The Trinity

[Clete]

Gist of the video: Trinity is an OT concept.

That might count as a headline but not a gist. It's hardly more than you offered when you posted the link and said it was a Jewish concept.

Can you post at least one of the arguments made in the video? If it's a descent argument, perhaps people will be motivated to actually watch the video. Think of it as analogous to a teaser or trailer. Try to do something to pique people's interest enough that they'll be willing to invest the time to watch a two hour long video.

[lifeisgood]

Instead of simply posting a link to a two hour long video that next to no one is going to bother to watch, why not post the gist of the video?

Tell us the major points discussed in the video and how they are supported.

Gist of the video: Trinity is an OT concept.

[Ktoyou]

100% GOD
+100% man
________
200% being

But wait; what about the Holy Spirit

300%

But all that was within one person who is actually three people.

400%



You know just one hundred percent equals a whole right?

If one person has three persons fully within them then how does that not equal four persons?



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

No. you have some learning to do. Keep an open mind and attend a bible study class. Do not think you can just think it out yourself.

[Bright Raven]

What's so hard to understand?

John 1:1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


John 1:14 King James Version (KJV)
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.

Acts 5:3-4 King James Version (KJV)
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

[Bright Raven]

'Sure does.

So then you believe in a triune God?

[Idolater]

Your quoted scripture points to a triune God as do John 1:1 and 14.

'Sure does.

[Bright Raven]

Nowhere. John 10:30 KJV contradicts that idea.

Your quoted scripture points to a triune God as do John 1:1 and 14.

[Idolater]

And where within your explanation have you proved that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not one in the same God?

Nowhere. John 10:30 KJV contradicts that idea.

[Bright Raven]

This is clear:

My argument is that the Father, Son, and Spirit being mentioned all together in one sentence, three different times in three different places in the Scripture, by three different people, proves distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit---not unity. Furthermore my argument for the distinction between the Father and Son particularly, is based on the unitarian proposition that "Jesus is not God the Father," and my argument for unity, is based on the unitarian proposition that the Spirit is united /One with God in some sense, which all unitarians readily confess, along with that Jesus is not God the Father.

It's done. "Is the Trinity biblical and taught in the Bible?" Yes to both. This thread's finally over.

And where within your explanation have you proved that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not one in the same God?

[Idolater]

How can there be a clear conclusion to such an inquiry. It will be unanswerable for all time.

This is clear:

My argument is that the Father, Son, and Spirit being mentioned all together in one sentence, three different times in three different places in the Scripture, by three different people, proves distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit---not unity. Furthermore my argument for the distinction between the Father and Son particularly, is based on the unitarian proposition that "Jesus is not God the Father," and my argument for unity, is based on the unitarian proposition that the Spirit is united /One with God in some sense, which all unitarians readily confess, along with that Jesus is not God the Father.

It's done. "Is the Trinity biblical and taught in the Bible?" Yes to both. This thread's finally over.

[Bright Raven]

I read back the last two posts before mine and I don't see any clear conclusion to this inquiry. Like I said in mine there are three replies and the thing is concluded. The Catholic Trinity is indeed taught in the Bible. Unitarian talking points prove it.

How can there be a clear conclusion to such an inquiry. It will be unanswerable for all time.

[Idolater]

Did you find anything of help?

I read back the last two posts before mine and I don't see any clear conclusion to this inquiry. Like I said in mine there are three replies and the thing is concluded. The Catholic Trinity is indeed taught in the Bible. Unitarian talking points prove it.

[Bright Raven]

OK.
And this is it.

My thread has three replies, and proves the Trinity. You've 24 thousand replies and is there any conclusion?

Of course in order to agree that my argument is valid and that my conclusion is correct, you'd need to admit that Catholicism dominated the first ten centuries of the Church's life, and I know that that's not going to happen.

Spoiler

Did you find anything of help?

[Idolater]

Idolator, This is the thread I was speaking of.

OK.

There is another thread of the same title with over 24,000 replies. You may want to look at it.

And this is it.

My thread has three replies, and proves the Trinity. You've 24 thousand replies and is there any conclusion?

Of course in order to agree that my argument is valid and that my conclusion is correct, you'd need to admit that Catholicism dominated the first ten centuries of the Church's life, and I know that that's not going to happen.

Spoiler

Jesus, Peter, and Paul each named the Father, Son, and Spirit in one sentence.

Matthew 28:19 KJV
1st Peter 1:2 KJV
2 Corinthians 13:14 KJV

There are two propositions regarding the Trinity; "God is the Trinity," and its negation, that, "It is not the case that God is the Trinity."

I will use the term 'unitarian' to signify the latter proposition, and 'Catholic' to signify the former proposition.

Both of these signifiers 'unitarian' and 'Catholic' are examples of the 'straw man' informal fallacy. I say that now, so that all those Unitarians who wish to argue will know already that I already admit that I've committed a straw man fallacy, and the same for all those Trinitarians who are not Catholic.

Straw man.

That the Father, Son, and Spirit are enumerated in one sentence shows distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit. That there are three of these sentences in the New Testament underscores that distinction. That these three sentences originated from Jesus, Peter, and Paul further underscores it.

Unitarians themselves admit that there is a distinction between the Father and the Son, and also they admit that the Spirit and God are united in some way.

Therefore "God is the Trinity."

I know what you're going to say---straw man.

My argument is that the Father, Son, and Spirit being mentioned all together in one sentence, three different times in three different places in the Scripture, by three different people, proves distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit---not unity. Furthermore my argument for the distinction between the Father and Son particularly, is based on the unitarian proposition that "Jesus is not God the Father," and my argument for unity, is based on the unitarian proposition that the Spirit is united /One with God in some sense, which all unitarians readily confess, along with that Jesus is not God the Father.

[Clete]

It is the way of the cults to reduce biblical truth to make God comprehensible and understandable by their minds. To this end, they subject God's word to their own reasoning and end in error.

So, by what method does Matt Slick, the author of this silliness, propose to understand the bible if not by reason?


How is it that anyone who is able to think at all can read such nonsense and not immediately detect the self contradiction, never mind write it?!

Mr. Slick used reason to pick up the pen he used to write the article, he cites reason within the article, stating that a particular counter argument "is not logical", he then calls the veracity of reason into question with the above quoted nonsense and then he immediately followed it with more reason! His rational argument is as follows..

Premise: The bible is true.
Premise: The bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity.
Conclusion: Therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity is true.

That's perfectly sound logical reasoning that Mr. Slick used his own human mind to engage, understand and convey! Where then does he find the rational deficiency in the human mind and by what method would he propose to search for it if not by reason itself? Indeed, he cannot even make the claim without the use of reason! It is just so much self-contradictory nonsense.

If he had been content to state "The Trinity is, to a large extent, a mystery. After all, we are dealing with God Himself." and to leave it at that, it would be one thing. Where's the need to take it to this other level? By doing so, he tacitly admits that he believes the doctrine to be irrational! Some of his speculation about the relationships between the Father, Son and Spirit may well be irrational but his subordination conjecture is not what is at question. The bottom line is that there is information we do not have concerning the nature of God (duh!). As such we are to take what information we do have and accept it as true and trust God for a fuller understanding at a later time. No one aught to ever allow their mind to accept anything that is irrational nor should we undermine all of rational thought by ascribing to God some super-rational attribute. As I explained in my previous post, no such attribute is possible anyway.

Clete