The Holy Trinity

[Fortigurn]

Matthew 28:19 All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

2 Corinthians 13:14 May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all

1 Peter 1:1-2 To God's elect. . .who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood

Romans 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

1 Corinthians 6:11 - And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Galatians 4:6 - And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

1 Thessalonians 1:3-5 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost

Titus 3:4-6 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour

To further buttress this argument, there are several places in the Bible in which the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly implied. For example, concerning *Christ's Resurrection* we are told that the Father raised Jesus from the dead (I Thess. 1:10), the Son raised Himself from the dead (John 2:19-22), and the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 8:11). Yet, we are told in Acts 17:30,31 that *God raised Jesus from the dead*. Therefore, either the Bible contradicts itself or the three persons are the one God.
http://answering-islam.org/Trinity/beckwith.html

I have addressed most of these passages in previous posts in this very thread. Please read my posts. I object to these huge copy/pastes of other people's work without any indication of personal thought, and without any indication that my own posts have been read.

Any which I have not deat with specifically in this thread, are dealt with here.

Please let me know if there's a passage which isn't dealt with there. Any quotes which aren't dealt with directly will probably fall under the following categories:

Those quotes can be grouped into the following categories:

* Passages in which Christ bears one of God's titles: This does not make him God, since other men and angels have borne titles of God, and even the name of God.

* Inaccurate statements: For example, Micah 5:2 does not say that Christ is eternal in the same way that God is eternal, and standard Evangelical commentaries today agree that this does not say any such thing.

* Logical fallacies: It is argued that if Christ could forgive sins, then he must have been God, since God forgives sins, but this neglects to take into account the fact that this authority was delegated to Christ by God, and that the same authority was delegated by Christ to his apostles. Numerous other examples of this fallacy are on that page (the same goes for the 'judging' argument, the 'coming in glory' argument, the 'resurrects the dead' argument, the 'power and authority' argument, to name just a few).

* Theological contradictions: The page asserts that God died, and that God's blood was on the cross (exegeting Acts 20:28), which is a theological contradiction. God cannot die, and did not die. It also asserts that God the Father raised Christ, whilst asserting that God the Son raised himself (this is not only a theological contradiction, but a logical contradiction).

Let me know if you have a quote which you feel is not addressed by the posts in that link I gave, or which you feel does not fall within those categories.

[Jbuza]

Sorry my post wasn't accurate. I misunderstood you.

[Jbuza]

John 10:30-33 “I and the Father are one.” . . . . The work of collecting these evidences for The Deity of Jesus was done by Pastor Jim Feeney

I have addressed most of these passages in previous posts in this very thread. Please read my posts. I object to these huge copy/pastes of other people's work without any indication of personal thought, and without any indication that my own posts have been read.

Any which I have not deat with specifically in this thread, are dealt with here.

Please let me know if there's a passage which isn't dealt with there.

Perhaps I misundrestood you. I thought you were saying that I copy/pasted someone elses work without giving them credit.

Ummmm Ya I pasted the Word of God, you had asked for biblical passages in several responses in this thread.

Besides if you are going to reject the Inspired Word of God on these issues do you really think that my personal thoughts are going to add anything?

Again my reason for these posts was to try and put the pertinent passages dealing with the divinity of Jesus, salvation through Jesus, and evidences for the Trinity in one place, and since I feel they can stand alone I didn't feel they needed my commentary to take away from them.

[Jbuza]

Please let me know if there's a passage which isn't dealt with there.

No that did a fine job of explaining how scripture doesn't mean what it means. So to clarify as I understand it you believe that Jesus was a man just like you and me. You do not beleive that Jesus is God. You do not believe that Jesus was with God in the begining. Would this be accurate?

[bizzt]

I don't know how you can get by this Fortigurn
If Jesus was not God then he did not forgive our Sins. There is no ifs, ands or buts about this. Jesus himself claimed to be Equal to the Father! Is there something I am missing here? We know there must be at LEAST 2 persons to the God Head being Father and Son, yet Jesus himself talks of another being the Spirit of God. The way you try to explain Scripture just does not make sense. It is plain as day. Even in Jbuzas' post of just scripture, makes it perfectly Clear!

[Byblos]

I don't know how you can get by this Fortigurn
If Jesus was not God then he did not forgive our Sins. There is no ifs, ands or buts about this. Jesus himself claimed to be Equal to the Father! Is there something I am missing here? We know there must be at LEAST 2 persons to the God Head being Father and Son, yet Jesus himself talks of another being the Spirit of God. The way you try to explain Scripture just does not make sense. It is plain as day. Even in Jbuzas' post of just scripture, makes it perfectly Clear!

