"The Divinity of Christ"

[7djengo7]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but...

1 Cor 15:22-28 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

I'm not seeing that you've "burst" any "bubble". What, that @Right Divider affirmed, are you calling a "bubble," and just how, according to your imagination, have you "burst" it? Are you calling the Scripture texts from Isaiah, and from Paul's epistles, that RD has presented, "bubbles," and telling us that you've somehow "burst" those Scriptures? See, all you've done is to hand us a passage of Scripture, without commenting to us exactly what (if any) point you are trying to make by doing so, against the truth of the deity of Jesus Christ. Please tell us exactly why, according to your imagination, the passage you've handed us ought to be thought of as contradictory to the truth of the deity of Jesus Christ.

 

[csuguy]

I'm not seeing that you've "burst" any "bubble". What, that @Right Divider affirmed, are you calling a "bubble," and just how, according to your imagination, have you "burst" it? Are you calling the Scripture texts from Isaiah, and from Paul's epistles, that RD has presented, "bubbles," and telling us that you've somehow "burst" those Scriptures? See, all you've done is to hand us a passage of Scripture, without commenting to us exactly what (if any) point you are trying to make by doing so, against the truth of the deity of Jesus Christ. Please tell us exactly why, according to your imagination, the passage you've handed us ought to be thought of as contradictory to the truth of the deity of Jesus Christ.

I bolded and underlined parts of the scripture - which is more than sufficient commentary if you are paying attention to what it says vs Right Dividers interpretation of things.

Paul plainly distinguishes Christ from God and subjugates Christ to God.

 

[7djengo7]

I bolded and underlined parts of the scripture - which is more than sufficient commentary if you are paying attention to what it says vs Right Dividers interpretation of things.

IOW, you have no answer, no rational response to the question I asked you about your reaction to @Right Divider 's post. That's what I've learned by paying attention to what you've written. You've merely handed us a "proof" text without telling us exactly what you imagine you are proving by handing us it. And you've not told us what point you imagine you are making by bolding and underlining parts of your "proof" text. You've not told us what "commentary" you imagine you are making thereby. Perhaps even you, yourself, do not even think you are making a point by doing so. The fact that you sit there saying that your non-commentary "is more than sufficient commentary" owes to your understanding that you've reached a dead end with that particular course of action. If you really thought you could come up with commentary, you'd do so, and you'd eagerly and happily present it to us, instead of resorting to the ploy which you've chosen, here.​

Paul plainly distinguishes Christ from God and subjugates Christ to God.

By your word, "God," here, are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?
If, by your word, "God," you're not referring to the Father, then to whom or to what are you referring by it?

Are you telling us this: "Paul plainly distinguishes Christ from [the Father] and subjugates Christ to [the Father]"?Yes or No?
If so, then so what? Again, you're merely preaching a tenet of Trinitarianism, if you're telling us that.
If not, then what are you telling us?

 

[7djengo7]

the relationship of father and son logically prohibits them from being one in the same being

What do you mean by your word, "being"?

Similarly, it is completely contradictory to speak of Jesus being at the right hand of God and also being God.

So, by both instances of your word, "God," here, you are referring to the Father?

Is this what you are telling us: "It is completely contradictory to speak of Jesus as being at the right hand of [the Father] and also being [the Father]"?

• If so, then what's your point? No Trinitarian claims that Jesus is the Father; that Jesus, the Son, is not the Father, is a tenet of Trinitarianism.
• If not, then what are you telling us?

 

[csuguy]

IOW, you have no answer, no rational response to the question I asked you about your reaction to @Right Divider 's post. That's what I've learned by paying attention to what you've written. You've merely handed us a "proof" text without telling us exactly what you imagine you are proving by handing us it. And you've not told us what point you imagine you are making by bolding and underlining parts of your "proof" text. You've not told us what "commentary" you imagine you are making thereby. Perhaps even you, yourself, do not even think you are making a point by doing so. The fact that you sit there saying that your non-commentary "is more than sufficient commentary" owes to your understanding that you've reached a dead end with that particular course of action. If you really thought you could come up with commentary, you'd do so, and you'd eagerly and happily present it to us, instead of resorting to the ploy which you've chosen, here.​

Showing scripture that clearly contradicts his assertions is a perfectly rational response. It doesn't require extensive commentary to see the contradiction between Right Divider's interpretation of things vs what is actually in scripture. What isn't rational is your inability to read and learn from scripture. Or, more likely, you refuse to read it and understand - because it's obvious.

By your word, "God," here, are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?
If, by your word, "God," you're not referring to the Father, then to whom or to what are you referring by it?

Are you telling us this: "Paul plainly distinguishes Christ from [the Father] and subjugates Christ to [the Father]"?Yes or No?
If so, then so what? Again, you're merely preaching a tenet of Trinitarianism, if you're telling us that.
If not, then what are you telling us?

Scripture draws no distinction between the Father and God; they are one in the same. The burden of proof to establish a difference rests on Trinitarians. In this very passage Paul refers to both "God the Father" and simply "God" - distinguishing both from Christ.

Also, even if we hypothetically accepted that Paul was secretly a Trinitarian (ignoring all evidence to the contrary), this passage would still contradict the Trinity - for then you would have to admit that the Son is not equal to the Father, but subservient.

 

[csuguy]

What do you mean by your word, "being"?

I don't have a special meaning for it - the usual suffices. One who exists, who is; a living thing. In fact, in the Septuigant that is one translation for God's name in Greek: the one who is; the being.

I am a being, you are a being, my dog is a being, etc.

So, by both instances of your word, "God," here, you are referring to the Father?

Is this what you are telling us: "It is completely contradictory to speak of Jesus as being at the right hand of [the Father] and also being [the Father]"?

• If so, then what's your point? No Trinitarian claims that Jesus is the Father; that Jesus, the Son, is not the Father, is a tenet of Trinitarianism.
• If not, then what are you telling us?

It is contradictory for Jesus to be at God's right hand and then for you to turn around and claim he is God.

Luke 22:69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.”

Now - you would be fair to say that "God" here refers to the "Father", and that's because in scripture there is only one Almighty God - and another name for God is "Father." The OT had many more names for God than the NT does; you sure you don't want to go create a new personality for all those different names too? Or do only Greek names for God get a distinct personality?

 

[7djengo7]

Showing scripture that clearly contradicts his assertions is a perfectly rational response.

But no Scripture contradicts what @Right Divider affirmed. The passage you handed us without comment certainly does not contradict what he affirmed; it does not contradict what Trinitarians affirm.

It doesn't require extensive commentary

You have thus far given zero commentary regarding the "proof" text you handed us.

to see the contradiction between Right Divider's interpretation of things vs what is actually in scripture.

At least you admit that what RD is doing is interpreting Scripture. You, on the other hand, are not interpreting Scripture.

What isn't rational is your inability to read and learn from scripture. Or, more likely, you refuse to read it and understand - because it's obvious.

What's "obvious"?

You had said:

Paul plainly distinguishes Christ from God and subjugates Christ to God.

So, I asked you:​

By your word, "God," here, are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?​

You: <NO ANSWER>

Why is it so difficult for you to answer this elementary question? By your word, "God," when you say "Jesus is not God," etc., either you are referring to the Father, or you are not. Which is it? And, if you are not referring to the Father, by your word, "God," then to whom, or to what, are you referring by it? I've already asked you these questions, and thus far, you've refused to answer them.
​

Scripture draws no distinction between the Father and God; they are one in the same.​

By your word, "God," here, are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?

If you are, then this is what you are handing us: "...no distinction between the Father and [the Father]; they are one in the same."

If you are not, then to whom, or to what, are you referring by your word, "God"?
​

In this very passage Paul refers to both "God the Father" and simply "God" - distinguishing both from Christ.​

Why would Paul need to modify the word, "God," by adding to it the words, "the Father," in order to distinguish the Father from Christ, if, by the word, "God," alone, he is already, always, without exception, referring to the Father?
​

for then you would have to admit that the Son is not equal to the Father​

That's false. Obviously I would not have to admit that the Son is not equal to the Father, seeing as it's false that the Son is not equal to the Father, and seeing as you are contradicting Jesus' own declaration about Himself. John, in his Gospel, tells us that Jesus, the Son, declared Himself to be equal with the Father:

"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18)
​

I don't have a special meaning for it​

I don't even assume you have any meaning for it. I don't assume you're not using your word, "being," in a cognitively meaningless way. Obviously I'm under no burden to assume that you are using it meaningfully, rather than meaninglessly.​

- the usual suffices. One who exists, who is; a living thing.​

"One" WHAT "who exists, who is"? Fill in the blank however you see fit: "One ______ who exists, who is; a living thing."
​

It is contradictory for Jesus to be at God's right hand and then for you to turn around and claim he is God.

By your word, "God," here, are you referring to the Father? Yes or No? Either you are, or you are not. Why won't you answer this question?

Is this what you mean: "It is contradictory for Jesus to be at [the Father]'s right hand and then for you to turn around and claim he is [the Father]"? Yes or No?

Since I am a Trinitarian, I have never turned around and claimed Jesus is the Father. Duh. That's what some of your fellow heretics claim: that Jesus is the Father. I don't claim that Jesus is the Father; no Trinitarian claims that Jesus is the Father.

Why are you so persistently adamant against answering the elementary questions I've been asking you as to the referent of your word, "God"?

 

[csuguy]

But no Scripture contradicts what @Right Divider affirmed. The passage you handed us without comment certainly does not contradict what he affirmed; it does not contradict what Trinitarians affirm.

You have thus far given zero commentary regarding the "proof" text you handed us.

I have commented on it plenty since the original post. You just continue to refuse to read either the scriptures or the commentary you asked for. Paul 1. clearly distinguishes Jesus from "God the Father" and "God" in that passage, and 2. subjugates the Son to the Father. Both are contradictory to classic Trinitarian theology and to Right Divider's sentiments.

At least you admit that what RD is doing is interpreting Scripture. You, on the other hand, are not interpreting Scripture.

You are a fool if you think one can speak of the teachings of scripture without interpretation.

What's "obvious"?

You had said:

So, I asked you:

You: <NO ANSWER>

Why is it so difficult for you to answer this elementary question? By your word, "God," when you say "Jesus is not God," etc., either you are referring to the Father, or you are not. Which is it? And, if you are not referring to the Father, by your word, "God," then to whom, or to what, are you referring by it? I've already asked you these questions, and thus far, you've refused to answer them.​

I have answered you on this point several times; you just don't like the answer. In scripture there is only one God Almighty. One of God's names is the Father. The NT sometimes speaks of "the Father", or "God the Father", or simply "God" - yet these are all one in the same. Never does scripture suggest that "the Father" is only a portion of God or that God has multiple personas.

I can present you many scriptures where Jesus is distinguished from "God", like the one I did in my previous post. Try responding to that instead of complaining because I don't answer your question in the way you want. You are committing the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Why would Paul need to modify the word, "God," by adding to it the words, "the Father," in order to distinguish the Father from Christ, if, by the word, "God," alone, he is already, always, without exception, referring to the Father?​

He doesn't need to - he will in some places use simply "God" and in other places say "Father" or "God the Father" etc. The Hebrew scriptures are filled with different names/titles for God. Each name/title doesn't refer to a distinct personage - but all to the same being we call God. Having a little variety in how he refers to God did not originate with Paul or the NT.

​

That's false. Obviously I would not have to admit that the Son is not equal to the Father, seeing as it's false that the Son is not equal to the Father, and seeing as you are contradicting Jesus' own declaration about Himself.

1. You can refuse to acknowledge Paul's words, but that only demonstrates that you aren't interested in what the scriptures have to say. You are only here to spout your non-sense tradition and refuse to logically evaluate the evidence. If that's the case then we can end our conversation.

2. Jesus never declares himself equal to the Father. To the contrary:

John 14:28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

John, in his Gospel, tells us that Jesus, the Son, declared Himself to be equal with the Father:

"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18)
​

John is here describing the view of these Jews who clearly lacked understanding; he is not agreeing with them. Or do you also agree with the other claim in this passage that Jesus broke the Sabbath - and thus sinned?

I don't even assume you have any meaning for it. I don't assume you're not using your word, "being," in a cognitively meaningless way. Obviously I'm under no burden to assume that you are using it meaningfully, rather than meaninglessly.

Time you learned to use a dictionary

"One" WHAT "who exists, who is"? Fill in the blank however you see fit: "One ______ who exists, who is; a living thing."

"One who exists" is a complete idea on its own - it doesn't require additional qualification. Take some remedial English courses in addition to picking up a dictionary.

Since I am a Trinitarian, I have never turned around and claimed Jesus is the Father. Duh. That's what some of your fellow heretics claim: that Jesus is the Father. I don't claim that Jesus is the Father; no Trinitarian claims that Jesus is the Father.​

You claim that the Son is God and the Father is God, but the Son is not the Father. This is a clear contradiction and non-sense.

Why are you so persistently adamant against answering the elementary questions I've been asking you as to the referent of your word, "God"?

Your question - as presented - begs the question and is erroneous. "God" refers to God; there is only one. End of story. Hence when Moses asked for his name he was told "I am that I am."

 

[JudgeRightly]

The burden of proof falls to you, then. Show where the scriptures explicitly speak of the Trinity and of its utmost importance to the faith.

