The Trinity Doctrine

Participant

Quote

But not another person in God or a part of any trinity God.
That was added by men. Anathema.

Nick! You read it again!

You said that Christ is not another person in God!

Jesus says plainly that he is in the Father! Open thine eyes my friend! Why do you continue to deny the Son?

Jn 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
[10] Believest thou not that **I AM IN THE FATHER**, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
[11] Believe me that **I AM IN THE FATHER**, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Why do you wrest the scriptures and try to make it say what you want? Believe the the Word as it is spoken!

November 18, 2006 at 6:32 am#32607

Participant

Hi W,
Please look at Jn 17.
“21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:”

Since the same applies to the saints as to Christ your logic must demand that we are all other persons in God!

Abhor that babylonian trinity concept as it distorts the truth of God.

November 18, 2006 at 5:41 pm#32626

Participant

Hi oxy,
You say
“The Holy Spirit can be likened to our spirit in that He is the sharpener of our conscience, which is a part of the spirit of man.”
Is the Holy Spirit the Spirit of God?
Is God's Spirit another person from God Himself?

November 18, 2006 at 5:45 pm#32627

Participant

Hi Oxy,
You say
“The Son came in the flesh and was given a new body after His resurrection, and will come again in the flesh according to Scripture.”
So your God changes?
The flesh part of your God is a late edition?
The Son part of your God as flesh is not of God in the beginning?

Then your God is not the God of the bible.

Malachi 3:6
For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

November 18, 2006 at 11:11 pm#32643

Cubes

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 18 2006,11:15)

Jesus says plainly that he is in the Father! Open thine eyes my friend! Why do you continue to deny the Son?

Why do you wrest the scriptures and try to make it say what you want? Believe the the Word as it is spoken!

Hi WJ,

The Builder of the temple and his Temple:
Who does a cornerstone have more in common with, the builder or the [other stones] building?

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];
Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
Eph 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
1Pe 2:4 To whom coming, [as unto] a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, [and] precious,
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
The Body:
Who does a body have more in common with, its maker or its body part?

Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, [even] Christ:
Eph 4:16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
The Marriage:
Who does the groom have more in common with, his father and minister, or his bride?

Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

The Garden:
Who does the Vine have more in common with, the Gardner or the branches?

Jhn 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
Jhn 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit HE taketh away: and every [branch] that beareth fruit, HE purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. …
Jhn 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
Jhn 15:5 I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
The Brethren:
In as much as biological children all share in their parents genealogy and heritage, who do children have more in common with, their parents or w/ one another? This point brings its own sets of challenges and debates, but at least, all biological children can claim equal gene pools from their parents and so have that in common… including their age groups and subsequent culture by virtue of their ages.
People would raise the point regarding the Virgin Birth of Christ, but I maintain that those who are led by the spirit of God, those who are born of that spirit and not by the will of man are equally the children of God, in that spiritual-genetically speaking, they are born of the same spirit genes just as biological children are born with the same parental genetics. I acknowledge the preeminence of Jesus and that we are born spiritually THROUGH him, but our Father is the same. This, however, does not change the dynamics of the original question and how we all relate to one another.
All children are beget in their parents image …

Gen 1:27 So God created man in HIS [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to THE IMAGE OF HIS SON, that he might be the FIRSTBORN among many brethren.
Col 1:15 Who is the IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD, the FIRSTBORN of every creature:

etc.
So it follows: he himself is the heir, as through him we are co-heirs and partakers of the inheritance and heritage with the saints in the light, as children of God!
Col 1:12 GIVING THANKS UNTO THE FATHER, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
Hbr 1:2, Col 1:12, Romans 8:17, Rev 21:7

he is our prince and champion… ,
he is highpriest and as we shall be priests serving God together.
Jesus' oneness w/ the Father is not defined by a Trinity as it is not exclusive to him and the Father. It includes all those who share the blessed hope and have the spirit of the Father. Therefore, the Trinity is a false understanding of the one true God who is the Father of all.

November 19, 2006 at 12:09 am#32645

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 18 2006,17:41)

Nick, how would you describe a soul? Is not a soul also spirit? In that respect we are two parts spirit and one part flesh. Sound familiar?

November 19, 2006 at 12:14 am#32646

Participant

Hi Oxy,
Why would we say that?
That is unscriptural.
1Thess 5
“23And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Heb 4
“12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. “

November 19, 2006 at 6:10 am#32663

Participant

So how would you describe a soul? When the soul leaves a body, can you see it? Obviously not. Therefore, because it cannot be seen it must be in spirit form.

