The Trinity?

[Brother Chad]

I think I asked this already, but I didn't expect so much commentary from all of you. I also first want to commend everyone for making this such a good debate. Everyone has behaved as far as I can see (me included).

So here goes my question again. I have heard over and over again that the word "trinity" is not to be found in the Bible. The thing that puzzles me is not this word in the Bible but all the other words used to explain the trinity that are not found in the Bible:

Three in One; God the Son; God the Holy Ghost; eternally begotten; three distinct but co-equal and co-eternal; three separate but united in power and purpose; persons in the Godhead; the person of the Holy Ghost; the person of the Father; three but not three but One; One expressed as three, triune God and there are more.

So why would God say over and over again that there is one God and no others and not put anyone of these simple phrases into His masterpiece to show that He is essentially tri-une?

-The 3-in-1 phrase in I John 5:7 was added by an editor in the early 1500's. You might say that is speculative but remember that Martin Luther rejected this verse and he was a Trinitarian.

-God the Son: We know that God is eternal (the first and last) and we know that the word son means "offspring". When you say this about God, you are saying that our God is a being that is eternal and an offspring? This seems to me to be an utter impossibility, how about you? Hebrews 1:5 says plainly, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." We know that before Jesus, God was a Spirit because John 4:24 says such. So basically and without much confusion we have the Spirit of God shown in the flesh that was not God. Jesus' humanity was not God, it was His Spirit that was God! The Spirit of the Father.

Alright, we all know that God is eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Let's see if Jesus is all these?

I have shown how God Himself said that His Son Jesus was begotten or was born on a certain day. The "son of man" is used by Jesus to describe Himself. God cannot be the offspring of his own creation.

Was Jesus all knowing (omniscient)?

-Mark 8:17, "And when Jesus knew [it], he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart hardened?" The word knew meaning: to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of, perceive, feel. Mark 13:32, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."

Now consider whether Jesus was all-powerful or all-present?

-In the tomb, Jesus could not have opened one eye. Jesus was only physically in one place at any given time.

So how do we account for the fact that Jesus spoke and did miracles as God Himself?

-I Timothy 3:16, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

God was manifest in flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

-John 14:10, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."

-Colossians 2:9, "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."

So if the Son were indwelt by the Father what might we find in Scripture?

Jesus as the Christ or "saturated with the Spirit of God" would be able to speak equally as the Eternal Spirit and as a temporal or finite creation.

-John 8:58, "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I Am." This shows the fact that Jesus is described as Eternal and having a beginning: eternal in Spirit and begotten in the flesh. Jesus as the Christ would be omniscient in the Spirit but not all the knowledge of the Spirit was imparted to the flesh. The Spirit would retain the fullness of the Godhead while being able to selectively restrict the attributes of the Godhead in flesh. The flesh would call the Spirit God:

-John 20:17, "Jesus saith unto her, touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God." This shows how the flesh could be completely subject to the Spirit:

-Isaiah 42:1, "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, [in whom] my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." The Spirit in the flesh would still be fully God:

-Matthew 8:26-27, "And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm. But the men marveled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!"

-Numbers 23:19, "God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" This says that God is not the son of man, a term Jesus used for Himself many times.

So in closing, Jesus the son of man and the Son of God after the flesh and Christ the anointed or saturated by and of the Spirit!

Edited February 2, 2006 by Brother Chad

[EricH]

I think I asked this already, but I didn't expect so much commentary from all of you. I also first want to commend everyone for making this such a good debate. Everyone has behaved as far as I can see (me included).

So here goes my question again. I have heard over and over again that the word "trinity" is not to be found in the Bible. The thing that puzzles me is not this word in the Bible but all the other words used to explain the trinity that are not found in the Bible:

Three in One; God the Son; God the Holy Ghost; eternally begotten; three distinct but co-equal and co-eternal; three separate but united in power and purpose; persons in the Godhead; the person of the Holy Ghost; the person of the Father; three but not three but One; One expressed as three, triune God and there are more.

So why would God say over and over again that there is one God and no others and not put anyone of these simple phrases into His masterpiece to show that He is essentially tri-une?

-The 3-in-1 phrase in I John 5:7 was added by an editor in the early 1500's. You might say that is speculative but remember that Martin Luther rejected this verse and he was a Trinitarian.

-God the Son: We know that God is eternal (the first and last) and we know that the word son means "offspring". When you say this about God, you are saying that our God is a being that is eternal and an offspring? This seems to me to be an utter impossibility, how about you? Hebrews 1:5 says plainly, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." We know that before Jesus, God was a Spirit because John 4:24 says such. So basically and without much confusion we have the Spirit of God shown in the flesh that was not God. Jesus' humanity was not God, it was His Spirit that was God! The Spirit of the Father.

Alright, we all know that God is eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Let's see if Jesus is all these?

