Is the Trinity an ESSENTIAL truth to the Bible ?

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?

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?

This is the question that I misunderstood and wrote a long reply to concerning John 17 and Eph 4 - the perfecting into oneness and the arriving at the oneness.

Galveston in this instances is correct. I did not address this question. ... YET.

Latter I'll write something about it.

Originally posted by jaywill
This is an honest and OPEN QUESTION. And that means to me I am willing to be shown EITHER WAY on the issue.

I was acccused of hijacking a thread. Fine. I'll stay out of that thread and start another.

I'll start with this explanation about my one contributing post which I suppose was the "hijacking" post.

[quote] Jaywill, I think you are missin ...[text shortened]... e what to the whole revelation of God is essential and crucial ?

Jaywill, I appreciate your moving the thread and your addressing the subject of what "essential" means. That piece of it was missed. (By the way, I don't think hijackings are done by one person alone. They require cooperation.)

I would like to offer an alternative view of "essential" to see of it affects what people have to say, if anything, about what is essential.

Suppose you come across an accident victim who is in mortal danger and may go unconscious and die at any moment. You are the only help around. He is bleeding and you can't stop it. He asks if you are Christian, and then he says he has rejected religion and the idea of God all his life. But he now has doubts and feels that he is in his last moments. He asks you to tell him whatever is most important for him to hear right now.

You want to help him. You don't know how much time you have.

What would you say? What would you leave out, at least at first? This is for anyone who would like to reply. I would prefer that people not start new arguments out of this.

Bullet points will do. No need to state the exact wording you would use.

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?

This is the question that I [b]misunderstood and wrote a long reply to concerning John 17 and Eph 4 - the perfecting into oneness a ...[text shortened]... correct. I did not address this question. ... YET.

Latter I'll write something about it.[/b]

Thanks....

Originally posted by JS357
Jaywill, I appreciate your moving the thread and your addressing the subject of what "essential" means. That piece of it was missed. (By the way, I don't think hijackings are done by one person alone. They require cooperation.)

I would like to offer an alternative view of "essential" to see of it affects what people have to say, if anything, about what is e ...[text shortened]... out of this.

Bullet points will do. No need to state the exact wording you would use.

Well if I wasn't panicing and about to pass out from all the blood I'd reasure him about the scripture in Acts...

Acts 24:15
New Living Translation (NLT)

15 I have the same hope in God that these men have, that he will raise both the righteous and the unrighteous.

Originally posted by galveston75
Well if I wasn't panicing and about to pass out from all the blood I'd reasure him about the scripture in Acts...

Acts 24:15
New Living Translation (NLT)

15 I have the same hope in God that these men have, that he will raise both the righteous and the unrighteous.

Thanks. This sounds a lot like universal reconciliation, as at

http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d020806.htm

Originally posted by galveston75
Well if I wasn't panicing and about to pass out from all the blood I'd reasure him about the scripture in Acts...

Acts 24:15
New Living Translation (NLT)

15 I have the same hope in God that these men have, that he will raise both the righteous and the unrighteous.

Yes, Indeed. At the Judgment. The second death awaits some.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, Indeed. At the Judgment. The second death awaits some.

What is the second death in your opinion?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]

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.

when i make a comment like that, it is only after i have proven superior knowledge of the topic. it may sound foolish or pompous to you, but it does not make them untrue.

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 ??

the teaching of the bible is that christ is always subservient to the father.

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

christ is never addressed as the 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."

the term for god in the hebrew here is "elohim" which is a word also used to describe moses, or persons appointed by god to divine status. the psalm even continues to make that point. the psalm describes a human king and the throne of god referenced is the dynasty of david.

fits pretty well with the NT narrative where jesus makes no secret that he is anointed by god with divine authority until his mission is accomplished.

you know, this can go on for a long time tit for tat, but any trinitarian theory is instantly annulled by a singe verse that places christ as subservient to god. and the bible is replete with such verses. it can only be concluded that trinitarians are in a position of folly attempting to redefine christ into something he is not.