Unless of course you have another explaination.

November 19, 2006 at 6:58 am#32673

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/debate4.htm

Participant

Quote

What will you do with these scriptures Oxy?

Cast them away because they do not agree with a creed that was developed hundreds of years after the last book in the bible was written?

Are we to simply ignore these scriptures and hundreds of others that teach clearly that God is a Father and he has a son who is referred to as the son of God?

Because for me Oxy, these scriptures are important and even if I do not understand them, I accept what they say simply because they are scripture.

However they are not that hard to understand, and when you do understand them, you will find no contradiction in scripture. The truth doesn't bring confusion, yet the Trinity is confusing and said to be beyond our understanding.

Is not accepting ALL scripture a better way, than holding to a creed and ignoring hundreds of scriptures in order to hold that creed?

What will you do with these scriptures?

Pss 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
[7] Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Is 9:6] For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
[7] Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2] The same was in the beginning with God.
[3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
10] He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
[11] He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Jude 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

There are many more which time dosnt permit.

Now plz practice what you preach and accept the Word as it is!

If it dosnt make sence to you then maybe reading a disitation from a brother named Jamie K. Roth will help. He explains it very well and it should sound familiar.
He responds to a debate fron the following site.

After reading the debate (Jul-Aug 1994) between Harold Kupp and Phil Porvaznik I felt compelled to find more Biblical proof to support Phil's position and disprove the false theology of Harold Kupp. Although, I thought Phil presented a solid case, Harold was a very clever opponent and I fear he may have planted seeds of doubt in the minds of some of the faithful.

The whole debate revolved around scripture from the New Testament and ended with the writings of the Church Fathers. Although, the scripture that was presented by Phil was overwhelming, Harold had a knack for twisting things around and interpreting these verses quite differently to support his position. Keep in mind that I am no where close to being in the same league as these two gentlemen, but feel that the case Phil presented can be strengthened with scriptures written in the Old Testament. Conversely, I think even Harold would have a hard time dealing with these Scriptures (i.e. make them to say something that they don't).

If I understood the debate correctly, Harold does not believe in the Holy Trinity. From what I read, Harold believes that God the Father is the one “True God” and the Lord Jesus Christ is a “lesser god”, but none the less, He is our Lord and our God. Here is an excerpt from the debate:

PP> The question I would ask you: HOW MANY GODS DO YOU BELIEVE IN? Is Jesus a separate and distinct GOD from the Father? If so then you've got two Gods. >>

HK> I believe in One God-the-Father and in One Lord Jesus Christ who is our God (our theos). >>

It is my hope that the below information will restore faith in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity to anyone who may have been confused with the clever writings of Harold Kupp. I think the below scriptures prove without a doubt that there is only “One God” who created all things and within that “One God” there are three Divine Persons (read Phil's debate with Harold for proof positive). Old Testament scripture does not support Harold's opinion that God created Jesus, who in turn created all things. It does not support Harold's position that God the Father is the God of Jesus and that Jesus is our God (that doesn't even sound logical and leads me to believe that Harold has two Gods). I wonder if he worships both of them or only the Lord Jesus Christ? Anyway, after reading the debate between Phil Porvaznik and Harold Kupp, please read the additionally information which I feel strongly supports the position that Phil took (the Holy Trinity).

Gen 1:1-4 “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw how good the light was. God then separated the light from the darkness.”

It is clear from these verses that there was only “One God” who created the heavens and the earth. It is also clear to anyone who continues to read the First Story of Creation within the Book of Genesis, that there is no mention of “The True God” creating His Son “The lesser god” who in turn created all things. It just is not there. So much for Harold's interpretation of John 1:1-11.

Gen 1:26 reads: “Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

It is my opinion that the First Story of Creation supports the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and at the very least, it does not oppose the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. However, there is no Biblical support here for the position proposed by Harold Kupp. For we know that “God” (singular) created the heavens and the earth. And we also know that “God” said “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Since there can only be one Creator or “God” then the “us” in Gen 1:26 must refer to the Persons of the Holy Trinity (co-equal and co-eternal). If the “us” in Gen 1:26 were other gods (lesser gods) it surely does not make that point clear in the Bible and would contradict the First Story of Creation. Also, if that were the case, why wouldn't the Bible simply state that “The God” created “the lesser god” who created all things? It does not say that because it is not true. Once again, so much for Harold's interpretation of John 1:1-11.

Exodus 20:2-6 reads: “I, the Lord, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. You shall not have other gods besides me. You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation; but bestowing mercy down to those who love me and keep my commandments.”

