Trinity Proof Scriptures

[Idolater]

Wrong.

GOD is the source of all truth.

We agree. The reason that Christians accept the Apostles as the source on earth of the truth, is because the Lord promised the Spirit of truth to them, and we accept the Lord (God) as the source of all truth.

The 12 Apostles were simply conduits for God's revelation of truth for Israel, and Paul was simply a conduit for God's revelation of truth for the whole world.

In other words, two "dispensations."

The Apostles were authoritative in their teaching of the Christian faith. We of course differ wrt your Dispensationalism.

 

[john w]

God is spirit

Have you not read John 4:24?

Catch that deceit? I provided him the John 4:24 KJV verse, and the deceiver asks me "Have you not read...?

=he is not here to debate, as he does not even read what others challenges, to his argument.

You deceitful fraud.

No, bible corrector/agnostic/mystic-God is a spirit-John 4:24 KJV.

Have you not read?

You taught me that, clown.

Well, if you wish to remain ignorant that is your problem, not mine.

That is your best volley, stock cliche?

There is not such scripture to support your conclusion "All Christ rejectors, which, by definition, are those that reject that the Lord Jesus Christ is God, are stupid."

Yes, there is.

Check.

It is a shame you have to deceive and make up s*** in order to "substantiate your claims.

Your threeeology is pathetic

Another impressive debate ender, "close." Don't apply for a sales job, Christ rejector. And clean out that filthy mouth.

Get saved.

 

[oatmeal]

No you haven't.

You certainly have the right to your opinion.

 

[oatmeal]

Catch that deceit? I provided him the John 4:24 KJV verse, and the deceiver asks me "Have you not read...?

=he is not here to debate, as he does not even read what others challenges, to his argument.

You deceitful fraud.

No, bible corrector/agnostic/mystic-God is a spirit-John 4:24 KJV.

Have you not read?

You taught me that, clown.


That is your best volley, stock cliche?




Yes, there is.

Check.


Another impressive debate ender, "close." Don't apply for a sales job, Christ rejector. And clean out that filthy mouth.

Get saved.

Maybe you did not see a thread I started several years ago. At the time it became the longest thread on this website. So long in fact that it had to be changed into another thread because the program couldn't handle it.

It basically asked the question.

I Timothy 2:5 tells us who the one mediator between God and men is.

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Who does God, via His word, tell us he is?

a. God

b. God the son

c, the fully man fully God Jesus Christ

d. the second person of the Blessed Trinity

e. the God/man Christ Jesus

f. the man Christ Jesus.

Trinitarians always get it wrong.

You cannot accept the truth that God makes the clear distinction between himself and men and where does God classify Christ Jesus?

The man.

God is spirit. Jesus is man

Evidently, you cannot see any difference, that is too bad

Have you read John 4:24, if you had you would understand that God is spirit and because Jesus is a man they are not one and the same.

 

[john w]

Maybe you did not see a thread I started several years ago. At the time it became the longest thread on this website. So long in fact that it had to be changed into another thread because the program couldn't handle it.

It basically asked the question.

I Timothy 2:5 tells us who the one mediator between God and men is.

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Who does God, via His word, tell us he is?

a. God

b. God the son

c, the fully man fully God Jesus Christ

d. the second person of the Blessed Trinity

e. the God/man Christ Jesus

f. the man Christ Jesus.

Trinitarians always get it wrong.

You cannot accept the truth that God makes the clear distinction between himself and men and where does God classify Christ Jesus?

The man.

God is spirit. Jesus is man

Evidently, you cannot see any difference, that is too bad

Have you read John 4:24, if you had you would understand that God is spirit and because Jesus is a man they are not one and the same.

More misdirection, create a moving target, changing his argument, moving the goal posts, by this wicked spammer, who does not even read others' challenges to his argument, in deception, and, by his own argument, on record,asserts that this fake "Jesus" of his was not a man.

 

[Idolater]

So? They're wrong.

It addressed your, "The Bible alone is sufficient to the task," directly. "So? They're wrong," isn't an answer. Of course they're wrong, but they are using the Bible alone to derive their wrongness, which makes your, "The Bible alone is sufficient to the task," wrong.

It occurs to me that your logic is much worse than I thought. If the Bible, the word of God, is not sufficient to defend a Bible doctrine, don't you see how foolish it is to suppose mere men were able to craft statements that can accomplish what God Himself could not? Seriously, are you THAT dense?

