The Trinity Doctrine

[Oxy]

Mat 28:19 is a good example. If the Holy Spirit was the Father, then you wouldn't need to be baptised in all three.

[Oxy]

Well Nick, if you want to go comparing God given Scriptures with other writings then you are leaving yourself open for deception, which I think is what has happened.

[NickHassan]

Hi Oxy,
We do not need to imagine God as three persons running a business.
What we can know is from what God has revealed in the Word.
Trinity is not written.

To abide in the Word we must get rid of every hindrance on our path and as Paul said in Phil, regard it as rubbish.

One correspondent here said it was similar, when praying to the trinity, to be contacting a business and you never knew which person in that business was going to answer you.

It gets just too ridiculous and insulting to our Father God.

 Discard this human monstrous creation
and know the Father through His Son
and be blessed with His Spirit.
Scripture says God is one.

You said
“I guess the way I've understood it is that it's a bit like having a board of trustees.  All on body, but made up of different individuals”

[Oxy]

You really need to get past calling the Scriptures the Word. It is totally unscriptural to call the Scriptures the Word as this is the Name/Title that Jesus has had right from the beginning and always will have.

logos = Jesus
rhema = message/revelation

Neither caters for the Bible being called the Word of God.

[NickHassan]

Hi Oxy,
It is a diversion that is important to you but should not stop us from further work on this proposed new teaching called trinity.

[Oxy]

All very well for you to call it a diversion, but it has a lot more truth to it that the argument you are presenting.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 30 2006,06:34)

Quote I still believe that this is so. I didn't mention that this is always true did I. Your quotes speak for themselves t8. Quote You say that I am not that dumb, and I know one thing, that you can even quote a physical law and there will be exceptions. I after E, except after C. You know what I mean. Any exceptions mentioned in your quotes t8? No. Quote Generally speaking the article is used to identify (as you say too) and the the lack of one is focussing on a quality. Incorrect. You still don't get it. Unbelievable. Quote Even the verses you quoted where God (the Father) didn't have an article, the context was still qualitative. Love and spirit are qualities of God, not identities. Again I have to reiterate that the predicate nominatives from John were quoted to show that two articles in the sentence would render it unintelligible. IT WAS NOT A COMMENT ON THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE NOUN 'THEOS'. That said, the subject is still definite, because John's purpose was to identify 'God' not an attribute of God. While the predicate might be qualitative, the 'subject' noun is not. “God is love” makes sense “Divine is love” does not Quote The other instances where the article was missing was using the words “from” and “of” which are also qualitative. When something is of God, we are usually refering to his nature or character. Okay, maybe you could find a verse where you believe 'theos' should be interpreted qualitatively and let's examine the grammar and context. Quote But if we are talking about “the Word was God”. You say that 2 idenities are being referenced and is not qualitative. I still disagree. I still believe that it is referring to WHAT the word was not WHO. There are good contextual reasons that I think strongly argue this. Hopefully we can move on to context shortly. Quote Maybe you could quote a verse where the article is missing where the context is not qualitative. i.e., only identities are mentioned. I am not saying it doesn't exist, but that I haven't come across one yet. T8, are you serious?? Here are 10 from the first 3 chapters of John where anarthrous nouns are used to identify God. John 1:6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. John 1:12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God John 1:13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. John 1:51 He then added, “I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. John 3:33 The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. John 3:34 For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit. John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.” Try transplanting “divine” into these verses….. Quote Also if you could give me the reasons why you say John 1:1c cannot be qualitative, bias aside. Also if you could make the post simple and concise that would make the discussion easier for all to follow. People generally do not read large posts all the time, I don't anyway. I have to use my time wisely. Well t8, we're all busy and it's not in my best interests to continually repeat myself. If you made and effort to understand what I was writing to begin with, I would not have had to write the volume of words I ended up needing to. You didn't even really bother trying to understand my position and when I made tried to make it as clear as possible you complained that my posts were too long (!). It's been an exercise in frustration for me and to be honest I think I would have had a more receptive audience had I tried explaining John 1:1c to my 5 year old son. Quote Also John 1:1c is constructed without an article, just as “One of you is a devil” is also. Yes….and?

You are a time waster Is 1:18. I am talking about John 1:1c not every other scripture too.

I mentioned before that God doesn't include an article when it is expressed with “from” & “of”. Perhaps you didn't read my posts. So making out that I have somehow ignored or overlooked that is a misrepresentation. I was the one who brought it up in the first place.

You know when someone is defeated, when they have to resort to character attacks. If you cannot make you case from scripture then attacking someones character isn't going to help you because scripture changes not.

