The Holy Trinity

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:28 pm

Fortigurn,

Thought I'd add a few cents worth in here.

What will you make of Hebrews 1:8?

Hebrews 1:8
“But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.””

Psalm 45:6-7
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions”

In case you want to textually criticize this passage, the word for “God” is “elohiym”, the same God as in Genesis 1:1. There is no other God.

Isaiah 45:5
“I am the LORD, and there is no other; There is no God besides Me.”

Isaiah calls Christ “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father” (Isaiah 9:6). How many “Mighty Gods” and “Everlasting Fathers” are there?

Consider Isaiah 43:10-11.

“You are My witnesses,” says the LORD, “Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior.”

Who is the Savior?

Luke 2:11
“For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.”

If Christ isn't God, then He cannot be a Savior.

Christ had an eternal past.

Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting.”

When Cornelius saw Peter, “fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”” (Acts 10:25-26). However, Jesus accepted the worship of His disciples in Matthew 28.

Matthew 28:9
“And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, “Rejoice!” So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him.”

If Jesus wasn't God, then I find it odd that He didn't correct his Disciples of what would have been a gross sin, especially since the same Jesus told Satan, “You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.” (Matthew 4:10)

Christ identifies Himself in Rev. 1:8. (This is the second time that he is called The “Almighty”.)

Revelation 1:8
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Finally, you'll need to explain the Pharisees' reaction to Jesus statement in John 8:59

John 8:57-59
“Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.”

Your "Jesus is not God" position has been reviewed and rejected as heresy by church councils for 2,000 years. The Pharisees understood exactly what Jesus was saying to them. This is what upset them. My prayer for you is that you will understand it as well.

Fortigurn · Post by **Fortigurn** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 1:35 am

puritan lad wrote:Fortigurn,

Thought I'd add a few cents worth in here.

What will you make of Hebrews 1:8?

Hebrews 1:8
“But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.””

Psalm 45:6-7
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions”

In case you want to textually criticize this passage, the word for “God” is “elohiym”, the same God as in Genesis 1:1. There is no other God.

I've covered this passage before (I love the way people don't read my posts).

Yes, I'm well aware othat the word for 'God' here is 'elohim', the same as is used in Genesis 1:1. Are you aware that this word is also used of men in Scripture?

Isaiah 45:5
“I am the LORD, and there is no other; There is no God besides Me.”

Isaiah calls Christ “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father” (Isaiah 9:6). How many “Mighty Gods” and “Everlasting Fathers” are there?

I've answered this before as well (I would appreciate people reading my posts, I don't post for the fun of it).

You do of course realise that your interpretation of this passage abandons the trinity and argues for Modalism? Standard trinitarian commentaries observe that this passage does not support the trinity. By interpreting this passage as a reference to Jesus as God, you are 'confusing the persons', which is anathema to the Creeds.

Consider Isaiah 43:10-11.

“You are My witnesses,” says the LORD, “Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior.”

Who is the Savior?

Luke 2:11
“For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.”

If Christ isn't God, then He cannot be a Savior.

I have posted a link to articles which answer this. It is a fallacy of equivocation to say that if Christ isn't God he cannot be a saviour.

Christ had an eternal past.

Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting.”

I have already answered this.

When Cornelius saw Peter, “fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”” (Acts 10:25-26). However, Jesus accepted the worship of His disciples in Matthew 28.

Matthew 28:9
“And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, “Rejoice!” So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him.”

If Jesus wasn't God, then I find it odd that He didn't correct his Disciples of what would have been a gross sin, especially since the same Jesus told Satan, “You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.” (Matthew 4:10)

I have already answered this.

Christ identifies Himself in Rev. 1:8. (This is the second time that he is called The “Almighty”.)

Revelation 1:8
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

I have posted a link to an artilce which answers this (these are not the words of Christ).

Finally, you'll need to explain the Pharisees' reaction to Jesus statement in John 8:59

John 8:57-59
“Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.”

I have answered this.

Your "Jesus is not God" position has been reviewed and rejected as heresy by church councils for 2,000 years.

No it hasn't. Not unless you're claiming that church councils preceded the birth of Christ.

What's more relevant is that it took over 200 years after the 1st century for the trinitarian doctrine to be formed. Doesn't that concern you?

Doesn't the absence of the trinity from the Old Testament concern you? How can you possibly account for the absence of the trinity from over 3,000 years of pre-Christian history?

Jbuza · Post by **Jbuza** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:12 am

Fortigurn wrote: Doesn't the absence of the trinity from the Old Testament concern you? How can you possibly account for the absence of the trinity from over 3,000 years of pre-Christian history?

