Trinity Proof Scriptures

[7djengo7]

99% of Christians believe the Trinity...

False. 100% of Christians believe the Trinity.

Well, on second thought, not false, since, it being the case that 100% of Christians believe the Trinity, it is implicit, therein, that 99% of Christians believe the Trinity.

But, here is a falsehood: "Less than 100% of Christians believe the Trinity."

Well, again, on second thought, that can't be false, either, since inasmuch as it is true that, since 100% of Christians believe the Trinity, so do 99%, then 99% being less than 100% means that less than 100% of Christians believe the Trinity, though, also, 100% of Christians believe the Trinity.

But, here is a falsehood: "Some % of Christians do not believe the Trinity."

 

[Rosenritter]

False. 100% of Christians believe the Trinity.

That isn't what Jesus said.

John 13:35 KJV
(35) By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

 

[Dartman]

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.

Excellent texts. One of which further reinforces the differences between the authority of Jesus and the authority of his God.

You missed it-the term “greater” in John 14:28 KJV is not in the context of “a higher type of being.”

Of course it is.

Why would the disciples rejoice because the Master was going to see a being who is greater than He?

Because it's appropriate to enjoy their friend/ brother/ teacher being honored.

But the term does not refer to “better,” but “greater” as in positionally greater.

Which contradicts the "coequal" component of traditional trinity.

It speaks to the position of God the Father in heaven over against the position of the only begotten Son Son on earth.

Not merely before Jesus ascended to be honored by his God, but forever.
1 Cor 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

The Lord Jesus Christ had voluntarily, per Philippians 2:6 ff. KJV, laid aside His divine prerogatives, and humbled himself by becoming flesh.

Nope. Horrible eisigesis of the text!!
There is no "divine prerogatives, in the text. And the humbling was in his obedience to DIE.
Jesus, as a human being, who was given "all power, and authority" by his God, humbled himself to die on the cross. EVERY bit of Phil 2:5-8 discusses Christ's birth through his death, and the attitude/mind he demonstrated during his ministry.

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.

Not "returning" to ..... being EXALTED to a position of glory, which fulfilled his God's plan from before the creation.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I would be curious if any of our "Jesus is not God" folk on this board are also Open Theists, because the Open Theist premise eventually leads to "Jesus is God" as well.

:idunno:

Good. That isn't sarcasm, want to make sure that isn't misinterpreted.

:thumb:

The bible doesn't speak of a Trinity

Sure it does, just not directly or outright.

And even if it didn't, that would be an argument from silence.

let alone say that we should believe in one.

Like I said... Argument from silence.

You are Trinitarian because that's from your church environment

I am trinitarian because the Bible teaches that God is triune. Maybe it was true before that I believed what I was taught by my church and it was because my church taught it that I believed it, but I have since come to believe God is triune simply because that's what the Bible says. In other words, cutting the middle man out, so to speak.

and otherwise you wouldn't even know what the term was.

If the Bible did not teach that God was triune, then I wouldn't believe He was triune.

That doesn't mean it isn't a useful model, but don't kid yourself about its source.

:AMR:

The points of those passages are stated. "Where such and such is to be faulted..." and then it explains the perceived fault... but perhaps what I did not further state (and left to be read) is that the error of Unitarianism is inherited from Trinity doctrine.

How is any of that relevant to my post, which was addressed to someone else about Trinitarianism, not unitarianism?

 

[Apple7]

I am not a trinitarian, so don't believe Jesus is YHWH.

Your first task is for you to define what you think The Trinity is.

 

[Dartman]

I had written to you:

Oh, so you agree, then, that the Holy Ghost IS God, since you say that to lie to the Holy Ghost IS to lie to God.

Did you respond to this by saying either "Yes, I agree," or "No, I disagree"? No, you did not. Why not?

Those would be incomplete answers.
Here is how I answered you:

I agree that the holy spirit is God's spirit/mind/power.
If you blaspheme God's mind, you have blasphemed God.
If God's power cures your blindness, GOD has cured your blindness.

Why couldn't you just come out and say, "The Holy Spirit is God", if you think He is, or, "The Holy Spirit is not God", if you think He isn't? Why did you choose to avoid doing so?

I gave you a more accurate, less misleading, answer.

Next, you wrote:

God is spirit, and so are we.

