The Trinity Doctrine

[Anonymous]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 27 2005,03:33)

Hi FYI, So Jesus was incorrect about his Father BEING the God of the jews then. It was in fact a compound unity God of which he was always a part. Why did he not mention this important detail?

Nick,

Why do you not remember scripture?

Why do you think he didn't?

[Anonymous]

Matthew 13:14 – And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

[NickHassan]

Hi FYI,
I remember scripture with the help of the Spirit but none comes to mind that says God is a compound God.

The verse about a husband and wife being “one” is to show that they too are seen as truly one by God and that is why he hates divorce.

The Father and the Son are one in the same way. They are two beings united as one by the submission of  the one of less authority to one who has the greater authority. But as woman and a man start off life as individuals who join their will together in marriage so also the Father and the Son were separate and became united.

They were separated by the begetting of the Son from the Father and became united in will and purpose and with the Spirit of the Father poured into the Son. But does any marriage cause one compound person? Do either totally ever lose their individuality?

You suggest I do not agree with you because I am deaf to God? No it is because I hear God but sadly you speak with the voice of a stranger that I do not recognise.

[NickHassan]

Hi FYI
Jn 8.54
” …If I glorify myself my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say 'He is our God'”
Now I can understand the some might read every reference to “God”in the bible as a trinity-Father,Son and Spirit. But when it is specified as one person it surely must mean that person.Do you agree?

So here the Master says that the God of the Jews is the Father.That seems very clear that he is not talking about himself as the Son or any Spirit person. So God in the OT is the Father. So God in the NT is the Father too or else scripture would be broken and divided against itself.

So why not believe him those who call him their teacher?

[Anonymous]

Nick,

Exodus 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the LORD (YHWH) thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Matthew 4:10 – Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Matthew 6:24 – No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

John 5:18 – Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

John 14:1 – Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

John 12:26 – If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

Romans 14: 17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.

Colossians 3:24 – Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.

1 Thessalonians 1:9 – For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God;

Hebrews 9:14 – How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Hebrews 12:28 – Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:

Revelation 22:1 – And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

Notice the singularity of the last phrase “and his servants shall serve him“. YHWH is echad! And He occupies the Throne!

Definition of “ECHAD”

One Throne, and YHWH is on it, God and the Lamb.

You can deny it all you want. You can even say it is not written and taught in the bible. But that will not change the truth that it is.

The pharisees denied it and The Lord Jesus said they were of their father the devil.

[NickHassan]

Hi FYI,
God is not the Lamb. Scripture never says they are the same but shows them together.The Lamb is with God.
Read Rev 4 and you will see a description of John's vision of God in heaven on the throne and another being described as like a lamb between the throne and the elders. It was not God but the Lamb of God, the Son of God separate from the Father.
Again Dan 7 shows the Father, the Ancient of Days, on the throne with the Son of Man, presented before Him, recieving glory for his triumph from God his Father. He was the Father or not part of Him but another being.

[NickHassan]

PS,
Indeed we must believe also in Jesus because he is the Way back to the Father and no one comes to the Father except through him. He was a stumbling block to the Jews who refused to believe in him relying on their observance of Law.

[NickHassan]

Hi FYI,
Rev 22.1
” And he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the lamb, in the middle of the street. On either side of the river was the tree of life , bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding it's fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bondservants will serve Him; they will see His face; and His name will be on their foreheads”

The bondservants appear earlier in Rev 7.3
” ..do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees until we have sealed the bondservants OF OUR GOD on their foreheads”

So they serve God and see God. God is the Lord and God of Jesus Christ through eternity.The Son is separate from God but united in perfect harmony with His will.

[Anonymous]

Romans 1:1 – Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

Galatians 1:10 – For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Colossians 4:12 – Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always labouring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God.

2 Timothy 2:24 – And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

Titus 1:1 – Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

James 1:1 – James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

Jude 1:1 – Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

Servants of The Father and the Lamb.

[WhatIsTrue]

Is 1:18,

You wrote:

Quote

Regarding your listed scriptures, I still maintain that you have not demonstrated that your doctrine of non pre-existence is explicitly revealed in scripture.

I never claimed that I did.  I specifally said in my last post that I can not prove a negative, (e.g. that the Messiah did not pre-exist), using this method.  Proof of a negative belief does require inference and explanation.  However, I never asked you, or anyone else, to prove a negative from scripture alone.  In fact, I was asking for quite the opposite.  I was asking for explicit scriptural explanations of “God's triune nature”.  Of course, we both know that there isn't a single verse in scripture that describes God as being three persons, and since scripture does not speak of God in this way, neither do I.