God was in the begining, we see the Spirit moving across the waters, and there are several passages that say The Word--Jesus--was in the begining. It seems clear that you wish to hold onto this rejection of the divinity of Jesus, because of your considerable efforts to explain away numerous passages that actually say that Jesus is God. I guess you have some ability to interpret that the scholars that have developed Biblical versions lacked, and have a superior use of Ancient languages compared to those who actually spoke them.

And since you have brought it up before, could you please point me to the passages where Jesus corrects those people that try to kill him when they interpret his words as claims of divinity. When I pointed out that those people that were with Jesus during his earthly life thought he claimed to be God and tried to kill him for it, you claimed he corrected them, but never showed scriptural evidence for it.

Fortigurn · Post by **Fortigurn** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:35 am

Jbuza wrote:
Fortigurn wrote: Doesn't the absence of the trinity from the Old Testament concern you? How can you possibly account for the absence of the trinity from over 3,000 years of pre-Christian history?
God was in the begining, we see the Spirit moving across the waters, and there are several passages that say The Word--Jesus--was in the begining.

The Bible does not say that 'The Word--Jesus--was in the beginning'. I am begging you to actually read the psalm from which John is quoting (Psalm 33:6), and compare it with Genesis 1:1-2 yourself.

You tell me how you can get 'Jesus was the word of God which was there in the beginning' from 'And God said'.

It seems clear that you wish to hold onto this rejection of the divinity of Jesus, because of your considerable efforts to explain away numerous passages that actually say that Jesus is God.

This entire thread started - if you remember - because I was accused of not being a Christian because I don't believe in the trinity.

I asked specifically for all the Bible passages which say one must believe in the trinity in order to be a true Christian. To date, I haven't received any.

I asked specifically for all the Bible passages which define God as three persons in one being. To date, I haven't received any.

What I have received is a list of common arguments made to support the case that Jesus is God. That is not the trinity.

I guess you have some ability to interpret that the scholars that have developed Biblical versions lacked, and have a superior use of Ancient languages compared to those who actually spoke them.

I don't have any such thing. If you had read my posts, you would find that a number of my arguments are predicated on the knowledge of the Bible and Biblical languages possessed by trinitarian scholars, who have realised that 'traditional' arguments for the trinity are based on texts which have for a long time been either misunderstood, misread, or simply mistranslated.

And since you have brought it up before, could you please point me to the passages where Jesus corrects those people that try to kill him when they interpret his words as claims of divinity. When I pointed out that those people that were with Jesus during his earthly life thought he claimed to be God and tried to kill him for it, you claimed he corrected them, but never showed scriptural evidence for it.

To which passage are you referring?

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:47 pm

I'll reply later. I need to take time to go back and see where you addressed these.

Let me ask. Do you believe in the Divinity of Christ (is. He was God)? We'll deal with their separate personhoods once we get Christ's identity down.

Jbuza · Post by **Jbuza** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:17 pm

Fortigurn,

Sorry, many of my posts have been off topic. I read your post but didn't include it for shortness of the post.

I did post information on the trinity, and offer supporting evidence, and all the contrary evidence I could find, namely the Seven Spritis of God talked about in revelation. I also stated that I was unsure about the trinity. I think the concept is farily unimportant, and since many of the messages had turned naturally to the divinity of Christ (as one of the persons in that concept also argued here), I was addressing that point with most of the posting I have done in this thread.

I don't think a paticular understanding of the trinity is important to salvation, but I am concerned about this teaching that says Jesus is not Divine is a lie, and perhaps contrary to salvation. The Word of God took up human life and the Spirit of God entered the Son of God, and the very essence of God became a Man and lived a Holy and Pure life as a man knowing about Good and Evil, and The Word and The Spirit of Jesus took man's punishment in the body of Jesus.

Fortigurn · Post by **Fortigurn** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 6:16 pm

puritan lad wrote:Do you believe in the Divinity of Christ (is. He was God)?

No.

We'll deal with their separate personhoods once we get Christ's identity down.

If there were any passages in the Bible which describe God as three persons in one being, you would have shown them to me by now.

If there were any passages in the Bible which said that you must believe in the trinity in order to be a true Christian, you would have shown them to me by now.

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:09 am

Fortigurn wrote: What's more relevant is that it took over 200 years after the 1st century for the trinitarian doctrine to be formed. Doesn't that concern you?

Doesn't the absence of the trinity from the Old Testament concern you? How can you possibly account for the absence of the trinity from over 3,000 years of pre-Christian history?

First of all, your religion is less than 200 years old, so I wouldn't use historical arguments if I were you (not to mention that it was founded by a false prophet.)

Second, the Trinity is in the Old Testament, as I will show as soon as I get caught up on reading (I want to make sure that I don't offend you by bringing up something that you've alreadty addressed)

Fortigurn · Post by **Fortigurn** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:21 am

puritan lad wrote:
Fortigurn wrote: What's more relevant is that it took over 200 years after the 1st century for the trinitarian doctrine to be formed. Doesn't that concern you?