THREE QUESTIONS TO DETERMINE IF THE TRINITY IS BIBLICALLY TRUE OR FALSE. If any one of these questions can be answered 'no,' then the Trinity can be rejected as an unbiblical belief. But if all three can be answered 'yes,' then the concept of the Trinity can be accepted as true. 1. Does the Bible mention three distinct persons? 2. Does the Bible refer to each of these persons as God? 3. Does the Bible teach there is only one God? The answers: 1. Are three distinct persons mentioned? YES. A. The Father (1 John 3:1) B. The Son (1 John 1:3) C. The Holy Spirit (John 14:6; 14:26; 15:26; 16:13-14; Romans 15:30; Ephesians 4:30) 2. Are each of these persons referred to as God? YES. A. God the Father (1 Thessalonians 1:1) B. God the Son (John 1:1; 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9) C. God the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4) 3. Is there only one God? YES. (see Deuteronomy 4:35-39; Psalm 86:10; Isaiah 45:5; 45:22)

FOR ANYONE WHO REJECTS THE TRINITY AS BIBLICAL:
Please show how the verses provided do not answer in the affirmative all three questions asked.

Christ, the apostles, and all of the early church actively devoted and risked their lives for the gospel. Multiple corresponding accounts were written to speak of the life, death, and teachings of Christ along with all the letters and revelation shared between the churches after that. They did all this to preserve these teachings and to share them with others that they might believe and be instructed in the faith. Do you really think it reasonable that they would leave out the - ostensibly - most important/core belief of the faith? Of course not - they would be very explicit about it, and it would be a recurring topic throughout the NT. Like love or Christ's sacrifice (aka, actual core beliefs of the faith).

Why do you assume that they needed to teach it in the first place?

What if they expected the reader of what they wrote and the listener of what they spoke to already be familiar with the idea that God was triune? Consider that the Bible never explicitly proves that God exists, it's always understood that He does exist, and is the main character throughout Scripture.

If it was understood that He was triune, then scripture would show, not explicitly, but subtly, that God is triune, not through outright statements, but in passing comments on other things.

For example, in Acts 5, we see Peter accusing Ananias of lying to the Holy Spirit, and then immediately saying that he was not lying to men, but to God:

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” - Acts 5:3-4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts5:3-4&version=NKJV

So that's two Persons.

What about the Son?

In the Old Testament, the phrase "Thus saith the Lord" is used about 420 times, which tells us that God's words are about to be spoken.

However, in the New Testament, that phrase doesn't exist, anywhere. It's instead replaced with "I say to you," the phrase which Jesus said 135 times in the Gospels.

The following chart demonstrates biblically that these two phrases, Thus saith the Lord, and I say unto you, indicate the same thing, that God is speaking. For Jesus Christ made it clear that He Himself was at the heart of His message. Unlike the righteous priests and kings, prophets and the apostles, the Lord came to teach us about Himself:

Christ's Self-focus:

• "Follow Me" 19x Mt. 4:19; 8:22; 10:38; 16:24; 19:21; Mk. 1:17; 2:14; 8:34; 10:21; Lk. 5:27; 9:59; 18:22; Jn. 1:43; 8:12; 10:27; 12:26; 13:36; 21:19, 22
• Pray and act "in My name" 18x Mt. 7:22; 18:5; 18:20; [24:5]; Mk. 9:37, 39, 41; [13:6]; Lk. 9:48; [21:8]; 24:47; Jn. 14:13-14; 15:16; 16:23-24, 26; Acts 9:15
• "the Holy Spirit" comes "in My name" Jn. 14:26
• "for My name's sake" leave family and property Mt. 19:29; or even be killed 5x Mt. 24:9; [Lk. 21:12, 17;] Jn. 15:21; Acts 9:16
• Believe in the "name of the… Son" and "in the Son" 3x Jn. 3:18, 36; 9:35 and "in Him [Jesus]" 4x Jn. 3:18; 6:29, 40; 8:31
• "believe in Me" 14x Mt. 18:6; Mk. 9:42; Jn. 3:15-16, 18; 6:35, 47; 7:38; 11:25, 26; 12:44, 46; 14:1, 12; 16:8; 17:20
• You "are sanctified by faith in Me" Acts 26:18
• Live "in Me" Jn. 11:26
• "come after Me" Mk. 8:34; Lk. 14:27
• Abide "in Me" Jn. 15:2, 4:5, 7 "abide in Me" or else Jn. 15:6 "abide in My love" Jn. 15:9-10
• "where two or three are gathered" Jesus is "there in the midst of them" Mt. 18:20
• So too: "I [Jesus, will abide] in you" Jn. 15:4-5
• "know that I am He" Jn. 8:28 or "if you do not believe that I am He you will die in your sins" Jn. 8:24
• Do things "for My sake" Mt. 10:22, 39; even lose your life "for My sake" 4x Mt. 16:25; Mk. 8:35; 10:29; Lk. 6:22
• "I never knew you, depart from Me" Mt. 7:23
• "I am willing; be cleansed" Mt. 8:3; Mk.. 1:41
• "confess Me" Mt. 10:32; Lk. 12:8
• Do not deny "Me" 7x Mt. 10:33; 26:34; Mk. 14:30, 72; Lk. 12:9; 22:34; Jn. 13:38
• Do not be "ashamed of Me" Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26 nor "My words"
• "love Me" 5x Jn. 14:15, 21, 23-24, 28
• Do not reject "Me" Lk. 10:16; Jn. 12:48
• "He who is not with Me is against Me" Lk. 11:23
• Love Me "more than" your family members Mt. 10:37; [Lk. 14:26]
• "I… have loved you" Jn. 15:9, 12
• Be "worthy of Me" Mt. 10:37-38
• "Come to Me" 5x Mt. 11:28; Lk. 6:47; Jn. 5:40; 6:35; 7:37
• "I will give you rest" Mt. 11:28
• "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light" Mt. 11:30
• I am "greater than the temple" "than Jonah" "than Solomon" Mt. 12:6, 41-42
• I am "Lord even of the Sabbath" Mt. 12:8; Mk. 2:28; Lk. 6:5 [Lord of God's Ten Commandments]
• Thus He says keep "My commandments" 4x Jn. 14:15, 21; 15:10, 12
• "You are My friends if you do whatever I command you" Jn. 15:14
• "keep My word" Jn. 14:23-24
• "He who is not with Me is against Me" Mt. 12:30
• The angels are "His angels" Mt. 13:41; 16:27 and He commands "His angels" Mt. 24:31; Mk. 13:27
• The kingdom is "His kingdom" Mt. 13:41 and He calls it "My kingdom" Lk. 22:30
• Jesus called it "My church" Mt. 16:18 and believers are "My sheep" Jn. 10:14, 27 and they are "His elect" Mt. 24:31; Mk. 13:27
• Paul is a "vessel of Mine to bear My name" Acts 9:15
• "all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine" Jn. 17:10
• "My peace I give" Jn. 14:27 "in Me you may have peace" Jn. 16:33
• "My joy" should fill you Jn. 15:11
• "Who do men say that I am?" Mt. 16:13; Mk. 8:27 "who do you say that I am?" Mt. 16:15
• Receive "Me" Mt. 18:5; Mk. 9:37; Lk. 9:48
• Heaven and earth will pass away but "My words" will never Mt. [5:18] 24:35; Mk. 13:31; Lk. 21:33
• Tell others about Jesus Mk. 5:19
• "you belong to Christ" Mk. 9:41
• Hear "My sayings" and do them Lk. 6:47
• Jesus has "His own glory" Lk. 9:26; [Jn. 2:11; 16:14] The Son is
• "glorified" 8x Jn. 11:4; 12:23; 13:31-32; [17:1, 5, 10 24]
• "He who hears you hears Me" Lk. 10:16
• Jesus expects praise, from stones if necessary Lk. 19:37-40
• Return "to Me" Lk. 22:32
• Be "My disciple" Lk. 14:27; Jn. 8:31; 15:8 Forsake all to "be My disciple" Lk. 14:33 "you are My disciples" Jn. 13:35
• "I shall send… the [Holy] Spirit" Jn. 15:26; 16:7
• The Holy Spirit "will testify of Me" Jn. 15:26
• We read in John 5 and Luke 24 that "the Scriptures… testify of Me" Jn. 5:39; [Lk. 24:44]
• "You [Apostles] also will bear witness [of Me] because you have been with Me" Jn. 15:27
• Paul gives "testimony concerning Me" Acts 22:18; 23:11
• "the Son gives life to whom He will" Jn. 5:21
• "seek Me" Jn. 6:26
• Serve "Me" Jn. 12:26
• "all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father" Jn. 5:23
• "I am the bread of life," "of heaven," "of God" Jn. 6: 32-33, 35, 41, [48,] 51
• Just seeing Christ is reason enough to believe in Him Jn. 6:36 [56]
• Drink "My blood" and eat "My flesh" Jn. 6:53-54, 56
• "I will raise him up at the last day" Jn. 6:40 for He is the resurrection
• "The world… hates Me" Jn. 7:7
• "I am the light of the world" Jn. 8:12; 9:5; 12:46
• "I bear witness of Myself" Jn. 8:13-14, 18
• "know… Jesus Christ" for "eternal life" Jn. 17:3; [8:19; 10:10, 14]
• "the Son makes you free" Jn. 8:36
• "Abraham rejoiced to see My day" Jn. 8:56; "Before Abraham was, I AM" Jn. 8:58
• Of believers, Christ said, "I know them" Jn. 10:27
• "I give them eternal life" Jn. 10:28
• "I am the resurrection and the life" Jn. 11:25
• I "will draw all peoples to Myself" Jn. 12:32
• "I will… receive you to Myself" Jn. 14:3
• Be "Mine" Jn. 14:24
• "I am the vine" Jn. 15:5
• "without Me you can do nothing" Jn. 15:5
• "Because I live, you will live also." Jn. 14:19
• "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you" Jn. 15:16
• Those who oppress Christians are "persecuting Me" Acts 9:4-5; 22:7-8; 26:14-15
• "because they have not known… Me" Jn. 16:3
• The Spirit "will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it" Jn. 16:14
• "All things that the Father has are Mine" Jn. 16:15
• "Whatever He [the Father] does, the Son does" Jn. 5:19
• "the Father… loves you, because you have loved Me" Jn. 16:27
• "If I will that he remain" Jn. 21:22
• "I have overcome the world" Jn. 16:33
• "I am the way" Jn. 14:6
• "I am… the truth" Jn. 14:6
• "I am… the life" Jn. 14:6
• "I will… manifest Myself" Jn. 14:21

If Jesus wasn't God, EVERY SINGLE ONE of those statements would have been blasphemous.

Incorrect; while the an argument from silence can be misapplied, there are valid cases for it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence#Convincing_applications

This is not one of them.

It would be highly questionable for the "core" belief of Christianity

Why do you assume there is only one "core belief" of Christianity?

to not be elucidated in detail by Christ and his followers throughout the NT in detail.

Or, the writers expected the readers to be on the same page as them regarding God being triune.

Thus their silence on the matter, and the fact that they spend their time teaching other things, speaks volumes as to what they actually believed and thought important to share with others.

The problem is that they weren't silent.

This is a classic case of missing the forest for the trees. You're so focused on "the Bible doesn't explicitly state that God is triune" that you're missing the rest of the verses that indicate, as a whole, that God is triune.

Every Trinitarian may say they agree with the above statements (for they are undeniably biblical),

Who are you to say otherwise?

however they don't actually believe them.

Yes, we do.

They cannot -

Yes, we can.

for they are contradictory statements to the Trinity doctrine.

I don't hold to any particular "Trinity doctrine."

I hold to what Scripture says, which is that "The LORD your God, the LORD is one," and that "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit" is with us all.

A son is never the same being as the father.

When talking about humans, this is correct.

But we're not talking about humans. We're talking about God.

One necessarily comes before the other, for the father is the/a source of the son. The early church fathers recognized this basic truth. Tertullian (2nd/3rd century) wrote "There was a time when there was no Son and no sin, when God was neither Father nor Judge."

This is an appeal to authority.

Tertullian does not trump Scripture.

This statement is based upon the obvious fact that one is not a father until they have a son,

Jesus asked His Father, God:

And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. - John 17:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John17:5&version=NKJV

If Jesus was not God, this is blasphemy, for Isaiah wrote the words of God:

I am the Lord, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images. - Isaiah 42:8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah42:8&version=NKJV

nor can God serve as a Judge when there has been no wrong doing.

No one here has claimed otherwise... so I'm not sure why this is relevant...

If you truly accepted what scripture says - that Jesus is the Son of God -

We do.

then you would be forced to recognize that he is not God Almighty himself,

Nope. Non-sequitur. The Son of God is God, in the same way that the son of a man is still a man.

God is WHAT Christ is.
God is WHAT the Father is.
God is WHAT the Holy Spirit.

The Son is WHO Christ is.
The Father is WHO the Father is.
The Holy Spirit is WHO the Holy Spirit is.

Three "WHO"s.
One "WHAT".

for the relationship of father and son logically prohibits them from being one in the same being

Again, you're confusing "WHAT" the Father and Son are with "WHO" the Father and Son are.

You're confusing the "WHAT" with the "WHO."

(though they maybe one in spirit/will/purpose/etc).

Not what we're talking about, nor what Scripture means.

Similarly, it is completely contradictory to speak of Jesus being at the right hand of God and also being God.

Only when we're talking about singular beings, like humans.

God, however, is a plural Being, not singular.

These are opposing ideas. So you can assert you believe them - but you are merely asserting contradicting beliefs; which is non-sense.

Supra.

There is folly in refusing to accept the relationship that God and Christ have presented to us with respects to themselves: Father and Son.

Where have I refused to accept that relationship between the two?

