Commentators who say the trinity is not in the bible

[1stjohn0666]

To falsely accuse Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Millard Erickson of agreeing with you is shameful...and repugnant.
I had my Matthew Henry commentary out and mistook that he made the claim, however he goes on with good detail about 1 John 5:7,8
Anyway here are trinitarians writing in their teaching tools that the doctrine is not found in the bible!!

Trinitarians Roger Olson and Christopher Hall say of the doctrine (the Trinity) in their book, The Trinity (pp. 1-2):

It is understandable that the importance placed on this doctrine is perplexing to many lay Christians and students. Nowhere is it clearly and unequivocally stated in Scripture. How can it be so important if it is not explicitly stated in Scripture? (p.1). The doctrine of the Trinity developed gradually after the completion of the N. T. in the heat of controversy. The full-blown doctrine of the Trinity was spelled out in the fourth century at two great ecumenical councils: Nicaea (324 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD).

Trinitarian Douglas McCready in his work He Came Down From Heaven, states:

New Testament scholars disagree whether the N.T. directly calls Jesus as God because of the difficulty such language would create for early Christians with a Jewish background. It is important to note that every passage that identifies Jesus as “theos” can be translated other ways or has variants that read differently (p. 51). In biblical Judaism the term “messiah” did not necessarily carry any connotation of divine status, and Jews of Jesus’ day were not expecting their messiah to be other than human (p. 55). While some have used the title Son of God to denote Jesus’ deity, neither the Judaism nor the paganism of Jesus’ day understood the title in this way. Neither did the early church (p.56).

Writing as a Trinitarian in his bestselling book Christian Doctrine, Professor Shirley C. Guthrie Jr., makes these strong admissions:

The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word “trinity” itself nor such language as “one-in-three,” “three-in-one,” one “essence” (or “substance), and three “persons is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy (pp 76, 77). But there is an obvious problem here (calling Jesus Lord and Savior). There is only one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, the Lord and Savior of Israel. If we say that God is really present and at work in Jesus, how can we avoid saying that there are in fact two Gods – one “up in heaven” and one who appeared down here on earth? The N.T. does not solve this problem (pp 78, 79). The doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible (p. 80).

Trinitarian G. W. Bromley is quoted in The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter Elwell, as saying:

In the New Testament there is no explicit statement of the doctrine… (p. 1112).

Respected Trinitarian Evangelical Biblical scholar Professor Charles C. Ryrie, writing in his well known work, Basic Theology, admits:

The N. T. contains no explicit statement of the doctrine of the Trinity of God (since “these three are one” in 1 John 5:7 is apparently not a part of the genuine text of scripture (p. 60). A definition of the Trinity is not easy to construct. Some are done by stating several propositions. Others err on the side of oneness or threeness (p. 61). Even with all the discussion and delineation that we attempt in relation to the Trinity, we must admit that in the final analysis it is a mystery (p.61). In the second half of the fourth century, three theologians from the province of Cappadocia in eastern Asia Minor gave definitive shape to the doctrine of the Trinity (p.65). But many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that “clearly” states that there is one God who exists in three persons (p. 89). The above illustrations prove the fallacy of concluding that if something is not proof-texted in the Bible we cannot clearly teach the results … If that were so, I could never teach the doctrine of the Trinity or the deity of Christ or the deity of the Holy Spirit (p.90).

Regarding the O.T. name for God, “Elohim,” Ryrie says: To conclude plurality of persons from the name itself is dubious (doubtful - p. 58).

Trinitarian Millard J. Erickson, research professor of theology at S. W. Baptist Theological Seminary (Southern Baptist) in his book on the Trinity, God in Three Persons, is compelled by the Biblical evidence to make some strong admissions:

This doctrine in many ways presents strange paradoxes …. It is a widely disputed doctrine, which has provoked discussion throughout all the centuries of the church’s existence. It is held by many with great vehemence and vigor. These advocates are certain they believe the doctrine, and consider it crucial to the Christian faith. Yet many are unsure of the exact meaning of their belief. It was the very first doctrine dealt with systematically by the church, yet is still one of the most misunderstood and disputed doctrines. Further, it is not clear or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensible to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom (a self evident truth) of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the Scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church (pp 11, 12).

