The Trinity Doctrine

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 16 2008,18:03)

Quote (david @ Oct. 16 2008,12:04) “Let US make man in our image.” David, This passage has many explainations (one such explaination is given in the NIV Study Bible).  This is not solid proof of Jesus' preexistence; not at all.  If this one verse convinces you, I would encourage you to rethink your theology. Love, Mandy

That is right, on its own it certainly doesn't prove that. But coupled with the idea that God made all things through him and for him, then it starts to become more compelling.

Add in Jesus own claim, “before Abraham, I am” and the case becomes very strong.

Then add in the fact that his origins are from ancient times, and the case in now stronger again.

Then consider that he is the Word of God that was with God in the beginning, that he is called the wisdom of God and the fact that wisdom was the first work of the Father and it all seems a bit of a no brainer, unless of course God intended to give us the wrong impression or there is a conspiracy to give this impression from the translators.

Anyway that seems to be another topic, so I will paste this in a relevant place.

[gollamudi]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 16 2008,18:05)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 16 2008,11:37) Hi LU, Other sons of God of God were.[Jb38] Why not the unique firstborn? Interesting question for you Nick – did the unique firstborn Son of God have a name in heaven?  I don't know if it's written, that is why I'm asking.  Perhaps if we could locate a solid (not speculated) name for this being it would give more credence to the claim that this being actually was alive.

God never called any angel as His son only Jesus is given this title as per Heb 1:5

“For to which of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; this day I have begotten you”? Or again: “I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me”? “

[Tiffany]

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 17 2008,12:56)

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 16 2008,18:03) Quote (david @ Oct. 16 2008,12:04) “Let US make man in our image.” David, This passage has many explanations (one such explanation is given in the NIV Study Bible).  This is not solid proof of Jesus' preexistence; not at all.  If this one verse convinces you, I would encourage you to rethink your theology. Love, Mandy That is right, on its own it certainly doesn't prove that. But coupled with the idea that God made all things through him and for him, then it starts to become more compelling. Add in Jesus own claim, “before Abraham, I am” and the case becomes very strong. Then add in the fact that his origins are from ancient times, and the case in now stronger again. Then consider that he is the Word of God that was with God in the beginning, that he is called the wisdom of God and the fact that wisdom was the first work of the Father and it all seems a bit of a no brainer, unless of course God intended to give us the wrong impression or there is a conspiracy to give this impression from the translators. Anyway that seems to be another topic, so I will paste this in a relevant place.

t8 Besides the other Scriptures that tell of Jesus preexisting.
Proverb 8:22 which you mention as being wisdom, in the Moffatt King James it is explained much better,  it shows how He is the Son of God.
And then we have Rev.3:14 which is on of my favorite. Along with Col. 1:15 and John 1:1
verse 3 He is the one that made all. If He made all He had to be there in the beginning like it says in verse 1.
John 17:5 He had a glory with the Father before the world was. He returned to that glory.(Spirit Bing)
You know I have no idea how many times I have shown this truth. INO it so clear.
Peace and Love Irene

[Lightenup]

Hi WJ,
I have copied and pasted your last post to me from the John 1:1 thread to address it here so that I can respond to it in trinity thread, I hope you don't mind.

Quote

Posted: Oct. 16 2008,11:33   ——————————————————————————– Hi LU Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 11 2008,05:26) In conclusion, the word theos represents more than one type.  What remains important is that we worship the One True God and the One whom He has sent, Jesus Christ. 3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. LU     Found here… Yes the word “Theos” does represent more than one type. “True Theos” and “false theos”. The scripture says there is “Only One True theos”. But you believe in and worship “two true theos” or two “Divine beings”. Like the rest, you have not responded to my challenge to support your theory. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 10 2008,19:05) Now lets see if you can find the word “theos” ascribed to any other being with qualities of God or his attributes with the definite article. You will find only Yahshua is. WJ   Found here…

WJ

Regarding your challenge, I believe it was David that gave you a good response to your challenge.  You give too much importance to the word “the” IMO.  You need to look at context and then let scripture interpret scripture.  The word “the” doesn't make someone God or not.  Besides I believe that Jesus is considered to be our God, even our great God, but not BEFORE the Most High God.  Those that make God as three in one, place the Son as equal to the one true Most High God who is the source of all things and thus violate the first commandment:

20:3
“You shall have no other gods before Me.  