The "mere men" are the Apostles, and they didn't "craft statements," they faithfully relayed /transmitted the truth, that they received from the Lord Jesus, and from the Spirit of truth.

Seems your belief in Trinitarianism is really based on the fact that creeds define it, not on the fact that the Bible teaches it.

My belief in the Trinity is just a form of my belief in the Apostles as the authoritative teachers of the Christian faith. The Apostles taught the Trinity. We know this because the men that the Apostles themselves appointed as authentic teachers of the faith say so and always have. The Apostles' teaching authority is the teaching authority of Christ, and He placed them over me. And they the Apostles faithfully communicated /taught the bishops (cf. 2Ti2:2KJV), who are also therefore placed over me. My job is to submit to the teaching authority of Jesus, the Apostles, and the bishops; and these are all the same, and they all teach the Trinity.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Considering that if A = B, therefore B = A, what difference do you think this would make other than rhythm and meter?

Why are these equivalent statements?

1. God is holy (Psalm 99:9)
   holy is God
2. God is merciful and forgiving (Daniel 9:9)
   merciful and forgiving is God
3. God is righteous (Daniel 9:14)
   righteous is God

Why are these statements not equivalent like the others?

1. God is a witness (Genesis 31:50)
   a witness is God
2. God is a consuming fire (Deuteronomy 4:24)
   a consuming fire is God
3. God is a sun and shield (Psalm 84:11)
   a sun and shield is God

 

[genuineoriginal]

The proof is in The Holy Bible, since it clearly describes God as Three: Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

It is a shame that the Bible does not clearly describe God as three but the Bible does clearly describe God as one.

When reading Scripture as a child, many things become far more clear and easier to understand.

Being taught the Trinity doctrine as a child makes the Bible much more muddled and more difficult to understand.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It is a shame that the Bible does not clearly describe God as three

It's a shame that you think it doesn't.

but the Bible does clearly describe God as one.

Being taught the Trinity doctrine as a child makes the Bible much more muddled and more difficult to understand.

Not at all.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I like that you consider it slander to accuse or suspect someone of being a Mormon.

It would be slander to accuse someone of being something they aren't in order to damage their reputation.
Asking someone whether they are a Mormon is not slander.

See, even you understand that it would be a rotten, shameful thing to be a Mormon.

You seem to think being a Mormon is a rotten shameful thing.
All the Mormons I have met are good decent people with a misunderstanding of the Bible caused by the false doctrines of the Mormon church.

What's funny, also, is your hypocrisy, your sanctimony in saying, to john w, "bla bla bla...instead of resorting to slandering the other to build ourselves up in our own eyes", when he asked if you're a Mormon.

I see you are not familiar with the typical posts of john w, who often uses slanderous statements as a substitute for reasonable discussion.
The slander in this thread originally came from musterion, who was attempting to discredit me by accusing me of being a Mormon.

Find Joe Smith's lost golden plates yet?

So, why were you trying to build yourself up in your own eyes?

I am not.

If you say that's what john w was doing--trying to build himself up in his own eyes, when he asked you if you are a Mormon--then obviously that's what you were doing when you asked him if he is a Mormon:

See, you asked john w if he is a Mormon.

It is obvious that either of us has reached the point of slandering each other in our posts in this thread, despite your lack of comprehension.

Why your double standard?

There is no double standard.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You also showed the following:

arose g1453 ἐγείρω egeirō to arouse, cause to rise to arouse from sleep, to awake to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life to cause to rise from a seat or bed etc. to raise up, produce, cause to appear to cause to appear, bring before the public to raise up, stir up, against one to raise up i.e. cause to be born of buildings, to raise up, construct, erect

​

As you can see there are more defintions for the word that suit my idea, you've simply cherry picked the one that best suit your understanding and have claimed that it is proof that my claim cannot ture whislt ignoring the other definitons.

You falsely assume that you can twist the alternate definitions (the ones I did not highlight) to support your fantasy.
However, an examination of how the words are used throughout the Bible shows that the passage is talking about the dead coming to life.

Matthew 10:8 8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise G1453 the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.​

The word arose G1453 indicates that a change of state occured, and in the context of the verse that change is from the state of being dead to the state of being alive.