Doesn't the absence of the trinity from the Old Testament concern you? How can you possibly account for the absence of the trinity from over 3,000 years of pre-Christian history?
First of all, your religion is less than 200 years old, so I wouldn't use historical arguments if I were you...

What has my particular sect to do with the monotheism of the Jews? If you could demonstrate that our beliefs are historically unique to us, and that no one had ever previously believed that God was one person, you might have a point. But you know you can't do that.

...(not to mention that it was founded by a false prophet.)

Wow, that's a great topic for a new thread.

Second, the Trinity is in the Old Testament, as I will show as soon as I get caught up on reading (I want to make sure that I don't offend you by bringing up something that you've alreadty addressed)

Thank you. I will, however, repeat a couple of things.

If there were any passages in the Bible which describe God as three persons in one being, you would have shown them to me by now.

If there were any passages in the Bible which said that you must believe in the trinity in order to be a true Christian, you would have shown them to me by now.

smrpgx · Post by **smrpgx** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:16 pm

If there were any passages in the Bible which describe God as three persons in one being, you would have shown them to me by now.

Try these.
Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5,14,18,21,22; 46:9; 47:8; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:5-6; Gal. 4:8-9

Fortigurn · Post by **Fortigurn** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:45 pm

smrpgx wrote:
If there were any passages in the Bible which describe God as three persons in one being, you would have shown them to me by now.
Try these.
Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5,14,18,21,22; 46:9; 47:8; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:5-6; Gal. 4:8-9

Let's see:

Isaiah 43:
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

That says God consists of three persons in one being, does it? Where? I've discarded the rest of the Isaiah passages, because none of them describe God as consisting of three persons in ine being either (please show me specifically if you believe they do).

John 17:
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

This says the Father (one person), is the only true God, and that He has sent Jesus Christ. This is the opposite of what you are supposed to be proving.

1 Corinthians 8:
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

This says there is one God, who is one person (the Father). This is the opposite of what you are supposed to be proving.

Galatians 4:
8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

That says God consists of three persons in one being, does it? Where?

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:18 pm

While the Trinity may not be explicitly expressed as "God is a trinity" since such a term was not devised until some time later, this concept was developed out of a response to all three persons being seen as God in Scripture, not the other way round. You seem to think the doctrine of the Trinity was plucked from thin air, and then read back into Scripture. Having studied early Christian controversies a little, this for me seems to be far from true.

Now if each member of the Trinity possess divine attributes (i.e., The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) as Scripture expresses (and I believe very strongly so), yet one God is still very clearly advocated, then you have here the concept of the Trinity which is a doctrine that has been developed in response to Scriptural truths.

Kurieuo

Fortigurn · Post by **Fortigurn** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:15 am

Kurieuo wrote:While the Trinity may not be explicitly expressed as "God is a trinity" since such a term was not devised until some time later, this concept was developed out of a response to all three persons being seen as God in Scripture, not the other way round.

Thank you, I am well aware of this. Usually it's a struggle to get trinitarians to realise this, as you can see from this thread.

You seem to think the doctrine of the Trinity was plucked from thin air, and then read back into Scripture.

No, I'm well aware that it was formulated over the centuries as an explanation of the Biblical data which was in harmony both with the existing cultural paradigm and with the majority dogmas in the Christian church.

Having studied early Christian controversies a little, this for me seems to be far from true.

Having studied early Christian history a lot, I agree with you.

Now if each member of the Trinity possess divine attributes (i.e., The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) as Scripture expresses (and I believe very strongly so), yet one God is still very clearly advocated, then you have here the concept of the Trinity which is a doctrine that has been developed in response to Scriptural truths.

YesI am well aware that the trinity is the product of syllogistic reasoning. The problem is that the syllogism is predicated on flawed premises.

Besides which, any syllogism which results in logical contradiction cannot be taken seriously.

So what we have, as ypu acknowledge, is a post-Biblical explanation for Biblical data. That is the trinity. This being the case, you cannot argue that it is a doctrine revealed in Scripture. It is, as you have righly pointed out, a post-Biblical explanation of a certain interpretation of certain Biblical data.

It is therefore extremely difficult to argue that it is a Biblical doctrine, or a doctrine binding on all true Christians.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:56 am

Fortigurn wrote:YesI am well aware that the trinity is the product of syllogistic reasoning. The problem is that the syllogism is predicated on flawed premises.

What reasoning are you referring to? Something like:

1) Only God possesses such and such an attribute (e.g., eternality).
2) The Father, Son and Holy Spirit possess such an attribute.
3) Therefore each are God.

or to take an approach more inline with Athanasius:

1) Only God can save.
2) Jesus Christ saves.
3) Therefore Jesus Christ is God

Fortigurn wrote:Besides which, any syllogism which results in logical contradiction cannot be taken seriously.