So, you were willing to say that "God is spirit", but you weren't willing to come out and say, "The Holy Spirit is God". Why is that? Do you think that the spirit that you say God is is not holy?

God is holy.
God is spirit, and so are we. So are false prophets, and God's prophets.
God's spirit is His mind, and the power produced by His mind.

Elsewhere, though, you wrote:

The holy spirit is a possession/attribute OF God, and obviously is God.... more specifically part of God.

You stated, there, that the Holy Spirit OBVIOUSLY IS GOD. Now, one of your fellow Christ-hating heretics has written:
Only the Father Jehovah is the most high God.


Notice that, whereas you have stated that the Holy Spirit OBVIOUSLY IS GOD, your fellow Christ-hating heretic has excluded the Holy Spirit from being the most high God. Interesting.

Of course he didn't! He didn't exclude part of God from God!
He is correct.
And, the only true God is the Father, the "holy spirit" is merely another phrase meaning "the Father's spirit", since the Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD, then God= the Father= Jehovah= The most High=the Creator=The Almighty.

Notice, above, that you claim that the Holy Spirit is "part of God". What part of God would you say the Holy Spirit is, and how many other parts would you say God has? What other parts would you say God has, besides the part which you say the Holy Spirit is? List them.

As I have said several times, the spirit of God/holy spirit is God's mind, and the power produced by His mind. He certainly has other parts, He has a hand with which He covered Moses, to prevent Moses from seeing Him... which God defines as seeing His FACE, God has a FACE which Moses was NOT allowed to see, but which Jesus states the angels in heaven DO see God's face, and the Scriptures promise the immortal righteous WILL see. God allowed Moses to see His "back parts". This is just a partial list, but it's sufficient.

 

[john w]

Excellent texts. One of which further reinforces the differences between the authority of Jesus and the authority of his God.

Of course it is.

Because it's appropriate to enjoy their friend/ brother/ teacher being honored.

Which contradicts the "coequal" component of traditional trinity.

Not merely before Jesus ascended to be honored by his God, but forever.
1 Cor 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.


Nope. Horrible eisigesis of the text!!
There is no "divine prerogatives, in the text. And the humbling was in his obedience to DIE.
Jesus, as a human being, who was given "all power, and authority" by his God, humbled himself to die on the cross. EVERY bit of Phil 2:5-8 discusses Christ's birth through his death, and the attitude/mind he demonstrated during his ministry.

Not "returning" to ..... being EXALTED to a position of glory, which fulfilled his God's plan from before the creation.

Nope, bible corrector-you missed it:

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 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.

Philippians 2 KJV
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Hebrews 2 KJV
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

The Lord Jesus Christ asserted that His Father was greater than He ,not because Jesus Christ is not God, but because Jesus was also a man, and as a man, He was in a lower position.There is a distinction between a person’s nature, and that person's role.They are equal in nature, but unequal in roles.Hebrews 2:9 KJV....Philippians 2:5-8 KJV

The Lord Jesus Christ has two natures, despite Christ rejectors pouting, spinning. The Lord Jesus was not denying that He was God-He was acknowledging the fact that He was also a man. He is, and always will be, both God and man. As a man, He was in a lesser position than God the Father, His Father. He had added to Himself human nature. per Colossians 2:9 KJV-He became a man to die for people...survey the "Kinsman Redeemer" doctrine.

Thus....a comparison in the marriage relationship...husband and wife...same nature.....a husband is greater in position and authority than his wife....he is no better than she...human.

Thus, the Lord Jesus Christ was not denying that He was God....He was acknowledging that He was also a man, and as a man, He was subject to the laws of God, so that He might redeem those who were under the law, namely, sinners.....survey Galatians 4:4-5 KJV. He was speaking quantitatively, referring to His Father’s position, not His nature.

John 13 KJV
16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

John 15 KJV
20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

A Master is "greater" than a servant-why? Because he occupies a position of greater status, dignity, and authority. Per the above,the Lord Jesus Christ is saying that the Father is "greater," because the Father's position in the third heaven, then, is one of greater dignity and authority than the only begotten Son occupies on earth, at that time. This meaning,makes sense, then, makes clear why his followers, his disciples should rejoice. The Christ, the only begotten Son, is returning to the right hand of the Father,His Father, to the glory He had with the Father before His existence on earth......John 17:5 KJV. Get it, the context? He had voluntarily humbled Himself in coming to earth (Philippians 2:6 KJV ff.), taking the form of a servant,the same word in John 13:16 KJV, John 15:20 KJV, above. Now the Lord Jesus Christ was returning to the Father, His Father, to regain His former glory, where He could accomplish all the wonderful things promised to the disciples in His final instructions to them. If the disciples had considered his point, they would have realized the exaltation that awaited the Son, and would have rejoiced for joy.....