Regarding there being one True God and all others called “theos” are false theos, you seem to refuse to understand many who have tried over and over to patiently explain how the Most High God is the One True God and how His Son is true in whatever sense that His Father, the One true God, desires Him to be.  Ultimately, it is the Father who declares and it is so because He is the one True God.  If He calls His Son “God” then He is truly “God” in the sense that the Father declares Him.  When He declares Him, the Son, as “God” it is in the context that includes the Father calling Himself the Son's God as in this passage:

Heb 1:8-9

8 But of the Son He says,

“YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
9 “YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS;
THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU
WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.”
NASU

Again, it says:
Therefore God, YOUR God has anointed you…

When you take that and add the fact that Jesus Himself says that the Father is greater than He is as in this verse:

John 14:28
28 ” You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
NASU

And then add that He, Jesus, ultimetly is subject to His Father as in this passage:

1 Cor 15:27-28
But when He says, ” All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.
NASU

Here it says that it is EVIDENT that of course the one who put the son in authority over all things, will be subjected to the One who subjected those same things to His Son.

So, in summary, if God declares something to be this way or that way, His declarations are true.  You think that they are false.  If God declares that His Son is God and that He (the Father) is the Son's God, then His declarations are again TRUE.  You make God's declarations as false and you also place the Son as equal to the Father making more than one as the Most High God.  If the Most High God is the Father and like no other yet you place the Son to be equal to Him and co-eternal with Him, then you take that uniqueness away from the Most High God and tell Him that He is not the only source of all.  If the Son was also the source of all He wouldn't be the one RECEIVING ANYTHING but as it is written, the Son receives all things from the Father.

Matt 11:27
27 “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father;
NASU
John 13:2-4
3 Jesus,  knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God,
NASU

John 5:19-23

19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.  20 ” For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel.  21 “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes.  22 “For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son,  23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.  
NASU

WJ, read this part again:
23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

It is right that we worship the Son because that is how we honor the Father, by worship.  It tells us right there in verse 23 that we honor the Son EVEN AS we honor the Father who sent Him. We give worship to the Father when we also worship the one He has sent. We wouldn't be worshipping in truth if we worshipped them as being equal though.  We worship the Father by recognizing that He alone is the source and eternal, and His Son whom He has sent for us (who is not the source or eternal).

Once again, if Jesus says that the “Father is greater than I”, then the opposite is also TRUE.  Jesus is less than the Father.

John 14:28
I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
NASU

We have to get our worship right.  
John 4:23-25
23 “But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.  24 “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
NASU

We can either worship the Father and the Son as equal as the trinitarians do or we can worship the Father in truth acknowledging the Son as unequal meaning less than the Father.  The Father is the source of all that is good, He is the Most High God and the Son whom He has sent who is less than the Father but declared to be God by the Father Himself.

The above scriptures clearly show that the Father is greater than the Son and is the one who does the giving.  The scriptures also clearly show us that the Son is the one who is less than the Father and is the one who does the receiving BEFORE He does the giving.

WJ, I think that you miss the truth of this teaching also,
John 16:15
15 “All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.  
NASU

Let's break this down:
“All things that the Father has are Mine
these things that the Father has, He has also GIVEN to the Son and that is how the
Son “has” those things.

therefore I said that He takes of Mine
The Spirit of Truth takes things that the FATHER HAS GIVEN the Son, brings them to us through the Son in order to bring glory to the Son.

John 17:7-11
7 “Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You;  8 for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me.  9 ” I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours;  10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.
NASU

Jesus says that “all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.” This does not mean that they are both the source of all things as you seem to be teaching.  I believe that this means that Jesus is reiterating that the Father has given Him all things and those things are still the Father's but are being disclosed to us through the Son, by the Spirit, in order to include the Son and bring Him glory. The Father WANTS us to honor His Son and He wants to GLORIFY HIS SON.  That is why we should also include the Son in our worship of the Father.