You would treat these as mere titles

Nope.

and refuse to accept the logical implications of that relationship -

I'm not a Catholic, and so I don't agree with everything they say, but I believe this should help you understand how it is that the Father's and Son's relationship works:

Scripture affirms that Jesus is both “the Son of Man” (Mt 12:8) and “the Son of God” (Mt 8:29). As we encounter God in history, through his relation with and revelation to man, we see that God acts in three distinct Persons, though he is one unique and singular whole. This is the mystery of the Trinity. As the Son of God, Jesus takes part fully in this divine and hidden life of God. But we also know that God is not given to change or alteration; he is perfect in his nature. God is as he is throughout and apart from time. He is eternally the Father, eternally the Son, and eternally the Spirit. But we also see something else in God. He is not just one God in three divine Persons. These Persons also exist in relation to one another. In attempting to express this relationship of Father to Son within God we say that the Son is “begotten” of the Father. This is the way that Scripture refers to this divine relationship (see Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18 as examples). When did this take place? Before creation, since, as John notes, the world was made through the Word [the Son]. Such an “action” on the part of God takes place outside of his Creation, outside of time itself.

I don't agree with the "outside of time" part, and "before creation" works better here."

It is not an “event” closed by time, but a way of being within God himself. That is why we say that the Son is “eternally begotten” of the Father. We have to be careful to understand this term. It is often used as synonymous with “to be born” but it really means “to cause to be.” Even though the Son is eternally existent, the Father “causes him to be.” God is the cause of his own existence. So “begotten” here is not the same as “being born.” That is why the Church, in the Nicene Creed, continues this way: “[The Son is] begotten, not made, one in being with the Father.”

If the Son is "eternally begotten" of the Father, then how can he also be born of Mary?

If the Jesus is "eternally begotten" of the Father, then how can he also be born of Mary? Click here and find out what the Catholic Church teaches.

www.catholic.com

for it contradicts your Trinitarian beliefs.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Christ's message was one of love for all, repentance, and of obeying God's will.

And again: What better way to show His love for us than to die for us?

Christ served as a perfect example of how we ought to live and devote ourselves to God and to others.

AMEN!

Through his sacrifice, the New Covenant was established by means of which all may be saved.

The New Covenant is not currently active. It was put on hold in Acts 9 due to Israel's rejection of her Messiah.

The New Covenant is strictly meant for Israel. It has nothing to do with the Body of Christ.

None of this requires that he be God,

Yes, it does. No human being could have ever done what Christ did. That's why God had to come as a man to die.

nor does scripture ever assert that he needed to be God.

Irrelevant, because it was understood that He WAS God.

Scripture never asserts that God is Triune

Not directly, no. So what?

It does, however, show that God is triune, or at the least, a plurality, from the very first verse of the Bible, no less:

Genesis 1:1, in the Hebrew, says "In the beginning Gods (plural noun) created (singular verb)..."

Why would Moses, as educated as he was, make such a grammatical error in the very first line that he wrote in the book of Genesis?

He used a plural noun with a singular verb. If you made the same mistake in grammar class, it would be marked as a mistake and you would lose points on the test. Yet Moses, who was raised alongside the current prince of Egypt, would have received an excellent education, and wouldn't have made such a mistake...

Unless it was intentional.

Moses, in the very first verse of the Bible, affirms the plurality of God, while also showing that He is one Being.

Later, Moses also writes what is known as the Shema Yisrael, which affirms this unity in the plurality, by using the word for "one" (of unity), instead of "one" (in number), which are two different words in Hebrew, the same word which is used to describe how a man and a woman become "one flesh," (Genesis 1) while being two distinct persons.

Those scriptures in no way teach the Trinity at all;

They show the necessity for Christ to be God, which is foundational to the Trinity.

you are reading what you want into them.

False.

You also misunderstand forgiveness and Christ's sacrifice.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Forgiveness is not someone else paying off your debt -

Duh.

it is the forgetting of that debt without it being paid.

False.

Who you claim is the same being.

The same Being, but a different Person.

It is obviously blasphemous

Saying it doesn't make it so.

and wrong to believe that God died.

God the Son died for man's sins.
God the Father did not.
God the Holy Spirit did not.

This is what Scripture says.

But you would have us believe that simply calling God something different makes it OK to believe.

I'm not having you call God "something different" to begin with.

God is God.

There is only one God.

He is three Persons.
He is one God.

He exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The three are one.

According to the Trinity doctrine,

Again, I don't hold to any particular "Trinity Doctrine." I hold to Scripture.

they are equally God -

Yes.

one in the same God - the same being.

Correct.

Thus, yes, it is simply a different moniker.

Incorrect.

It's who He is.

Either God died or he didn't.

God the Son died.
God the Father did not.
God the Holy Spirit did not.

Or will you assert that only part of God died now?

The Son is not a "part" of God. He IS God.

For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; - Colossians 2:9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians2:9&version=NKJV

Just as the Father is God.
Just as the Holy Spirit is God.

Thus you show your lack of faith in God and Christ.

I have done no such thing.

Sin is always a decision.

And Jesus never considered the decision to sin. Thus, He was tempted, but without being tempted.

Christ's accomplishment is that he - a fellow man - faced all those same temptations that we all face and rose above them to serve God perfectly to the end.

Something He could not do if He were not God.

The Trinity doctrine makes a mockery of this -

Saying it doesn't make it so.

for if he is God then he cannot truly be tempted and there is no chance that he could sin and fall.

I explained this before. Simply rejecting it out of hand won't make it go away.

You might as well be a Gnostic at that point, for you are teaching that Christ's perseverance and suffering were all theatrics.

No, I'm not teaching that, nor am I Gnostic.

You are simply contradicting scripture -

Yes, I, the one who has been quoting scripture after scripture from all over the Bible am contradicting scripture...

Right.......

scripture does not speak of any exception to the fact that God cannot be tempted by evil.

Supra.

You are trying to inject your own ideas into scripture to protect your doctrine

False.

rather than face up to the fact that your doctrine is in conflict with the scriptures.

Except my position is not in conflict with Scripture.

 

[7djengo7]

Paul 1. clearly distinguishes Jesus from "God the Father" and "God" in that passage,​

All you're telling us, here, is that Paul distinguishes the Son from the Father/the Father from the Son. No? Thanks, Cap't Obvious. Remember: that the Son is not the Father/the Father is not the Son is a tenet of Trinitarianism. So, what "point" are you trying to make against Trinitarianism by pointing out Paul's adherence to it?
​

and 2. subjugates the Son to the Father.​

False. Paul does not subjugate the Son to the Father.
​

You are a fool if you think one can speak of the teachings of scripture without interpretation.​

Here, you show that you do not know what interpretation is. To interpret Scripture is to state the meaning thereof. For example, since the meaning of Genesis 1 is that God created the heaven and the earth in six days, to state that Genesis 1 means that God created the heaven and the earth in six days is to interpret Genesis 1; whereas, to state that Genesis 1 means that God created the heaven and the earth in, say, billions of years, is not to interpret Genesis 1, since the proposition that God created the heaven and the earth in billions of years is not the meaning of Genesis 1, but is, rather something contrary to the meaning of Genesis 1. Similarly, since the meaning of Scripture is Trinitarianism, it is Trinitarians who interpret Scripture; since anti-Trinitarianism is not the meaning of Scripture, anti-Trinitarian heretics, such as yourself, are not interpreting Scripture. All you are doing, as an anti-Trinitarian, is speaking falsehood about Scripture, and speaking falsehood about Scripture is not interpreting Scripture.

I had asked you:​

By your word, "God," here, are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?​

You: <NO ANSWER>​

I have answered you on this point several times;​

Obviously that's false. I asked you a binary-choice question, a Yes/No question. In order to answer the question I asked you, you must needs answer either in the affirmative ("Yes, by my word, 'God,' I am referring to the Father.") or in the negative ("No, by my word, 'God,' I am not referring to the Father.") Those are your only options if you wish to answer my question. So far, you've neither answered my question in the affirmative, nor answered it in the negative, and thus, so far, you've not answered my question. You can sit there and continue to shamelessly lie all you want about your stonewalling against, and your failure to answer the question I've asked you, but what do you imagine you're going to achieve by doing that?​

you just don't like the answer.​

What answer? You gave me no answer. And, here's the thing: if you, at some point, discontinue your lying about your failure to answer my question, and decide to answer it in the affirmative, I will like it. Just the same, if you discontinue your lying about your failure to answer my question, and decide to answer it in the negative, I will like it. And, just the same, I like your present failure to have answered my question, your persistent stonewalling against answering it, and your resort to lying about your stonewalling and your failure to answer it. Indeed, I like the fact that you, an anti-Christ heretic at war against Scripture, against truth, against logic, have embarrassed your heresy by having trapped yourself in this trilemma: either 1) you answer the question in the affirmative, or 2) you answer the question in the negative, or 3) you answer the question not at all. Thus far, you've chosen to go with option #3.

You can pretend all you want to not have noticed this elementary fact (of which I have already given you notice), but the fact remains that either 1) you are referring to the Father by your word, "God," or 2) you are not referring to the Father by your word, "God."
​

One of God's names is the Father.​

By your word, "God," here, either 1) you are referring to the Father, or 2) you are not referring to the Father. So, by your word, "God," here, are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?

(Here is yet another question for you to stonewall against, and never answer, and to lie to us about by saying you have answered it.)

But, notice that, if, by your word, "God," you are referring to the Father, then this is what you are telling us, here: "One of [the Father]'s names is the Father." Well, duh. Thanks again, Cap't Obvious. And, exactly how is the fact that the Father's name is "the Father" supposed, according to your imagination, to militate against Trinitarianism?
​

Never does scripture suggest that "the Father" is only a portion of God or that God has multiple personas.​

By your word, "God," here, either 1) you are referring to the Father, or 2) you are not referring to the Father. So, by your word, "God," here, are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?

If, by your word, "God," you are referring to the Father, here, then this is what you are telling us: "Never does scripture suggest that "the Father" is only a portion of [the Father] or that [the Father] has multiple personas." It's no wonder to you, nor to anyone else reading this thread, exactly why it is you continue to refuse to answer in the affirmative the questions I've been asking you about your use of the word, "God"—why it is you refuse to answer, "Yes, by my word, 'God,' I am referring to the Father."
​

I can present you many scriptures where Jesus is distinguished from "God", like the one I did in my previous post.​

Do you just mean you can present many Scriptures where Jesus is distinguished from the Father? So what? No Trinitarian thinks Jesus is the Father; every Trinitarian knows that Jesus, the Son, is not the Father. That the Son is not the Father is a tenet of Trinitarianism.
​

Try responding to that instead of complaining because I don't answer your question in the way you want.​

In what "way" are you saying I "want" you to answer the question I asked you? Affirmatively or Negatively? Which?
​

You are committing the logical fallacy of begging the question.​

• Whatever is logical is not a fallacy; whatever is a fallacy is not logical. Your phrase, "logical fallacy," is an oxymoron.
• It's amusing that you are calling my asking you questions you refuse to answer, because for you to answer them would be for you to further embarrass your anti-Trinitarian heresy, "begging the question". I'm not aware that I am begging any question(s), of course. And note that I'm not even begging you to answer the questions I've been asking you; as I noted above, I like it just as well that you feel compelled to persistently stonewall against my questions, and that you persistently, shamelessly lie about your refusal to answer them, as I would like it were you actually to answer them.​
• ​

The Hebrew scriptures are filled with different names/titles for God.​

By your word, "God," here, are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?

Is this what you are telling us: "The Hebrew scriptures are filled with different names/titles for [the Father]"? If not, then what are you telling us?

Also, what about the Greek Scriptures? In Mark 12:29, is Jesus' phrase, "the Lord (Κύριος) our God," a name/title for the Father? Yes or No?
​

Jesus never declares himself equal to the Father. To the contrary:​

False. Here, you, being a Bible-despising, anti-Christian heretic, are contradicting the Scripture I quoted above:
​

"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18)​

Once again, without comment, you simply reassert your Christ-despising falsehood that Jesus is not equal to the Father, and then handing us your "proof" text with zero comment as to why, according to your imagination, it should be thought to prove that Jesus is not equal to the Father:
​

John 14:28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.​

By all means, feel free to try to explain to us exactly why you say that the Father's being greater than Jesus should be thought to exclude Jesus from being equal with the Father.

In further registering your hatred against God's Word, particularly against John 5:18, you write:
​

John is here describing the view of these Jews who clearly lacked understanding; he is not agreeing with them.​

Which of the following, two things is what John wrote, and which of them is what John did not write?
​

1. "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."​
2. "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because [they wrongly thought] he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."​

Correct answer: John wrote #1, and John did not write #2.

Note that you, being an anti-Christ heretic, have just told us that the fact that Jesus said that God was His Father is "the view of these Jews who clearly lacked understanding" and that John "is not agreeing with them" that Jesus said that God was His Father.

Contrary to your anti-Christ falsehood, John is here describing what Jesus did:​

• Jesus had broken the sabbath,​
• Jesus said that God was His Father,​
• Jesus made Himself equal with God.​

Or do you also agree with the other claim in this passage that Jesus broke the Sabbath - and thus sinned?​

In John 5:18, John declares that Jesus broke the sabbath, so I agree with John that Jesus broke the sabbath. John never claims that Jesus sinned, so obviously I do not agree with any claim that Jesus sinned, nor do I agree with your claim that His having broken the sabbath means He sinned.

Oh, by the way, who, according to Mark 2:28, is Lord of the sabbath?
Is the Father, Lord of the sabbath? Yes or No?
​

Time you learned to use a dictionary​

How would my consulting a dictionary help you get out from under your burden to prove that you are using your word, "being," in a rational, or even cognitively meaningful way?

"Time you learned to use a dictionary!" = "csuguy can't deal with the questions 7djengo7 asks csuguy about csuguy's use of words csuguy has chosen to say!"

