The Trinity Doctrine

[Not3in1]

Tim2 wrote:
I believe that Jesus is my God, Jehovah.
***************

The Father is God (who is Jehovah). Now you are saying that JESUS is Jehovah? Tim2, are you a Oneness believer?

[NickHassan]

Hi not3,
No they on a mission to prove God is a trinity without much help from scripture.
As soon as they can find a third person called by the name of the Father they will celebrate.
They would be wiser to sit at the feet of the Master and learn from him what is true.
The mission takes priority because it will prove they have followed the right men.

[Tim2]

Hi Not3in1,

I've been saying all along that Jesus is the same God that the Father is. I'm happy to discuss this with everyone here, but it's really frustrating when people keep misrepresenting what I say. The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God (who is YHWH). They are each separate persons.

There are only two alternatives to this that people have proposed. One, as you say, is oneness -YHWH is only one person, not three, and the Father, Son, and Spirit are just manifestations or modes of YHWH. The other alternative is polytheism. Jesus is a “god,” not YHWH, and less than the Father. Both of these alternatives are appealing because they make more sense to us at first, but both of them contradict Scripture. The Trinity is the only doctrine that is faithful to the entire Bible, so please believe it.

Tim

[Is 1:18]

Quote (david @ April 05 2007,10:36)

Quote David, You asked this question, to which Tim2 rightly pointed out there is no definition given in the Bible. So “based on the Bible” there is no legitimate answer. Do you disagree with him or will you concede that it was a meaningless question? –Is 1:18 It's certainly not a meaningless question Is 1:18.  You've spent several thousand, no, perhaps tens of thousands of hours trying to explain to everyone that Jesus is God.  Yet, you don't want to talk about what the word “god” means as presented in the Bible.  How extremely interesting.

David,
Alright then, since you have stated that it was not a meaningless question you will be able to point me to the verse in the Bible where elohim or theos are defined….

So lets have it.

Quote

The reason you don't want to do this is because the Bible indicates that the word “god” has a much wider scope than you are willing to believe.   Tim2 tried to say that God means YHWH.  Obviously, the word God is applied to YHWH a many many times, but God doesn't “mean” YHWH.   Those gods of wood were not false YHWH's. Satan is not the “YHWH” of this world. Because people have this very false idea of what that word means Is 1:18, don't you think it's important to discuss this question? No, of course you don't.  You like the false impression people have.  It suits you.  So, you say the question is meaningless.  Of course there is no definition of “god” or elohim in the Bible, but there are no definitions of most things in the Bible.  But we can look at ALL THE WAYS that the word is used and come up with an understanding of what it means based on ALL THE WAYS the word is used.

David, quite obviously these terms have more than one meaning, depending on the context in which they are used. It's equally obvious what meaning Tim intended to convey. What sense of the word did Thomas have in mind when he addressed Yeshua as His “God”? Again, it's obvious.

Cheers

[david]

Quote

You Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is “a god,” right? That's how you understand John 1:1. And you're sure Jesus is not Jehovah? So in spite of Jehovah's repeated statement, “There is no God beside Me,” you believe in Him and another “god,” Jesus. How is this not polytheism?

Do you believe in the angels Tim2?
Then I guess you believe in polythiesm too, unless you think that they are also part of the Godhead.

Do you?

[david]

Quote

David, quite obviously these terms have more than one meaning, depending on the context in which they are used.

What are you basing this on, Is 1:18?

Also, I think I remember saying that there is no defintion, as I said there wasn't really definitions of any words in the Bible. I asked for the meaning, based on how that word is used throughout the Bible.
I asked that we let the entire Bible help us understand this word.

[Tim2]

David,

I believe in the angels. I don't call them “my God.” Do you?

Tim

[david]

No, I don't call them my God. But they are gods to us, or compared to us.

If you believe in the angels and believe as the Bible does, that the word god can be applied to them, then you believe in polytheism, don't you?

I believe there is one true God, God compared to all others, including Jesus.
And that is Jehovah.
But the Bible makes plain that the word god is applied to many.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Phoenix @ April 05 2007,11:19)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 05 2007,19:30) Quote (Phoenix @ April 04 2007,10:16) In my opinion he might as well have said…. “Dont call me good… only God alone is good” Okay, well your quite entitled to interpret it as you see fit. However….. That interpretation has an unspoked assertion that comes with it, which is- Yeshua is in some sense not good. I guess we would both agree that Yeshua, in Mark 10:18, was speaking of absolute goodness. Only God is absolutely good. Even bad men can be said to be “good” in a relative sense. So the question is Phoenix, was Yeshua, as He was portrayed in the NT, only relatively good? I have some thoughts but i'd like to read what you think about this. Blessings Hi Is Wow good question! As he was portrayed in the NT? hmmm ok. My answer would have to be Yes. He was only relatively good. My reasons. If my son called me WOMAN instead of Mother… I would clip his ears. When he was a little boy and went missing. I believe he disobeyed his parents. Right? was this even in the bible? or did I get this somewhere else? forgive me if it isnt in the bible. There is 29-30 years of his life not recorded in the bible. We cant judge whether Jesus was perfectly good or not can we? I can guarantee that if he was like all young boys, he is bound to have had some form of mischevious behaviour. Anyway, thats the best answer I can give you Hugs Phoenix