You wrote:

Quote

I have previously stated in a post to Cubes that I dont believe all Biblical truths are explicitly taught and some doctrines are inferentially derived (as is the case for your non pre-existence doctrine). So yeah im comfortable with that fact that the Trinity doctrine isnt explicitly spelt out within the confines of one particular passage. Neither is salvation, if you disagree then why there is a such a big debate about this doctrine. Some verses stipulate that you need to confess Jesus and believe that God raised him from the dead to be saved (Romans 10:9), others say you just need to call on the name of the Lord (10:13), while elsewhere its taught that you must be baptised (John 3:3, Galatians 3:25-27)…then there's the “work out your salvation” ones. There is bits of truth all over the place and you can quote scripture to prove any number of soteriologial protocols. Simply listing scriptures proves nothing in and of itself for some doctrines.   The fact that Jesus Christ is God is both implicitly and explicitly (John 1:1, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8…..) taught in scripture and that's a key plank in my plurality within unity understanding of God.

Now we are actually getting somewhere.  This is where you and I part ways.  Whereas you believe that the most fundamental doctrines of the faith can be arrived at from mere inference, I believe that all the fundamental doctrines of the faith are explicitly spelled out in scripture, otherwise our entire faith would be a guessing game.  That is precisely why we do see such a proliferation of denominations that hold completely conflicting beliefs, because they go beyond scripture and elevate their own creeds to the same level as scripture.

For example, the issue of salvation demonstrates my point precisely.  Think about this:

Do you have to infer that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, or is that explicitly spelled out in scripture?

Do you have to infer that the penalty for sin is death, or is that explicitly spelled out in scripture?

Do you have to infer that Messiah was ransomed for the sins of many, or is that explicitly spelled out in scripture?

Do you have to infer that Messiah is the only means through which we can obtain salvation, or is that explicitly spelled out in scripture?

Yes, it is true that different denominations focus on different aspects of salvation.  But, are all those elements of salvation that you referenced contradictory, or are they all part of the same plan?  That men focus on their favorite parts of the message to the exclusion of the other parts is their own personal folly, not scriptural ambiguity.  That is why it is of utmost importance that one “works out one's own salvation”, because depsite what the creed of your particular church says about salvation, you will be held accountable for what the scriptures say about salvation.  (As an off topic, unrelated challenge, study the issue of salvation from Genesis to Revelation and see if the answers remain “ambiguous” for you.  There is a common thread on the subject throughout the scriptures.)  The issue of salvation is the one issue that is most explicitly discussed in the NT.

By contrast, the idea that God is three persons never comes up, despite the fact that all of the early converts were Jews who believed in a very singular God.  You would expect that this startling new revelation of a mysteriously three-fold God would be a frequent topic of conversation given the background of the apostles.  Yet, it is not.  That alone sets off alarm bells in my head.

But again, I know that you will scoff at my reasoning because ultimately we do not agree that the fundamentals of the faith must be first be found in scripture alone before we try to integrate them into our faith.

[NickHassan]

Quote (Guest @ June 27 2005,11:57)

Romans 1:1 – Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, Galatians 1:10 – For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. Colossians 4:12 – Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always labouring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God. 2 Timothy 2:24 – And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, Titus 1:1 – Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; James 1:1 – James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. Jude 1:1 – Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: Servants of The Father and the Lamb.

Hi FYI,
That's right. TWO.

[Anonymous]

Finally we agree – The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father!

Jesus is the Son of God “brought forth” from the Father and they are YHWH in compound unity, just as the bible says!

Deuteronomy 6:4 – Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one (echad) LORD:

The son being “brought forth” is of the same spirit substance as the Father!

Phill. 2:6 form = Gr. morphe

[NickHassan]

No FYI,
We are far from agreement. Jesus told the Jews the Father was the one they called their God. He was not that God neither was he part of a trinity God. Why argue with him?

[Anonymous]

Awe Nick,

Too bad, I had hoped you had made some progress!

[NickHassan]

Hi FYI,
How is walking away from scripture progress? Your “progressive “ideas are exactly what John warned us about in his second letter. What you champion is of your own spirit and not the Spirit of God.

For some strange reason when you see two you read one. The little word “and” is a strong clue that more than one are being spoken of.

If you feared God you would check and see how far you have wandered from the path of scriptural truth.

[WhatIsTrue]

FYI,

You are abusing the Hewbrew language when you try to redefine “echad” to somehow suggest a Trinity.  Have you looked into this issue yourself, or are you simply passing on some common Trinitarian misinformation?  In any case, even a quick glance at any Hebrew lexicon will confirm that your use of “echad” is deceptive.  I would suggest going here:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/

But for the sake of discussion, I will elaborate.

Quote

'echad {ekh-awd'} Part of Speech adj Outline of Biblical Usage 1) one (number) a) one (number) b) each, every c) a certain d) an (indefinite article) e) only, once, once for all f) one…another, the one…the other, one after another, one by one g) first h) eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal) Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 952 AV – one 687, first 36, another 35, other 30, any 18, once 13,     eleven + 06240 13, every 10, certain 9, an 7, some 7,     misc. 87; 952

Do you see any reference to “compound unity” in this definition?