I can see that it's a sore spot with you, for you to be asked (among others) questions about your use of the word, "being". Also, having observed your use of the noun, "being," thus far, I don't think you'd much like what the dictionary I use says in its entry for the noun, "being".
​

"One who exists" is a complete idea on its own​

"One who exists" is a phrase, not an idea. You've still not gotten yourself out from under your burden to prove that by that phrase you are expressing some idea. Like I said, I'm certainly under no burden to assume that you are using your phrase in a cognitively meaningful way, and not meaninglessly.
​

- it doesn't require additional qualification.​

IOW, you cannot get out from under your burden to prove that you are using your phrase, "one who exists," meaningfully, rather than meaninglessly.
​

Take some remedial English courses in addition to picking up a dictionary.​

Translation:

You claim that the Son is God and the Father is God, but the Son is not the Father.​

True, true, and true. What's the problem? You claim that the Son is man and you are man, but the Son is not you. No? You claim that the Atlantic Ocean is water and the Pacific Ocean is water, but the Atlantic Ocean is not the Pacific Ocean. No?
​

This is a clear contradiction and non-sense [sic].​

It is not clear that you've ever spent even so much as ten seconds thinking about the nature of contradiction, nor about the nature of nonsense.

(BTW, would a dictionary and/or the "remedial English courses" you recommend tell us that we should write "non-sense," as you consistently do, or would they, instead, tell us that we should write "nonsense"?)
​

Your question - as presented - begs the question and is erroneous. ​

My question, "By you word, 'God,' are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?" begs a question? What question are you accusing my question of begging? (Let me guess: my question, "What question are you accusing my question of begging?" also "begs the question and is erroneous.")

Obviously it is not erroneous for me to ask you whether or not, by your word, "God," you are referring to the Father. What is erroneous, and frankly, downright asinine, is your loud and proud refusal to answer it while continuing to lie to the contrary by telling us you've answered it. Obviously you don't really believe you've answered it, and you'd have to be out of your mind to believe and/or hope that anyone reading this thread believes you have answered it.
​

"God" refers to God;​

By your unquoted word, "God," here, are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?

Is this what you are telling us: "'God' refers to [the Father]"?
​

there is only one.​

There is only one what?​

 

[User Name]

False. Paul does not subjugate the Son to the Father.​

How do you explain John 14:28 and 1 Cor 15:28?

 

[JudgeRightly]

How do you explain John 14:28 and 1 Cor 15:28?

What do you need explaining in those verses?

 

[User Name]

What do you need explaining in those verses?

Nothing that I know of. My question is for @7djengo7. I'm a trinitarian myself, but the scripture is clear that the Son is subject to the Father:

"...the Father is greater than I." -- John 14:28 (Jesus speaking)

"For he 'has put everything under his feet.' Now when it says that 'everything' has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.." -- 1 Corinthians 15:27

"When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." -- 1 Corinthians 15:28

 

[JudgeRightly]

Nothing that I know of. My question is for @7djengo7. I'm a trinitarian myself, but the scripture is clear that the Son is subject to the Father:

"...the Father is greater than I." -- John 14:28 (Jesus speaking)

"For he 'has put everything under his feet.' Now when it says that 'everything' has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.." -- 1 Corinthians 15:27

"When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." -- 1 Corinthians 15:28

Yes. And?

 

[7djengo7]

Nothing that I know of. My question is for @7djengo7. I'm a trinitarian myself, but the scripture is clear that the Son is subject to the Father:

But did I say that the Son is not subject to the Father?

"...the Father is greater than I." -- John 14:28 (Jesus speaking)

"For he 'has put everything under his feet.' Now when it says that 'everything' has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.." -- 1 Corinthians 15:27

"When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." -- 1 Corinthians 15:28

Did I contradict something in these verses? If so, what?

(BTW, hi again, User Name! How've you been? I see you don't have Sting as your icon anymore. (Until this week, I hadn't been on TOL for maybe almost 2 years.))

 

[csuguy]

First of all, I would like to thank you for all the effort you put forth to compile your post @JudgeRightly - and in the middle of the week no less! While I do wish you would respond more to some of my points, at least you have tried to put forth a defense of the Trinity doctrine.

THREE QUESTIONS TO DETERMINE IF THE TRINITY IS BIBLICALLY TRUE OR FALSE. If any one of these questions can be answered 'no,' then the Trinity can be rejected as an unbiblical belief. But if all three can be answered 'yes,' then the concept of the Trinity can be accepted as true. 1. Does the Bible mention three distinct persons? 2. Does the Bible refer to each of these persons as God? 3. Does the Bible teach there is only one God? The answers: 1. Are three distinct persons mentioned? YES. A. The Father (1 John 3:1) B. The Son (1 John 1:3) C. The Holy Spirit (John 14:6; 14:26; 15:26; 16:13-14; Romans 15:30; Ephesians 4:30) 2. Are each of these persons referred to as God? YES. A. God the Father (1 Thessalonians 1:1) B. God the Son (John 1:1; 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9) C. God the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4) 3. Is there only one God? YES. (see Deuteronomy 4:35-39; Psalm 86:10; Isaiah 45:5; 45:22)

These three questions are insufficient to establish the Trinity doctrine. The Trinity doctrine is far more than the fact that there is one God or that in some sense three (and more!) individuals have been referred to as God. Such statements are perfectly compatible with my own beliefs - and I'm no Trinitarian. The Trinity doctrine is a specific interpretation that attempts to reconcile the fact that there is only one God along with the fact that there appear to be scriptures that call Jesus and the Holy Spirit "God." This interpretation relies heavily upon Neo-Platonism - hinging upon ideas like substance and an eternal begetting that are nowhere in scripture. It also hinges upon ideas like if something is perfect that it does not change - and thus God must have always been the Father, else he would have changed such that he can't be perfect, etc. Such concepts are simply not biblical, however, and you won't be able to support them.

With regards to the question `Does the Bible mention three distinct persons?` - it mentions far more than three people in the bible. Finding places where it speaks of different individuals does not establish that God is composed of three personages. You are welcome to look for scripture that speaks of God's metaphysical composition and number of personages - but you won't find it.

With regards to the question `Are each of these persons referred to as God` - No. "Father" is simply a name/title for God as a whole in scripture, not a distinct person within/part of God. The Holy Spirit is not called God either - though I can appreciate your attempt with Acts 5:3-4; for the sake of argument though I will grant this. You are correct that Jesus - in some sense - is called God. However, those verses do not lead one to a Trinitarian interpretation of Jesus' relationship with God. For example, you refer to this passage:

Hebrews 1:8-9 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.”

There's a big problem here for the Trinitarian: While in one breath it speaks of him as "O God" in the next it speaks of "your God." ie, the Son has a God - and it is this God who has raised him up "above your companions." Obviously the Son is not God Almighty if he has a God who is raising him up and empowering him.

More to the point, it is a fundamental mistake to assume that if one is referred to as God in scripture that they literally are God. Mind I'm not referring to false/pagan gods. Moses was referred to as God (Exodus 7:1), the angels throughout the OT who served as God's mediators are referred to as God - like the angel in the burning bush or the angel who wrestled Jacob - and more generally all those who have received the Word of God are referred to as gods (John 10:34). Given that God's agents are often spoken of as-if they themselves were God Almighty - it is completely natural that Jesus be referred to as such in the same manner. Your challenge, then, would be to argue that when Jesus is referred to as God that it means something different than when the angels or Moses or men in general are referred to as "God" and "gods."

With regards to the question `Is there one God?` - undoubtedly so. Yet this in no way leads us to a Trinitarian interpretation. There are any number of Christologies that admit this fact - including my own.

Why do you assume that they needed to teach it in the first place?

You claim that the Trinity doctrine is not only true, but a core and defining teaching of Christianity. If this were true, then early church would have taught it as such. These were people who were giving their lives to spread the gospel - yet you would suggest that they wouldn't write about their core beliefs? Come now and be honest with yourself - that's non-sense.

What if they expected the reader of what they wrote and the listener of what they spoke to already be familiar with the idea that God was triune? Consider that the Bible never explicitly proves that God exists, it's always understood that He does exist, and is the main character throughout Scripture.

The Gospels were written to records Christ's life, death and teachings that they might be preserved and shared so that others might believe. The reader's were far more likely to be familiar with Christ's death on the cross than with the complexities of the Trinity doctrine, or of Judas' betrayal, etc. So why record these details but not the complex doctrine that you claim is core to being a Christian?

And why do we find Church Fathers in the early church - like Justin Martyr - who teach things that are clearly incompatible with the Trinity doctrine? Again - if this were established, common knowledge in the early church then figures like Justin Martyr would have simply been exiled as heretics and treated like Arius is. Instead they are celebrated Church Fathers.

The evidence is clear - the Trinity was not only not established doctrine in the early church, it in fact took several hundred years for it to come about.

If it was understood that He was triune, then scripture would show, not explicitly, but subtly, that God is triune, not through outright statements, but in passing comments on other things.

You mean like it talks subtly, and not at all explicitly, about his crucifixion? You know - since all believers at the time would have been familiar with it?

For example, in Acts 5, we see Peter accusing Ananias of lying to the Holy Spirit, and then immediately saying that he was not lying to men, but to God:

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” - Acts 5:3-4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts5:3-4&version=NKJV

The Holy Spirit is a servant and representative of God. This verse is easily explained in light of the fact that the Holy Spirit is an agent of God. I point you again to Moses and the angels who were referred to as God in the OT as well. Here's a good verse in addition to those already mentioned:

Exodus 9:35 So Pharaoh’s heart was hard and he would not let the Israelites go, just as the Lord had said through Moses.

Even though it was Moses who spoke it to others, it is still considered to be the Lord who spoke. Moses is an agent of God, and thus his deeds and words are regarded as those of the Lord.

In the Old Testament, the phrase "Thus saith the Lord" is used about 420 times, which tells us that God's words are about to be spoken.

However, in the New Testament, that phrase doesn't exist, anywhere. It's instead replaced with "I say to you," the phrase which Jesus said 135 times in the Gospels.

The following chart demonstrates biblically that these two phrases, Thus saith the Lord, and I say unto you, indicate the same thing, that God is speaking. For Jesus Christ made it clear that He Himself was at the heart of His message. Unlike the righteous priests and kings, prophets and the apostles, the Lord came to teach us about Himself:

Christ's Self-focus:

• "Follow Me" 19x Mt. 4:19; 8:22; 10:38; 16:24; 19:21; Mk. 1:17; 2:14; 8:34; 10:21; Lk. 5:27; 9:59; 18:22; Jn. 1:43; 8:12; 10:27; 12:26; 13:36; 21:19, 22
• Pray and act "in My name" 18x Mt. 7:22; 18:5; 18:20; [24:5]; Mk. 9:37, 39, 41; [13:6]; Lk. 9:48; [21:8]; 24:47; Jn. 14:13-14; 15:16; 16:23-24, 26; Acts 9:15
• "the Holy Spirit" comes "in My name" Jn. 14:26
• "for My name's sake" leave family and property Mt. 19:29; or even be killed 5x Mt. 24:9; [Lk. 21:12, 17;] Jn. 15:21; Acts 9:16
• Believe in the "name of the… Son" and "in the Son" 3x Jn. 3:18, 36; 9:35 and "in Him [Jesus]" 4x Jn. 3:18; 6:29, 40; 8:31
• "believe in Me" 14x Mt. 18:6; Mk. 9:42; Jn. 3:15-16, 18; 6:35, 47; 7:38; 11:25, 26; 12:44, 46; 14:1, 12; 16:8; 17:20
• You "are sanctified by faith in Me" Acts 26:18
• Live "in Me" Jn. 11:26
• "come after Me" Mk. 8:34; Lk. 14:27
• Abide "in Me" Jn. 15:2, 4:5, 7 "abide in Me" or else Jn. 15:6 "abide in My love" Jn. 15:9-10
• "where two or three are gathered" Jesus is "there in the midst of them" Mt. 18:20
• So too: "I [Jesus, will abide] in you" Jn. 15:4-5
• "know that I am He" Jn. 8:28 or "if you do not believe that I am He you will die in your sins" Jn. 8:24
• Do things "for My sake" Mt. 10:22, 39; even lose your life "for My sake" 4x Mt. 16:25; Mk. 8:35; 10:29; Lk. 6:22
• "I never knew you, depart from Me" Mt. 7:23
• "I am willing; be cleansed" Mt. 8:3; Mk.. 1:41
• "confess Me" Mt. 10:32; Lk. 12:8
• Do not deny "Me" 7x Mt. 10:33; 26:34; Mk. 14:30, 72; Lk. 12:9; 22:34; Jn. 13:38
• Do not be "ashamed of Me" Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26 nor "My words"
• "love Me" 5x Jn. 14:15, 21, 23-24, 28
• Do not reject "Me" Lk. 10:16; Jn. 12:48
• "He who is not with Me is against Me" Lk. 11:23
• Love Me "more than" your family members Mt. 10:37; [Lk. 14:26]
• "I… have loved you" Jn. 15:9, 12
• Be "worthy of Me" Mt. 10:37-38
• "Come to Me" 5x Mt. 11:28; Lk. 6:47; Jn. 5:40; 6:35; 7:37
• "I will give you rest" Mt. 11:28
• "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light" Mt. 11:30
• I am "greater than the temple" "than Jonah" "than Solomon" Mt. 12:6, 41-42
• I am "Lord even of the Sabbath" Mt. 12:8; Mk. 2:28; Lk. 6:5 [Lord of God's Ten Commandments]
• Thus He says keep "My commandments" 4x Jn. 14:15, 21; 15:10, 12
• "You are My friends if you do whatever I command you" Jn. 15:14
• "keep My word" Jn. 14:23-24
• "He who is not with Me is against Me" Mt. 12:30
• The angels are "His angels" Mt. 13:41; 16:27 and He commands "His angels" Mt. 24:31; Mk. 13:27
• The kingdom is "His kingdom" Mt. 13:41 and He calls it "My kingdom" Lk. 22:30
• Jesus called it "My church" Mt. 16:18 and believers are "My sheep" Jn. 10:14, 27 and they are "His elect" Mt. 24:31; Mk. 13:27
• Paul is a "vessel of Mine to bear My name" Acts 9:15
• "all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine" Jn. 17:10
• "My peace I give" Jn. 14:27 "in Me you may have peace" Jn. 16:33
• "My joy" should fill you Jn. 15:11
• "Who do men say that I am?" Mt. 16:13; Mk. 8:27 "who do you say that I am?" Mt. 16:15
• Receive "Me" Mt. 18:5; Mk. 9:37; Lk. 9:48
• Heaven and earth will pass away but "My words" will never Mt. [5:18] 24:35; Mk. 13:31; Lk. 21:33
• Tell others about Jesus Mk. 5:19
• "you belong to Christ" Mk. 9:41
• Hear "My sayings" and do them Lk. 6:47
• Jesus has "His own glory" Lk. 9:26; [Jn. 2:11; 16:14] The Son is
• "glorified" 8x Jn. 11:4; 12:23; 13:31-32; [17:1, 5, 10 24]
• "He who hears you hears Me" Lk. 10:16
• Jesus expects praise, from stones if necessary Lk. 19:37-40
• Return "to Me" Lk. 22:32
• Be "My disciple" Lk. 14:27; Jn. 8:31; 15:8 Forsake all to "be My disciple" Lk. 14:33 "you are My disciples" Jn. 13:35
• "I shall send… the [Holy] Spirit" Jn. 15:26; 16:7
• The Holy Spirit "will testify of Me" Jn. 15:26
• We read in John 5 and Luke 24 that "the Scriptures… testify of Me" Jn. 5:39; [Lk. 24:44]
• "You [Apostles] also will bear witness [of Me] because you have been with Me" Jn. 15:27
• Paul gives "testimony concerning Me" Acts 22:18; 23:11
• "the Son gives life to whom He will" Jn. 5:21
• "seek Me" Jn. 6:26
• Serve "Me" Jn. 12:26
• "all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father" Jn. 5:23
• "I am the bread of life," "of heaven," "of God" Jn. 6: 32-33, 35, 41, [48,] 51
• Just seeing Christ is reason enough to believe in Him Jn. 6:36 [56]
• Drink "My blood" and eat "My flesh" Jn. 6:53-54, 56
• "I will raise him up at the last day" Jn. 6:40 for He is the resurrection
• "The world… hates Me" Jn. 7:7
• "I am the light of the world" Jn. 8:12; 9:5; 12:46
• "I bear witness of Myself" Jn. 8:13-14, 18
• "know… Jesus Christ" for "eternal life" Jn. 17:3; [8:19; 10:10, 14]
• "the Son makes you free" Jn. 8:36
• "Abraham rejoiced to see My day" Jn. 8:56; "Before Abraham was, I AM" Jn. 8:58
• Of believers, Christ said, "I know them" Jn. 10:27
• "I give them eternal life" Jn. 10:28
• "I am the resurrection and the life" Jn. 11:25
• I "will draw all peoples to Myself" Jn. 12:32
• "I will… receive you to Myself" Jn. 14:3
• Be "Mine" Jn. 14:24
• "I am the vine" Jn. 15:5
• "without Me you can do nothing" Jn. 15:5
• "Because I live, you will live also." Jn. 14:19
• "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you" Jn. 15:16
• Those who oppress Christians are "persecuting Me" Acts 9:4-5; 22:7-8; 26:14-15
• "because they have not known… Me" Jn. 16:3
• The Spirit "will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it" Jn. 16:14
• "All things that the Father has are Mine" Jn. 16:15
• "Whatever He [the Father] does, the Son does" Jn. 5:19
• "the Father… loves you, because you have loved Me" Jn. 16:27
• "If I will that he remain" Jn. 21:22
• "I have overcome the world" Jn. 16:33
• "I am the way" Jn. 14:6
• "I am… the truth" Jn. 14:6
• "I am… the life" Jn. 14:6
• "I will… manifest Myself" Jn. 14:21

