter]

My conclusion:

Is Jesus "the word made flesh"? Literally, no. Metaphorically, yes.
Is Jesus "the son of god"? Physically and/or genetically, no. As heir to the throne of his father David, yes.
Is Jesus equal to god? No.
Is Jesus "god"? No.

I think that your argument is deft, but I caution you that you are not considering the possibility that Christians are not to derive their theology from just the Christian scriptures. This notion that we are, was popularized in the Reformation, and has passed into lore as a fact, when cursory study of the history of Christianity shows that it was invented some time very later than the Church began in the first century.

In contrast to that view, which you've probably unwittingly presupposed, is that the whole entire authentic teaching of the Christian faith was only partially captured in the Scripture, and that in order to learn what else is authoritative, we must listen to what the Church's authentic bishops say that they have learned from their predecessors, who learned from their predecessors, who learned from their predecessors, etc., until you get all the way back to the Apostles (e.g., 2Ti2:2KJV, where Paul instructs Bishop Timothy on how he is to ensure that subsequent generations of Christians will always know the full truth).

When we consider this view, that the whole deposit of faith is possessed and transmitted only by the bishops, and that only part of it is captured in the Bible, then the question of the Trinity is an open-and-shut case. There is no room for doubt. The Trinity is authentically Christian, and is as I mentioned in an earlier post, it is the definitive Christian definition of the word "God."

Note also that this view positively asserts that the Scripture is not and cannot be contradicted by any other authentically Apostolic teaching, so it's not as if the Scripture is not presently some sort of yard stick of authenticity, it's just that the Bible does not all by itself contain the entire Apostolic witness.

Since this thread concerns "Trinity Proof Scriptures" your objection to my "deft" post, while noted, is immaterial to the discussion. The concept of the "trinity", while ancient, does not and cannot trace a "paper trail" to the origins of Christianity. All evidence suggests (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) was an invention from "scripture" around the beginning of the third century.

If, as you say, the "trinity doctrine" is one handed down orally from bishop-to-bishop from the apostles why can no written evidence of it be found from the first or early second century?

 

[Idolater]

Not quite. You left out the "coequal, coeternal and consubstatial" element of the theory. Please explain how the Father being "greater" than the son is "coequal".

The answer is contained in what I wrote. The Father generates the Son.

Oh, I've heard the claims .... they are not persuasive.

Whether or not they are persuasive, they are relevant, and belong in this discussion, imo.

Not one single tenet that is UNIQUE to the trinity has EVER been stated, explained or preached to ANY audience in the Scriptures.

We disagree.

Then you aren't paying attention.

OK, that's a possibility. Who then is arguing for "Oneness?"

 

[Idolater]

Since this thread concerns "Trinity Proof Scriptures" your objection to my "deft" post, while noted, is immaterial to the discussion.

Then I didn't elaborate sufficiently. While "Trinity" is not found in Christian scriptures, "bishops" are, and it is from the bishops that the Catholic and Orthodox Christians the world round receive the Trinity as authentically Christian; i.e., Apostolic.

The concept of the "trinity", while ancient, does not and cannot trace a "paper trail" to the origins of Christianity.

I see the Epistle to Diognetis specifically calling Jesus of Nazareth God. For one early example. You may disagree, but to me the Trinity is the only way possible that He can be God.

All evidence suggests (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) was an invention from "scripture" around the beginning of the third century.

You're suggesting that Matthew 28:19 KJV, 2nd Corinthians 13:14 KJV, and 1st Peter 1:2 KJV were all revised /edited /changed in the third century, and that none of these scriptures are authentic?

If, as you say, the "trinity doctrine" is one handed down orally from bishop-to-bishop from the apostles why can no written evidence of it be found from the first or early second century?

Isn't the answer contained in your question? To whit, it was "handed down orally." There's by definition not going to be written evidence of such things.

 

[Silent Hunter]

My conclusion:

Is Jesus "the word made flesh"? Literally, no. Metaphorically, yes.
Is Jesus "the son of god"? Physically and/or genetically, no. As heir to the throne of his father David, yes.
Is Jesus equal to god? No.
Is Jesus "god"? No.

How would one qualify to be "god" in your understanding? I understand that you have an atheist view, but if you could give some qualification as to what you consider "god" qualities it might assist the discussion.

I have no obligation to qualify or quantify my concept of a deity because it is irrelevant to the discussion. Rather you should explain why my explication fails without going beyond the bounds of the verses cited.

If, John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") is "proof" Jesus and his deity are one and the same "being" why do trinitarians ignore/disregard John 17:21-23 ("21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me. 22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one; 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one;} showing what Jesus meant by being "one"?

 

[john w]

Not quite. You left out the "coequal, coeternal and consubstatial" element of the theory. Please explain how the Father being "greater" than the son is "coequal".