I must ask what logical contradiction you are referring to? Careful not to make a strawman here about what is being claimed within the doctrine of the Trinity.

Fortigurn wrote:So what we have, as ypu acknowledge, is a post-Biblical explanation for Biblical data. That is the trinity. This being the case, you cannot argue that it is a doctrine revealed in Scripture.

Actually this is what I argued, and from what I can tell is something you agreed with... that is:

Fortigurn wrote:
K wrote:While the Trinity may not be explicitly expressed as "God is a trinity" since such a term was not devised until some time later, this concept was developed out of a response to all three persons being seen as God in Scripture, not the other way round.
Thank you, I am well aware of this.

Fortigurn wrote:It is, as you have righly pointed out, a post-Biblical explanation of a certain interpretation of certain Biblical data.

It is therefore extremely difficult to argue that it is a Biblical doctrine, or a doctrine binding on all true Christians.

I disagree. Just because God's revelation in Scripture can be interpreted differently, doesn't mean the truth can't be understood and that such truth would not be binding. I can think of real life situations where people may interpret reality differently where one's interpretation may mean life or death, yet despite there being a difference, the fact of the matter is something is true and life has an ugly habit of binding reality on us no matter how we desire to interpret the world around us.

Now according to Scripture, Christ himself considered the question of who people thought He was as of extreme importance. Understand who Christ is, is of primary importance to being able to truly believe in Christ. And it is written: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." (John 3:26) As Christ also states quite clearly in John 6:

23But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."

25"Who are you?" they asked.

"Just what I have been claiming all along," Jesus replied. 26"I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is reliable, and what I have heard from him I tell the world."

27They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. 28So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him." 30Even as he spoke, many put their faith in him.

Who did Christ claim to be? If we are wrong than according to Christ's words above we will face some very real consequences. Thus, one's belief surrounding who Christ is, is a forced option. We may ignore it or get Scripture wrong, but the reality is if we don't accept Christ and who He is then we still remain condemned and in our sins.

Kurieuo

Fortigurn · Post by **Fortigurn** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 6:04 am

Kurieuo wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:YesI am well aware that the trinity is the product of syllogistic reasoning. The problem is that the syllogism is predicated on flawed premises.
What reasoning are you referring to? Something like:

1) Only God possesses such and such an attribute (e.g., eternality).
2) The Father, Son and Holy Spirit possess such an attribute.
3) Therefore each are God.

or to take an approach more inline with Athanasius:

1) Only God can save.
2) Jesus Christ saves.
3) Therefore Jesus Christ is God

Yes that is standard syllogistic reasoning.

Fortigurn wrote:Besides which, any syllogism which results in logical contradiction cannot be taken seriously.
I must ask what logical contradiction you are referring to? Careful not to make a strawman here about what is being claimed within the doctrine of the Trinity.

The logical contradiction of having God the Father, God the Son and God the Son, and having only one God.

Fortigurn wrote:So what we have, as ypu acknowledge, is a post-Biblical explanation for Biblical data. That is the trinity. This being the case, you cannot argue that it is a doctrine revealed in Scripture.
Actually this is what I argued, and from what I can tell is something you agreed with... that is:
Fortigurn wrote:
K wrote:While the Trinity may not be explicitly expressed as "God is a trinity" since such a term was not devised until some time later, this concept was developed out of a response to all three persons being seen as God in Scripture, not the other way round.
Thank you, I am well aware of this.

I agreed that it is a concept developed out of a response to all three persons being seen as God in Scripture. I didn't say that Scripture describes all three of them as God.

Fortigurn wrote:It is, as you have righly pointed out, a post-Biblical explanation of a certain interpretation of certain Biblical data.

It is therefore extremely difficult to argue that it is a Biblical doctrine, or a doctrine binding on all true Christians.
I disagree. Just because God's revelation in Scripture can be interpreted differently, doesn't mean the truth can't be understood and that such truth would not be binding. I can think of real life situations where people may interpret reality differently where one's interpretation may mean life or death, yet despite there being a difference, the fact of the matter is something is true and life has an ugly habit of binding reality on us no matter how we desire to interpret the world around us.

You misunderstand. I am not saying that the true identify of Christ and God isn't important - I believe it is.

What I am pointing out is that you cannot claim that a doctrine which was developed in the post-apostolic era, which was not even defined until the 4th century, and is the result of resolving contradictions in certain interpretations of Biblical data, is a doctrine taught in Scripture.

You cannot tell me that a doctrine developed post-Biblically as a means of explaining certain interpretations of Scripture is binding on Christians. If you go that way, you'll have to accept all the Oecumenical Councils, and I don't think you want to go there.