If Jesus wasn't God, EVERY SINGLE ONE of those statements would have been blasphemous.

A bold and false conclusion. Not a single one of those verses requires that he be God. I invite you to pick out a verse or two from your list and extrapolate on why you think it is the case that it would be blasphemous were he not God Almighty himself vs "simply" his Son and the Messiah sent to us by God as scripture teaches.

This is not one of them.

It most certainly is - it's the exact same type of scenario that the wiki even uses as an example of a valid/convincing use case of the argument. Rather - what is ridiculous and not at all tenible is your position that no one bothered to write about the Trinity because it was common knowledge. Yet they wrote about Christ's death and resurrection, his teachings, and all manner of other events and prophecies all to preserve them and to teach others to believe. But - you claim - they forgot the most important bit.

Why do you assume there is only one "core belief" of Christianity?

I never asserted there was only one core belief - yet that doesn't stop you and others from treating the Trinity as the core/defining belief of Christianity. Even if you admitted that there were other core beliefs, it would not change the foolishness of elevating this particular doctrine to such a level of importance - as if it was as important as the salvific work of Christ.

This is a classic case of missing the forest for the trees. You're so focused on "the Bible doesn't explicitly state that God is triune" that you're missing the rest of the verses that indicate, as a whole, that God is triune.

There are no verses that indicate God is triune, though you may try your hardest to read what you want into the scriptures.

This is an appeal to authority.

Tertullian does not trump Scripture.

It's not an appeal to authority - it's an appeal to history. It's about understanding that the church didn't always teach the Trinity; the Early Church Fathers held many Christologies which would only be labeled heresy later.

Jesus asked His Father, God:

And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. - John 17:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John17:5&version=NKJV

If Jesus was not God, this is blasphemy, for Isaiah wrote the words of God:

I am the Lord, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images. - Isaiah 42:8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah42:8&version=NKJV

John 17:5 in no way requires that Jesus be God Almighty himself; it's not blasphemy if he's not God. Isaiah is about false gods and craven images - not about God's elected representatives who are often addressed as if God himself throughout scripture. Again: see Moses and the angels in the OT.

Nope. Non-sequitur. The Son of God is God, in the same way that the son of a man is still a man.

God is WHAT Christ is.
God is WHAT the Father is.
God is WHAT the Holy Spirit.

The Son is WHO Christ is.
The Father is WHO the Father is.
The Holy Spirit is WHO the Holy Spirit is.

Three "WHO"s.
One "WHAT".

God is not a "What" - God is a who. He is the creator and father of all, and there is only one. If there is any blasphemy here - it is most certainly this: calling God a thing.

Again, you're confusing "WHAT" the Father and Son are with "WHO" the Father and Son are.

It is very much you who are confused. Show me a single scripture that relegates God to a "WHAT" rather than to a "WHO" - because scripture always treats God as a "WHO"

God, however, is a plural Being, not singular.

Scripture teaches no such thing. It does, however, teach the opposite:

> Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

Where have I refused to accept that relationship between the two?

Pretty much everything you write rejects their relationship. Now we can add to that your folly that you think Christ is the Son of a "WHAT"

The New Covenant is not currently active. It was put on hold in Acts 9 due to Israel's rejection of her Messiah.

The New Covenant is strictly meant for Israel. It has nothing to do with the Body of Christ.

This topic needs its own thread - but suffice to say that you are wrong. The New Covenant is for all and is alive and well.

Yes, it does. No human being could have ever done what Christ did. That's why God had to come as a man to die.

You continue in your mockery of Christ's life and sacrifice - denying him free will or even the accomplishment of overcoming any temptations whatsoever.

Not directly, no. So what?

I'm fine with scripture presenting sufficient evidence that we can reasonably conclude it as well. But you don't have indirect evidence of it either. All you have is your desire to find it somewhere. Your problem is that you have decided what scripture teaches before bothering to read it. Naturally - you are wrong about many things as a result.

It does, however, show that God is triune, or at the least, a plurality, from the very first verse of the Bible, no less:

Genesis 1:1, in the Hebrew, says "In the beginning Gods (plural noun) created (singular verb)..."

While an interesting verse, it by no means establishes the Trinity doctrine. There are any number of possible interpretations that have been put forth, all of them speculative at best.

Why would Moses, as educated as he was, make such a grammatical error in the very first line that he wrote in the book of Genesis?

It's cute that you think it was actually Moses who wrote the Pentateuch. I suppose you think he wrote this too?

Numbers 12:3 Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.

Later, Moses also writes what is known as the Shema Yisrael, which affirms this unity in the plurality, by using the word for "one" (of unity), instead of "one" (in number), which are two different words in Hebrew, the same word which is used to describe how a man and a woman become "one flesh," (Genesis 1) while being two distinct persons.

So now you are arguing that there are multiple gods that are merely one in unity vs number?

They show the necessity for Christ to be God, which is foundational to the Trinity.

You haven't presented any scripture that requires that Christ be God.

God the Son died for man's sins.
God the Father did not.
God the Holy Spirit did not.

This is what Scripture says.

1. There is no "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit" in scripture

2. If God the Father did not die, then God did not die - and thus your whole argument about how God had to die falls on its face.

Again, I don't hold to any particular "Trinity Doctrine." I hold to Scripture.

You don't hold to scripture - you only look for how scripture can support what you want it to say. Else you wouldn't be calling God a "WHAT"

The Son is not a "part" of God. He IS God.

If he is God, and he died, then God died. If the Father is God, and God died, then the Father died as well. Unless you claim that he is a distinct God - in which case you are talking polytheism.

And Jesus never considered the decision to sin. Thus, He was tempted, but without being tempted.

If he cannot be tempted then his ordeals were nothing but theatrics. Your view is basically that of the Gnostics - except that you don't have a justification for why Jesus had to put on act.

 

[csuguy]

My question, "By you word, 'God,' are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?" begs a question? What question are you accusing my question of begging? (Let me guess: my question, "What question are you accusing my question of begging?" also "begs the question and is erroneous.")​

You are begging the question by assuming that there is more than one person to which "God" refers - and specifically the personages of the Trinity - and refusing to hear out any answer that is not in agreement with your beliefs. It's not biblical, and is in fact the very point of debate. I've addressed this many times. As they say, however, you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink.


What you are doing is equivalent to person A asking person B: "Why did you murder the old lady?"

Person B says he didn't, provides an alibi, and is able to procure witnesses for his alibi.

Person A continues: "You haven't answered my question - why did you murder the old lady?"


Continuing such a discussion has no merit - you aren't interested in truth, and may very well be incapable of rationale discourse.

I'll leave you with this: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Begging-the-Question

 

[JudgeRightly]

These three questions are insufficient to establish the Trinity doctrine.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

The Trinity doctrine is far more than the fact that there is one God or that in some sense three (and more!) individuals have been referred to as God.

Which is somewhat of part of the reason I don't hold to any particular "doctrine," I just recognize that there is one God and He is three Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

Such statements are perfectly compatible with my own beliefs - and I'm no Trinitarian. The Trinity doctrine is a specific interpretation that attempts to reconcile the fact that there is only one God along with the fact that there appear to be scriptures that call Jesus and the Holy Spirit "God."

Here's the problem:

You're attacking some doctrine that I do not hold to, rather than what I believe, which is that God is triune.

Could you focus more on what I believe, rather than what some doctrine says, in this discussion?

This interpretation relies heavily upon Neo-Platonism -

Which I reject.

hinging upon ideas like substance

Which I don't particularly have any feelings for, one way or the other.

and an eternal begetting

Look, I thought I made it clear that I don't agree with everything the catholics say. I just thought it might help you understand my position.

that are nowhere in scripture.

I agree that "eternally begotten" is not in scripture.

Yet we have Jesus Himself saying that He was with God the Father before the world began, and that He created all things. That means He's not a created being, and has existed since before the creation began.

Not even the angels existed prior to day 2.

It also hinges upon ideas like if something is perfect that it does not change -

Which I disagree with. A perfect acorn changes immensely, and even Jesus Himself, who was perfect, changed from the moment He entered creation as a baby in Mary's womb, up until He was crucified. And beyond that, even.

and thus God must have always been the Father, else he would have changed such that he can't be perfect, etc.

God the Father has always been God the Father, but not because He does not change.

Such concepts are simply not biblical, however, and you won't be able to support them.

You're beating up a straw man.

With regards to the question `Does the Bible mention three distinct persons?` - it mentions far more than three people in the bible.

Obviously, we're not talking about people. We're talking about the idea that God is three "Persons." (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) Please address THAT, and not this straw man you keep wanting to beat up.

You are welcome to look for scripture that speaks of God's metaphysical composition and number of personages - but you won't find it.

I gave you a few verses already that do just that.

With regards to the question `Are each of these persons referred to as God` - No.

Then you have to show why.

"Father" is simply a name/title for God as a whole in scripture, not a distinct person within/part of God.

Not quite.

The First Person of the Trinity is called "The Father."
The Second Person of the Trinity is called "The Son."
The Third Person of the Trinity is called "The Holy Spirit."

These three Persons ARE in fact found in Scripture, and referred to as God.

Moses, whom you give as an example below, is called god, and even the Israelites were called gods (iirc), but the context clearly indicates that they are not, in fact, God, or gods for that matter.

However, the Father is God, based on context, and the Son is God, based on context, and the Holy Spirit is God, based on context.

The Holy Spirit is not called God either

Saying it doesn't make it so.

- though I can appreciate your attempt with Acts 5:3-4; for the sake of argument though I will grant this.

So you acknowledge that the Holy Spirit is God?

You are correct that Jesus - in some sense - is called God.

Either He is or He is not God. There's no in between, csu.

However, those verses do not lead one to a Trinitarian interpretation of Jesus' relationship with God. For example, you refer to this passage:

Hebrews 1:8-9 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.”

There's a big problem here for the Trinitarian: While in one breath it speaks of him as "O God" in the next it speaks of "your God." ie, the Son has a God - and it is this God who has raised him up "above your companions."

