Is the Trinity an ESSENTIAL truth to the Bible ?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]Quoted from the link:

[quote] The overall context militates against the Trinitarian claim where Jesus describes his Father as Mary's God, as opposed to himself, and John indicates that he writes this Gospel, including the account of Jesus and Thomas, not to tell us that Jesus is himself God but instead that Jesus is God's son:


We have seen the Lord ...[text shortened]... the Apostle John did not have in mind conveying to the reader that Jesus is God and Son of God.

false. john did not have in mind of conveying the reader that jesus is god, rather the intent was to show the opposite.

The very prologue of his Gospel is "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)

another trinitarian translation of the ambiguous greek. other interpretations are possible that have different effects and when placed in the context of the bible which repeatedly claims that there is one god and particularly in the NT where it is stressed that the father is the one god, we must conclude that one of the other interpretations are more appropriate.

http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/Jn1_1.html

Enemies of the truth the incarnation always assume that because Christians believe that Jesus is God that mean we must believe that He is NOT a man. The truth of the matter is that Jesus is the UNION and the MINGLING of Divinity and Humanity.

strawman argument. we know full well the trinitarian position.

It is also true that directly from the mouth of Jesus, in this Gospel of John, Jesus points to Himself as on the same level as the God Whom He also calls Father as an object of our total belief.

jesus never equates himself as the equal to god. jesus always claims to be less than god.

... BELIEVE INTO GOD; BELIEVE ALSO INTO ME.

this is not a confession of being god.

When an Atheist like VoidSpirit begins to attack Christ it betrays that he harbors a fear that Jesus Christ conveys and expresses this GOD which he claims does not exist.

It is curious that he would even enter into a dispute over the exegesis of John 20:28.

the only thing it conveys is a literary discussion of a mythology, or in this case, your misunderstanding of a clearly written mythology. the mythology that clearly states that god has no equal, that god is alone and that god is one, the concepts repeated and affirmed by jesus christ whom you falsely claim to be god.

These things have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that believing you may have life in His name. (20:31).

thanks, this is more proof that jesus is not god.

Since John writes that we might have life believing in the name of Jesus, one should also be reminded of Jesus' words at John 17:3, "Father.... this is eternal LIFE that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You sent....

no surprise there, the bible states that god gave jesus temporary authority until his duty is fulfilled.

First John 4:15 also says "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him and he in God."

you keep spouting nonsense and then quote verses that disprove all the nonsense you just spoke.
you will notice something this verse does not say.

it does not say:
"whoever confesses that jesus is god, god abides in him and he in god."

If a person does not have the assurance that God abides IN him and he IN God, perhaps he should seriously consider his dictionary. Perhaps his "Son of God" is not REALLY Son of God in the sense of the New Testament revelation.

you are the son of your father. you and your father are not one being. you and your father may have a common purpose and in that respect, you and your father can be of one mind. but you will never be your father. that is the relationship between jesus and god, as portrayed in the NT. it's a relationship of a father and son with common purpose.

in order to make your non-biblical doctrine of a trinity convincing, you have to ignore much of the bible.

Originally posted by jaywill

I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God",

The passage in no way makes it not true that Jesus is the Lord and God of Thomas His disciple.

It is not that we Christians believe something extra in the Father-Son-Holy Spirit. It is that you polytheists do not believe [b]enough.

I have not embraced ...[text shortened]... larger than what the Bible says. You have not embraced enough of what it says.[/b]

ok Jaywill, you have told us what it doesn't state, what does it state then, going back to
the original question.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I did no translating. Blame the King James translators if you wish, not me.

No, you have used the term to support your beliefs, why was it translated as
Godhead? shall i save you a pile of time? because of a religious bias. All i want is
that you admit it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No, you have used the term to support your beliefs, why was it translated as
Godhead? shall i save you a pile of time? because of a religious bias. All i want is
that you admit it.

There may be some bias in all translating, even in your NWT, however
if they were so biased, as you say, then why did they not just use the
word "Trinity" instead of "Godhead"?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
ridiculous statements to make. the doctrine of the trinity didn't exist in early christianity. it was determined centuries later under roman influence. the romans in turn were already introduced to the 'trinity' concept from egyptian and hindu sources and they corrupted christianity with it.

even then there was no consensus and it was left up to a p ...[text shortened]... ersecuted sects who became lost to the annals of history. perhaps some of them still remain.

ridiculous statements to make. the doctrine of the trinity didn't exist in early christianity.

You laugh. You talk about this or that is ridiculous. You act as if the Bible is a big joke. You strut around here and brag that you know people's religion better than they know it themselves. Ie. "Oh it surprises me how much more I know about other people's religion." Some of your complaints are as foolish as they are pompous.

It is true that the word "Trinity" we can see introduced into the talk of the church fathers some hundreds of years after the completing of the New Testament. With that idea I have no disagreement.