Matthew 27:52 52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose G1453,​

As I said to other I do not believe there is enough evidence to suggest the "bodies came back to life" simply because it stated they were "raised" when looking at the context.

You mean that you can't believe the evidence when you ignore the context.

 

[Rosenritter]

You are right, there is nothing there or in scripture that would support the trinity, nor would support the "Jesus is God" doctrine.

Granted, someone who is trying to support the trinity could try to manipulate those scriptures to try to conform to their threeeology, but twisting scriptures, they might as well be twisting a dagger into their own heart and God's and Jesus Christ's heart as well

Did you actually read that chart? It was entirely supporting "Jesus is God." It's a Oneness theology chart (rather than a Trinity chart) that I've seen produced by Pentecostal churches.

 

[john w]

Quit spamming me messages, troll.

 

[NWL]

Case in point. The olive tree is not symbolic of Israel, but of those who have placed their faith in God in general. That's why only some of the branches were cut off, and not all of them.

Every single biblical scholar disagree with you and every single one agree with me. I know of none who do not understand the "wild olive branches" to be referring to Gentiles and the "natural olive branches" to be referring to natural Jews. The context is clear, you complete denial of it without evidence does not make you right, prove it.

(Romans 11:24-26) "..For if you were cut out of the olive tree that is wild by nature and were grafted contrary to nature into the garden olive tree, how much more will these who are natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree! 25 For I do not want you to be unaware of this sacred secret, brothers, so that you do not become wise in your own eyes: A partial dulling of senses has come upon Israel until the full number of people of the nations has come in, 26 and in this manner all Israel will be saved. Just as it is written: “The deliverer will come out of Zion and turn away ungodly practices from Jacob.."

Show us by reference who the "wild olive branches" refer to and who "natural olive branches" refers?

None of that changes the fact that Israel was Abraham's grandson, and that Abraham had two wives and a concubine.

Nope, it doesn't. But it does change your argument that those belonging to "Christ really [are] Abraham’s offspring, heirs with reference to a promise" relate to the nation of Israel by means of Isaac and not Abrahams other children as you mentioned.

Answer me if you will, is "Abraham seed" through/in Isaac according to Gen 21:12?

(Gen 21:12) "..And God said to Abraham, in Isaac shall your seed be called.."

(Romans 9:7, 8) "..they are Abraham’s seed; rather, “What will be called your seed will be through Isaac.."

The fact that you have to deny that Ishmael was actually Abraham's firstborn is telling, Bible-corrector.

Where have I denied it? There is a difference between a legitimate and illegitimate son, it was not me who denies Ishmael.

Answer me if you will, despite Ishmael being born before Isaac does God recognize Abraham as having one son, or more than one son according to Gen 22:16?

(Genesis 22:16, 17) "..saying: “‘By myself I swear,’ declares Jehovah, ‘that because you have done this and you have not withheld your son, your only one, 17 I will surely bless you

 

[Rosenritter]

Why are these equivalent statements?

1. God is holy (Psalm 99:9)
   holy is God
2. God is merciful and forgiving (Daniel 9:9)
   merciful and forgiving is God
3. God is righteous (Daniel 9:14)
   righteous is God

Why are these statements not equivalent like the others?

1. God is a witness (Genesis 31:50)
   a witness is God
2. God is a consuming fire (Deuteronomy 4:24)
   a consuming fire is God
3. God is a sun and shield (Psalm 84:11)
   a sun and shield is God

I didn't say those were equivalent statements. The statements you used there are of the form of "Noun IS Adjective" or or metaphor such as "Noun is like unto ... something" The mathematical comparison of A=B, therefore B=A is applicable when A and B are normal subjects.

John 1:1 KJV
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

If the verse was "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was wordy" that would fall into the pattern that you just described. But "Word" isn't a descriptive adjective, it's a noun, it's a Name and thus a Proper Noun, it's that which we have handled.

Here's all five instances of that Word from scripture:

John 1:1 KJV
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 KJV
(14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

1 John 1:1 KJV
(1) That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

1 John 5:7 KJV
(7) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Revelation 19:13 KJV
(13) And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

1. I don't think you can say "the Word" is merely an adjective. See above passages.

2. But would you suggest that "God was the Word" was a metaphor? and that God was not actually fully the Word, but that God was only somewhat like the Word and could only be compared to the Word because he possessed some of its quality, like in your example, "God is a consuming fire?"