Originally posted by jaywill
[

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

your arguments are wholly unconvincing. i will not address them since without resolving earlier issues, you just bring up more and more.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
when i make a comment like that, it is only after i have proven superior knowledge of the topic. it may sound foolish or pompous to you, but it does not make them untrue.

[quote] 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 ...[text shortened]... ans are in a position of folly attempting to redefine christ into something he is not.

Good post.....

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, Indeed. At the Judgment. The second death awaits some.

Sticking to my point: Is that something you would want to be sure you get across to the dying man?

Originally posted by JS357
Sticking to my point: Is that something you would want to be sure you get across to the dying man?

Lol...good one.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
when i make a comment like that, it is only after i have proven superior knowledge of the topic. it may sound foolish or pompous to you, but it does not make them untrue.

[quote] 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 ans are in a position of folly attempting to redefine christ into something he is not.

You say any trinitarian theory is instantly annulled by a singe verse that
places christ as subservient to god. Who is this god you are referring to?
Is this god, Satan? You do know Allah is Satan don't you? When Satan
tried to tempt Christ did Christ seem subservient to Satan to you?

Originally posted by JS357
Sticking to my point: Is that something you would want to be sure you get across to the dying man?

It is a good point to get across to anyone and the fact that we are all in
need of a Savior from this second death.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
when i make a comment like that, it is only after i have proven superior knowledge of the topic. it may sound foolish or pompous to you, but it does not make them untrue.

[quote] 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 ans are in a position of folly attempting to redefine christ into something he is not.

the teaching of the bible is that christ is always subservient to the father.

Quote me where I ever said that Christ was not subservient to the father.

I expect a QUOTATION as an reply. Where did I say Christ is not subservient to the Father ?


Then again the son ... given is to be called Eternal Father in Isaiah's prophecy. The entermingling, co-mingling, and co-inherance of the Father and the Son reinforces that in Christ God became man.

Thank God those of us with experience can see through your blindness.

Experiencially, the believers cannot detect any separation between Father and Son as they live in the realm of the Triune God.

Paul speaks to the Roman Christians of the indwelling One who within them gives the divine life. They can detect no separation between the varied titles Paulo uses for God:


"But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righeousness. And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you." (Romans 8:9-11)


This is a New Testament passage less on a doctrinal statement, but on a experiential reality. This is not a formal creed being delivered. It is a discription of the subjective experience of the Christian disciples.

And the way Paul interchangeably uses the titles reveals that the one indwelling Divine Person is mysteriously multi-une.

The Spirit of God dwells in the believers (v.9) - "... if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you"

The Spirit of God who dwells in them is ALSO the Spirit of Christ Who dwells in them (v.9) - "Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him."

The Spirit of Christ is then suddenly revealed as CHRIST HIMSELF (v.10) - "But if Christ is in you ..."


Now things get even more interesting. The INDWELLING Person is "the Spirit of God" Who is also "the Spirit of Christ" Who is also "CHRIST" and "the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead" (v.11) - "And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you ..." .

Who is the One who raised Jesus from the dead folks ? Certainly one one hand it was the Father who raised Jesus from the dead .

Romans 6:4 - " ... Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father..."

Therefore "the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you ..." (Rom. 8:11a) MUST MEAN that Spirit of the Father is the indwelling One in the disciples.

That would certainly agree with what Paul said in verse 9 - "if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you." (v.9) But we have seen that Paul used "the Spirit of God" interchangeably with the title "the Spirit of Christ" (v.9) and EVEN "CHRIST" Himself !

What does Roman 8:9-11 tells us ? It tells us that these titles of the Divine Person are used in one breath and interchangeably for the One God who dwells within the believers in Christ:

"The Spirit of God" = "The Spirit of Christ" = "Christ" = "the Spirit of the One Who raised Jesus from the dead".

Unless the skeptic can prove that FOUR individual Persons dwell in the believers, he must accept that Paul is using FOUR titles interchangeably to describe One God.