But what about the FACTS of the Bible's TEACHING ??

It was written that the SON was addressed as O God.

"But of the Son, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, ..." (Hebrews 1:8)

This utterance is not inserted into the text of the New Testament 300 years latter by trinitarian theologians. This text was a QUOTATION of the Old Testament prophetic utterance concerning a Son of God.

PSALM 45:6,7 - "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; The scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;, Therefore God, Your God. has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your companions."


In this passage we have a Messianic King who is addressed as God.
In this passage we have a King Whose throne is forever and ever.

In this passage we have a King who is not only addressed as God but HAS His God - "Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You ..."

In this passage you have God's God. Now the word "Trinity" may have entered into theological writings some time after the birth of the Christian church. But the revelation of the Son of God as God was ALREADY THERE in the Scriptures.

"Trinity" talk of the church fathers was just a RECOGNITION of the revelation that was already THERE in the Bible. And it was not only there in the epistle to the Hebrews. It was there in the Psalm of David long centries before even the writing of the New Testament.

Now you may say "Well, I don't believe it is talking there about Jesus in Psalm 45"

First I am sure you would be wrong. Second it is without dispute that the writer of Hebrews was taking it as refering to Jesuss.

"God, having spoken of old in many portions and in many ways to the fathers in the prophets, has at the last of these days spoken to us in the Son, whom He appointed Heir of all things, through whom also He made the universe;

Who being the effulgence of His glory and the impress of His substance ... having made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Heb 1:1-3)

This is the writers introduction to his letter concerning JESUS to the Hebrew Christians. And the writing goes on to show that David was a precursor, a runner up, a shadow of the coming reality, a symbolic preview. Jesus Christ is the God Who has "partners".

That means God has become incarnate as a Man, a King. This One is addressed as the Son called God and is anointed by God with the oil of gladness above His partners. Those are HUMAN partners because in incarnation He has joined the human race -

"You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God [ God's God !] ... Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your PARTNERS." (Hebrews 1:8,9)

The FACT of the Son of God being God Himself with human partners is there in the Scripture quite PREVIOUS to the introduction of the word "Trinity" into church speak.

Your unbelief does not make this fact go away.

Basically, the "Trinity" means that God is Father, God is Son, and God is Holy Spirit. Apart from the use of the word "Trinity" the revelation of Son being called "O God" is there already only to be recognized by the Christian church.

Concerning the Father being God there should be little dispute.

Concerning the Holy Spirit being God, THAT also is securely revealed in the Bible long before the use of the word "trinity". In John 14-16 the coming of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of truth, the Spirit of reality, the Another Comforter and Paraclete is the coming of Christ Himself and His Father to make an abode in the believer.

"Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and WE will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23)

Compare with John 14:17,18 - "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may be with you forever, [even] the Spirit of reality, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know [Him]; [ but ] you know Him, because He abides with you and shall be in you.

I will not leave you as orphans; I AM COMING TO YOU,"

Christ the Son of God is cominig to His disciples.
Christ the Son of God is called also O God, in Psalm 45 and Hebrews 1.
Christ comes with the Father God as the Divine WE to make an abode with the lovers of Himself.

This in FACT is the Triune God being dispensed into man. The world "Trinity" may have come into church talk latter. But the vocabulary only confirmed what was the truth already revealed in Scripture.

it was determined centuries later under roman influence. the romans in turn were already introduced to the 'trinity' concept from egyptian and hindu sources and they corrupted christianity with it.

No. A little talk about Horas and Isis from Egypt is not enough to convince me that the Gospel of John was a copycat hijacking of an Egyptian "Trinity".

I know the arguments. They do not work. And if you try them on me we will get into a link exchange because rather than re-write rebuttals I will just link you to YouTube or other written debunkings of your copycat theory.

even then there was no consensus and it was left up to a pagan emperor replete with pagan influences to make the final decisions concerning the future of christianity. after this roman corruption, christianity was lost save for a few, persecuted sects who became lost to the annals of history. perhaps some of them still

The primitive Gospel was not THAT LOST. The New Testament has not changed that much since it was written.

Now if you want to talk about neglected aspects which were recovered and re-visited with greater attention, I can go along with that.

IE. the teaching of Justification By Faith, was recovered by men like Martin Luther. However, the passages did not disappear from the New Testament. They were just neglected and replaced with Catholic ideas about the pope and other bad teachings.

So your LOST is not AS LOST as you think. I will go along that aspects of the faith went through periods of neglect. But your theory of a totally LOST Christian faith is false and it also wreaks with the crocodile tears of one eager to rationalize away from himself the Gospel message anyway.

"Oh dear! The Christian church was all completely lost since Constantine."