Erickson goes on to say that some oppose the doctrine of the Trinity because of:

…[The Trinity] is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church….There is another, more general objection against the doctrine of the Trinity. It is essentially an argument from the apparent silence of the Bible on this important subject. This contention notes that there really is no explicit statement of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible, particularly since the revelation by textual criticism of the spurious nature of 1 John 5: 7. Other passages have been seen on closer study to be applicable only under the greatest strain. The question however is this: It is claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine. If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly, directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible? If this is the doctrine that especially constitutes Christianity’s uniqueness, how can it be only implied in the biblical revelation? In response to the complaint that a number of portions of the Bible are ambiguous or unclear, we often hear a statement something like, “It is the peripheral matters that are hazy or on which there seem to be conflicting Biblical materials. The core beliefs are clearly and unequivocally revealed.” This argument would appear to fail us with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, however, for here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly or clearly... Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion.

The noted Catholic scholar Graham Greene was quoted in Life Magazine as saying:

Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in Scripture … but the Protestant Churches have themselves accepted such dogmas as The Trinity, for which there is no such precise authority in the Gospels. (Oct. 30, 1950, Vol. 29, No. 19, p. 51)

Adam Clarke, a Trinitarian Methodist in his Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible makes this strong statement:

Here I trust I may be permitted to say, with all due respect for those who differ from me, that the doctrine of the eternal son ship of Christ is in my opinion anti-Scriptural and highly dangerous (p. 854).

Writer Lee Strobel, in his book The Case for Christ (two million copies sold), recounts a conversation with Trinitarian professor Ben Witherington of Asbury Theological Seminary, regarding the person of Jesus. Witherington makes this interesting statement:

If he had simply announced, ‘Hi folks, I’m God’ that would have been heard as I’m Yahweh, because the Jews of His day didn’t have any concept of the Trinity. They only knew of God the Father – whom they called Yahweh – and not God the Son or God the Holy Spirit. So if someone were to say he was GOD, that wouldn’t have made any sense to them and would have been seen as clear-cut blasphemy (p. 133).

Theologian James Hastings, a Trinitarian, in his famous work Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, simply states:

We must avoid every kind of language which suggests that to St. Paul the ascension of Christ was deification. To a Jew the idea that a man might come to be GOD could have been an intolerable blasphemy (p.707).

Hastings also says:

It may be that St. Paul nowhere names Christ ‘God.’ To a Jew the idea that a man might come to be God would have been an intolerable blasphemy. (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible: 1994; p. 707-708).

Still more explicit is I Corinthians 11: 3: the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God; and in I Corinthians 15:28 Christ is portrayed as delivering up the Kingdom to God, and as finally submitting even Himself to a higher, ‘that God may be all in all.’ St. Paul does not give us much help, perhaps in solving this antinomy [inconsistency]. (P. 708).

Professor James Dunn, a Trinitarian scholar, in his exhaustive work Christology in the Making includes the following statements:

There is no clear indication anywhere in Paul that he ever identified Christ (pre-existent or otherwise) with the Logos (Word) of God (p. 39).

Similarly in Acts there is no sign of any Christology of pre-existence (p. 51).

In Matthew and Luke Jesus’ divine son ship is traced back specifically to his birth or conception … he was Son of God because his conception was an act of creative power by the Holy Spirit (p. 61).

In the earliest period of Christianity “Son of God” was not an obvious vehicle of a Christology of incarnation or pre-existence. Certainly such a Christology cannot be traced back to Jesus himself with any degree of conviction …. It is less likely that we can find such a Christology in Paul or Mark or Luke or Matthew (p. 64).

There is no thought in any of the passages we have studied of Jesus existing prior to His birth whether as an angel or an archangel, spirit or Spirit (p. 159).

They (the N.T. writers) do not think of Jesus as the incarnation of the Spirit, nor of Jesus as already Spirit prior to his existence on earth (p. 61).

In the early stages of this development (the time of Paul’s writings) it would be inaccurate to say that Christ was understood as a pre-existent being become incarnate, or that Christ himself was thought to have been present and active in creation (p.211).

There is no indication that Jesus thought or spoke of Himself as having pre-existed with God prior to His birth or appearance on earth. (That is) Christological thinking which cannot be traced back to Jesus Himself. We cannot claim that Jesus believed Himself to be the incarnate Son of God (p. 254).

