The Trinity

The Trinity


  • Total voters
    121

popsthebuilder

New member
:nono: John 1:1 You are confusing 'Father' with "God." Just as Love ISN'T God, but God is Love - Jesus is not the Father, both God. John 1:1

"If" you understand that Love is not God, you can recognize the other. John 1:1 gives it clearly, note 'Father' is not given in the passage.
What I understand is that there is One GOD.

Jesus understood and preached this, and that the Spirit of GOD would indeed guide and help the believer and too, that trials in this life or nothing in comparison to the elation that is of GOD; even in this life; how much more so in the afterlife?

You saying I am confusing the Father with GOD is; well, nonsense and seemingly blasphemous to me. In essence you are saying that the Father is not the fullness of GOD; But I bet you'd be quick to say the man Jesus was fully GOD.

these things are just off and not correct to me. They seem contradictory to all scripture as well.



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 

popsthebuilder

New member
Good. What is explicit and what is implicit?

Another way: What is CRYSTAL clear here? What isn't that we rather 'put together?'




See also 1 Corinthians 15:24 "God" or "Father?"
See 1 Corinthians 15:47; 1:2 2 Corinthians 12:8

Then this: 1Co 10:9 Nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted Him and were destroyed by serpents. Numbers 21:5
Realize then the Apostle Paul calls the Lord Jesus Christ "God." The Lord Jesus Christ is not the Father. The Father is God. The Son is God. There is only one God.

I'd expect every Arian and JW to accept these scripture truths without reservation.
It really is way simpler than you make it seem.

How is it that you cannot make the distinction between the Holy Temple of GOD which is temporal, and the Spirit of GOD which is GOD and eternal and all pervading?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 

popsthebuilder

New member
No, nor do I think He stopped being God the Word when He became man. I'm referring to His position before, during, and after He became flesh. What name shall we dump, do you think?

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.​
Of course, but that is a reference to the Spirit of GOD, and not specifically Jesus as He walked the earth as a man.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 

popsthebuilder

New member
Yeah. What point are you making there?

In order to be a mediator, He had to be both God and man, which is why the WORD (God) became flesh and dwelt among us.

Galatians 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;​

The same one you just made; distinction between GOD in man, and GOD almighty.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
Yeah. What point are you making there?

In order to be a mediator, He had to be both God and man, which is why the WORD (God) became flesh and dwelt among us.

Galatians 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;​

Not yours.
 

popsthebuilder

New member
:nono: You are wrong, 1M Try it again. It is as clear as that. I could care less if you follow me - Follow the scripture!

Stop making your mind god. There is only one and you are not Him. I EXPECT those who say they love God, to follow Him!
To not make your mind GOD; which it can never be; one shouldn't conflate man or creation or any image or mechanism there of to the One Creator GOD of all existence.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 

Lon

Well-known member
What I understand is that there is One GOD.
Good! John 1:1 It is scripture. You cannot do better than scripture.
Jesus understood and preached this, and that the Spirit of GOD would indeed guide and help the believer and too, that trials in this life or nothing in comparison to the elation that is of GOD; even in this life; how much more so in the afterlife?
It'd be better to quote scripture than rattle off whatever you are putting together in your head.
You saying I am confusing the Father with GOD is; well, nonsense and seemingly blasphemous to me. In essence you are saying that the Father is not the fullness of GOD; But I bet you'd be quick to say the man Jesus was fully GOD.
No, I'm not. I'm saying YOU conflate "Father" with being the only one that can be God. I'm saying, from John 1:1 and other scriptures, CLEARLY, you are wrong. Then "yes." Jesus is God. John 1:1 says it. all the scripture from my thread say it. Ever read that thread? :think: Ever pray just between you and God about the contents therein? Ever? :think:

these things are just off and not correct to me.
"was" and "was with" can be seen as contradictory, yet there it is John 1:1 (and all the scriptures)

They seem contradictory to all scripture as well. We should be following Him, no? Jesus said the way is narrow, what are you going to do, try to fellowship with Muslims and everybody? :noway:

It really is way simpler than you make it seem.
Me? :nono: John 1:1

How is it that you cannot make the distinction between the Holy Temple of GOD which is temporal, and the Spirit of GOD which is GOD and eternal and all pervading?
I cannot make it any less or clearer than scripture does itself John 1:1; 20:28
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
:nono: You are wrong, 1M Try it again. It is as clear as that. I could care less if you follow me - Follow the scripture!

Stop making your mind god. There is only one and you are not Him. I EXPECT those who say they love God, to follow Him!

:rotfl:
 

popsthebuilder

New member
Er, wrong thread. This isn't 'what is considered sacred' thread. On our quest on the nature of God, God alone will say who He is.
No; we are speaking of trinitarianism; which is unbiblical, and seems to have been promoted by the hands of seemingly evil men, while they simultaneously removed trace of the truth and even other opinion, while yet still, killing and plundering and GOD alone knows what else; so to me it is relevant to the discussion seeing as how trinitarianism came about through a councel of men where the majority won out.

What can we discern about the masses in the past? What is spoken about the broad path?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 

popsthebuilder

New member
Er, wrong thread. This isn't 'what is considered sacred' thread. On our quest on the nature of God, God alone will say who He is.
No; we are speaking of trinitarianism; which is unbiblical, and seems to have been promoted by the hands of seemingly evil men, while they simultaneously attempted to removed trace of the truth and even other opinion, while yet still, killing and plundering, and GOD alone knows what else; so to me it is relevant to the discussion seeing as how trinitarianism came about through a councel of men where the majority won out. and the small was simply done away with.