John 14 KJV
28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

 

[Silent Hunter]

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.

To the contrary, your meaning of "god" is entirely relevant when you say that from your reading, Jesus was not "god." How am I to know what you mean by "god" especially when your idea (as an atheist) might be different from others here?

I doubt my concept of a "supreme being" would differ substantially from many other posters on this thread. However, if Jesus WAS (a part of) the common concept of deity then he lacked every attributes I would ascribe to that deity.

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"?

I might suggest that John 10 itself defines the meaning of "My Father and I are one" while John 17 is some chapters removed and in a different context.

You might make that suggestion but in so doing any trinitarian cobbling together of verses in support of the Trinity throughout the Bible are bound by the same restriction.

John 10:30-33 KJV
(30) I and my Father are one.
(31) Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
(32) Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
(33) The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

John 10 is in the context of (and understood as) making himself God. The Psalm he cites following contrasts God against the gods, God who judges the gods. Considering that Jesus had already established himself as he who would judge them, it's not hard to understand why they even were more motivated to stone him after this.

John 17:21 KJV
(21) That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

When we read John 17, this is multiple chapters away and in a different conversation and a different context. Rather than being in the context of "maketh thyself God" Jesus shows that this is an analogy. You would consider it absurd if you or I were only allowed to use a word in one way during our lifetimes, that we could only use a word literally or metaphorically but not in both ways in different contexts, and that's why the argument falls flat.

If I were to say, "I am blue." would you think my skin was literally the color blue? If I defined what I meant two weeks later that blue = sad would that mean I can't use "blue" to mean anything other than a color or an emotion even in the same context/sentence? No. My objection from Post #345 withstands your test.

John 17:24 KJV
(24) Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

... and even continuing that passage in John gives us indication that Jesus has status that he was there before the foundation of the world. No man is able to say that. Perhaps a Calvinist. But not anyone else.

That's what I understand.

Is none of this metaphor? If not Christians should just throw out the whole Bible and replace it with something completely literal as to avoid confusion.

But if you really want to know why a Trinitarian believes such and such, you should ask a Trinitarian instead.

I've noted you've been playing a commendable job of Devil's Advocate.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I would be curious if any of our "Jesus is not God" folk on this board are also Open Theists, because the Open Theist premise eventually leads to "Jesus is God" as well.

I consider myself to be an Open Theist, but do not see how Open Theism could lead to "Jesus is God".

The bible doesn't speak of a Trinity let alone say that we should believe in one. You are Trinitarian because that's from your church environment and otherwise you wouldn't even know what the term was. That doesn't mean it isn't a useful model, but don't kid yourself about its source.

The most vocal Trinitarians on this forum seem to claim that they independently became Trinitarians by reading the Bible and were never taught about Trinitarianism by their church.

 

[Dartman]

False. 100% of Christians believe the Trinity.
....
."

Since the first trinity was invented around Nimrod, and there have been several other trinities in pagan theology, far less than 100% of "trinitarians" even claim to be Christian.

The VAST majority of those CLAIMING "Christianity" are trinitarian. ....... Matt 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

 

[7djengo7]

Where have I said I don't worship Jesus?...I do worship Jesus since this is the method that the father deems all persons to worship him. I worship the Father by worshiping Jesus, who passes all glory to his father.

Where in the bible does it state you can't worship a created thing? Show me such a verse for you to imply that it is wrong to worship God through the created man Jesus. If YHWH himself commands that we are to worship him through a person who perfectly images him are you to say that YHWH is wrong?

Let's take a look at your duplicity, here. Out of one side of your mouth, you claim that you WORSHIP JESUS, but then you turn around, and, out of the other side of your mouth, you claim that you "worship God through the created man Jesus."

How, exactly, do you go about praising the Father as the Most High God "through Jesus", while you deny that Jesus is the Most High God? Do you say, to Jesus, "I will sing praise to thy name, O thou Most High--but, Jesus, bear in mind that I'm not calling YOU "thou Most High," because YOU don't deserve to be called that!"