LU

[Not3in1]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 15 2008,05:49)

Hi Kathi, Quote don't think God is invisible and that it is impossible to see Him. I see that Nick has given some excellent scriptures for you to look at regarding God's “form”.  This is how God exists normally.  So if Jesus is in God's form, then this rules out Jesus being an angel, the light, or a messenger of any kind. Quote Mary gave the Son his fleshly body. Is this all that you gave to your son, Kathi?  Does your son not also express various attributes of you? Quote the inner spirit of man doesn't bleed and die a physical death but a spiritual death, I'm not sure what difference it makes to separate these two “deaths” out?  But when a human being dies, their body returns to the dust and their spirit ceases to live on (i.e., the dead “know” nothing). Are we trying to put more importance on the spiritual man versus the physical body of the man?  I'm confused.  One cannot exist without the other in this realm, anyway.   To the follower's of Christ, he was a man, albeit a different sort of man. Luke 8:25   25And he said unto them, Where is your faith? And they being afraid wondered, saying one to another, What manner of man is this! for he commandeth even the winds and water, and they obey him. Quote I believe that the inner spirit of Christ was the divine nature of the Son that existed before creation. I know you believe this, but it is not in-line with the teaching of true conception.   We know Jesus was conceived. His birth was compared to that of Elizabeth (did John's nature exist before creation?) Can you separate YOUR sons nature from his body? Quote He became the Son of God as the firstborn of God before creation.  He became the Son of Man from His birth through Mary. He *also* became the Son of God as the first to be raised from the DEAD.  Jesus is the firstborn from the DEAD!. Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. Romans 1:4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. Is Jesus the firstborn over creation AND the firstborn from the dead?   How does this make sense and fit into the story of our salvation?  What possible reason would there be for Jesus to be born first over everything that was created.  Did God really need a helping-hand in creation?  No!  He used his own hand to lay out the foundations of the world!  So what possible function would Jesus have existing before he came to earth?  Was he there to keep God company? Jesus clearly had a function in being the firstborn from the dead!  If he never passed through that gate…..we would never pass through either. Matthew 7:14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Jesus is the gate that leads to life.  He's passed through death unto life.  He gives that life to us.  So now we see the value in his physical and spiritual death (indeed he gave up the ghost!). But none of us exist before our physical births.  In this way we cannot see the value of Jesus' life before he came to us as God's Son. As for becoming the Son of Man through Mary, he certainly did.  However, Mary was more than just a flesh-doning-factory for a previous lifeform…..  God could have made any “body” appear for Jesus' preexistent nature to inhabit…..  Instead he wanted a true Son over his house (not like Moses was *although Moses is son, too, right?*). God conceived Jesus with Mary. Love, Mandy

Hi Kathi,
Here is the response from me that I'm not sure you've seen. It got buried pretty quickly.

Thanks,
Mandy

[Lightenup]

Hi Mandy,
Yes, I saw it and that is what I responded to on the pre-existent thread after you took the discussion over there. I probably didn't get to every point but lately I have written to you about most of this. If there is something that you particularly want me to address that I haven't please let me know.

Love,
Kathi

[gollamudi]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 15 2008,18:09)

Hi GM, Are angels and sons of God not created beings?

Hi brother Nick,
Yes you are correct in saying all angels and sons of God were created by God. But my question is; who are these sons of God ?

God never called any angel as His son. Please see the verse in Heb 1:5

“For to which of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; this day I have begotten you”? Or again: “I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me”?

[NickHassan]

Hi GM,
“For to which of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; this day I have begotten you”?

Only to one did God SAY THIS

Or again: “I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me”?

Only ONE was PARENTED by God.

[david]

Quote

The whole point of John 1:1c not having the definite article is to show that “The Word” is not the Father, yet at the same time showing the nature or quality of “The Word” is God.

–WJ, “coptic” thread.

“God” is not a quality or nature.

WJ, your statement above only makes sense if instead of the last word being “God” it was instead “godly” or “godlike” or “divine.”

I'm wondering if you could address this?

[gollamudi]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 19 2008,05:13)

Hi GM, “For to which of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; this day I have begotten you”? Only to one did God SAY THIS Or again: “I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me”?     Only ONE was PARENTED by God.