Now if Jesus (the Son of God) was not one in being with the Father (Holy Trinity), but rather a “lesser god” as Harold Kupp would have you
believe, then Harold would clearly be breaking the First Commandment. For it is written: “You shall not have other gods besides me.” The only way any person could worship Jesus without breaking the First Commandment would be if Jesus is “The God” and not a “lesser god” as Harold would have you believe. Here we have a clear case of Old Testament Scripture supporting “One God”, “Three Divine Persons.” This scripture in no way supports Harold's position that God the Father and God the Son are separate Gods, the only logical conclusion is that they are One God, but separate Persons.

Jamie K. Roth

November 19, 2006 at 9:07 am#32691

Participant

Quote (Oxy @ Nov. 19 2006,06:10)

So how would you describe a soul? When the soul leaves a body, can you see it? Obviously not. Therefore, because it cannot be seen it must be in spirit form.

Unless of course you have another explaination.

Hi Oxy,
Should we speculate?
It is better surely to show from what is written?

November 19, 2006 at 6:29 pm#32696

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 19 2006,09:07)

Quote (Oxy @ Nov. 19 2006,06:10)

So how would you describe a soul? When the soul leaves a body, can you see it? Obviously not. Therefore, because it cannot be seen it must be in spirit form.

Unless of course you have another explaination.

Hi Oxy,
Should we speculate?
It is better surely to show from what is written?

Just answer the question. In what form is the soul? Obviously not the body. Therefore a spirit? Or is there some other form?

All I am saying in this is that yes, God is spirit, but then so also is the Holy Spirit (obviously). God is the “soul” of the Godhead.

November 19, 2006 at 7:09 pm#32700

Participant

Hi Oxy,
You miss the obvious.
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God.
Surely God cannot be separated from His own Spirit any more than we can? So how can God's Spirit be another being separate from God in God?

You say Christ is the flesh of a trinity God. What of a trinity with no flesh till the Son appeared? Did God go from being a two part God to three 2000 years ago?

God does not change.

Did the Word have no life in himself before conception-then how could he decide to empty himself and come?

November 19, 2006 at 10:03 pm#32707

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/debate4.htm

Participant

Hi,
Jesus came to tell us about God. He was the Son of God who knew God and called God his Father and his God. Men decided instead he was not who he said he was but instead he was God, and part of a tripartite being. They said God was not really a father and Jesus not really His son.
Whom should we believe?

Jn 6
” 66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.
67So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?”

68Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.

69″We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

November 20, 2006 at 2:46 am#32721

sscott

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 19 2006,06:58)

Quote

What will you do with these scriptures Oxy?

Cast them away because they do not agree with a creed that was developed hundreds of years after the last book in the bible was written?

Are we to simply ignore these scriptures and hundreds of others that teach clearly that God is a Father and he has a son who is referred to as the son of God?

Because for me Oxy, these scriptures are important and even if I do not understand them, I accept what they say simply because they are scripture.

Is not accepting ALL scripture a better way, than holding to a creed and ignoring hundreds of scriptures in order to hold that creed?

What will you do with these scriptures?

Jude 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

There are many more which time dosnt permit.

Now plz practice what you preach and accept the Word as it is!

PP> The question I would ask you: HOW MANY GODS DO YOU BELIEVE IN? Is Jesus a separate and distinct GOD from the Father? If so then you've got two Gods. >>

HK> I believe in One God-the-Father and in One Lord Jesus Christ who is our God (our theos). >>

Gen 1:26 reads: “Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

Exodus 20:2-6 reads: “I, the Lord, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. You shall not have other gods besides me. You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and
fourth generation; but bestowing mercy down to those who love me and keep my commandments.”

Now if Jesus (the Son of God) was not one in being with the Father (Holy Trinity), but rather a “lesser god” as Harold Kupp would have you believe, then Harold would clearly be breaking the First Commandment. For it is written: “You shall not have other gods besides me.” The only way any person could worship Jesus without breaking the First Commandment would be if Jesus is “The God” and not a “lesser god” as Harold would have you believe. Here we have a clear case of Old Testament Scripture supporting “One God”, “Three Divine Persons.” This scripture in no way supports Harold's position that God the Father and God the Son are separate Gods, the only logical conclusion is that they are One God, but separate Persons.

Jamie K. Roth

Hi WorshippingJesus,

I went and view the link you provided and it is not a good source to prove the trinity. The guy not defending the Trinity totally destroyed the arguments of the guy defending the Trinity. In fact the guy defending the Trinity posted very few scriptures and the ones he posted seemed to say the opposite many times.