There is of course always the possibility that popular pagan superstition became popular Christian superstition, by a gradual assimilation and spread of belief (p. 251).

Professor James Dunn, a Trinitarian scholar says in his book “Christology In The Making”:

We cannot claim that Jesus believed himself to be the incarnate Son of God... (p. 254).

In Matthew and Luke Jesus’ divine sonship is traced back specifically to his birth or conception... he was Son of God because his conception was an act of creative power by the Holy Spirit (p. 51).

Frederic William Farrar, chaplain to the Queen of England, and faculty fellow at Trinity College in Cambridge, in his Early Days of Christianity, vol. I (Boston, Massachusetts: DeWolfe, Fiske & Company, 1882) p. 55, wrote:

The first teachers of Christianity were never charged by the Jews (who unquestionably believed in the strict unity of God), with introducing any new theory of the Godhead. Many foolish and false charges were made against Christ; but this was never alleged against him or any of his disciples. When this doctrine of three persons in one God was introduced into the Church, by new converts to Christianity, it caused immense excitement for many years.6 Referring to this, Mosheim writes, under the forth century, “The subject of this fatal controversy, which kindled such deplorable divisions throughout the Christian world, was the doctrine of the Three Persons in the Godhead; a doctrine which in the three preceding centuries had happily escaped the vain curiosity of human researches, and had been left undefined and undetermined by any particular set of ideas.” Would there not have been some similar commotion among the Jewish people in the time of Christ, if such a view of the Godhead had been offered to their notice, and if they had been told that without belief in this they “would perish everlastingly”?



Revealing Statements from Other Credible Sources:

There are other credible sources such as encyclopedias, dictionaries, and secular works that make revealing statements regarding the doctrine of the Trinity not being found in the Bible. They have no apparent “ax to grind” in regard to its truth or error, but make these statements based on history and scholarship. Here are some examples:

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, p. 396:

The Trinity doctrine; the Catholic Faith, is this: We worship one in trinity, but there is one person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost – the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. The doctrine is not found in its fully developed form in the Scriptures. Modern theology does not seek to find it in the O. T. At the time of the Reformation the Protestant Church took over the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination.

Encyclopedia International, Univ. of Glasgow, 1982 ed., Vol. 18, p. 228):

The doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the apostles preaching as this (preaching) is reported in the N.T.

Dr. Colin Brown, Trinity and Incarnations: In Search of Contemporary Orthodoxy, Ex Auditu (7); 1991, p. 88-89:

It is a common but patent misreading of the opening of John’s Gospel to read it as if it said: In the beginning was the Son and the Son was with God and the Son was God. What has happened here is the substitution of Son for Word, and thereby the Son is made a member of the Godhead which existed from the beginning.

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11 ed. Vol. 23, p.963:

Believers in God as a single person (God, the Father), were at the beginning of the third century still forming the large majority.

Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, p. 564-565:

Today scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the O.T. or the N.T. It would go far beyond the intention and thought-forms of the O.T. to suppose that a late-fourth-century or thirteenth-century Christian doctrine can be found there. Likewise, the N. T. does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.

Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 27, p. 27-28:

The Trinity is a ‘mystery,’ a formula or conception which really transcends human understanding. It is held that although the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason it … may be apprehended (though it may not be comprehended) by the human mind. The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the west, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology, especially of the recovered Aristotelianism of the 13th Century.

New International Dictionary of N. T. Theology, Colin Brown, Gen. Ed., Vol. 2, p. 84:

The N.T. does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence and therefore in an equal sense God himself. And the other express declaration is also lacking, that God is God thus and only thus, i.e., as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These two express declarations, which go beyond the witness of the Bible, are the twofold content of the Church doctrine of the Trinity.

Harper-Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, Richard P. McBrein, editor, p 1271:

Trinitarian doctrine as such emerged in the fourth century, due largely to the efforts of Athanasius and the Cappadocians … The doctrine of the Trinity formulated in the late fourth century thus affirms that the one God exists as three Persons. The purpose of this formulation was to profess that God, Christ, and the Spirit are equally responsible for our salvation, thus each must be divine.