Yes, the Son's God is the Father, because the Father is, positionally, above the Son.

Obviously the Son is not God Almighty if he has a God who is raising him up and empowering him.

This begs the question that God is not triune.

If God IS triune, then what I said above stands.

More to the point, it is a fundamental mistake to assume that if one is referred to as God in scripture that they literally are God.

This is where both capitalization in English and context come into play. I addressed this above.

Mind I'm not referring to false/pagan gods. Moses was referred to as God (Exodus 7:1),

Again, context is important, especially within the same sentence.

What God said was that He made Moses as God to Pharaoh, and He made Aaron Moses' prophet.

God isn't saying "I have literally made you into God." No.

He's saying that it's like Moses is God, to Pharaoh, and that Aaron is his prophet.

So the Lord said to Moses: “See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet. - Exodus 7:1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus7:1&version=NKJV

Clearly, Moses wasn't God, nor was He ever made to be God. It's called a metaphor. Moses wasn't literally God.

Christ, on the other hand, IS literally God.

the angels throughout the OT who served as God's mediators are referred to as God -

No. They aren't.

like the angel in the burning bush

That was God Himself, not an angel.

or the angel who wrestled Jacob -

No, again, that was God Himself, specifically, God the Son, appearing in what is known as a "Theophany," or "Christophany."

and more generally all those who have received the Word of God are referred to as gods (John 10:34).

But not "God" capital G.

Given that God's agents are often spoken of as-if they themselves were God Almighty - it is completely natural that Jesus be referred to as such in the same manner.

Except that they aren't.

Thus, Jesus being referred to as God would be blasphemy if he was not actually God.

Your challenge, then, would be to argue that when Jesus is referred to as God that it means something different than when the angels or Moses or men in general are referred to as "God" and "gods."

Supra.

With regards to the question `Is there one God?` - undoubtedly so. Yet this in no way leads us to a Trinitarian interpretation. There are any number of Christologies that admit this fact - including my own.

Trinitarians are monotheistic. Please keep that in mind.

You claim that the Trinity doctrine is not only true,

As I've said repeatedly, I don't hold to any particular "Trinity doctrine."

but a core and defining teaching of Christianity.

This is true.

If this were true, then early church would have taught it as such.

Why do you assume they didn't?

AND

Why do you assume that it had to be explicitly taught?

These were people who were giving their lives to spread the gospel - yet you would suggest that they wouldn't write about their core beliefs?

Why do you assert that they did not?

Come now and be honest with yourself - that's non-sense.

Appeal to the stone.

The Gospels were written to records Christ's life, death and teachings that they might be preserved and shared so that others might believe.

Not quite.

The Gospels were written as Testimony of Christ's life, death, and resurrection, and His teachings, to preserve and share them, but there's more to it than that.

They were written as a record of History, and as a testimony against Israel who rejected her Messiah, even crucifying Him.

They are only PART of the full story of the Bible, located just prior to the plot twist of the story.

The reader's were far more likely to be familiar with Christ's death on the cross than with the complexities of the Trinity doctrine, or of Judas' betrayal, etc. So why record these details but not the complex doctrine that you claim is core to being a Christian?

It is recorded, just not as explicitly.

And why do we find Church Fathers in the early church - like Justin Martyr - who teach things that are clearly incompatible with the Trinity doctrine?

This is why going beyond Scripture for doctrine is problematic. The "Church Fathers in the early church" you refer to are not, repeat, NOT authoritative when it comes to biblical doctrine. They were NOT inspired by God directly to write what they wrote, and so their writings are NOT to be taken as authoritative over the what the Bible says. Yes, they sometimes say things that agree with the Bible, but they also say things that do not align with it.

Their input is useful, to be sure, but not to be taken as absolute.

Again - if this were established, common knowledge in the early church then figures like Justin Martyr would have simply been exiled as heretics and treated like Arius is. Instead they are celebrated Church Fathers.

God being triune isn't true or false based on whether it was taught by the early church.

The evidence is clear - the Trinity was not only not established doctrine in the early church, it in fact took several hundred years for it to come about.

So what?

You mean like it talks subtly, and not at all explicitly, about his crucifixion?

Correct.

You know - since all believers at the time would have been familiar with it?

Irrelevant.

The Holy Spirit is a servant and representative of God.

False. He is God Himself.

Here's a good verse in addition to those already mentioned:

Exodus 9:35 So Pharaoh’s heart was hard and he would not let the Israelites go, just as the Lord had said through Moses.

Even though it was Moses who spoke it to others, it is still considered to be the Lord's words. Moses is an agent of God, and thus his deeds and words are regarded as those of the Lord.

The difference is that Moses was not God.

The verse I provided earlier states, almost explicitly, that the Holy Spirit is God:

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” - Acts 5:3-4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts5:3-4&version=NKJV

If that isn't clear enough, here is what is said:

"Why have you lied to the Holy Spirit, to God?"

Peter was equating the Holy Spirit to God.

A bold and false conclusion.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Not a single one of those verses requires that he be God.

False.

Find me one person in the Bible who was righteous in the eyes of God, aside from Christ, who said any of those things in the same way Christ meant them.

You can't, because no one could be considered righteous if he said "follow me," "pray and act in my name," "believe in me," that you are "sanctified by faith in me," etc.

I invite you to pick out a verse or two from your list and extrapolate on why you think it is the case that it would be blasphemous were he not God Almighty himself vs "simply" his Son and the Messiah sent to us by God as scripture teaches.

There you go, back to examining the trees, and ignoring the forest.

Did you even bother reading what it was that I quoted Christ as saying? Forget the verses they're in for a moment, can you honestly say that a righteous man could demand someone to love him "more than" someone's family members if it wasn't God? Can you honestly say that a righteous man could claim to be "greater than the temple," "than Jonah," "than Solomon"? How about "Keep my commandments," which is both claiming God's commandments as one's own, and demanding that a person keep them? How about accepting worship? Not even the perfect angels accepted people worshipping them, pointing the one worshipping to God, yet Jesus accepted it when people worshipped Him.

The ball is in your court on this one.

Rather - what is ridiculous and not at all tenable is your position that no one bothered to write about the Trinity because it was common knowledge.

Appeal to the stone.

Yet they wrote about Christ's death and resurrection, his teachings, and all manner of other events and prophecies all to preserve them and to teach others to believe. But - you claim - they forgot the most important bit.

You're forgetting that such things do not need to be explicit.

I never asserted there was only one core belief

You kept using "the" rather than "a."

There are no verses that indicate God is triune,

Denying the verses I gave you doesn't mean there aren't any.

though you may try your hardest to read what you want into the scriptures.

No one here has yet read anything into the scriptures (eisegesis).

It's not an appeal to authority - it's an appeal to history.

Actually, I was wrong. It's an appeal to tradition.

Just because the early church did or did not teach something has no bearing or relevance on whether such teaching was correct.

It's about understanding that the church didn't always teach the Trinity; the Early Church Fathers held many Christologies which would only be labeled heresy later.

Which, as I said above, is irrelevant, because it's an appeal to tradition.

John 17:5 in no way requires that Jesus be God Almighty himself; it's not blasphemy if he's not God.

Missing the point, which is that Jesus was present with God the Father prior to creation.

Isaiah is about false gods and craven images -

According to you, Trinitarians make Jesus (and the HS) into a false God, no?

If Jesus is not God, and we assert He is, then we are making Him into a false God, thus, the verse applies.

However, if Jesus IS God, and since God does not share His glory with any others, then the verse still applies, because Jesus isn't some other God that He is sharing glory with.

not about God's elected representatives who are often addressed as if God himself throughout scripture. Again: see Moses and the angels in the OT.

Supra.

God is not a "What" - God is a who.

I didn't say "God is a 'What'."

I said God is WHAT the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is.

The three Persons are God. It is WHAT they are.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are WHO they are. He is God (WHAT).

He is the creator

*Creator

AMEN!

and father of all,

Jesus is not the father of anyone.

and there is only one.

One what? God? AMEN!
One Person in the Godhead? WRONG.

If there is any blasphemy here - it is most certainly this: calling God a thing.

Straw man. I never called God a thing.

It is very much you who are confused. Show me a single scripture that relegates God to a "WHAT" rather than to a "WHO" - because scripture always treats God as a "WHO."

God is the creator. That's what He is. No?

Scripture teaches no such thing. It does, however, teach the opposite:

> Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

Yes, the Lord is one (of unity, not of singularity.)

Just as man becomes one with his wife, united in their flesh.

Just as the crowd spoke with one voice "Crucify Him, crucify Him!" and "We want Barabbas!"

Pretty much everything you write rejects their relationship. Now we can add to that your folly that you think Christ is the Son of a "WHAT"

Saying it doesn't make it so.

This topic needs its own thread -

Start one, if you like. I'm game!

but suffice to say that you are wrong. The New Covenant is for all and is alive and well.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

You continue in your mockery of Christ's life and sacrifice -

In what way am I mocking Christ's life and sacrifice?

Bald-faced assertions like this demand evidence.

denying him free will or even the accomplishment of overcoming any temptations whatsoever.

In what way does my position deny Him free will or the accomplishment of overcoming temptations?

I'm fine with scripture presenting sufficient evidence that we can reasonably conclude it as well.

I just gave you sufficient evidence.

Here's some more (and where I got the above chart from):

Deity of Christ Bible Verses: A Different Approach | KGOV.com

kgov.com

But you don't have indirect evidence of it either. All you have is your desire to find it somewhere. Your problem is that you have decided what scripture teaches before bothering to read it. Naturally - you are wrong about many things as a result.

Right back atcha!

While an interesting verse, it by no means establishes the Trinity doctrine.

Again, Missing the forest for the trees.

You're too focused on details.

Get the big picture, please.

There are any number of possible interpretations that have been put forth, all of them speculative at best.

Yet you didn't put forth any.

It's cute that you think it was actually Moses who wrote the Pentateuch.

I recommend reading Umberto Cassuto's The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch: Eight Lectures which shows how Moses did, in fact, write the Pentateuch.

I suppose you think he wrote this too?

Numbers 12:3 Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.

Yes. Problem?

So now you are arguing that there are multiple gods that are merely one in unity vs number?

Nope. This is why you don't "get it."

There are three PERSONS, not three Gods. The three PERSONS are ONE God.

He is Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

You haven't presented any scripture that requires that Christ be God.

False.

1. There is no "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit" in scripture

The phrases aren't, but that doesn't mean that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit aren't in Scripture.

2. If God the Father did not die, then God did not die -

Stolen concept fallacy.

and thus your whole argument about how God had to die falls on its face.

It seems like part of the problem you have is your definition of what it means to die.

Christ (God the Son) died physically when He gave up His spirit. (John 19:30)
He died Spiritually when He was separated from His Father in Heaven ("My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"), becoming sin for us and nailing the law to the cross

You don't hold to scripture -

Yes, I do.

you only look for how scripture can support what you want it to say.

False.

Else you wouldn't be calling God a "WHAT"

I didn't.

If he is God, and he died, then God died.

Supra.

If the Father is God, and God died, then the Father died as well.

No.

Only God the Son died.

Unless you claim that he is a distinct God -

I do not.

in which case you are talking polytheism.

I can assure you, I am a monotheist.

If he cannot be tempted then his ordeals were nothing but theatrics.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Your view is basically that of the Gnostics -

Saying it doesn't make it so.

except that you don't have a justification for why Jesus had to put on act.

He wasn't putting on an act. He really was tempted.

 

[csuguy]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I don't merely say so - its a fact that I have elucidated in some detail already.

Which is somewhat of part of the reason I don't hold to any particular "doctrine," I just recognize that there is one God and He is three Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

This is some progress then - you admit that you can't defend the Trinity from scripture. However you insist upon this idea that God is divided into three personages - which you can't establish from scripture either.

Here's the problem:

You're attacking some doctrine that I do not hold to, rather than what I believe, which is that God is triune.

Could you focus more on what I believe, rather than what some doctrine says, in this discussion?

You are moving the goal because you recognize you can't defend the position you took just a post earlier. But changing your position from arguing that the Trinity is biblical to this idea that God is Triune won't help - both are equally unsupported by scripture.

Which I reject.

Which I don't particularly have any feelings for, one way or the other.

Look, I thought I made it clear that I don't agree with everything the catholics say. I just thought it might help you understand my position.

If you reject the Trinity doctrine and recognize that its indefensible, then that is fantastic! Great progress has been made. However, it also undermines your position that it's been the position of the church since the beginning; for you are admitting that by the fourth century the Catholic Church was formulating false Christology. I can't reasonably be sure what you mean by "Trinity" if you use and defend the term, claiming it's a core belief of Christianity since the beginning, and yet you can't point to anything historically that describes what you think is meant by the term.

I agree that "eternally begotten" is not in scripture.

Yet we have Jesus Himself saying that He was with God the Father before the world began, and that He created all things. That means He's not a created being, and has existed since before the creation began.

Not even the angels existed prior to day 2.

"Eternally begotten" is more than simply not being created - it's the idea that Jesus is constantly in a state of being begotten, the Father constantly in a state of begetting the son. Since God is perfect and since - they say - God cannot change, then he could never have not been the Father. Nor could he have at one point begot the Son and the next not be begetting him - for that would mean that God changed in some sense, and thus challenge his perfection. A really dumb argument - but that's the Trinity for you.

As for for John 1, that can be interpreted a number of different ways. For example, one classic approach that Church Fathers have used is to assert that the Word = Wisdom in the Proverbs...

Proverbs 8:22-31 The Lord created me at the beginning of his work,[a] the first of his acts of old. 23 Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. 24 When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth; 26 before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust[c] of the world. 27 When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, 28 when he made firm the skies above, when he established[d] the fountains of the deep, 29 when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, 30 then I was beside him, like a master workman;[e] and I was daily his[f] delight, rejoicing before him always, 31 rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the sons of men.