I have shown how God Himself said that His Son Jesus was begotten or was born on a certain day. The "son of man" is used by Jesus to describe Himself. God cannot be the offspring of his own creation.

Was Jesus all knowing (omniscient)?

-Mark 8:17, "And when Jesus knew [it], he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart hardened?" The word knew meaning: to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of, perceive, feel. Mark 13:32, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."

Now consider whether Jesus was all-powerful or all-present?

-In the tomb, Jesus could not have opened one eye. Jesus was only physically in one place at any given time.

So how do we account for the fact that Jesus spoke and did miracles as God Himself?

-I Timothy 3:16, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

God was manifest in flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

-John 14:10, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."

-Colossians 2:9, "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."

So if the Son were indwelt by the Father what might we find in Scripture?

Jesus as the Christ or "saturated with the Spirit of God" would be able to speak equally as the Eternal Spirit and as a temporal or finite creation.

-John 8:58, "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I Am." This shows the fact that Jesus is described as Eternal and having a beginning: eternal in Spirit and begotten in the flesh. Jesus as the Christ would be omniscient in the Spirit but not all the knowledge of the Spirit was imparted to the flesh. The Spirit would retain the fullness of the Godhead while being able to selectively restrict the attributes of the Godhead in flesh. The flesh would call the Spirit God:

-John 20:17, "Jesus saith unto her, touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God." This shows how the flesh could be completely subject to the Spirit:

-Isaiah 42:1, "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, [in whom] my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." The Spirit in the flesh would still be fully God:

-Matthew 8:26-27, "And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm. But the men marveled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!"

-Numbers 23:19, "God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" This says that God is not the son of man, a term Jesus used for Himself many times.

So in closing, Jesus the son of man and the Son of God after the flesh and Christ the anointed or saturated by and of the Spirit!

The problem with this question is that many of the words you used to describe God (omniscient, omnipresent etc) are not in the Bible either. But you are not suggesting they are not valid because they are not there. They are words developed by Theologians to describe attributes of God in a more succinct way. This is really not an argument

[EricH]

1 Peter 1:20

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

The word used for forordained is prognosko, meaning to for-know. Jesus was more than a throught. He was known by the Father before the world began, but did not appear on earth until the last times. He was not a thought, He was known

Assuming your assertion is correct, then all believers would have to of been personally known in a interactive way since the word is applied to us.

Ro 8:29 For whom He did foreknow <proginosko>, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Ro 11:2 God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew <proginosko>. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how He maketh intercession to God against Israel

<proginosko>, to know beforehand, i.e. foresee:--foreknow (ordain), know (before).

Albert Barnes' NT Commentary:

Verse 20. Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world. That is, it was foreordained, or predetermined, that he should be the great atoning Sacrifice for sin. On the meaning of the word foreordained, (proginosko,) see Ro 8:29. The word is rendered which knew, Ac 26:5; foreknew and foreknow, Ro 8:29,2; foreordainedin 1Pe 1:20; and know before, 2Pe 2:17. It does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament. The sense is, that the plan was formed, and the arrangements made for the atonement, before the world was created. Before the foundation of the worl. That is, from eternity. It was before man was formed; before the earth was made; before any of the material universe was brought into being; before the angels were created.

What I was adressing was Bro-chads assertion that this verse proved that Christ did not exist eternally. It cannot be used to prove that. According to Bro-chad pre-known only proves that Jesus was a thought in God's mind. It does not prove that. All it proves is that the work Jesus would do was foreknown. Jesus pre-existance is proved by other passages. This passage does not speak for or against it.

[EricH]

1 Peter 1:20

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

This truly goes along with what I have been saying, Jesus was the Word that was with and was God. He was the predestined or foreordained plan which had a reality attached to it that no human thought could ever have. The Word had pre-existence and the Word was God (Father), so we can use it without referencing humanity. The Son did not have pre-existence before the conception in the womb of Mary. The Son of God pre-existed in thought but not in substance. When the time came I Timothy 3:16 says,

[Brother Chad]

Your theology is creating this issue for you, not the text. Jesus was preexistant as the Son from eternity. His son-ship was not conditioned by His incarnation. He was the Son before he took human form. Your argument is essentially based on what makes sense to you, not what the scriptures teach. When you see scriptures that don't agree with your theology, you state they are not to be taken literally. It is a convenient way of dismissing scriptures that don't jive with what you believe

Please explain to me how "my theology" is creating anything? The text follows what I have said. Please explain where I have strayed?

[Brother Chad]

I think I asked this already, but I didn't expect so much commentary from all of you. I also first want to commend everyone for making this such a good debate. Everyone has behaved as far as I can see (me included).

So here goes my question again. I have heard over and over again that the word "trinity" is not to be found in the Bible. The thing that puzzles me is not this word in the Bible but all the other words used to explain the trinity that are not found in the Bible:

Three in One; God the Son; God the Holy Ghost; eternally begotten; three distinct but co-equal and co-eternal; three separate but united in power and purpose; persons in the Godhead; the person of the Holy Ghost; the person of the Father; three but not three but One; One expressed as three, triune God and there are more.