What (if anything) do you think you mean by "worship [YHWH] through [a created thing]"?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Spoiler

I've followed this tread and others of the same genre and, as an atheist disinterested (except for the topic I don't care one way or the other what theists choose to believe) outside observer, would like to make a few observations on the latest posts which, I think for the most part, sum the whole...

No doubt trinitarians will quote John 1,

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not. 6 There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light. 9 There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth. 15 John beareth witness of him, and crieth, saying, This was he of whom I said, He that cometh after me is become before me: for he was before me. 16 For of his fulness we all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

I find it interesting trinitarians say, "The bible is filled with figurative (metaphorical) language", EXCEPT FOR verses such as John 1:1-18.

Throughout GJohn Jesus says he delivers the words his deity has told him to speak. It stands to reason the meaning of John 1:1-18 is the "word was made flesh" through (because of) Jesus speaking the words he was given.

… and...
Perhaps the best among trinitarian "proof texts" on this is John 10...

"22 And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem: 23 it was winter; and Jesus was walking in the temple in Solomon’s porch. 24 The Jews therefore came round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou hold us in suspense? If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, these bear witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one. 31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from the Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), 36 say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do them, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

The writer of GJohn, whoever he was, is simply documenting what he observed and heard. He isn't drawing any conclusions, the mark of a good historian.

A common and overriding theme of GJohn is the Jews seem to NEVER understand what Jesus is saying even after he explains to them what he means, which is, unfortunately for the Jews, often equally obscure.

The term "son of god" is the title given to the king of the Jews. Saul and David were "sons of god". Jesus, as the messiah (Greek, "christ") was (to be) the future king of the Jews and by extension the son of god. Exactly why the Jews did not understand this fact is not explained but could be because of time removed from the events of Kings Saul and David.

The prayer Jesus gives to his deity in John 17 explains the meaning of, "I and the Father are one". Sadly, the Jews were not privy to this. The astute reader should notice reference to John 1 and the "word".

"17 These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the Son may glorify thee: 2 even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life. 3 And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ. 4 I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. 6 I manifested thy name unto the men whom thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them to me; and they have kept thy word. 7 Now they know that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are from thee: 8 for the words which thou gavest me I have given unto them; and they received them, and knew of a truth that I came forth from thee, and they believed that thou didst send me. 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me; for they are thine: 10 and all things that are mine are thine, and thine are mine: and I am glorified in them. 11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me: and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I come to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy made full in themselves. 14 I have given them thy word; and the world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them from the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, even so sent I them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. 20 Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; 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; that the world may know that thou didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me. 24 Father, I desire that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, the world knew thee not, but I knew thee; and these knew that thou didst send me; 26 and I made known unto them thy name, and will make it known; that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them, and I in them."

… which makes me wonder why trinitarians are so consistently guilty of ignoring texts contradicting their "doctrine" as shown above.

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.

“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces. - Matthew 7:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew7:6&version=NKJV

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. - 1 Corinthians 2:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians2:14&version=NKJV

But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. - 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Corinthians4:3-4&version=NKJV

Your opinion has been noted and discarded as foolishness on your part.

Get saved, then we can talk about spiritual things.

Typical trinitarian method of discussion. When they can't defeat the argument they:

1. Insult the poster.

2. Dismiss their post.

3. Punt.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Typical trinitarian method of discussion. When they can't defeat the argument they:

1. Insult the poster.

2. Dismiss their post.

3. Punt.

:blabla:

Get saved, then we can discuss spiritual things.

 

[john w]

Not "returning" to ..... being EXALTED to a position of glory, which fulfilled his God's plan from before the creation.

You lied-again. That is the definition of a bible corrector.

John 17:5 KJV And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Isaiah 48 KJVa
11 For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it:for how should my name be polluted?and I will not give my glory unto another.

 

[7djengo7]

And, the only true God is the Father, the "holy spirit" is merely another phrase meaning "the Father's spirit", since the Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD, then God= the Father= Jehovah= The most High=the Creator=The Almighty.

You're a hardened antichrist liar, and a vicious purveyor of gobbledygook.