You wish.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There may be some bias in all translating, even in your NWT, however
if they were so biased, as you say, then why did they not just use the
word "Trinity" instead of "Godhead"?

admit it RJH and free your mind! Godhead is a biased translation! Depending upon
the context depends upon how we, the most awesome organisation on earth,
translate this verse accurately.

for example,

At Acts 17:29, Paul, when in Athens, showed that it is illogical for humans to imagine
that God is like gold or silver, we thus translate the term as 'the Divine being'.

At Romans 1:20 the apostle refers to the undeniable visible evidence of God’s
“invisible qualities,” particularly his 'eternal power', and thus we translate the term
as, 'Godship'.

at Colossians 2:9 the apostle Paul says that in Christ “all the fullness of the divine
quality [form of theotes] dwells bodily', for clearly it refers to a quality. A
consideration of the context of Colossians 2:9 clearly shows that having “divinity,” or
“divine nature,” does not make Christ the same as God the Almighty

so we can see how superlative our rendering of the text is taking the context into
consideration rather than attempting to introduce non biblical terminology to explain
a philosophical concept.

Originally posted by jaywill

ridiculous statements to make. the doctrine of the trinity didn't exist in early christianity.

You laugh. You talk about this or that is ridiculous. You act as if the Bible is a big joke. You strut around here and brag that you know people's religion better than they know it themselves. Ie. "Oh it surprises me how much more I know ab ...[text shortened]... tely lost since Constantine."

You wish.

It was less than 200 years that the trinity was introduced into Christianity
by Tertullian and there is some indication the idea had been repeated
before this. I have read about it but forget the source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian

Originally posted by RJHinds
It was less than 200 years that the trinity was introduced into Christianity
by Tertullian and there is some indication the idea had been repeated
before this. I have read about it but forget the source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian

I am moving and a lot of my books are packed away in boxes. Arrrgh!

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
false. john did not have in mind of conveying the reader that jesus is god, rather the intent was to show the opposite.

The very prologue of his Gospel is "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)

another trinitarian translation of the ambiguous greek. other interpretations are non-biblical doctrine of a trinity convincing, you have to ignore much of the bible.

VoidSpirit objects

false. john did not have in mind of conveying the reader that jesus is god, rather the intent was to show the opposite.

The intent is to show Christ as both God and man. The either / or dichotomy is a misunderstanding, or at worst a twisting.

The "Word became flesh" - the man Jesus Christ (John 1:14)

The "Word WAS GOD" - before incarnation from eternity - (John 1:1)

another trinitarian translation of the ambiguous greek. other interpretations are possible that have different effects and when placed in the context of the bible which repeatedly claims that there is one god and particularly in the NT where it is stressed that the father is the one god, we must conclude that one of the other interpretations are more appropriate.

Other "twistings" are available for people who want them.

All things considered it doesn't make sense to assume John intended that John 1:1 spoke of two Gods - One with whom the Word was and another whom the Word was.

If TWO Gods are being proposed by the apostle:

1.) the God with whom the Logos WAS - God # 1

2.) the God whom the Logos was - God # 2

Then answer me these questions:

Which of these proposed Gods is John refering to here:

"No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." (v.18)

No man has ever seen WHICH of your two John 1:1 Gods ?
Does John mean no man has ever seen God #1, the God with whom the Word WAS ? Or does John mean no man has ever seen God # 2, the God whom the Word WAS ?

If there are TWO Gods in his thinking, which one is John refering to in John 1:18 ?


Which God of your two alledged Gods is John refering that the believers may become His children ?

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name ..." (v.12)

Did John mean the believers in Christ become children of God #1 or children of your God #2 ?

Which God is the Source of the regeneration and new birth of the children of God?

" ... to those who believe into His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (v.12b-13)

They were born of which of your Gods of John 1:1 ? Where they born of God #1 or born of God #2 ?


Which God is Jesus the Lamb of ? If John meant to convey that there is God #1 and God # 2 in John 1:1 which one is the Lamb of God the Lamb of ?

"The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world !" (v.29)

Does John mean that Jesus is the Lamb of the God with whom He WAS or does he mean Jesus is the Lamb of the God whom He IS ? "The Word was with God and the Word was God."

Verse 34 - "And I have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God."

If you say the Evangelist conveys to us TWO Gods in John 1:1 of which God is Christ the Son of God ? Would that be God #1 or God #2 ?

Jesus, in verse 50, refers back to Jacob's vision of Bethel the House of God in Genesis 28.

"And He [Jesus] said to him [Nathanael], truly, truly, I say to you, You shall see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man." (v.51)

Which of your alledged two Gods of 1:1 was Jesus refering to ? Is it the angels of the God with Whom the Logos was WITH ? Or is the angels of the God Whom the Logos WAS ?

Can you prove your answer ? The teaching refers back to Jacob's vision of Bethel meaning the house of God. Would that be the house of God #1 or the house of God # 2 ?