The indwelling Christ is the indwelling Spirit of God.
The indwelling Spirit of Christ is Christ Himself.
The indwelling Spirit of the One Who raised Jesus from the dead is also Christ.
The indwelling Spirit of the One Who raised Jesus from the dead is the Spirit of Christ.

This is the indwelling Triune God. And this letter of Paul exactly corresponds to Christ's promise -

"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)

Now lets come BACK to the Christian community in Rome, the recipients of the Apostle Paul's letter. These believers have become living abodes of the Father and the Son just as Jesus promised:

"But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you." (Rom. 8:9-11)


These critics criticize the revelation of the Three-One God because they lack experiencee. Perhaps they do not belong to Christ YET because they have not allowed Christ to come into them:

"Yet is anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him" (v.9c)

Can you imagine those who are not OF Christ claiming to be able to educate us who have received Christ ?

So we come back not to Isaiah 9:6. This Wonderful One is both the child ... born unto us the believers, and the Son ... given who is also the Eternal Father.

Once He is unto us by ENTERING into us, we cannot detect ANY separation.

Now, WHERE is Jesus Christ located in the 8th chapter of Romans ? Christ is located in TWO places. Christ is indwelling the believers:

"But if Christ is in you ..." (v.10)

AND, Christ is also, at the same time, at the right hand of God in the third heavens, interceding for His people:

"Who is he who condemns? It is Christ Jesus who died and, rather who was raised, who is also at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us." (Romans. 8:34)

Verse 9 and 10 say the Christ is in the Christians as the Spirit of Christ and as Christ Himself. Verse 34 says that Christ is at the right hand of God intereceding for the Christians.

If the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead is interchangeably used with the Spirit of Christ THEN the Son of God given is also the Eternal Father. There is distinction. But there is no separation. The Christians cannot discern ANY separation in our experience and enjoyment of this INDWELLING God.

Now below VoidSpirit grasps at, I think, a verse in Exodus where God said that Moses would be AS GOD to Pharoah. And I think VoidSpirit hopes that this verse will prove that Jesus Christ is not God incarnate.

Here is what VoidSpirit wrote:

christ is never addressed as the god.

This statement I have to be impolite about and classify as a lie.
In Hebrews 1:8 the Son of God is addressed as God:

"But OF THE SON, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom." (Hebrews 1:8)

Christ, the Son, is addressed as "God".
And of course, do not believe the twistings which seek to deceive that Thomas did not address the resurrected Jesus as his Lord and his God (John 20:28).

I just don't listen to their twistings. But we then have this -

ME:

"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."

VoidSpirit:

the term for god in the hebrew here is "elohim" which is a word also used to describe moses, or persons appointed by god to divine status. the psalm even continues to make that point. the psalm describes a human king and the throne of god referenced is the dynasty of david.

No references were given.

Where is it that Moses is described as God ??
Maybe the poster has this in mind:

When Moses complains that he is not elequent in speech God tells him that Aaron will speak his words which God will give to Moses:

"And you shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth, and I will be with your mouth and with his mouth, and will teach you what you shall do.

And he [Aaron] shall speak for you to the people, and he shall be as a nouth for you, and you shall be as God to him." (Exodus 4:14,15)

Since VoidSpirit gives no reference, I assume perhaps this is the passage he means.

The implication then is that Christ is no more really God incarnate than Moses was. God said that Moses would be "as God to him" [Aaron] . Therefore, VoidSpirit would have us believe that all the Bible means is the Jesus Christ the Son of God is just another Moses like figure. Both, are discribed as God.

I reject using Exodus 4:16 as a reason to disbelieve that Christ is God incarnate. Sure, in representative authority, Moses would be "as God" to Aaron. But according to the very example I used in Romans 8:9-11 - Christ is an interchangeable term with the Spirit of Christ and "the Spirit of God" and "the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead" .

Christ is therefore God, the indwelling divine Life - the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead.

These arguments suggesting Moses and Jesus Christ are exactly the same - on...