I also clarified why I believe John 1:1c is a qualative. I provided support from teachers in the second century and even from Trinitarians in recent times. I also said my conclusions were based on the context as well. Otherwise we have 2 Gods side by side. One who is called God and one who is called the Word. In otherwords the context demands that the Word is god in quality. That is why in identity, God is the Father. Try these 100 verses for starters.
https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-11.htm

Now here is a
quote as to what I have taught and still teach.

Quote

John 1:1b says that the Word was with God and John 1:1c says that the Word was God, so how can the Word be God and be with God at the same time? Well part of the answer to discovering the meaning of this verse is found in 1 John 1:1-2 “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life and the life was manifested, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made manifest to us”. So when we read 1John 1:2, it suggests to us that the God in John1:1b is the Father himself. Moving on we seee In John 1:1c, the last word God is missing the definite article, (the). That article is before all other instances of the word 'God' and 'Logos' in John 1:1. (E.g., the Word, The God.) There is an understanding among Greek scholars that in Greek sentence construction, if a noun doesn't have a preceding article, (e.g., the) it can be read as an adjective (a predicate adjective); and if such a noun does have a preceding article it should be considered a noun (a predicate nominative). Understanding this, many scholars saw the benefit of the rule for affirming the deity of Christ in John 1:1, but didn't make the difference clear regarding the difference between identity and nature. But can we read the word 'Theos' in John 1:1c as qualitative rather using it to refer to an identity? The most likely candidate is that the last instance of 'theos' (in John 1:1c) is qualitative. This is true both grammatically and theologically. (Also, if The Logos was “the God himself”, then the verse would be saying that the Logos is exclusively God and no other.) So we have 2 good reasons now for reading the last word 'God' as qualitive. (In rebuttal to this, some say that God in the New Testament doesn't always have an article (the) preceeding it. But the answer here is quite simple. When talking of Adam for example (the first man) we can refer to Adam as both THE man and man.) One identifies him and the other classifies him. Similarly we can also refer to God as the God and God/god.

I have been open and honest for my reasons on why I teach what I do and I still teach this.

But I haven't seen the same honesty from you. You haven't provided one reason why you can't read it as qualitive. You say it is identifying Jesus as God. Yet in that case, you are now faced with a dilemma of 2 Gods (identities).

I will ask you again. What are your reasons besides bias, as to why you can't read John 1:1c as qualative, even though it is doctrinally sound, grammatically correct, and contextually demanded.

Grammatically speaking you obviously see that it is possible to be read as qualitative. So what are your reasons in a doctrinal or contextual sense to say that it cannot be qualitive?

I haven't heard you reasons yet. All I have heard so far is a lot of hot air accusations, bias that doesn't prove your stance one way or another, and statements that are not contextually possible.

I am still waiting…

[Proclaimer]

To Oxy.

If you assume that God is an office/board (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), then why can't you read that understanding into scripture when you are presented with the word “God”.

E.g., John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

becomes

“For THE TRINITY so loved the world that THE TRINITY gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

You see, your belief actually breaks scripture.

Here are another 100 verses for you to consider.
https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-11.htm

How does your theology stack up now?
Be honest.

Is 1:18 could also learn something here if he were able to humble himself.

[Elidad]

Quote (Oxy @ Aug. 11 2006,20:51)

Well Nick, if you want to go comparing God given Scriptures with other writings then you are leaving yourself open for deception, which I think is what has happened.

Hi Oxy, Maybe you missed Nick's point? He was drawing your attention to what may well be the “God given Scriptures”. Don't forget our english translations are not the “God given Scriptures”. The original “God given Scriptures” came to us in Hebrew and Greek. It behoves us to get as close back to the orignal as possible and not just rely on the predisposition of translators when it comes to the question of “God given Scriptures”.

Moreso when we are trying to base a particular understanding on one specific reference. Let's be mindful to take in the whole counsel of God, to be sure that we have corrabative evidence for the same understanding, in other sections of Scripture.

May we all increase in knowledge and understanding as it is in Christ Jesus.

Elidad

[Proclaimer]

Good points and advice Elidad.

Thx

[Elidad]

Quote (Oxy @ Aug. 11 2006,20:50)

Mat 28:19 is a good example. If the Holy Spirit was the Father, then you wouldn't need to be baptised in all three.

Hi Oxy, Do you realise that if you take the Trinitarian standpoint, then to be consistent, you have to accept that Scripture says the Holy Spirit is the Father. This is what we read:

Matthew 1:18 “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.“
Matthew 1:20 “But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

So if we are going to understand the Scriptures, the way you seem to be reading it, who was the Father of Jesus, God the Father or God the Holy Spirit? The above Scripture's seem to clearly state that Mary was of child by the Holy Spirit?