Academic International Encyclopedia, Lexicon Publ., 1992 ed.; p. 300-301:

The doctrine of the Trinity is a post-scriptural attempt to bring to coherent expression diverse affirmations about God. For Christians the one God appeared in what they call a threefold ‘economy,’ in, so to speak, three forms or modes. Difficulties soon emerged in formulating and understanding the threefold ‘economy.’ Catholic and Protestant theology has sought in various ways to make the doctrine stated at Nicaea comprehensible. In the religious thought of the Enlightenment (17 and 18th centuries) there was a strong reaction against Trinitarianism as an ‘orthodox’ mystery without basis in either experience or reason.

Harper Collins Bible Dictionary, Paul J. Achtemeier, Editor, 1996 ed.; pp 452-453, 1052-1053, 1178-1179:

[Incarnation] refers to the Christian doctrine that the pre-existent Son of God became man in Jesus. None of these writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke) deals with the question of Jesus’ pre-existence. Paul does not directly address the question of the incarnation… It is only with the fathers of the church in the third and fourth centuries, that a full-fledged theory of the incarnation develops.

The use of the word “appointed” in Romans 1: 4 indicates that at this stage in the history of Christian thought, the title Son of God denoted an office or function in salvation history rather than a metaphysical quality as in later dogmatics. This usage is in accord with O.T. Jewish thinking.

[The birth narratives of Matthew and Luke] do not imply a pre-existence-incarnation Christology or a divine son-ship in the metaphysical sense. Rather, it implies Jesus’ predestination from the womb for a messianic role in salvation history. The functional meaning of divine son ship is made clear in Luke 1:32-33.

It is generally acknowledged that the Church father Tertullian [A.D. 145-220] either coined the term [Trinity] or was the first to use it with reference to God. The explicit doctrine was thus formulated in the post-biblical period...

Attempts to trace the origins still earlier to the O.T. literature cannot be supported by historical-critical scholarship. The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great Church Councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the N.T.

Bishop D. L. Welch stated that: The doctrine of the Trinity is as weak as the broth off of a turkey’s shadow.

Dr. Adrian Rogers, former pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church of Memphis, Tennessee, began a sermon on the doctrine of the Trinity with this statement:

Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to confess to you at the start of this message that I do not understand it (the Trinity). No wonder a famous author, who Dr. Billy Graham calls one of his favorite Evangelical writers, said in a letter to me recently: “As you know, the Trinity was one of the most hotly debated topics of the first five centuries, and still it has us scratching our heads.”

The Most High God is not a Trinity; He is One.

“For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy one of Israel … before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the lord; and beside Me there is no Savior … ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God. I am the Lord, your Holy one, the Creator of Israel” Isa. 43: 3, 10-12, 15. Note: God is our true Saviour but He used many men through the ages as “saviours,” and He has used His son Jesus to save us eternally. II Kings 13:5; Nehemiah 9:27; Obadiah 1:21; Luke 1: 47; 2:11.

Closing Thoughts

Robert A. Wagoner, in The Great Debate Regarding the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit, wrote:

The Bible has many verses which "teach" justification, "teach" repentance, "teach" baptism, "teach" the resurrection, but not one verse in the entire Bible “teaches” the doctrine of the Trinity. No verse describes it, explains it, or defines it. And no verse tells us to believe it. When one considers just how different the Trinitarian view is from the traditional Jewish view of God, you have to ask yourself, where are all the arguments to get the Jew to change his view? Why, when the Apostle Paul spends entire chapters getting the Jew to change his view of the law, isn’t there just one text to get the Jew to change his view of God? This vital, but missing piece, is the Trinity’s single biggest flaw.

The more I looked at the Trinity, the more I saw a doctrine rich in tradition, and passionately defended by brilliant and sincere people, but serverly weak in reason and badly wanting in Biblical support. (p. 88-89)



Compiled by: Philip P. Kapusta

[ChristYouKnowItAintEasy]

Wow, 1stjohn0666! This is some kind of a long text. When I hear or read the word "Doctrine" I always know that I'll be in for a while

It is understandable that the importance placed on this doctrine is perplexing to many lay Christians and students. Nowhere is it clearly and unequivocally stated in Scripture.

My point is that when He came in the flesh, once dead and resurrected, He had to fulfill his presence (mission) still with(in) us. No there is nowhere in the Bible (hummmm?) where He says "Ok guys and galls, the three of us will keep in touch, bye for now!" or something like that. So I will post John's writing again :

"I have told you all these things while I am with you. But the Helper will teach you everything and cause you to remember all that I told you. This Helper is the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name" John 14:26

He(2) said: Sent by my Father(1), He(3) will teach you and cause you to remember...