Hi brother Nick,
Do you mean Jesus was an angel by saying like that ?
So do you also mean other angels are not sons of God ?

Please see the verse in Heb 2

16 “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.”

Here the scripture says Jesus certainly not taken any angelic form. How can you say Jesus was the one angel who was called as Son of God ?

[NickHassan]

Hi GM,
No.

[gollamudi]

Thanks brother Nick.

[Not3in1]

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 17 2008,12:56)

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 16 2008,18:03) Quote (david @ Oct. 16 2008,12:04) “Let US make man in our image.” David, This passage has many explainations (one such explaination is given in the NIV Study Bible).  This is not solid proof of Jesus' preexistence; not at all.  If this one verse convinces you, I would encourage you to rethink your theology. Love, Mandy That is right, on its own it certainly doesn't prove that. But coupled with the idea that God made all things through him and for him, then it starts to become more compelling. Add in Jesus own claim, “before Abraham, I am” and the case becomes very strong. Then add in the fact that his origins are from ancient times, and the case in now stronger again. Then consider that he is the Word of God that was with God in the beginning, that he is called the wisdom of God and the fact that wisdom was the first work of the Father and it all seems a bit of a no brainer, unless of course God intended to give us the wrong impression or there is a conspiracy to give this impression from the translators. Anyway that seems to be another topic, so I will paste this in a relevant place.

You say, “Add……”. But all the scriptures you are adding also have various meanings. None of them are solid and clear in their meanings. They are vague just as the one scripture David quoted.

You cannot build a dogma on a soft foundation. Rather, you can, but should you?

The solid evidence for preexistence is nonexistent. It is a teaching that has been “added” to, and “added” to, and “added” to……..

I realize this is off topic but wanted to answer this post.
Thanks,
Mandy

[GeneBalthrop]

Mandy….right on, you can't build a dogma on a soft foundation. A dogma needs a solid foundation not a vague one. There are none in the preexistence theology. Right on Sis.

love to you and yours………..gene

[david]

On SHARP'S RULE:

In the New World Translation Titus 2:13 reads: “While we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus.”

However, many Bible translators have rendered the last part of the verse as if it meant only one person, Jesus. For example, An American Translation says: “. . . the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus.” Such translators often claim that this sort of rendering conforms to a “rule” of Greek grammar. Yet the Trinity doctrine also inclines them toward such a translation.

A literal translation of the Greek phrase is, “glory of the great God and Saviour of us Christ Jesus.” (The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, by Dr. Alfred Marshall) Observe that there is a single article (the) preceding two nouns (God, Savior) that are joined by the conjunction “and.”

Over a century ago, Granville Sharp formulated what is supposed to be a “rule” applying in such constructions. It asserts that, since the article (the) is not repeated before the second noun (Savior), the two nouns refer to the same person or subject. This would mean that “great God” and “Savior” would both be descriptive of Jesus, as if the meaning were ‘of Jesus Christ, the great God and our Savior.’

Persons inclined to believe in the deity of Jesus sometimes give the impression that the above position is demanded by proper Greek grammar. But that is not so. In fact, the validity of the “rule” being applied in Titus has been much debated by scholars.

For example, Dr. Henry Alford (The Greek Testament, Vol. III) says: “No one disputes that it may mean that which they have interpreted it” as meaning, but he adds that one needs rather to determine ‘what the words do mean.’ And that cannot be settled by grammatical rules.

A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Moulton-Turner, 1963) states about Titus 2:13: “The repetition of the art[icle] was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately.” What, though, about ‘Sharp’s rule’? Dr. Nigel Turner admits: “Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive.” (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, 1965) As to the Greek construction used, Professor Alexander Buttmann points out: “It will probably never be possible, either in reference to profane literature or to the N[ew] T[estament], to bring down to rigid rules which have no exception, . . . ”—A Grammar of the New Testament Greek.