You may not be aware of it, but the view of the Trinity that you are espousing is not the same as that documented in the Athansium Creed; the official and underlying foundation of the Trinitarian concept.(Go here to check: http://www.holybible.com/resources/athanasius_creed.htm) Why the variation in your understanding? The idea that the Trinity is like a Board meeting is anathema to Trinitarian dogma.

?

Elidad

[Oxy]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 12 2006,00:42)

T E.g., John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. becomes “For THE TRINITY so loved the world that THE TRINITY gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. You see, your belief actually breaks scripture. Here are another 100 verses for you to consider. https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-11.htm How does your theology stack up now? Be honest. Is 1:18 could also learn something here if he were able to humble himself.

I don't remember changing those verses, lol

To me it's a simple matter. Why would the Bible mention the Holy Spirit if the Father and the Holy Spirit are one and the same?

Act 2:33 Therefore being exalted to the right of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured out this which you now see and hear.

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said to you.

Luk 11:13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?

By the way Nick, putting Trinity in those verses was a bit weak, as was your misuse of the simile of the board.

[Oxy]

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said to you.

Does the Father “send” Himself?

[NickHassan]

Hi Oxy,
God's Spirit does all of the work of God.

[camrezaie]

Quote (Oxy @ Aug. 12 2006,05:32)

t8,Aug. wrote: T To me it's a simple matter.  Why would the Bible mention the Holy Spirit if the Father and the Holy Spirit are one and the same?   Act 2:33  Therefore being exalted to the right of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured out this which you now see and hear. Joh 14:26  But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said to you. Luk 11:13  If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?

dude the verses you supplied don't support trinitarian beliefs… if you read closely in acts 2:33 youll see that jesus was EXALTED or in other words placed in that position by his father.. which means someone of a higher authority had to have given him his title, it so clearly mentions that hes at the right hand of god.. whos right hand is god at? no ones because jehovah god is supreme and almighty, how can a right hand man equal the one who gave him the authority? im just going to use bush as an example, not that i favor him or anything but just as an example, the cabinet are his right hand men who help him make decisions and probably even make decisions for him sometimes, but regardless, who is supreme president of the united states? bush you say? well it works the same way for god and jesus… jesus was annointed and placed at that position above all others and was given that opportunity by his father.. just like the cabinet was appointed by the president… wow im actually proud of my self for coming up with that analogy because i think it applies 100%… hey i might be young but ive got some pretty intelligent things to say … and as you also see in acts 2:33 it says the father has given the holy spirit, the holy spirit did not act on its own initiative and it couldnt have if the father did not will it to, that is pretty obvious by reading that verse… in the next verse John 14:26 it further backs up my point when it says the father will SEND the holy spirit, the holy spirit is not delivering itself through its own thoughts and personality, it is the father solely who is controlling it and doing his will on earth through it… lol my point is FURTHER backed up in the next verse you supplied… im sorry but if youre going to try to prove what you believe in you better read the verses thoroughly before hand… no offense at all im just trying to give the few words of wisdom that i have… thanks … may Jehovah guide you to the truth, if thou seeks then thou shall find… maybe whole experience is a message from god?

[Oxy]

wow Cam.. careful dude. You call the Holy Spirit “IT”

According to Scripture the Holy Spirit is “HE”

I'm not sure where you're coming from. I stand by what I said.

[Oxy]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 12 2006,05:34)

Hi Oxy, God's Spirit does all of the work of God.

Not true my friend. He, the Holy Spirit definately does some of the work, Jesus has done some and it's up to us to do a heap as well.

[Oxy]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 12 2006,05:34)

Hi Oxy, God's Spirit does all of the work of God.

And don't forget that it was the Word (Jesus) who created everything.

[NickHassan]

Quote (Oxy @ Aug. 12 2006,07:48)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 12 2006,05:34) Hi Oxy, God's Spirit does all of the work of God. Not true my friend.  He, the Holy Spirit definately does some of the work, Jesus has done some and it's up to us to do a heap as well.

Hi Oxy,
Did you not know it was the Spirit of God in Jesus that did the work[Acts 10.38] and works through us[Phil 2.13]?

[Oxy]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 12 2006,08:15)

Hi Oxy, Did you not know it was the Spirit of God in Jesus that did the work[Acts 10.38] and works through us[Phil 2.13]?

That's true, but it was the Word that created the Heavens and the Earth, and all things were created by Him.

The Spirit of God in me will not witness to the lost unless I get off my butt to talk to them.

[Author]

Posts