Prove your answer.

My answer to all these questions is that John intends to convey that there is ONE GOD mentioned in his prologue.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)

John communicates only ONE GOD. The Word was WITH this God and the Word WAS this God from eternity.

And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. Of course the vision Jesus refers to Genesis 28 of Bethel the house of God refers to the HOUSE or the TABERNACLE erected on the earth in which God dwells.

This Bethel is also a ladder set up from earth to heaven on which the angels of God are ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.

Sorry, VoidSpirit. But the Son of Man is the incarnated ONE GOD of the entire divine revelation of the Bible.

Originally posted by jaywill

Would trinitarians all agree that God's will and Jesus's will are always one in the same? It would seem if they are the same being and of same mind, their wills should always be the same. But are they?

1.) It is not a matter of "trinitarians" being one. It is a matter of all those human beings within whom Christ has come to dwell ...[text shortened]... urch and the gates of Hades cannot prevail against her.

www.localchurches.org

I appreciate your post but you didn't answer my question....

Originally posted by jaywill
Does [b]Jehovah God abide in you ?

"Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him and he in God." (1 John 4:15)

Can you plainly confess that Jehovah God abides in you and you abide also in Jehovah God ? Not in a sentimental way, but in actuality, in reality, does Jehovah God abide IN you and you abide in Jehovah ?[/b]

Answer my question first and without writing a book doing it.

Originally posted by galveston75
Answer my question first and without writing a book doing it.

Why pretend that you have some hither to unanswered question that will rescue your heresy ?

What is your question that you say I have not answered ? State it again succintly please .

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] Here is another post that no one answered from another thread...

He was a perfect man physically and that is the result of Jehovah being his father. So nothing new here so I've missed nothing. But he still could have sinned if he had choose too.
So he was in no way God who cannot sin at all as you yourself stated. So explain this with the trini ...[text shortened]... the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ bodily [b](See Colossians 1:19, 2:9) [/b]

You really don't see that the answers your'e giving actually discredit the trinity do you?
It really amazes me and the others here see thru these garbled up answers that you and the trinitarians give are not helping your case at all.

For instance you just stated that Jesus is this God/man and that he could haved sinned but yet the Bible says God cannot sin. Right?????????????????????????

Then you throw this scripture that says the "Word because flesh". Well of course he did because Jesus id called the Word, but no where does the Bible ever say Almighty God became flesh and has ever been called the "Word".
"No man may see God and live".
Do you remember that scripture?????????????????????????????

And do you really not understand what the term "Word" means reguarding Jesus?
Read and learn if you can..........


Why God’s Son is called “the Word.”
A title often describes the function served or the duty performed by the bearer. So it was with the title Kal-Hatzé, meaning “the voice or word of the king,” that was given an Abyssinian officer. Based on his travels from 1768 to 1773, James Bruce describes the duties of the Kal-Hatzé as follows. He stood by a window covered with a curtain through which, unseen inside, the king spoke to this officer. He then conveyed the message to the persons or party concerned. Thus the Kal-Hatzé acted as the word or voice of the Abyssinian king.—Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile, London, 1790, Vol. III, p. 265; Vol. IV, p. 76.

Recall, too, that God made Aaron the word or “mouth” of Moses, saying: “He must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you will serve as God to him.”—Ex 4:16.

In a similar way God’s firstborn Son doubtless served as the Mouth, or Spokesman, for his Father, the great King of Eternity. He was God’s Word of communication for conveying information and instructions to the Creator’s other spirit and human sons. It is reasonable to think that prior to Jesus’ coming to earth, on many of the occasions when God communicated with humans he used the Word as his angelic mouthpiece. (Ge 16:7-11; 22:11; 31:11; Ex 3:2-5; Jg 2:1-4; 6:11, 12; 13:3) Since the angel that guided the Israelites through the wilderness had ‘Jehovah’s name within him,’ he may have been God’s Son, the Word.—Ex 23:20-23; see JESUS CHRIST (Prehuman Existence).

Showing that Jesus continued to serve as his Father’s Spokesman, or Word, during his earthly ministry, he told his listeners: “I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak. . . . Therefore the things I speak, just as the Father has told me them, so I speak them.”—Joh 12:49, 50; 14:10; 7:16, 17.

Originally posted by jaywill
Why pretend that you have some hither to unanswered question that will rescue your heresy ?

What is your question that you say I have not answered ? State it again succintly please .

Would trinitarians all agree that God's will and Jesus's will are always one in the same?
It would seem if they are the same being and of same mind, their wills should always be the same. But are they?

Originally posted by galveston75
Would trinitarians all agree that God's will and Jesus's will are always one in the same?
It would seem if they are the same being and of same mind, their wills should always be the same. But are they?

dude he didn't answer my question either, its what one has come to expect from a
trinitarian these days.