Trinitarians take three verses where “echad” is used in reference to two things coming together and then try to redefine the word by that usage when the overwhelming majority of the word's usage simply means “one”, just like our English word!  In other words, just like our English word “one” does not mean “compound unity” just because we use it in the phrase “the two become one”, neither does the word “echad”.  In fact, “echad” has a more restrictive singular meaning than our English word “one”, as it is translated “only” on several occasions.

Here's one example of “echad” translated as “only”:

Quote

1 Kings 4:19 “Geber the son of Uri, in the land of Gilead, the country of Sihon king of the Amorites and of Og king of Bashan; and he was the only[echad] deputy who was in the land.”

That would be a very strange usage of a word that means “compound unity”.  Don't you think?  Also notice that “echad” is used over 900 times in scriptures, (i.e. it is very common), and it is generally translated to mean “one (in number)”.

By contrast, let's look at “yachid”, which Trinitarians say is the correct Hebrew word for “one (in number)”.

Quote

yachiyd {yaw-kheed'} Part of Speech adj, subst Outline of Biblical Usage adj 1) only, only one, solitary, one a) only, unique, one b) solitary c) (TWOT) only begotten son subst 2) one Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 12 AV – only 6, darling 2, only child 1, only son 1, desolate 1,     solitary 1; 12

Take special note of the KJV translation count.  Note that in the KJV, “yachid” is never translated as “one”, even though it is listed as one of its definitions.  So, by demonstration of scriptural usage, it is clearly not the appropriate word in Hebrew to use to describe God as one in number.  In fact, “yachid” is almost always translated as “only son” or “only darling”, and it's only used 12 times in the entire bible!  This alone demonstrates that it is not the common Hebrew word for “one (in number)”, whereas “echad”, by definition and by scriptural usage, is nearly always translated to mean “one (in number)”.

(Don't take my word for it.  Go to Blue Letter and do a quick search on Strong's #0259.  The zero indicates that its a Hebrew word so don't drop it when you enter the number into the search field.)

By the way, take a peek at the footnotes of the NIV Bible.  These footnotes help to flush out the true meaning, and usage of the word “echad”, in Deuteronmy 6:4.

Quote

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one[echad]. Footnotes: Deuteronomy 6:4 Or The LORD our God is one[echad] LORD; or The LORD is our God, the LORD is one[echad] ; or The LORD is our God, the LORD alone[echad].

This verse has nothing to do with “compound unity”.  In fact, it is the greatest witness to the fact that God is one in number!  This is in stark contrast to the composite gods of the pagans from the time period when these words were first written down.  But that's a whole different subject matter altogether.

[Anonymous]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 27 2005,21:06)

Hi FYI, How is walking away from scripture progress? Your “progressive “ideas are exactly what John warned us about in his second letter. What you champion is of your own spirit and not the Spirit of God. For some strange reason when you see two you read one. The little word “and” is a strong clue that more than one are being spoken of. If you feared God you would check and see how far you have wandered from the path of scriptural truth.

Nick,

I have not strayed from the truth – I abide in Him!

If you would seek Him with all your heart He will teach you by His Spirit and you too will know the truth. And, if you obey it, the truth, it will set you free!

[NickHassan]

Hi FYI,
But his words do not seem to abide in you. Instead you go beyond what is revealed and confidently teach what does not come from the mouth of the Master but from your human teachers.

[NickHassan]

Quote (Guest @ June 27 2005,20:12)

Finally we agree – The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father! Jesus is the Son of God “brought forth” from the Father and they are YHWH in compound unity, just as the bible says! Deuteronomy 6:4 – Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one (echad) LORD: The son being “brought forth” is of the same spirit substance as the Father! Phill. 2:6 form = Gr. morphe

Hi FYI,
When Jesus spoke with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus after his resurrection in Lk 24 we are told in Mk 16 he appeared in a different “form” to them. Did he appear as a man?-yes. So “form” here does not mean “substance” or he would not have appeared as a man surely? So it must have related to some aspect of his dress or appearance surely.

So we know the Son of God is of divine nature as is God but you seem to assume they are thus identical and of eternally shared substance. Have I got this right? Have they never been separate in your view but Jesus is just an extension of the substance of the Father who came to earth?

[Anonymous]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 27 2005,21:44)

Hi FYI, But his words do not seem to abide in you. Instead you go beyond what is revealed and confidently teach what does not come from the mouth of the Master but from your human teachers.

Nick,

I don't live by your “perceptions” or attempted intimidations. I live by the Spirit of Truth who brings the Word of God alive.

But, I appreciate your concerns and will continue to speak the truth and pray that God will grant you eyes and a heart of humility that you may see.

[Author]

Posts