Also interresting: Matthew 10:19

[B. W.]

That does it 1st John 666 - you are taking people way out of context and you are hereby banned form this forum... with a straw man argument...

We have been gracious to you but you continue to exploit this forum guidelines and have made up you mind... so this forum is not for you. I'll leave this link open for any who wish to respond.

Have a nice day...
-
-
-

[PaulSacramento]

It is quite clear, as I mentioned before, the issues that 1John had were really quite simple:
To Him, GOD is the name of God The Father, not a term used to define God ( God's name being Yahweh).
To 1John, to say that Jesus is God means that Jesus is The Father.
!John never grasped that the Trinity is NOT a doctrine of identity but a doctrine of nature and while the term Trinity does NOT appear anywhere ein the bible, what does appear are concrete statements as to the NATURE of Christ:

John :

1 (A)In the beginning was (B)the Word, and the Word was (C)with God, and (D)the Word was God.2 He was in the beginning with God.3 (E)All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.4 (F)In Him was life, and the life was (G)the Light of men.5 (H)The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

14 And (R)the Word (S)became flesh, and (T)dwelt among us, and (U)we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of (V)grace and (W)truth.

28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”



Colossians:


Colossians 1:15-20

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

15 He is the (A)image of the (B)invisible God, the (C)firstborn of all creation.16 For (D)by Him all things were created, (E)both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether (F)thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—(G)all things have been created through Him and for Him.17 He (H)is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.18 He is also (I)head of (J)the body, the church; and He is (K)the beginning, (L)the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.19 For it was (M)the Father’s good pleasure for all (N)the fullness to dwell in Him,20 and through Him to (O)reconcile all things to Himself, having made (P)peace through (Q)the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, (R)whether things on earth or things in heaven.


Colossians 2:9

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

9 For in Him all the (A)fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,



Phllipians:


Philippians 2:5-11

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

5 (A)Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in (B)Christ Jesus,6 who, although He (C)existed in the (D)form of God, (E)did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,7 but (F)emptied Himself, taking the form of a (G)bond-servant, and(H)being made in the likeness of men.8 Being found in appearance as a man, (I)He humbled Himself by becoming (J)obedient to the point of death, even (K)death on a cross.9 (L)For this reason also, God (M)highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him (N)the name which is above every name,10 so that at the name of Jesus (O)every knee will bow, of (P)those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is (Q)Lord, to the glory of God the Father.



Hebrews:


God’s Final Word in His Son

1 God, after He (A)spoke long ago to the fathers in (B)the prophets in many portions and (C)in many ways,2 (D)in these last days (E)has spoken to us in (F)His Son, whom He appointed (G)heir of all things, (H)through whom also He made the (I)world.3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact (J)representation of His nature, and (K)upholds all things by the word of His power.

[B. W.]

If anyone had more to add to this thread, please feel free to do so.

Former member began to use a Strawman Argument.

While it is true all honest biblical scholars in some form or another will admit that the word "Trinity" itself is not found in the bible, this does not mean that the concept of the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is not. Such statements made to imply that all scholars therefore disprove the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity because the word is not mentioned in the bible is a Strawman.

As many persons on this board have shown, as do honest Biblical Scholars, the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is certainly in the bible and Jesus himself reveals the concept as true

The Pre - incarnate Christ speaks in these verses:

Isaiah 44:6, "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me. 7 Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it; Yes, let him recount it to Me in order, From the time that I established the ancient nation. And let them declare to them the things that are coming And the events that are going to take place." NASB

Isaiah 41:4, "Who has performed and accomplished it, Calling forth the generations from the beginning? 'I, the LORD, am the first, and with the last. I am He.'" NASB

Then Jesus says this in Revelation:

Rev 1:17-18 , When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18 and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades. NASB

Rev 22:13, 16 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." 16 "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."

To change what the book of Revelation is stating in its plain meaning is a very dangers endeavor to undertake and some folks simply attempt to do just that to his or her own peril...
-
-
-

[RickD]

Paul, it's obvious to you and me that those verses speak of the nature of Christ being God. And, I'll also say that if anyone doesn't see that, if he will earnestly pray, I believe God will open his eyes to the truth of Jesus Christ. If one is truly open to the truth, God will show him/her the truth. It just was pretty obvious that 1stjohn0666 was not open at all. He just wanted to argue.