It's not hard to see the parallels between what is said of the Word in John and of the Wisdom is Proverbs. An important point here is that Wisdom is said to have been the very first of God's works - before all else, and the foundation through which all else was made.

Personally, I'm inclined to view both the Wisdom of Proverbs and the Word in John as being more poetic than literal. "The word became flesh" = the manifestation of God's Wisdom, his plan for creation since the beginning, in the birth of the man Jesus Christ.

God the Father has always been God the Father, but not because He does not change.

Ok - on what basis then do you claim that God has always been the Father? If there never was a time when the Son was not - then he can't very well have originated from God.

Obviously, we're not talking about people. We're talking about the idea that God is three "Persons." (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) Please address THAT, and not this straw man you keep wanting to beat up.

Use your own words to define what you mean by God being three persons - because right now you are just throwing out a term belonging to a doctrine that you now claim to not hold. And then back-up your definition with scripture.

The First Person of the Trinity is called "The Father."
The Second Person of the Trinity is called "The Son."
The Third Person of the Trinity is called "The Holy Spirit."

These three Persons ARE in fact found in Scripture, and referred to as God.

Many more individuals than those three are called God in scripture. Why isn't "Moses" to be counted among them? It's not sufficient to find individual's in scripture that have in one sense or another been addressed as God.

Moses, whom you give as an example below, is called god, and even the Israelites were called gods (iirc), but the context clearly indicates that they are not, in fact, God, or gods for that matter.

However, the Father is God, based on context, and the Son is God, based on context, and the Holy Spirit is God, based on context.

You will have to demonstrate this supposed context that demonstrates that when the Son is called God or the HS is called God that it means that literally as opposed to the precedent established in scripture as seen with Moses and the angels. Merely insisting upon it doesn't make your case.

Either He is or He is not God. There's no in between, csu.

John 10:34-35 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken),

Since scriptures call those to whom the word of God came gods - and there is only one God - where do they fit into your Triune God? As you said - they either are or aren't God, there's no in between - and as Jesus said, scripture cannot be broken.

Yes, the Son's God is the Father, because the Father is, positionally, above the Son.

1. Good for you for recognizing that the two aren't equal and further rejecting the Trinity doctrine in favor of scripture.
2. If the Son has a God above him, then he cannot be God Almighty.

This begs the question that God is not triune.

If God IS triune, then what I said above stands.

It does not beg the question - if they are not equals then you have division and hierarchy among those individuals you claim to be one God. This is a contradiction - what you are really describing is polytheism.

This is where both capitalization in English and context come into play. I addressed this above.

That's not a valid argument - there is no capitalization in the underlying Hebrew and Greek

Again, context is important, especially within the same sentence.

What God said was that He made Moses as God to Pharaoh, and He made Aaron Moses' prophet.

God isn't saying "I have literally made you into God." No.

He's saying that it's like Moses is God, to Pharaoh, and that Aaron is his prophet.

So the Lord said to Moses: “See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet. - Exodus 7:1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus7:1&version=NKJV

Clearly, Moses wasn't God, nor was He ever made to be God. It's called a metaphor. Moses wasn't literally God.

Christ, on the other hand, IS literally God.

First of all, there is no "as" in the Hebrew. It literally renders: I have made you God to Pharaoh (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/7-1.htm). I do agree that he wasn't being literal, of course. The point is that between Moses and the angels, there is plenty of biblical precedent in the OT for addressing agent's of God as if they were God. That means not only do you need to find scriptures that call Jesus God, but you need to demonstrate how these verses are applying the term literally vs symbolically.

That was God Himself, not an angel.

Read closer:

Exodus 3:1-2 Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.

No, again, that was God Himself, specifically, God the Son, appearing in what is known as a "Theophany," or "Christophany."

False, Christ was never an angel. Hebrews chapter 1 is very explicit on this point.

Hebrews 1:5-8 For to what angel did God ever say, “Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? 6 And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” 7 Of the angels he says, “Who makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire.” 8 But of the Son he says, “Thy throne, O God,[a] is for ever and ever,...

But not "God" capital G.

A capital "G" has no significance; there's no capital letter in the underlying Greek & Hebrew scriptures. That's just the translators following convention.

Except that they aren't.

Thus, Jesus being referred to as God would be blasphemy if he was not actually God.

They are and I've provided numerous examples

Trinitarians are monotheistic. Please keep that in mind.

Insisting you are monotheistic while also declaring that there are multiple, distinct entities with a hierarchy that are each God Almighty is just contradictory gibberish. You can't expect to be taken seriously when you are constantly contradicting yourself.

As I've said repeatedly, I don't hold to any particular "Trinity doctrine."

First it's "Trinitarians are monotheistic. Please keep that in mind." Then it's "I don't hold to any particular Trinity doctrine." Make up your mind.

Why do you assume they didn't?

AND

Why do you assume that it had to be explicitly taught?

Why do you assert that they did not?

See my last post so I don't have to keep repeating myself.

Appeal to the stone.

Incorrect - I didn't simply state your position was absurd without reason. Go back and re-read what was said and try again.

It is recorded, just not as explicitly.

If it's not explicit then it isn't recorded. You can try to extrapolate it - but you appear to have given up any attempt to defend the Trinity (or w/e you claim to believe now) via scripture.

This is why going beyond Scripture for doctrine is problematic. The "Church Fathers in the early church" you refer to are not, repeat, NOT authoritative when it comes to biblical doctrine. They were NOT inspired by God directly to write what they wrote, and so their writings are NOT to be taken as authoritative over the what the Bible says. Yes, they sometimes say things that agree with the Bible, but they also say things that do not align with it.

Their input is useful, to be sure, but not to be taken as absolute.

I never suggested that we should just believe whatever theology is put forth by the Church Fathers. Once again - I'm referring to them as historical witnesses of what the early church actually taught and believed. This isn't difficult to understand.

God being triune isn't true or false based on whether it was taught by the early church.

Apparently your position is that God is triune because YOU say so, and without any other justification.

The difference is that Moses was not God.

Neither is Jesus. There are numerous scriptures which differentiate Jesus from God and none which insist that when Jesus is called God that it is meant literally as opposed to how it is applied to God's other agents.

The verse I provided earlier states, almost explicitly, that the Holy Spirit is God:

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” - Acts 5:3-4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts5:3-4&version=NKJV

If that isn't clear enough, here is what is said:

"Why have you lied to the Holy Spirit, to God?"

Peter was equating the Holy Spirit to God.

"Almost explicitly" lmao! Aka it doesn't - you are interpreting it that way without justification because that's what you want it to say. You haven't demonstrated from the context why we should interpret it any differently from when Moses or the angels and their words and deeds are referred to as if being God's. Unless you can demonstrate from scripture that this usage of the word "God" is distinct from how it has been applied throughout the OT to those who aren't themselves God Almighty, then biblical precedence is obviously the more objective interpretation.

Find me one person in the Bible who was righteous in the eyes of God, aside from Christ, who said any of those things in the same way Christ meant them.

You can't, because no one could be considered righteous if he said "follow me," "pray and act in my name," "believe in me," that you are "sanctified by faith in me," etc.

No one denies that Jesus was unique - that does not establish that he was God. Least of all because he didn't claim to be God - but his Son. Believe what he says about himself rather than trying to redefine what "Son" means to suite your theology. Christ gave himself over to God completely, and chose to sacrifice himself for man of his own freewill - thus he was rewarded with being made King over the rest of creation (but not over God).

Did you even bother reading what it was that I quoted Christ as saying? Forget the verses they're in for a moment, can you honestly say that a righteous man could demand someone to love him "more than" someone's family members if it wasn't God? Can you honestly say that a righteous man could claim to be "greater than the temple," "than Jonah," "than Solomon"? How about "Keep my commandments," which is both claiming God's commandments as one's own, and demanding that a person keep them? How about accepting worship? Not even the perfect angels accepted people worshipping them, pointing the one worshipping to God, yet Jesus accepted it when people worshipped Him.

The ball is in your court on this one.

None of your examples make the argument that Christ had to be God. Your disbelief is not an argument.

As for worship, there is no prohibition against worship. Moses worshiped his father-in-law Jethro (Exodus 18:7); note that the same word in Hebrew translated as 'worship' is the same word used here that is translated as bowing down/prostrating. It is purely a product of our English translation that this fact is hidden - the translators, by convention, translate the word as 'worship' when applied to God but as 'bowing down' or 'prostrating' etc when applied to others.

You're forgetting that such things do not need to be explicit.

You are forgetting that you need to substantiate your claims. You are engaging in an Argument form Ignorance - "you can't show the early church didn't secretly believe it, so there!"

I didn't say "God is a 'What'."

I said God is WHAT the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is.

The three Persons are God. It is WHAT they are.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are WHO they are. He is God (WHAT).

Now you can't even get through two sentences without contradicting yourself ....

Scripture never treats God as a thing/substance. God is a WHO in scripture. But go ahead and try to argue from scripture that God is a mere substance - I'll go grab some popcorn.

Start one, if you like. I'm game!

Perhaps after this one; responding to these long posts is time consuming.

In what way am I mocking Christ's life and sacrifice?

Bald-faced assertions like this demand evidence.

I've already explained this in detail. You need to stop and read all of what I wrote before replying.

In what way does my position deny Him free will or the accomplishment of overcoming temptations?

God cannot be tempted, cannot sin, can never not do God's will. There's no freewill if you don't have a choice and you can't overcome temptation if you can't be tempted. Thus - if we adopt the Trinitarian position - all of Christ's suffering and trials were nothing more than a bit of theatrics.

I just gave you sufficient evidence.

Here's some more (and where I got the above chart from):

Deity of Christ Bible Verses: A Different Approach | KGOV.com

kgov.com

You haven't given sufficient evidence - as I addressed in detail in my last post. Perhaps if you questioned the resources you are citing before posting them, then you would understand why that chart is flat out wrong.

Nope. This is why you don't "get it."

There are three PERSONS, not three Gods. The three PERSONS are ONE God.

He is Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

You have yet to define what you mean by "person" and "God" and to defend these definitions using scripture. Nor have you explained, logically, how three persons can be one God. You go back and forth on whether you even identify as a Trinitarian.

It seems like part of the problem you have is your definition of what it means to die.

Christ (God the Son) died physically when He gave up His spirit. (John 19:30)
He died Spiritually when He was separated from His Father in Heaven ("My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"), becoming sin for us and nailing the law to the cross

So at which point did God proper die? Or are you in fact walking back and denying that God ever died.

He wasn't putting on an act. He really was tempted.

Then he wasn't God - for God cannot be tempted by evil.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I don't merely say so - its a fact that I have elucidated in some detail already.

No, you haven’t.

This is some progress then - you admit that you can't defend the Trinity from scripture.

I have admitted no such thing.

What I said was that I don’t hold to any particular doctrine.

However you insist upon this idea that God is divided into three personages - which you can't establish from scripture either.

I already have, yet you keep obfuscating with “but there are more than three people in the Bible…”

So which is it, are there more than three people in the Bible, or is there only one God?

That’s what I’m getting from you.

You are moving the goal

I’m not.

because you recognize you can't defend the position you took just a post earlier.

My position hasn’t changed in the slightest.

But changing your position from arguing that the Trinity is biblical to this idea that God is Triune won't help -

The Trinity IS Biblical, and God IS triune.

It’s not “either or.” It’s “both and.”

both are equally unsupported by scripture.

False.

If you reject the Trinity doctrine and recognize that its indefensible,

When you keep attacking straw men, it’s guaranteed you’ll be able to beat them up.

Again: I don’t hold to any particular “Trinity doctrine.”

That doesn’t mean I don’t believe God is Triune, nor does it mean that I cannot defend and support that belief from scripture.

However, it also undermines your position that it's been the position of the church since the beginning; for you are admitting that by the fourth century the Catholic Church was formulating false Christology. I can't reasonably be sure what you mean by "Trinity" if you use and defend the term, claiming it's a core belief of Christianity since the beginning, and yet you can't point to anything historically that describes what you think is meant by the term.

The problem is that you’re looking for “doctrine,” rather than scripture, and in the wrong place.

"Eternally begotten" is more than simply not being created - it's the idea that Jesus is constantly in a state of being begotten, the Father constantly in a state of begetting the son.

Supra, RE: agreeing (or not) with the catholics.

Since God is perfect

Agreed.

and since - they say - God cannot change,

Not my position.

then he could never have not been the Father.

The Father was always the Father because the Son, as well as the Holy Spirit, is co-eternal.

Nor could he have at one point begot the Son and the next not be begetting him - for that would mean that God changed in some sense, and thus challenge his perfection. A really dumb argument - but that's the Trinity for you.

It’s a logical argument, but inherently flawed, because its premise, that “God does not change,” is false.

It’s wrong, not because the conclusion is wrong, but because the premise is wrong. You have made what is called a “fallacy fallacy,” a rare one indeed.

You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

Your logical fallacy is the fallacy fallacy

You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

As for for John 1, that can be interpreted a number of different ways. For example, one classic approach that Church Fathers have used is

one that I do not hold to as being valid.

God has always been wise.

Personally, I'm inclined to view both the Wisdom of Proverbs and the Word in John as being more poetic than literal. "The word became flesh" = the manifestation of God's Wisdom, his plan for creation since the beginning, in the birth of the man Jesus Christ.

Proverbs is a book of poetry that contains nuggets of wisdom, written by the wisest man to have ever lived, before he turned away from God.


The Gospel of John is not a book of poetry. It is an account of Jesus’ life.