In The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Dr. N. J. D. White observes: “The grammatical argument . . . is too slender to bear much weight, especially when we take into consideration not only the general neglect of the article in these epistles but the omission of it before” ‘Savior’ in 1 Timothy 1:1; 4:10. And Dr. Alford stresses that in other passages where Paul uses expressions like “God our Savior” he definitely does not mean Jesus, for “the Father and the Son are most plainly distinguished from one another.” (1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3-5) This agrees with the overall teaching of the Bible that Jesus is a created Son who is not equal to his Father.—John 14:28; 1 Cor. 11:3.

Thus, Dr. White concludes: ‘On the whole, then, we decide in favour of the rendering of this passage, appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’ A number of modern translations agree. In the main text or in footnotes they render Titus 2:13 as speaking of two distinct persons, “the great God” who is Jehovah, and his Son, “our Savior, Christ Jesus,” both of whom have glory. (Luke 9:26; 2 Tim. 1:10) See The New American Bible, The Authentic New Testament, The Jerusalem Bible (footnote) and the translations by J. B. Phillips, James Moffatt and Charles K. Williams.
–Watchtower, 1981, 4/1, page 31.

**
A quick search of the internet shows me that sharp's rule as applied to the 2 Peter 1:1 type scriptures (which make up almost all instances where Jesus is supposedly called 'God') is disputed.

As I said in another thread (John 1:1 thread):
Out of the 7 or 9 scriptures trinitarians take to understand that Jesus is being called God, why is it that 7 or 8 of them are like this, with the word “and” in the middle, as though it could be speaking of God “and” Jesus?
Doesn't it bother you that there are literally a thousand scriptures that say in no uncertain terms that Jehovah is God, and yet, almost all the scriptures trinitarians use to support Jesus is God, could be taken more than one way? It seems we're just playing with comma's here.
It seems there should be more scriptures that say: “our God Jesus.” or, “Jesus, our God.” Instead, we find these Jesus “and” God scriptures.
I'm not saying Jesus is never called God. I'm saying that he is only called “god” in no uncertain terms a few times in scripture. (And of course, that word fits him.)

[gollamudi]

Good points brother David.
Jesus will come again in the glory of his Father who is our God.

[david]

WJ, I'm looking for those “apostolic fathers” threads you gave a while back, supposedly showing that they believed Jesus is God Almighty. I can't find them. Could you help? Or do you have the links somewhere?

[Samuel]

Main Entry:
   1di·men·sion Listen to the pronunciation of 1dimension
Pronunciation:
   \də-ˈmen(t)-shən also dī-\
Function:
   noun
Etymology:
   Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin dimension-, dimensio, from dimetiri to measure out, from dis- + metiri to measure — more at measure
Date:
   14th century

1 a
(1): measure in one direction ; specifically : one of three coordinates determining a position in space or four coordinates determining a position in space and time

(2): one of a group of properties whose number is necessary and sufficient to determine uniquely each element of a system of usually mathematical entities
(as an aggregate of points in real or abstract space)
; also :
a parameter or coordinate variable assigned to such a property

(3): the number of elements in a basis of a vector space

b: the quality of spatial extension : magnitude , size

c: a lifelike or realistic quality

d: the range over which or the degree to which something extends : scope —usually used in plural

e: one of the elements or factors making up a complete personality or entity : aspect

2 obsolete : bodily form or proportions

3: any of the fundamental units (as of mass, length, or time) on which a derived unit is based ; also : the power of such a unit

4: wood or stone cut to pieces of specified size

5: a level of existence or consciousness

This is an interesting aspect here.

[epistemaniac]

a response to the Trinity part 1…

LOL… in response to the charge that Trinitarianism “borrowed” from pagan sources…. while this is a tired old false argument…. it needs to be addressed again it seems…

lets first point out that Virgin Birth occurs in Pagan myths…. Perseus was supposedly born of a virgin…… but the Bible says that Jesus was born of a virgin too….. according to those who would want to say that we should reject the Trinity because it is based on “pagan” myths…. so I guess we had better get rid of the virgin birth !!!!! Its pagan in origin!!!!

a worldwide flood occurs in numerous pagan mythologies….. but the bible has a flood story too!!! best get rid of the flood story!!!

Besides, other Pagan religions are strict monotheistic religions…. Islam and Ba'hai…. so I guess since belief in absolute monotheism is pagan, so we had better get rid of the belief in one God too!!! LOL…..