[1stjohn0666]

It is quite clear, as I mentioned before, the issues that 1John had were really quite simple:
To Him, GOD is the name of God The Father, not a term used to define God ( God's name being Yahweh).

God is a title not a name. The name of the one true God is YHWH

To 1John, to say that Jesus is God means that Jesus is The Father.

For me to say that Jesus is God means 2 Gods, not Jesus is the Father. Jesus is the son of the one true God.

!John never grasped that the Trinity is NOT a doctrine of identity but a doctrine of nature and while the term Trinity does NOT appear anywhere ein the bible, what does appear are concrete statements as to the NATURE of Christ:

The trinity must break the rules of grammar to make sense, as in "eternally begotten" (which is not in the bible) This makes a contrary statement in one sentence. Can an object “begin,” and not have been begun? Does God get a kick out of giving us riddles to figure out who he is?

John :1 (A)In the beginning was (B)the Word, and the Word was (C)with God, and (D)the Word was God.2 He was in the beginning with God.3 (E)All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.4 (F)In Him was life, and the life was (G)the Light of men.5 (H)The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

I see the Genesis narrative being revealed by John in just a few verses. "And God "said" <=== this is what "word" means!! (of speech)

14 And (R)the Word (S)became flesh, and (T)dwelt among us, and (U)we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of (V)grace and (W)truth.

Jesus is what the word became confirmed by Deut 18:15, 18; Isa 51:16; Acts 3:20-26

28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

We need more to go on .. vs 17 is a wonderful start "Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”—and that he had said these things to her." With the structure of the Greek sentence at vs.28 it means that two individuals are being addressed. The context is "seeing and believing" ... "Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
A wonderful teaching earlier was John 12:44-50 "And Jesus cried out and said, “Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And whoever sees me sees him who sent me. I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.”

Colossians 1:15-20 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
15 He is the (A)image of the (B)invisible God, the (C)firstborn of all creation.16 For (D)by Him all things were created, (E)both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether (F)thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—(G)all things have been created through Him and for Him.17 He (H)is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.18 He is also (I)head of (J)the body, the church; and He is (K)the beginning, (L)the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.19 For it was (M)the Father’s good pleasure for all (N)the fullness to dwell in Him,20 and through Him to (O)reconcile all things to Himself, having made (P)peace through (Q)the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, (R)whether things on earth or things in heaven.

When I translate ἐν in Col 1:16 I use "in" because that (to me) using the word "by" would contradict the entire Old Testament where the Messiah is the Creator and not the one true God.

Colossians 2:9 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
9 For in Him all the (A)fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

The presence and fullness of the Father is in Jesus, but Jesus is not the Father. Eph 3:19 "and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God." .... I know that I am not Deity.

Philippians 2:5-11 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
5 (A)Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in (B)Christ Jesus,6 who, although He (C)existed in the (D)form of God, (E)did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,7 but (F)emptied Himself, taking the form of a (G)bond-servant, and(H)being made in the likeness of men.8 Being found in appearance as a man, (I)He humbled Himself by becoming (J)obedient to the point of death, even (K)death on a cross.9 (L)For this reason also, God (M)highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him (N)the name which is above every name,10 so that at the name of Jesus (O)every knee will bow, of (P)those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is (Q)Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

"the form" or "express image" I say the image of a thing is not the thing itself. We were created in the image of God, but we again are not God. Jesus was "given" a name from God that is above every name that "at the name of Jesus" we will confess and bow that Jesus is Lord.

Hebrews: God’s Final Word in His Son
1 God, after He (A)spoke long ago to the fathers in (B)the prophets in many portions and (C)in many ways,2 (D)in these last days (E)has spoken to us in (F)His Son, whom He appointed (G)heir of all things, (H)through whom also He made the (I)world.3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact (J)representation of His nature, and (K)upholds all things by the word of His power.