What can we discern about the masses in the past? What is spoken about the broad way.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 

Lon

Well-known member
No; we are speaking of trinitarianism; which is unbiblical
John 1:1 :plain:


and seems to have been promoted by the hands of seemingly evil men
:think: Deuteronomy 6:4 John 10:30

, while they simultaneously removed trace of the truth and even other opinion,
Who gives a rip about opinion?
while yet still, killing and plundering and GOD alone knows what else; so to me it is relevant to the discussion seeing as how trinitarianism came about through a councel of men where the majority won out.
Er, you know how prejudice works?

What can we discern about the masses in the past? What is spoken about the broad path?
This thread 'assumes' scripture is true and authoritative. You can certainly go to your other threads and talk from your scriptureless worldview.
 

Bee1

New member
Matt 28:19 (AKJV/PCE)
(28:19) ¶ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Scholars such as F. C. Conybeare1 have claimed that the Trinitarian baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 was not original to the text of Matthew.

Matt 28:19 (NIV)
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

In other words, was the phrase in the text "In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" inserted at a later date (say, for example, by the First Nicean Council of AD 325)?

The correct reading of Matthew 28:19 appears to be in Luke 24:47:

Luke 24:47 (NIV)
47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Another question on this site had covered some questions relating to the final portion of the Gospel of Matthew in part, however my question is whether or not there is any historical and textual evidence that the particular text of Matthew 28:19 appeared later?



Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
 

Right Divider

Body part
Scholars such as F. C. Conybeare1 have claimed that the Trinitarian baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 was not original to the text of Matthew.

Matt 28:19 (NIV)
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

In other words, was the phrase in the text "In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" inserted at a later date (say, for example, by the First Nicean Council of AD 325)?

The correct reading of Matthew 28:19 appears to be in Luke 24:47:

Luke 24:47 (NIV)
47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Another question on this site had covered some questions relating to the final portion of the Gospel of Matthew in part, however my question is whether or not there is any historical and textual evidence that the particular text of Matthew 28:19 appeared later?
You Bible "correctors" are a dime a dozen.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Of course, but that is a reference to the Spirit of GOD, and not specifically Jesus as He walked the earth as a man.

Are you suggesting the Spirit of God was to sit on the Throne of David? Acts 2:29-30 :rolleyes:


You really should stop making things up, Pops. Had you read the verse in context, you wouldn't be making these "silly" mistakes.

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

Here we see the same thing. A son is born...a child....born of a virgin....God with us.

Matt. 1:2-23 1 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Isaiah 7:14
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
 

popsthebuilder

New member
Good! John 1:1 It is scripture. You cannot do better than scripture.

It'd be better to quote scripture than rattle off whatever you are putting together in your head.

No, I'm not. I'm saying YOU conflate "Father" with being the only one that can be God. I'm saying, from John 1:1 and other scriptures, CLEARLY, you are wrong. Then "yes." Jesus is God. John 1:1 says it. all the scripture from my thread say it. Ever read that thread? :think: Ever pray just between you and God about the contents therein? Ever? :think:


"was" and "was with" can be seen as contradictory, yet there it is John 1:1 (and all the scriptures)

They seem contradictory to all scripture as well. We should be following Him, no? Jesus said the way is narrow, what are you going to do, try to fellowship with Muslims and everybody? :noway:


Me? :nono: John 1:1


I cannot make it any less or clearer than scripture does itself John 1:1; 20:28
John 20: 26. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27. Then saith he to Thomas, reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 30. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

(The eighth day is a reference to ascension)

Being the Christ (the anointed of GOD) isn't being GOD.

Luke 24: 15. And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. 16. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. 18. And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass therein these days? 19. And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: 46. And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47. And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48. And ye are witnesses of these things. 49. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. 51. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. 52. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: 53. And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

John 1: 4. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

(Wouldn't it say HE was life, and not in Him was life if it was the physical temple that is equal to the Spirit of GOD?)

John 1: 8. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

(The Word was made flesh. Would it not be translated as the Word Made Himself flesh here?)



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
No; we are speaking of trinitarianism; which is unbiblical, and seems to have been promoted by the hands of seemingly evil men, while they simultaneously attempted to removed trace of the truth and even other opinion, while yet still, killing and plundering, and GOD alone knows what else; so to me it is relevant to the discussion seeing as how trinitarianism came about through a councel of men where the majority won out. and the small was simply done away with.

What can we discern about the masses in the past? What is spoken about the broad way.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

You wouldn't know what was Biblical, so stop pretending.

Every single time you open your mouth, you prove it. Shameful...you lack of knowledge.
 

popsthebuilder

New member
Are you suggesting the Spirit of God was to sit on the Throne of David? Acts 2:29-30 :rolleyes:


You really should stop making things up, Pops. Had you read the verse in context, you wouldn't be making these "silly" mistakes.

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

Here we see the same thing. A son is born...a child....born of a virgin....God with us.

Matt. 1:2-23 1 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Isaiah 7:14
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
How does any of that support that Jesus was corternal as man to GOD almighty which is Spirit?

Did Jesus himself not say that spirit are not flesh and bone? Is GOD almighty not spirit?

This is nuts; the entire bible including the words of Jesus himself show that he was not literally the utter fullness of GOD or coequal.

Can we please go over the verses that show they the Word of GOD is Jesus?

Bear with me.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 
Top