The Trinity?

[Brother Chad]

Bro. EricH,

The Father turned His back on the Son when he took the punishment for sin upon Himself. I believe I covered this one with my last post. The Father did not turn His back because the Son

[EricH]

Bro. EricH,

The Father turned His back on the Son when he took the punishment for sin upon Himself. I believe I covered this one with my last post. The Father did not turn His back because the Son

[EricH]

The Son suffered on the cross, not the Father. Once again this is very true. Matthew 27:46,

[Brother Chad]

This is a reply to post #225:

Notice John 10:30 does not say "I and the Father are the same". It says "one". We must then allow the text to define in what sense they are "one". The best way to determine what Jesus meant when He said He was one with the Father, is to look at other texts where He used the same phrase applied to other relationships. Your position is that when Jesus said He was one with the Father, it meant that He was completely identical. OK, for arguments sake lets say that is so.

Jesus was speaking through his humanity. He showed both aspects of Himself many times. I feel like I am running around in circles here. Jesus thirsted; did he do this as a human or as God? Obviously it is a human who thirsts and not God. When Jesus prayed did he pray as a man or as God? Well we know that God does not need to pray, so Jesus prayed as a man. Now when Jesus says,

Edited February 1, 2006 by EricH

[AnotherTraveler]

The trinity concept is such a deeply held belief that for many even discussing that it might be an error is very difficult.

Brother Chad has put forth many excellant points and examples that have gone without response because the fact remains that trinity the word and trinity the doctrine are not well defined in scripture because they are an error, though deeply believed.

Why would God be so lacking specificity as to never once mention the word trinity if it is such a great truth? God is very specific in much smaller matters. 66 leaves on the golden candlestick. Muzzle not the ox that treads out the corn. Hear oh Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord.

Search the scriptures, Jesus said, and they that were more noble in Acts did so, to see if these things were so. If the evidence does not conclusively prove this doctrine to exist as truth, consider why it does not.

[EricH]

Jesus was speaking through his humanity. He showed both aspects of Himself many times. I feel like I am running around in circles here. Jesus thirsted; did he do this as a human or as God? Obviously it is a human who thirsts and not God. When Jesus prayed did he pray as a man or as God? Well we know that God does not need to pray, so Jesus prayed as a man. Now when Jesus says,

[EricH]

The trinity concept is such a deeply held belief that for many even discussing that it might be an error is very difficult.

Brother Chad has put forth many excellant points and examples that have gone without response because the fact remains that trinity the word and trinity the doctrine are not well defined in scripture because they are an error, though deeply believed.

Why would God be so lacking specificity as to never once mention the word trinity if it is such a great truth? God is very specific in much smaller matters. 66 leaves on the golden candlestick. Muzzle not the ox that treads out the corn. Hear oh Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord.

Search the scriptures, Jesus said, and they that were more noble in Acts did so, to see if these things were so. If the evidence does not conclusively prove this doctrine to exist as truth, consider why it does not.

Many here have put together excellent points. The question is which is more biblical. The term trinity is one used to describe doctrines that the Bible lays out. It is a man-made term used to describe the various doctrines clearly taught by scripture that describe the nature of God. I would not expect God to use the term, because it was developed by man. God did not use the term eschatology, but that does not mean teachings on the end times are invalid. . God did not use the term "millenium" but that does not mean one will not exist. You are confusing words we develope to describe doctrines with the doctrines themselves. I find it less likely that God would state things in such a way as to lead us to believe Jesus was totally spearate from the Father, and them expect us to figure out that it was only meant figuratively. God is very clear about the specifics that make up the doctrine of the Trinity. Actually the same accusation could be leveled at your position. Namely that you are emotionally connected to your beliefes and refuse to hear what the scriptures have to say about the nature of God. That is a 2 edged sword, and does not really prove anything. It is more a diversion really. Oneness is really a doctrine that finds no support in scripture and has been developed by inference rather than looking at the text

[Brother Chad]

you are still trying to seperate the "Son of Man" from the "Son of God". You can't do that. We see from Stephen's testimony that Jesus in Heaven is called "The Son of Man". Jesus is still fully man in heaven. And yet he never ceased to be fully God either.

Jesus is called "The Son of Man" even in the Old Testament. Here we see God sitting on the throne, and Jesus comes on the scene.

Although I don

[Brother Chad]

The right hand of God is one of power and authority- it is figurative or symbolic. If this were true then we should see God

[EricH]

Revelation 13:8

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Here John says Jesus was already SLAIN before the world was even created. Meaning your theory could not be correct. As I said, Jesus gained nothing in terms of personal experience or position through his incarnation, death, and resurrection. At the time of the Ascenscion, he was simply returned to the position he always had: sitting at the right hand of the Father, for he prayed, "Father, Glorify me with the Glory I had with you from before the world was...."

Actually most of the translations do not favor the translation you have opted for on this verse. Most favor:

And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been ritten from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

Revelation 13:8 NASB

It can be taken either way. Revelation 17:8 favors NASB's approach:

And those who dwell on the earth will wonder, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world,

Revelation 17:8b NASB