1 Corinthians 3 KJV
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Ephesians 5 KJV
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Colossians 3 KJV
18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.


You missed it-the term “greater” in John 14:28 KJV is not in the context of “a higher type of being.” Why would the disciples rejoice because the Master was going to see a being who is greater than He? Why would that cause rejoicing? But the term does not refer to “better,” but “greater” as in positionally greater. It speaks to the position of God the Father in heaven over against the position of the only begotten Son Son on earth. The Lord Jesus Christ had voluntarily, per Philippians 2:6 ff. KJV, laid aside His divine prerogatives, and humbled himself by becoming flesh. But-the context of John 14:28 KJV.....the preceding verses, the verses following? He would soon be leaving this humbled position and returning to His position of glory. If the disciples had been thinking of the ramifications of the Lord Jesus Christ's words, they would have rejoiced that He was going to such a place.The Saviour was returning back to the place He had with the His Father before the world-survey John 17:5 KJV.


Would you say that the husband is “a higher type of being" than the wife?


There is a distinction between a person’s nature, and that person's role.They are equal in nature, but unequal in roles.

Never mind-you're a bible corrector, not a bible believer-I write not for your edification, but for others.

 

[Rosenritter]

I've previously had this discussion with you and have the following analogy that images the wording of Rev 1:4,5:

John...May you have undeserved kindness and peace from “the One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.” To him who loves us and who set us free from our sins by means of his own blood—

Rosenritter may you have blessings from Paul and from the people who live in his house and from James the worlds strongest man, the Olympic athelite, the winner of the gold, he James made us enter into the trials for the worlds strongest man so that we could be henchmen to his Father and hero"

I asked you if "in the example I gave that the everyday person who read it would understand the the people who lived in the house (plurual) was Paul, and that James was also Paul, lets try and be honest when answering this, is that what you truly believe?"

Your answer was the following "I answered in part because of trying to decrease words. Paul is Paul, the people who live in the house includes Paul, there may or may not be anyone else other than Paul included in the people in the house, and as you phrased it James seemed like a different person. You're not proving your point here."

Do you still agree with you answer in relation to the analogy I just quoted from an old thread?

I agree with my prior answer, but it wasn't my answer at fault, but rather your question which failed to address both possibilities:

"Greetings from Andrew, and from the folk at Theology Online, and from Rosenritter, whom you know through discussion..."

I could easily speak like that above, which also meshes perfectly well with statements to follow confirming that Rosenritter, is indeed and in fact Andrew, whom you have never seen, and of whom you can never see (no Skype in this analogy.)

And just to make this a little clearer, the words that Rosenritter speaks are not his own, and Rosenritter does nothing of his own, every word is typed by Andrew and nothing is done without the power of Andrew. So... how many people are Andrew and Rosenritter? One? or Two?

Rosenritter is Andrew made text. And depending on the setting it still makes sense to refer to Rosenritter in some roles and context and Andrew in other roles and context. Sometimes it will seem to blend, sometimes it will sound separate. When in doubt, listen to the specific clarification that is given, such as "I am ... (insert unique name and/or title)"

 

[Rosenritter]

Just fyi, Tertullian was not a bishop. He was influential, I'm not contesting that, I'm just adding in a pertinent fact here. What Tertullian did was to take the scriptures and the Apostolic traditions that he knew, and he pondered them. He was an outstanding thinker, like Origen, and like Aquinas much later, but none of these men were bishops.

Yes, yes, I know that Tertullian is officially a heretic, but that heretic's thinking is still reflected in much of traditional doctrines, such as in regards to the nature of God, the nature and duration of future punishment, and the nature of love and the persecution of heretics.

 

[Rosenritter]

As I wrote in an above post, God is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The Father is not the Son, and not the Spirit. The Son is not the Spirit. The Father generates the Son, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and from the Son. That's the whole doctrine.

"Generates?" That's a synonym for "creates."

 

[Rosenritter]

John NEVER discusses "the divinity of Christ" in ANY of his writings. That is a phrase entirely created by trinitarian/oneness disciples, not Scripture.
Jesus makes it VERY clear, his God is "the ONLY true God".
The rest of the NT makes it equally clear ... Jesus isn't God ... he is a man ...... which is BETWEEN God and men.

John 1.

 

[Rosenritter]

He was the first to be raised from the dead to Eternal Life.
He was the last sacrifice for sins, and he was the first spotless human sacrifice for sins. He was the last prophet to Israel, and the first prophet of the New Testament. (John the Baptist was dead before the New Testament was in effect.)
Jesus is the first and last Christ.
Jesus is the first and last immortal king.

Jesus did not say "I am the first" but "I am the first and the last." So grasping for "He was the first to be raised to eternal life" fails the test because it ignores that he is not the last to be raised to eternal life.