Neither of those options (above) seem very feasible. I think it's much simpler to take what John tells us that "the Word of God" is the name of he who returns at the end of the world, and that the "Word" became flesh, and that "Word" created all things, and that the "Word" was that which was from the beginning, that we handled, that we saw with our eyes.

John 1:1 Tyndale
(1) In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God.

I don't see a difference in the order of the two nouns, other than that which is expected in English sentence structure. "The Word' is the main subject of the verse and also of the whole chapter, therefore it makes sense for it to be first. If anything, rephrasing the passage the way you suggested makes a stronger case for the equivalency of God and Jesus.

a. If the Word was God, I can see someone making an argument that the Word is only a part of God. That might be more agreeable with Trinitarian understanding, or even Unitarian theory.

b. But if God was the Word, that leaves little room for squiggling and argument against "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Col 2:9)

Colossians 2:9 KJV
(9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Remember, it's ho logos, THE Word, not "a word."

 

[genuineoriginal]

1. I don't think you can say "the Word" is merely an adjective. See above passages.

2. But would you suggest that "God was the Word" was a metaphor? and that God was not actually fully the Word, but that God was only somewhat like the Word and could only be compared to the Word because he possessed some of its quality, like in your example, "God is a consuming fire?"

Yes, "God was the Word" is a metaphor.

Remember, it's ho logos, THE Word, not "a word." [/B]

Remember that "the logos" meant "the divine reason implicit in the cosmos" to the people of the first century.

In the beginning was the divine reason, and the divine reason was with God, and God was the divine reason.
And the divine reason became flesh.

Jesus the Messiah is the embodiment of the purpose that God had in mind when He created heaven and earth.

 

[Rosenritter]

Yes, "God was the Word" is a metaphor.

Remember that "the logos" meant "the divine reason implicit in the cosmos" to the people of the first century.

In the beginning was the divine reason, and the divine reason was with God, and God was the divine reason.
And the divine reason became flesh.

Jesus the Messiah is the embodiment of the purpose that God had in mind when He created heaven and earth.

And that still says that He who created all things became flesh and walked among us.

But regardless of your interpretation in that specific verse, John still uses "the Word" as the name of Jesus in the rest of scripture, as a the name he bears when he returns, and as the name of he that we saw and handled. Nothing has changed.

I don't see supporting evidence for your idea that "the Word" is mere analogy. John uses it as a proper noun. Analogies don't become flesh, they aren't handled, and John twice states that he made the world. Paul once. That's at least two witnesses in three instances.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I don't see supporting evidence for your idea that "the Word" is mere analogy. John uses it as a proper noun.

John uses logos as a noun in the Gospel of John, not as a proper noun.

Only in Revelations is "the Word of God" used as a title.
Are you claiming that all titles are proper nouns, or is it only specific titles that become proper nouns?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Look, if you don't keep opening quote from my post, I won't know if you're responding to me or someone else when I get the notification.

Leave the "QUOTE=..." stuff in there, so I get the appropriate notification.

Every single biblical scholar disagree with you and every single one agree with me.

"Consensus, Consensus!" He screams.

I don't care what scholars think. I care only what the Bible says plainly.

What the Bible says takes precedence over what man says about the Bible.

Get that through your head.

I know of none who do not understand the "wild olive branches" to be referring to Gentiles and the "natural olive branches" to be referring to natural Jews.

Smooth moves, deceiver.

And you wonder why I call you a liar.

This was your argument, you liar:

..the olive tree(Israel) along with the other evidence I provided shows that Christians today are spiritual Israel...

A tree is more than it's branches.

Israel are the natural branches, not the tree as a whole, which includes the roots and the trunk.

Cut off the branches, and you still have the roots and the trunk.

Israel is the natural branches. The Gentiles are the wild branches.

The root is CHRIST, not Israel.

The rest of the tree is all believers, those who were cut off from the natural tree were the majority of the nation of Israel, who were cut off because of their, get this, unbelief.

The rest who remained were, get this, BELIEVERS in what God had promised them.

God grafted the wild branches into the cultivated tree.

NWL, question for you:

If you were to graft a branch from a peach tree onto an apple tree, what fruit would the branch produce?