But, you can't hide the fact that you have already stated that "The holy spirit...obviously is God." So, now, you've just got done telling us that, although "The holy spirit...obviously is God," nevertheless, the Holy Spirit cannot be the only true God, because you claim that only the Father is the true God. So, while saying that the Holy Spirit "obviously is God, you are accusing the Holy Spirit of being a FALSE God.

As I have said several times, the spirit of God/holy spirit is God's mind

Who, then, would you say is the Holy Spirit's mind?

...and the power produced by His mind. He certainly has other parts, He has a hand with which He covered Moses, to prevent Moses from seeing Him... which God defines as seeing His FACE, God has a FACE which Moses was NOT allowed to see, but which Jesus states the angels in heaven DO see God's face, and the Scriptures promise the immortal righteous WILL see. God allowed Moses to see His "back parts". This is just a partial list, but it's sufficient.

What do people mean when they accuse someone of "lying to my face"?

What do you mean when you accuse someone of "lying to [God's] face"?

 

[7djengo7]

Where have I said I don't worship Jesus?...I do worship Jesus since this is the method that the father deems all persons to worship him. I worship the Father by worshiping Jesus, who passes all glory to his father. This a basic truth.

Show us the scripture that tells us to worship Jesus, show us the scripture that states to worship the HS.

You say, "I do worship Jesus", and then you make the demand, "Show us the scripture that tells us to worship Jesus". Astounding!

 

[Rosenritter]

:idunno:

:thumb:

Sure it does, just not directly or outright.

And even if it didn't, that would be an argument from silence.

Like I said... Argument from silence.

I am trinitarian because the Bible teaches that God is triune. Maybe it was true before that I believed what I was taught by my church and it was because my church taught it that I believed it, but I have since come to believe God is triune simply because that's what the Bible says. In other words, cutting the middle man out, so to speak.

If the Bible did not teach that God was triune, then I wouldn't believe He was triune.

:AMR:

How is any of that relevant to my post, which was addressed to someone else about Trinitarianism, not unitarianism?

Maybe you should consider that the Trinity argument from silence isn't a good argument.

Yes, the bible is silent about a Trinity, that doesn't make a good argument that "it is silent therefore it is." It is also silent about a Quaternity and a Septinity or a Noninity... and the same arguments I keep hearing for "Trinity" could apply just as easily to those constructions as well.

 

[Dartman]

John 17:5 KJV And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Isaiah 48 KJVa
11 For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it:for how should my name be polluted?and I will not give my glory unto another.

God fully planed for His son. God saw the glory that Jesus would be. Jesus was asking God to fulfill that glory, raising Jesus back to life ... an IMMORTAL life, and then seating Jesus at the right hand of his God.
God didn't give HIS OWN glory to Jesus, any more than Jesus gave God's glory to the apostles;

John 17:21 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

 

[Rosenritter]

I doubt my concept of a "supreme being" would differ substantially from many other posters on this thread. However, if Jesus WAS (a part of) the common concept of deity then he lacked every attributes I would ascribe to that deity.

It would be helpful if you would define what you think those are. This isn't for hounding you, but rather because I think it would be helpful for the discussion with everyone as a whole.

You might make that suggestion but in so doing any trinitarian cobbling together of verses in support of the Trinity throughout the Bible are bound by the same restriction.

I'm not sure what you meant or were implying there. If you want to elaborate I wouldn't mind.

If I were to say, "I am blue." would you think my skin was literally the color blue? If I defined what I meant two weeks later that blue = sad would that mean I can't use "blue" to mean anything other than a color or an emotion even in the same context/sentence? No. My objection from Post #345 withstands your test.

Depends on context. I'm not sure what you're objecting to, because it sounds like we both recognize that the word can mean something different in instance one and instance two.

Is none of this metaphor? If not Christians should just throw out the whole Bible and replace it with something completely literal as to avoid confusion.

In John 17:24 (your citation) I would say the title "Father" is a metaphor (not a literal father) and also the word "foundation" is a metaphorical word meaning "beginning" rather than a literal stone or concrete slab. We take metaphors like these for granted normally without stopping to dwell on them. But why would any other portion be "metaphorical?"

I've noted you've been playing a commendable job of Devil's Advocate.

I'll try to take that as a complement.

 

[7djengo7]

And, the only true God is the Father

What, exactly, do you mean by that?

Do you mean, "Only the Father is true God"?

Did Jesus say, to the Father, "thee the only true God", or, did Jesus say, to the Father, "thee only art the true God"?