Three of the Gospels start out with different geneologies, all of Christ, describing different aspects of Him, while Mark doesn’t have one, not because it doesn’t follow the same rule, but because Mark describes Christ as a servant, and records of family trees aren’t usually kept for servants, historically speaking. Matthew describes Him as a King, providing a geneology from King David. Luke describes Jesus as human, providing a geneology from Adam. John describes Jesus as God, declaring that He was in the beginning with God, and was God.

Ok - on what basis then do you claim that God has always been the Father?

It’s the other way around.

The Father has always been God, just as the Son has always been God, just as the Holy Spirit has always been God.

As John said:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.He was in the beginning with God.All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. - John 1:1-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John1:1-5&version=NKJV

The word “Word” there is LOGOS (which means “logic,” by the way, and doesn’t really mean or make sense as “word,” even though that’s how it’s been translated).

The Greek has it this way:

“in beginning was the Logic and the Logic was with the God and God was the Logic.

Funny thing about that is that there’s a rule in Greek grammar that, in my opinion, applies here (and if it actually does, it’s one of the strongest arguments for Christ being God in the Bible), though it mostly applies to two other verses, mentioned in the link below. It’s called the Granville Sharp Rule.

The Granville Sharp Rule states, “When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle” (Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, 3).

What is the Granville Sharp Rule? | GotQuestions.org

What is the Granville Sharp Rule? What are the implications of the Granville Sharp Rule on Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1?

www.gotquestions.org

“with the God and God was the Logic”

See if you can figure out where I’m going with this…

If there never was a time when the Son was not - then he can't very well have originated from God.

Scripture calls Jesus God's only begotten Son, and Jesus says He was around at creation, and Scripture says He was the one who created.

What more do you want?

Use your own words to define what you mean by God being three persons -

What do you think I’ve been doing?

Humans are one WHAT and one WHO.
God, on the other hand, is one WHAT and three WHOs.

JudgeRightly is WHO I am, and a human being is WHAT I am.

The Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit is the three WHOs He is, and God is WHAT He is.

because right now you are just throwing out a term belonging to a doctrine that you now claim to not hold. And then back-up your definition with scripture.

What does the Bible teach about the Trinity? | GotQuestions.org

What does the Bible say about the Trinity / Triunity? Is the doctrine of the Trinity found in the Bible? How is the trinity not tritheism?

www.gotquestions.org

Many more individuals than those three are called God in scripture. Why isn't "Moses" to be counted among them? It's not sufficient to find individual's in scripture that have in one sense or another been addressed as God.

Explained previously.

You will have to demonstrate this supposed context that demonstrates that when the Son is called God or the HS is called God that it means that literally

1 Corinthians 3:16-17

“you are the temple of God” and “the Spirit of God dwells in you” should make that clear.

Just as John 1:1-5 shows that Jesus was with and was God from the beginning.

as opposed to the precedent established in scripture as seen with Moses and the angels.

Supra.

Merely insisting upon it doesn't make your case.

Moses was just a man.

Jesus was both man and God.

John 10:34-35 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken),

Since scriptures call those to whom the word of God came gods - and there is only one God - where do they fit into your Triune God? As you said - they either are or aren't God, there's no in between - and as Jesus said, scripture cannot be broken.

What does the Bible mean by “you are gods” / “ye are gods” in Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34? | GotQuestions.org

What does the Bible mean by “you are gods” / “ye are gods” in Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34? Are human beings in fact “little gods”?

www.gotquestions.org

1. Good for you for recognizing that the two aren't equal

Correction: The three are equally God, but the subordination describes an internal relationship within the Godhead.

and further rejecting the Trinity doctrine in favor of scripture.

1) I have never not held scripture as priority
2) You keep accusing me of holding to a “doctrine,” when I have repeatedly stated that I don’t hold to that “doctrine.” Please stop. Bearing false witness is a sin.

2. If the Son has a God above him, then he cannot be God Almighty.

This begs the question that the Son is a different being than the Father.

The Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Sun and Father, and the Son subordinate to the Father. This is an internal relationship and does not deny the deity of any Person of the Trinity.

It does not beg the question - if they are not equals then you have division

There is no division. There is only one God.

Maybe this image will help you understand:

and hierarchy among those individuals you claim to be one God.

Which, again, is an internal relationship within the Godhead between the three Persons.

This is a contradiction - what you are really describing is polytheism.

No.

If I were a polytheist, then I would be saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different Gods. But they’re not, they are simply three Persons within the one Godhead. Thus, it’s not polytheism, since there is one God, not three.

That's not a valid argument - there is no capitalization in the underlying Hebrew and Greek

I didn’t say “Hebrew” or “Greek.” I said English.
Second, I also said the context comes into play here, which you seemingly ignored.

First of all, there is no "as" in the Hebrew.

Yes, I’m aware.

I do agree that he wasn't being literal, of course.

Thus, “as.” It doesn’t change the meaning of the verse, and it helps to understand what is being said.

The point is that between Moses and the angels, there is plenty of biblical precedent in the OT for addressing agent's of God as if they were God.

Wrong.

Read closer:

Exodus 3:1-2 Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.

Who is the angel of the Lord? | GotQuestions.org

Who is the angel of the Lord? Was the angel of the Lord a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus Christ?

www.gotquestions.org

False, Christ was never an angel.

Never said He was.

A capital "G" has no significance;

It has plenty of significance in English.

“When God twice knocked over the god of the Philistines, Dagon, He was mocking them.”

Capitalization matters in English. So does context, which usually explains WHY the word is capitalized.

They are and I've provided numerous examples

You’ve given ONE example, and it doesn’t really work for you anyways because it’s used as a figure of speech, not a literal description.

Insisting you are monotheistic

The very fact that I claim that there is only one God makes me monotheistic.

while also declaring that there are multiple,

Three.

distinct

Correct.

entities

Persons.

with a hierarchy

Which describes an internal relationship within the Godhead, not external.

that are each God Almighty

Correct.

is just contradictory gibberish.

Rather, it’s a place that I’m just going to have to appeal to mystery, and say that I can’t explain it, because I’m not sure that we’ll ever be able to fully comprehend HOW God can be one God while also being three Persons. But I WILL say that we can know that He is.

You can't expect to be taken seriously when you are constantly contradicting yourself.

There’s no contradiction here.

The problem you’re having isn’t that there is a contradiction, it’s that we don’t have the context to understand how God is triune, justs like we don’t have the context for understanding how God could have always existed with no beginning throughout an infinite past, since we have a beginning.

First it's "Trinitarians are monotheistic. Please keep that in mind." Then it's "I don't hold to any particular Trinity doctrine." Make up your mind.

I’m not switching between the two.

If it's not explicit then it isn't recorded.

False dichotomy.

Just because something isn’t explicitly stated doesn’t mean it isn’t recorded. Rememberit’s the glory of God to conceal a matter.

You can try to extrapolate it - but you appear to have given up any attempt to defend the Trinity

What do you think I’ve been doing the last 3 posts?

(or w/e you claim to believe now)

Trinity is just a word used to describe the nature of God.

A “doctrine” a statement that “codifies” (so to speak) a belief or set of beliefs held by a group, such as the church.

Thus, when you say “Trinity doctrine,” I immediately think of what the Catholics came up with. That’s why I say “I don’t hold to any particular doctrine” regarding the Trinity. Does that clear things up for you?

via scripture.

See the “Trinity-Bible” link above.

I never suggested that we should just believe whatever theology is put forth by the Church Fathers.

Good.

Apparently your position is that God is triune because YOU say so, and without any other justification.

Wrong.

God is triune because Scripture says so, and that’s all the justification that I need.

Neither is Jesus.

That’s what you’re trying to prove. Begging the question won’t get you there.

There are numerous scriptures which differentiate Jesus from God

Such as?

Because there are other scriptures that show that the verses you claim show Him as “not God” are not doing that, but rather, making the disctinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while affirming that the three are God.

and none which insist that when Jesus is called God that it is meant literally as opposed to how it is applied to God's other agents.

Rather, Scripture shows He IS God, literally, unlike with other agents.

"Almost explicitly" lmao! Aka it doesn't -

Don’t get ahead of yourself.

I meant that that’s as close as you can get to outright stating that the Holy Spirit is God without actually outright stating that He is God.

you are interpreting it that way without justification because that's what you want it to say.

No, that’s ACTUALLY WHAT IT SAYS. I’m simply removing some words to make it clearer.

But, please, by all means, show me how I’m “interpreting it that way without justification because that’s how I want it to say.”

You haven't demonstrated from the context why we should interpret it any differently from when Moses or the angels and their words and deeds are referred to as if being God's.

I already have.

Unless you can demonstrate from scripture that this usage of the word "God" is distinct from how it has been applied throughout the OT to those who aren't themselves God Almighty, then biblical precedence is obviously the more objective interpretation.

Peter makes it clear:

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” . . . Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” - Acts 5:3-4,9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts5:3-4,9&version=NKJV

Peter is talking about the Holy Spirit.

He then says “you haven’t lied to men, but to God.”

How much clearer do you need it to be?

Lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God.

Is the Holy Spirit God? | GotQuestions.org

Is the Holy Spirit God? Does the Bible teach that the Holy Spirit is God? Is the Holy Spirit equally God with the Father and the Son?

www.gotquestions.org

No one denies that Jesus was unique - that does not establish that he was God.

It shows He is special.

Least of all because he didn't claim to be God -

Except that He did claim to be God.

Is Jesus God? Why should I believe that Jesus is God? | GotQuestions.org

Is Jesus God? Why should I believe that Jesus is God? Is Jesus God in the flesh?

www.gotquestions.org

but his Son.

The Son of God is God.

Believe what he says about himself rather than trying to redefine what "Son" means to suite

*suit

your theology.

Right back atcha!

Christ gave himself over to God completely,

Rather, He submitted His will to His Father’s.

and chose to sacrifice himself for man of his own freewill -

He went willingly, yes, however, it wasn’t by His will, but His Father’s:

saying, “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.” - Luke 22:42 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke22:42&version=NKJV

thus he was rewarded with being made King over the rest of creation (but not over God).

I seem to recall that God is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and that He is not willing to share His glory with another…

None of your examples make the argument that Christ had to be God.

They ARE the argument, csu!

Again, the ball is in your court to show any other person, in scripture or otherwise, making the same claims that Jesus did, saying the same things He did, demanding the same things He did, while still remaining righteous! THERE. AREN’T. ANY.

As for worship, there is no prohibition against worship.

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.“You shall have no other gods before Me.“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. - Exodus 20:2-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20:2-6&version=NKJV

Moses worshiped his father-in-law Jethro (Exodus 18:7); note that the same word in Hebrew translated as 'worship' is the same word used here that is translated as bowing down/prostrating. It is purely a product of our English translation that this fact is hidden - the translators, by convention, translate the word as 'worship' when applied to God but as 'bowing down' or 'prostrating' etc when applied to others.

Showing respect to one’s parents, even one’s father-in-law, was the custom back then, csu.

He wasn’t worshipping him as God, but honoring him as his father-in-law, which God DOES say to do, just two chapters later!

The word has different meanings based on the context. There’s no conspiracy by the translators to hide anything. It’s simply how language is. However, God makes the distinction when He prohibits bowing down to other gods or idols or images, and prohibits having any other god before Him.

You are forgetting that you need to substantiate your claims. You are engaging in an Argument from Ignorance - "you can't show the early church didn't secretly believe it, so there!"

You’re the one making the claims, not me. I’m simply saying that what the “Early Church” believed is irrelevant, because of what Scripture says.

Now you can't even get through two sentences without contradicting yourself ....

I’m not contradicting myself.

Scripture never treats God as a thing/substance. God is a WHO in scripture.

In case it wasn’t clear (because it seems like you missed it), I fully agree with this.

I’m just trying to help you see what I’m saying by using such language as to make a distinction.

But go ahead and try to argue from scripture that God is a mere substance - I'll go grab some popcorn.

Not my position.

Perhaps after this one; responding to these long posts is time consuming.

You mean to tell me you can’t participate in multiple threads simultaneously?

God cannot be tempted,

Contradictions: Can God Be Tempted?

The Bible clearly states that God cannot be tempted by evil, so why do other passages speak of God being tempted? Chris Russell, AiG–U.S., explains.

answersingenesis.org

cannot sin,

Actually, God can sin but chooses not to, because He cannot be tempted by evil, but that’s a topic for another thread. If you’re interested, I recommend watching this debate between Carm.org’s Matt Slick and OpenTheism.org’s Will Duffy:

Will does an excellent job explaining why.

can never not do God's will.

God can choose to do otherwise.

There's no freewill if you don't have a choice

Duh…

and you can't overcome temptation if you can't be tempted.

Jesus was tempted, and therefore overcame it.

Thus - if we adopt the Trinitarian position - all of Christ's suffering and trials were nothing more than a bit of theatrics.

Repeating your accusation won’t make it come true, csu.

There were no theatrics involved. Jesus, who is God, really was tempted.

You haven't given sufficient evidence -

You’re in denial.

Perhaps if you questioned the resources you are citing before posting them,

Why do you assume I haven’t?

then you would understand why that chart is flat out wrong.

You haven’t provided any reason for me to believe that it’s wrong.

Did Jesus not say those things? Did He not really mean them? What about the chart is wrong? All I’m getting from you is “oh, the chart establishes Jesus as God, then it must be wrong!”

You have yet to define what you mean by "person"

You don’t know what a person is?

Then how can you say God is not three Persons?

and "God"

The Creator, the Uncaused Cause, the One who was, and is, and is to come.

and to defend these definitions using scripture. Nor have you explained, logically, how three persons can be one God.

Supra, re: appeal to mystery.

You go back and forth on whether you even identify as a Trinitarian.

No, I don’t.

So at which point did God proper die?

Define what you mean by “God proper.”

Or are you in fact walking back and denying that God ever died.

Nope.

Then he wasn't God - for God cannot be tempted by evil.

Supra, re: AiG link