YHWH speaks long ago to the fathers and prophets in many ways, then Jesus (the son) comes on the scene and God speaks to us in His son. It was God speaking first then Jesus. Not the other way around. Jesus cannot be the possessor and the heir, it was the Father who "gave" it to his son. The term in Hebrew thinking "radiance of his glory" is wisdom. Wisdom never means a person. "exact representation" ... depends on how far one wants to define that, we have "oneness believers" which means Jesus is the Father, Jesus, and Holy Ghost. Again I say the image of a thing is not the thing itself. Check out Mark 12:1-8 and Psalm 33:6
A good question would be How can God sit next to God? vs.3,4 "he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,... 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. Another is, Why does God need to be an heir if he is the possessor of all things? And finally When did God "demote" himself to a lower status than angels? God would have still been in charge of the whole plan ....correct?

You know Paul you and Rick have been really good at being cordial with me. I understand how you believe, but by all means I do not intend to change your beliefs!!
My wife is my best friend and sometimes I vent to her about what was said here..... she puts in her two cents... LOL ... I know I can't be right all the time. I may like I have said before reconsider my beliefs. And like I just posted (in the previous sentence) it must be getting closer.

[PaulSacramento]

1John,
I am not trying to change your beliefs either, I respect peoples views and beliefs.
The issue is that you are misinterpreting the Trinity and what it means when we say Jesus is God.
It does NOT mean Jesus is The Father, it means that Jesus and The Father share the same nature of being God.
Let us for a moment suppose that The Father is YHWH, ok?
YHWH has never spoken directly or shown Himself directly other than through His Living Word that is His OnlY Begotten Son.
To Speak to The Son and to see The Son is the same as to speak to YHWH and to see YHWH.
Would you agree with that?

[Canuckster1127]

The original post is simply a long laundry list of what is commonly known as "quote mining." It's looking at sources that you wish to refute and isolating a quote or passage from the context of the entire work, to make it appear that it's concluding something different (usually what you yourself want to say.)

It's a common technique. It's used in theology, politics and history quite frequently.

It's an intellectually dishonest method and approach and rarely leads to a constructive conversation.

[1stjohn0666]

1John,
I am not trying to change your beliefs either, I respect peoples views and beliefs.
The issue is that you are misinterpreting the Trinity and what it means when we say Jesus is God.
It does NOT mean Jesus is The Father, it means that Jesus and The Father share the same nature of being God.
Let us for a moment suppose that The Father is YHWH, ok?
YHWH has never spoken directly or shown Himself directly other than through His Living Word that is His OnlY Begotten Son.
To Speak to The Son and to see The Son is the same as to speak to YHWH and to see YHWH.
Would you agree with that?

I got the trinity idea... but I just do not believe it. Nowhere in the bible does it ever say that I have to. Jesus makes no declaration of it either. ST. Athanasius in his wonderful Creed does.
In part I agree with that (your post) However I do not make John 5:37 a "pretext" Or in other words "insert a dogma" upon the text which can hardly be supported.

Are you saying that God the Father cannot speak?
When Jesus was being baptized it was NOT Jesus saying Matt 3:17 "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
Luke 9:35 "And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him."
John 12:28 "Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again"
I assume that this voice is the Father.

I agree with your statement "To Speak to The Son and to see The Son is the same as to speak to YHWH and to see YHWH."

OT Father speaking audibly:
Noah, Gen. 6:13-21
Moses, Exodus 3:1-4; Exodus 33:11. After speaking with the Father Moses was "glowing" Exodus 34:29-30
Jacob, Genesis 28:10-15
Joseph, Gen. 37:5-11
Adam and Eve, Gen 3:11
Cain, Gen 4:9
Noah and his sons, Genesis 9:8-17
Aaron, Exodus 12:1
And let's not forget about the lengthy discussion with Job.
If both the Holy Spirit and Jesus can speak audibly why can't the Father?
I believe the Father speaks in various ways, through prophets, his son, the Spirit, dreams, visions, angels, and himself...etc. even you and I.

I believe that the Father has been seen at least in part, hands, feet, loins, back parts.... just to name a few. I do not believe anyone has ever seen the face of God. God told Moses that he would die if he saw it.