As Walter Martin said “In order to find out if the doctrine of the Trinity is true, we do not look to see if it resembles paganism, but to the bible, to see if God teaches it in his word. Pagans also believe in the concept of God. does this mean that God must not be true? Pagans sleep. Does that mean sleeping is wrong ? We must not dismiss an idea merely because it is held in common with those whom we may not approve.” (the New Cults p.49, cited at Come Let Us Reason)

Come Let Us Reason further states “Is the Trinity pagan? The pagan religions had what we call trinities however on closer examination they are not the same in concept or substance…… The pagan concept was encapsulated with a Father, Mother, giving birth to a Son. They were three major Gods with many minor god's as well. Their trinity was comprised of three Gods not one. The Greek triad of Zeus, Athena, and Apollo, the Hindu triad of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva the Egyptian triad of Isis, Horus, and Sub bear no resemblance to the Biblical Trinity. They were all separate not united as the one God and almost unanimously had a mother involved as in a heavenly family. This was really tritheism, which has more in common with Mormonism than a triune God. Anti Trinitarians make usage of the statues with three heads and saying that is our pagan God. If one is going to discount the Trinity because of some similarities in name only and not in substance. Then maybe they should be looking at their own pagan similarities. One can still be in idolatry, if their one God is not the God of the Bible.” (http://www.letusreason.org/Trin8.htm)

So, to answer some other particular questions:

“Did the trinity formula come from the spirit of man or the Spirit of God?”
The Spirit of God.

“If Jesus came to earth to reveal God, why didn't he teach the trinity.”
This begs the question… Jesus did teach the Trinity…. even if He didn't, He did not teach about nuclear fission, gravity, black holes, etc etc…. but that does not mean these ideas are not true. This is an example of an informal fallacy of equivocation…. that is to say, just because an idea is NOT in the Bible, it DOES NOT FOLLOW that the idea is false. A non-biblical idea is NOT NECESSARILY an UNbiblical idea. (This is not to say that the Trinity is a non-biblical idea, it is profoundly biblical and makes the best sense of the full counsel fo God) As long as an idea does not directly contradict the Bible, it MAY be, but is not NECESSARILY true.

“Have you really prayed and asked God if the trinty doctrine is His revelation?”
Why yes I have, thanks for asking. When I first came to believe in God I studied with the Jehovah's Witnesses quite a bit, and did not initially believe that Jesus was God. I came to reject these unbiblical ideas in favor of the biblical idea of the trinity. But we must all do more than pray, right? I mean, if someone said that they believed in anything at all, just because they had prayed about it and felt that “god had told them”, for instance, that there are little green men on mars, I would not rush to either believe them or adopt the idea for myself as being true.

“Have you really looked at all the scriptures that say who God is and who Jesus really is?”
I would ask this same question to anti-Trinitarians. At any rate, yes, I believe I have, but the bible is an incredible book, I have many things to study and learn, the riches of God's word is so vast that I definitely do not claim to know all that the bible teaches about Jesus, but I feel I can see with some confidence that I have at least looked at the most important sections of Scripture regarding Jesus' nature, and have, as a result of this study, come to believe that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God.

“If you have challenged the trinity doctrine, was your mind already made-up before you took this challenge?”
As I mentioned above, but will not say a bit more about… I was not raised in a Christian home… I do not believe anything because my mom or dad or friends or uncles or aunts or extended family believed…. I was very open to the Scriptures teaching, and thus early on studied the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, as well as other pseudo-Christian groups. My mind is pretty well made up now, to the consternation of many anti-Trinitarians I know , but it wasn't when i first became a Christian. Ok… on to the last question…

“If you were morooned on a desert island by yourself, and you had know knowledge of the bible. Would you come to the conclusion that God was a trinity if you read the bible from cover to cover?”
I am not sure what being “morooned” means… lol…is it the past tense of being in the state of a “moron? lol…. Having never been marooned on a desert island, I do not know. First, it would depend if I was marooned with a copy of the Scriptures or not.

blessings,
Ken

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
Is this trinity taught in scripture or is it your own deduction?

[Author]

Posts