No but according to him (Fortigurn), all the English translations of the Bible are wrong. They didn't get it the way it was meant in Hebrew and/or Greek. The only plausible explanation is the one he is providing and if you do not see it his way then clearly you are mistaken because his version is not interpretive, it is historical, lexical and textual.

His words:

You see, the arguments I gave regarding these issues are all verifiable historical or lexical facts. If you really read my answers on these issues, and you weren't 'convinced by my interpretation', then you must have read my answers incorrectly, because none of these are interpretative issues - they are lexical issues, textual issues, or historical issues.

If you really read my answers on these issues, I'll be very interested to see why you are prepared to disagree with established orthoodox scholarship. I suggest you don't go there.

[Fortigurn]

No but according to him (Fortigurn), all the English translations of the Bible are wrong. They didn't get it the way it was meant in Hebrew and/or Greek. The only plausible explanation is the one he is providing and if you do not see it his way then clearly you are mistaken because his version is not interpretive, it is historical, lexical and textual.

That is a gross misappropriation of my words. I have said absolutely no such thing.

His words:

You see, the arguments I gave regarding these issues are all verifiable historical or lexical facts. If you really read my answers on these issues, and you weren't 'convinced by my interpretation', then you must have read my answers incorrectly, because none of these are interpretative issues - they are lexical issues, textual issues, or historical issues.

If you really read my answers on these issues, I'll be very interested to see why you are prepared to disagree with established orthoodox scholarship. I suggest you don't go there.

Those are my words regarding four specific issues, namely:

* The definition of the Hebrew word 'echad'
* The definition of the Hebrew word 'elohim'
* The interpretation of the Jewish pesach meal
* The textual issue of 1 John 5:7

Those are not intepretative issues, they are lexical issues, textual issues, or historical issues.

[Byblos]

No but according to him (Fortigurn), all the English translations of the Bible are wrong. They didn't get it the way it was meant in Hebrew and/or Greek. The only plausible explanation is the one he is providing and if you do not see it his way then clearly you are mistaken because his version is not interpretive, it is historical, lexical and textual.

That is a gross misappropriation of my words. I have said absolutely no such thing.

His words:

You see, the arguments I gave regarding these issues are all verifiable historical or lexical facts. If you really read my answers on these issues, and you weren't 'convinced by my interpretation', then you must have read my answers incorrectly, because none of these are interpretative issues - they are lexical issues, textual issues, or historical issues.

If you really read my answers on these issues, I'll be very interested to see why you are prepared to disagree with established orthoodox scholarship. I suggest you don't go there.

Those are my words regarding four specific issues, namely:

* The definition of the Hebrew word 'echad'
* The definition of the Hebrew word 'elohim'
* The interpretation of the Jewish pesach meal
* The textual issue of 1 John 5:7

Those are not intepretative issues, they are lexical issues, textual issues, or historical issues.

That was a direct response to when I said I read your posts and was not convinced. I didn't just read the posts re the above definitions, I read most of your posts, including the interpretive ones. That's what did not convince me. Your only response was to the definitions you provided. You are confusing the issues.

[Fortigurn]

That was a direct response to when I said I read your posts and was not convinced.

That was my direct response to certain issues raised in your reply. I made that quite clear when I said this (bold):

You see, the arguments I gave regarding these issues are all verifiable historical or lexical facts. If you really read my answers on these issues, and you weren't 'convinced by my interpretation', then you must have read my answers incorrectly, because none of these are interpretative issues - they are lexical issues, textual issues, or historical issues.

I even listed what I referred to as 'these issues', so that there could be no confusion.

I didn't just read the posts re the above definitions, I read most of your posts, including the interpretive ones. That's what did not convince me.

But you didn't explain why they didn't convince you, as I said. I specifically asked why my arguments regarding the textual, linguistic, and historical issues didn't convince you. I'm still waiting for an answer.

Your only response was to the definitions you provided. You are confusing the issues.

That wasn't actually my only response. I specifically asked you to provide reasons for your disagreement with all my arguments. You didn't actually give me any reasons for why you disagreed with my reasoning. I can't hold up both ends of the discussion myself. If you say 'I disagree', but don't explain why you disagree, if you say 'That's all wrong', but don't explain why you believe it's wrong, then there's nothing for me to respond to.