[PaulSacramento]

Hi John,
I was referring to the OT text about YHWH speaking through His WORD and yes, you are correct that The Father did speak at Christ's Baptism and at His proclamation, because His Word, which He had used BEFORE to communicate and reveal Himself to the OT prophets, was incarnate as Jesus.
It is important to understand that Jesus was trying to make his Jewish audience understand how much MORE important HIS testimony is over those of the OT prophets and even Moses because HE IS the WORD of God.
NO, you don't have to believe in the Trinity doctrine, you just have to believe in Christ and in HIM is your salvation.
WHat I am trying to point out to you is that the Tirnity doctrine doesn't say what you THINK it says ( the Christ and the Father are the same person).
It simply states that The Father, The Son and the HS all have the same divine nature.

[1stjohn0666]

Hi John,
I was referring to the OT text about YHWH speaking through His WORD and yes, you are correct that The Father did speak at Christ's Baptism and at His proclamation, because His Word, which He had used BEFORE to communicate and reveal Himself to the OT prophets, was incarnate as Jesus.
It is important to understand that Jesus was trying to make his Jewish audience understand how much MORE important HIS testimony is over those of the OT prophets and even Moses because HE IS the WORD of God.
NO, you don't have to believe in the Trinity doctrine, you just have to believe in Christ and in HIM is your salvation.
WHat I am trying to point out to you is that the Tirnity doctrine doesn't say what you THINK it says ( the Christ and the Father are the same person).
It simply states that The Father, The Son and the HS all have the same divine nature.

Where is a passage that explains this "divine nature" idea? I know it exists in the Creeds, but I have not found it in scripture.
YHWH did speak audibly in both testaments. YHWH (to me) is the proper name of the one true God. Jesus is YHWH's son. In the doctrine of the trinity it states that the son is not the Father...etc. I certainly agree!! It then goes on to say "So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord." .... I can use the same language using chairs!! "Hello people here is a chair, over there is another chair, and right here is another chair..... but wait I must confuse you... these three chairs are really one chair. Who is going to stand?

This is pretty much how I see the trinity.

"NO, you don't have to believe in the Trinity doctrine, you just have to believe in Christ and in HIM is your salvation." <--- I love this statement.

[GreyDeSilvisanctis]

.... I can use the same language using chairs!! "Hello people here is a chair, over there is another chair, and right here is another chair..... but wait I must confuse you... these three chairs are really one chair. Who is going to stand?

This is pretty much how I see the trinity.

"NO, you don't have to believe in the Trinity doctrine, you just have to believe in Christ and in HIM is your salvation." <--- I love this statement.

As for me, the three chairs are what we call a chair. Although distinct they are still what we call a chair.
The thing is that the relationship between the three (God, Son and Holy Spirit) are so close to each other that the distance between them is zero. That's the difference our God does with chairs.

And yes, you don't have to believe in the Trinity doctrine. The important part is to believe, have faith, in Christ our Savior.

~Grey

[RickD]

And yes, you don't have to believe in the Trinity doctrine. The important part is to believe, have faith, in Christ our Savior.

So going by that, Mormons and Jehovas Witnesses are saved too...

[B. W.]

.... I can use the same language using chairs!! "Hello people here is a chair, over there is another chair, and right here is another chair..... but wait I must confuse you... these three chairs are really one chair. Who is going to stand?

This is pretty much how I see the trinity.

"NO, you don't have to believe in the Trinity doctrine, you just have to believe in Christ and in HIM is your salvation." <--- I love this statement.

As for me, the three chairs are what we call a chair. Although distinct they are still what we call a chair.
The thing is that the relationship between the three (God, Son and Holy Spirit) are so close to each other that the distance between them is zero. That's the difference our God does with chairs.

And yes, you don't have to believe in the Trinity doctrine. The important part is to believe, have faith, in Christ our Savior.

~Grey

A personal understanding of the the Trinity is not necessary for salvation, however, the conclusion eventually 'that those saved' comes too about only whom can save actually does matter...

Isaiah 45:21, 22, "Declare what is to be, present it-- let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me. 22 "Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.

Isaiah 43:11, "I even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior."

Phippians 2:6-11 "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death-- even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." NIV

Isaiah 45:23, 24. "By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. 24 They will say of me, 'In the LORD alone are deliverance and strength.'" All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame."

John 1:1-5. 14. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it ... 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." NIV

It is important in whom one trust for salvation.

Religious Pride in the heart would only corrupt heaven if permitted in. That pride is manifest in many in their personal refusal to finally recognize whom Jesus really is...

Of all forms of pride - religious pride is the hardest to bow its knee...
-
-
-