The context is clear,

Don't talk to me about context you Bible corrector.

You take verses out of context and think by doing so it proves your point.

Well, I've got news for you. It doesn't. It just outs you as the Bible corrector that you are.

you complete denial of it without evidence does not make you right, prove it.

I have.

You're just glossing over it, ignoring it.

(Romans 11:24-26) "..For if you were cut out of the olive tree that is wild by nature and were grafted contrary to nature into the garden olive tree, how much more will these who are natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree! 25 For I do not want you to be unaware of this sacred secret, brothers, so that you do not become wise in your own eyes: A partial dulling of senses has come upon Israel until the full number of people of the nations has come in, 26 and in this manner all Israel will be saved. Just as it is written: “The deliverer will come out of Zion and turn away ungodly practices from Jacob.."

:thumb: Good scripture that shows that Israel (the natural branches) will be grafted back in again.

What's your point?

Show us by reference who the "wild olive branches" refer to and who "natural olive branches" refers?

Moving the goalposts.

Nope, it doesn't. But it does change your argument that those belonging to "Christ really [are] Abraham’s offspring, heirs with reference to a promise"

Which I don't disagree with, except that we are Abraham's offspring through ADOPTION, not by natural birth.

relate to the nation of Israel by means of Isaac and not Abrahams other children as you mentioned.

Once more, you're begging the question.

Answer me if you will, is "Abraham seed" through/in Isaac according to Gen 21:12?

All of Isaac's descendants are Abraham's seed.

But not all of Abraham's seed are Isaac's descendants.

See below...

(Gen 21:12) "..And God said to Abraham, in Isaac shall your seed be called.."

Stop taking things out of context.

If you had read the very next verse, you would have seen that ISHMAEL was also called Abraham's seed:

And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, scoffing.Therefore she said to Abraham, “Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, namely with Isaac.”And the matter was very displeasing in Abraham’s sight because of his son.But God said to Abraham, “Do not let it be displeasing in your sight because of the lad or because of your bondwoman. Whatever Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice; for in Isaac your seed shall be called.Yet I will also make a nation of the son of the bondwoman, because he is your seed.” - Genesis 21:9-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis21:9-13&version=NKJV

(Romans 9:7, 8) "..they are Abraham’s seed; rather, “What will be called your seed will be through Isaac.."

But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.” - Romans 9:6-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans9:6-9&version=NKJV

The highlighted portion is describing those who converted from being Gentiles, to being Jews, what are called proselytes.

Where have I denied it?

By claiming that Isaac was Abraham's only son.

There is a difference between a legitimate and illegitimate son, it was not me who denies Ishmael.

Yeah, it IS you, despite what scripture says otherwise.

This is a consequence of you taking scripture out of context.

Here is why God said, contrary to what He said elsewhere, that Isaac was Abraham's only son:

Isaac prefigured CHRIST.

Christ was the Son of a promise.
Isaac was the son of a promise.

Abraham offered his son as a sacrifice, even though God abhors human sacrifice.
God sent His Son to be the sacrifice for all mankind.

Abraham and Isaac journeyed three days to get to Mount Moriah. (Conjecture To Abraham, it probably seemed like Isaac was already dead for those three days.
Christ spent three days in the grave, separated from His Father in Heaven.

Abraham offered his son on Mount Moriah.
Christ was crucified on Mount Moriah.

Abraham told Isaac that "God would provide a lamb for the offering."
Christ came to BE that lamb.

The horns of the ram Abraham eventually offered in place of Isaac (crucial point) was caught in a thicket.
Christ, who came as a substitute offering for all of mankind, had a crown of thorns placed upon his head.

Need I go on?

God deliberately called Isaac Abraham's "only son" because he prefigured Christ, who is God's only Son.

Answer me if you will, despite Ishmael being born before Isaac does God recognize Abraham as having one son, or more than one son according to Gen 22:16?

(Genesis 22:16, 17) "..saying: “‘By myself I swear,’ declares Jehovah, ‘that because you have done this and you have not withheld your son, your only one, 17 I will surely bless you

See above. Taking scripture out of context won't do you any good. You ABSOLUTELY MUST read things in context, or else your beliefs will be skewed wrong.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Assertions mean nothing, show how you are not wrong instead of asserting you are not.

No, it's YOUR job to show how he IS wrong.

The onus is on you.