Phoenix, I think you might be confusing goodness with niceness. Yeshua was not always “nice” to people, the pharisees can certainly attest to that, but he was always “good”….

Acts 3:14
“But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked for a murderer to be granted to you,

2 Corinthians 5:21
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Hebrews 4:15
For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

Hebrews 7:26
For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens;

1 Peter 1:19
but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.

1 Peter 2:22
WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH;

1 John 3:5
You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.

Phoenix, I find these statements impossible to reconcile with a “relatively good” Jesus….I think it's clearly taught in scripture that Yeshua was good in the absolute sense, which begs the question:- if only God is absolutely good, and this was manytimes imputed to Yeshua, on what grounds could it be argued that Yeshua was denying that He was God in Mark 10:18? I don't think it can, in fact it's a verse that should rightly be used in support of His deity.

Blessings

[david]

Perhaps he recognized Jehovah as the ultimate standard of what is good.

[david]

PROVERBS 11:2
“Has presumptuousness come? Then dishonor will come; but wisdom is with the modest ones.”

[david]

Only Jehovah has the sovereign right to determine what is good and what is bad.
Adam and Eve, by rebelliously partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, sought to assume that right themselves. Unlike them, Jesus humbly leaves the setting of standards to his Father.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (david @ April 06 2007,09:06)

Perhaps he recognized Jehovah as the ultimate standard of what is good.

That's interesting David, are you saying that Yeshua did not attain God's standard?

[david]

No, I'm saing he pointed to the standard of what is Good, the judge of all the earth, Jehovah God.
He humbly directed attention to his Father as he often did.

[Is 1:18]

So David, do you also subscribe to the theory that Yeshua was only relatively good? If so I would be interested to have your thoughts on the verses I posted above, and in particular how they might be compatible with this sentiment.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 05 2007,21:42)

Hi Is 1.18, I am happy to accept if you are that what is not written should not be preached as truth. Thus trinity would not any longer be preached by you.

I think a more sensible solution might be for you to simply accept that all of us hold to scriptural doctrines that are not explicitly revealed in scripture, and that this, in and of itself, does not invalidate them.

[Tim2]

David,

So you don't call others who are not YHWH “your God”? What about Jesus? Thomas tells you to call Jesus your God. John 20:28.

Tim

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18 and W,
Do you agree with Tim 2 that God died?

[NickHassan]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 06 2007,07:55)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 05 2007,10:41) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 05 2007,10:20) Okay, thanks. Now….for all those on the list that you just confirmed were biblical belief held by you, can you please tell me where in the Bible I can read them explicitly declared. Hi Is 1.18, Why should I allow myself to be interrogated by you? It is not about me is it? Do you have a mission to discredit me? You don't like my service then perhaps you should complain to the Master. But bear in mind 'Proverbs 30:10 Accuse not a servant unto his master, lest he curse thee, and thou be found guilty. Or better still or show that you are one who clings more tightly to scriptural truth than I do. That I would love to see for all our sakes. The point is NH, you have spent about 3 years telling anyone who would listen here at Heaven.Net that the trinity “is not written” and therefore disqualifies as a legitimate doctrine in your book. And yet, when you examine your own doctrinal beliefs it's evident that many are not explicitly revealed in the text of the Bible either. So maybe you should re-evaluate your approach here?

Hi Is 1.18,
Thank you for your candour.
You have now admitted you are in possession of two vital facts.

You know we should only teach what is written.
You know trinity is not written.

Armed with this spiritual information you can do certain things.

You can stop teaching trinity
and /or
You can look about for others to accuse of such behaviours.

It would seem the best thing to first stop teaching trinity.

[Tim2]

Nick,

The word “Trinity” is not written. Paul says that we must speak the same things, but if you really don't like the word and it causes you to stumble, I won't use it around you.

The doctrine of the Trinity, however, is written. That I'm afraid you have to obey.

Tim

[Author]

Posts