November 20, 2006 at 3:47 am#32725

Participant

Quote

Hi WorshippingJesus,

Hi Sscott

I apreciate that you are right, however I wanted to be honest about my source and the post!

I dont have any thing to hide. The Word of God stands for itself it is the shining light!

However you are right. I think that Jamie K Roth had a good answer to the debate and that was my emphasis, especially this Part:

“Now if Jesus (the Son of God) was not one in being with the Father (Holy Trinity), but rather a “lesser god” as Harold Kupp would have you believe, then Harold would clearly be breaking the First Commandment. For it is written: “You shall not have other gods besides me.” The only way any person could worship Jesus without breaking the First Commandment would be if Jesus is “The God” and not a “lesser god” as Harold would have you believe. Here we have a clear case of Old Testament Scripture supporting “One God”, “Three Divine Persons.” This scripture in no way supports Harold's position that God the Father and God the Son are separate Gods, the only logical conclusion is that they are One God, but separate Persons.”

Blessings!

November 20, 2006 at 4:02 am#32726

Participant

Hi W,
The old round and round the mulberry bush.

“There can be only one God
Jesus is God.
Therefore Jesus must, in some way be our God.
Therefore the trinity theory must be true.”

Sorry but the facile and pathetic nature of this argument justifying adding a gross human construct to the nature of God Himself is beyond belief.

If we cannot resolve an apparent conundrum in scripture that does not give us the right to develop and teach our own theory about God from outside of God's revelation.

November 20, 2006 at 4:27 am#32731

sscott

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 20 2006,03:47)

Quote

Hi WorshippingJesus,

Hi Sscott

I apreciate that you are right, however I wanted to be honest about my source and the post!

I dont have any thing to hide. The Word of God stands for itself it is the shining light!

However you are right. I think that Jamie K Roth had a good answer to the debate and that was my emphasis, especially this Part:

Blessings!

Right..but isn't the word God in Hebrew …”Elohim”…which is plural meaning mighty ones/divine ones? It can be looked up on blb.org

My wife and I are “one flesh” but it does not mean we are physically one. My brothers in Christ are supposed to be “one is Spirit” but it does not mean we are one being.

November 20, 2006 at 4:36 am#32733

Cubes

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 19 2006,11:58)

Gen 1:26 reads: “Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

Hi WJ,

Hope you find this refutation helpful in seeing why once again, the Trinity is false.

Now let's go to Genesis 1.

A single speaker is identified until we get to Genesis 1:26 when the speaker clearly speaks in plural terms to an audience:
Immediately following this plural tone, the scriptures revert back to the singular tone, focusing once again on the speaker in vs. 27, and we are told w/ all certainty that HE – GOD – created HE them… not that THEY created, but HE created:

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness HE called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Gen 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let US make man in our image, after OUR likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in HIS [own] image, in the image of God created HE him; male and female created HE them.

Trinitarians say that GOD must be a Trinity because Jesus was inclusive in Gen 1:26, and yet, we have been told without a doubt that Jesus is himself the FIRSTBORN IMAGE of the Invisible God.

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

So the Son of God is said to be an Image of his Father.

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among MANY BRETHREN.

Can you not see that by the grace of God, we through Christ, who is the firstborn Image, are also images of the invisible God? (Remember that Adam and Eve had a sinless state at one time and were also images of the invisible God but CHANGED after the fall, whereas Christ remains the same yesterday, today and forever).

The Second Adam retains his image of God, unlike the first; he is given to be the firstborn of many brethren and it is the Father's desire that WE be conformed to his son's image.
But whose image does the son have to begin with? Therefore, is Genesis 1:26 confirmed. But don't overlook that the Son has the Invisible God's Image.

Whose image does the invisible God have? He bears no one's image that we've been told of. He alone is True God and Father of all.

Blessings.

November 20, 2006 at 4:40 am#32735

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 19 2006,19:09)

You say Christ is the flesh of a trinity God. What of a trinity with no flesh till the Son appeared? Did God go from being a two part God to three 2000 years ago?

God does not change.

Did the Word have no life in himself before conception-then how could he decide to empty himself and come?

Nick, why would God send the Holy Spirit if He is the Holy Spirit? Obviously the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, just as the Word is the Word of God.

Joh 15:26 And when the Comforter has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He shall testify of Me.

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.

Why would God send Himself? That doesn't line up with Scripture.

November 20, 2006 at 4:50 am#32737