John 3:16 KJV
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Do you place your Unitarian theory on such a high pedestal that you would also forsake the promise of eternal life?

So here's another theory. The Holy Spirit which wrote the scripture and He who spoke to John in that vision was well aware that "the first and the last" was a unique title claimed by the LORD and the LORD alone in Isaiah, and his repeated use of this title with himself was for the purpose of linking "I am the LORD" with "I am he who was dead, and is now alive."

He who wrote the scripture was not ignorant of the scripture.

 

[Idolater]

Yes, yes, I know that Tertullian is officially a heretic, but that heretic's thinking is still reflected in much of traditional doctrines, such as in regards to the nature of God, the nature and duration of future punishment, and the nature of love and the persecution of heretics.

I'm not arguing that he was or was not a heretic, I'm just saying that he wasn't a bishop. It's just a simple statement of fact, not an opinion.

 

[Rosenritter]

Then I didn't elaborate sufficiently. While "Trinity" is not found in Christian scriptures, "bishops" are, and it is from the bishops that the Catholic and Orthodox Christians the world round receive the Trinity as authentically Christian; i.e., Apostolic.
I see the Epistle to Diognetis specifically calling Jesus of Nazareth God. For one early example. You may disagree, but to me the Trinity is the only way possible that He can be God.
You're suggesting that Matthew 28:19 KJV, 2nd Corinthians 13:14 KJV, and 1st Peter 1:2 KJV were all revised /edited /changed in the third century, and that none of these scriptures are authentic?
Isn't the answer contained in your question? To whit, it was "handed down orally." There's by definition not going to be written evidence of such things.

There is no mention of "Trinity" in Matthew 28;19, 2 Corinthians 13;14, or 1st Peter 1:2.... or even 1 John 5:7 (which I also support.)

 

[Idolater]

"Generates?" That's a synonym for "creates."

To receive the Trinity as a Catholic or Orthodox Christian (neither of which is required to be an authentic Christian), we must abide by not only the words that they themselves use, but also of the definitions of the words that they use, as instructed by the bishops. "Generates" does not mean "creates." It does mean that the Father is the source of the Son, but it does not mean that the Father and Son are not consubstantial.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Since this thread concerns "Trinity Proof Scriptures" your objection to my "deft" post, while noted, is immaterial to the discussion.

Then I didn't elaborate sufficiently. While "Trinity" is not found in Christian scriptures, "bishops" are, and it is from the bishops that the Catholic and Orthodox Christians the world round receive the Trinity as authentically Christian; i.e., Apostolic.

Perhaps I didn't elaborate sufficiently. So what? Your insistence doesn't elevate your assertion to the level of "relevant to the discussion".

The concept of the "trinity", while ancient, does not and cannot trace a "paper trail" to the origins of Christianity.

I see the Epistle to Diognetis specifically calling Jesus of Nazareth God. For one early example. You may disagree, but to me the Trinity is the only way possible that He can be God.

Yes, the "trinity" seems the only way possible to elevate Jesus to the level of deity and, no, the Epistle of Diognetus does no such thing. It never mentions "Jesus" or "Jesus of Nazareth" and sections of what was the one surviving manuscript (it was destroyed during the 1800's) are thought to be either forged or added after the original was produced.

All evidence suggests (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) was an invention from "scripture" around the beginning of the third century.

You're suggesting that Matthew 28:19 KJV, 2nd Corinthians 13:14 KJV, and 1st Peter 1:2 KJV were all revised /edited /changed in the third century, and that none of these scriptures are authentic?

Don't try to create a straw man as I've seen you do often. For clarification, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the "trinity". Many scholars, yes even a few Catholic church scholars, think Matthew 28:19 is a later addition because it does not appear in the earliest manuscripts. That aside, as read, it doesn't really do much to bolster the CLAIM the verse raises Jesus (or for that matter the "Holy Spirit") to the level of deity.

As for you other two "proof texts", I fail to see the relevance.

If, as you say, the "trinity doctrine" is one handed down orally from bishop-to-bishop from the apostles why can no written evidence of it be found from the first or early second century?

Isn't the answer contained in your question? To whit, it was "handed down orally." There's by definition not going to be written evidence of such things.

How convenient. Odd though that this "apostolic oral doctrine" didn't find its way from the apostles to being documented on paper for almost 300 years :think:.

 

[Idolater]

There is no mention of "Trinity" in Matthew 28;19, 2 Corinthians 13;14, or 1st Peter 1:2.... or even 1 John 5:7 (which I also support.)

Granted. The post I responded to was verbatim however, "All evidence suggests (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) was an invention from "scripture" around the beginning of the third century."

 

[Silent Hunter]

John 1.

See Post 345.