What I can do is ask you to explain why you disagree, and why you believe my arguments to be faulty, which is what I did - specifically with regard to those issues I listed.

Nor did I say the words you placed in my mouth.

[Byblos]

That was a direct response to when I said I read your posts and was not convinced.

That was my direct response to certain issues raised in your reply. I made that quite clear when I said this (bold):

You see, the arguments I gave regarding these issues are all verifiable historical or lexical facts. If you really read my answers on these issues, and you weren't 'convinced by my interpretation', then you must have read my answers incorrectly, because none of these are interpretative issues - they are lexical issues, textual issues, or historical issues.

I even listed what I referred to as 'these issues', so that there could be no confusion.

I didn't just read the posts re the above definitions, I read most of your posts, including the interpretive ones. That's what did not convince me.

But you didn't explain why they didn't convince you, as I said. I specifically asked why my arguments regarding the textual, linguistic, and historical issues didn't convince you. I'm still waiting for an answer.

Your only response was to the definitions you provided. You are confusing the issues.

That wasn't actually my only response. I specifically asked you to provide reasons for your disagreement with all my arguments. You didn't actually give me any reasons for why you disagreed with my reasoning. I can't hold up both ends of the discussion myself. If you say 'I disagree', but don't explain why you disagree, if you say 'That's all wrong', but don't explain why you believe it's wrong, then there's nothing for me to respond to.

What I can do is ask you to explain why you disagree, and why you believe my arguments to be faulty, which is what I did - specifically with regard to those issues I listed.

Nor did I say the words you placed in my mouth.

Then I gather you do not have a problem with the translation of John 1.

Good, then this is what I interpret from John 1:

The Word was with God,
The Word was God,
The Word was made flesh.
Who was made flesh? Jesus.

There's really no 2 ways you can read this. That is how I see it. Period. End of discussion.

[Jbuza]

John 10:30-33 “I and the Father are one.” . . .

So this should be interpreted I and the father are not one?

John 14:20 - At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

This should be interpreted I am not in my Father, but completely separate from him.

Philippians 2:5-6 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.

And this should read being in very nature not God, but only his servant.

John 17:5 [Jesus prayed] And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

This should read the Glory you had before I even existed

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

This should read whose goings forth began in like 12 BC at his birth

Revelation 1:8, 17-18 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” ... [17] When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

And this one I am not the Alpha and Omega . . . .

Matthew 1:23 “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”—which means, “God with us.”

And this one a man who talks about God is with us.


You get the point I could continue.

[Felgar]

In fairness jbuza, he claims to have already addressed all those in this very thread. We've presented our views on what can only reasonably lead to the conclusion that Jesus and God are one, but if he refuses to accept them, the only recourse is to show exactly where his interpretation are flawed and/or not plausible.

[Jbuza]

In fairness jbuza, he claims to have already addressed all those in this very thread. We've presented our views on what can only reasonably lead to the conclusion that Jesus and God are one, but if he refuses to accept them, the only recourse is to show exactly where his interpretation are flawed and/or not plausible.

I see that he explained how the verses did not mean what they say, but I wonder how he would accuratly transcribe them into english

[Fortigurn]

In fairness jbuza, he claims to have already addressed all those in this very thread. We've presented our views on what can only reasonably lead to the conclusion that Jesus and God are one, but if he refuses to accept them, the only recourse is to show exactly where his interpretation are flawed and/or not plausible.

Yes that is correct. Some interaction with what I have posted would be reasonable (I've certainly interacted with what you've posted).

By the way, you're not actually trying to prove that Jesus and God are one, that would be Modalism (Oneness theology). You're trying to prove that God consists of three persons in one being.

To date I have seen no passages from Scripture which describe God as three persons in one being. To date I have seen no passages from Scripture which say that true Christians must believe that God consists of three persons in one being.

[Fortigurn]

Then I gather you do not have a problem with the translation of John 1.

I have already explained to you that I disagree with your translation of John 1, and I have given a specific and detailed reason why.

Good, then this is what I interpret from John 1:

The Word was with God,
The Word was God,
The Word was made flesh.
Who was made flesh? Jesus.

There's really no 2 ways you can read this. That is how I see it. Period. End of discussion.

Jesus is called the word made flesh. This does not mean that Jesus is God. I have been through all of this before, in some detail. You have not in fact addressed my reply.

Instead you have chosen to ignore what I wrote, and attempted to misrepresent my arguments. This is particularly poor behaviour from a Christian.