So why would God say over and over again that there is one God and no others and not put anyone of these simple phrases into His masterpiece to show that He is essentially tri-une?

-The 3-in-1 phrase in I John 5:7 was added by an editor in the early 1500's. You might say that is speculative but remember that Martin Luther rejected this verse and he was a Trinitarian.

-God the Son: We know that God is eternal (the first and last) and we know that the word son means "offspring". When you say this about God, you are saying that our God is a being that is eternal and an offspring? This seems to me to be an utter impossibility, how about you? Hebrews 1:5 says plainly, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." We know that before Jesus, God was a Spirit because John 4:24 says such. So basically and without much confusion we have the Spirit of God shown in the flesh that was not God. Jesus' humanity was not God, it was His Spirit that was God! The Spirit of the Father.

Alright, we all know that God is eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Let's see if Jesus is all these?

I have shown how God Himself said that His Son Jesus was begotten or was born on a certain day. The "son of man" is used by Jesus to describe Himself. God cannot be the offspring of his own creation.

Was Jesus all knowing (omniscient)?

-Mark 8:17, "And when Jesus knew [it], he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart hardened?" The word knew meaning: to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of, perceive, feel. Mark 13:32, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."

Now consider whether Jesus was all-powerful or all-present?

-In the tomb, Jesus could not have opened one eye. Jesus was only physically in one place at any given time.

So how do we account for the fact that Jesus spoke and did miracles as God Himself?

-I Timothy 3:16, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

God was manifest in flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

-John 14:10, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."

-Colossians 2:9, "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."

So if the Son were indwelt by the Father what might we find in Scripture?

Jesus as the Christ or "saturated with the Spirit of God" would be able to speak equally as the Eternal Spirit and as a temporal or finite creation.

-John 8:58, "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I Am." This shows the fact that Jesus is described as Eternal and having a beginning: eternal in Spirit and begotten in the flesh. Jesus as the Christ would be omniscient in the Spirit but not all the knowledge of the Spirit was imparted to the flesh. The Spirit would retain the fullness of the Godhead while being able to selectively restrict the attributes of the Godhead in flesh. The flesh would call the Spirit God:

-John 20:17, "Jesus saith unto her, touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God." This shows how the flesh could be completely subject to the Spirit:

-Isaiah 42:1, "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, [in whom] my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." The Spirit in the flesh would still be fully God:

-Matthew 8:26-27, "And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm. But the men marveled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!"

-Numbers 23:19, "God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" This says that God is not the son of man, a term Jesus used for Himself many times.

So in closing, Jesus the son of man and the Son of God after the flesh and Christ the anointed or saturated by and of the Spirit!

The problem with this question is that many of the words you used to describe God (omniscient, omnipresent etc) are not in the Bible either. But you are not suggesting they are not valid because they are not there. They are words developed by Theologians to describe attributes of God in a more succinct way. This is really not an argument

I think that your response shows that it is a good argument and you can't refute it. Otherwise please feel free to show me where I have shown the scriptures not to show these truths?

[Ovedya]

Ah..."Brother Chad".....I think he just did.

Is the word "incarnation" in the Bible anywhere?

[Brother Chad]

Ah..."Brother Chad".....I think he just did.

Is the word "incarnation" in the Bible anywhere?

No I don't believe that it is. So I guess I need to show how God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient...... to prove my point?

[EricH]

Bro Chad,

Review the thread. I have repeatedly addressed your passages of scripture. Most of your argument does not center on scripture. It is in the form of what makes sense to you. For example you make a big deal of the word Trinity not being in the Bible. I responded that many of the things you attribute as being descriptive of God are not in the bible as well. This shows that your logic is not consistent. You listed several scriptures yesterday that I responded to. What I think is happening here is that both sides have presented their cases, and there is not much new to add.

On the other hand, we (those who hold to a Biblical position of the trinity) have presented numerous scriptures that indicate there are three persons in the God-head. Rather than interact with those, you simply dismiss them as figurative. As I look at your position, that is the biggest weakness. You are forced to dismiss sections of scripture. The Trinitarian view on the other hand does not dismiss any scripture. It holds that what scripture says in all places is true. It is true that there are distinct persons in the God-head. Scripture affirms both. Your position seeks to deny what scripture affirms to keep your theology intact.

[EricH]

Ah..."Brother Chad".....I think he just did.

Is the word "incarnation" in the Bible anywhere?

No I don't believe that it is. So I guess I need to show how God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient...... to prove my point?

No, you have to admit that just because a word does not occur in scripture, does not mean that the things the words describe are not in scripture. You have to be consistent in your argumentation. If you want to say that because God did not use the word Trinity, He must not have felt it important, so it is not true, you must be consistent in applying that logic.