Now to go through some of your passages to highlight how they are not
Psalm 89:26 He will call out to me, 'You are my father, my God, and the protector who delivers me.'
Here it can be taken as there are two persons, one who is "my father" the other who is "my God". Or even if we accept the two are infact one, it is not explicitly stated they are.
That is not grammatically possible, given the single referent 'you'.
John 17:3 Now this is eternal life—that they know you, [the Father] the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.
Isn't it a shame that "the Father" isn't actually in the original verse
You mean isn't it a shame that 'Father' is in the preceding passage?
1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he looked upward to heaven and said, “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, so that your Son may glorify you—
2 just as you have given him authority over all humanity, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him.
It's unavoidable that the Father is being addressed here specifically.
John 20: Jesus replied, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father. Go to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'
Sounds like two fathers here, and two Gods. One has to assume Christ is referring to one and the same person. If one has to assume anything, or make any kind of logical connection on their own, then the statements in question are only implicit.
No assumption has to be made, this is simple grammar. Find me any commentary which says this is a reference to two fathers and two gods.
Romans 15:6 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
This does not explicitly say "the Father" is God.
It does indeed. It calls God 'our Father'.
I'm sure you are aware that if Socrates is a man, a man is not necessarily Socrates. Or a better example than the Socrates one would be God is love, but this does not mean love is God. Likewise if God is our Father, then this does not necessarily mean our Father is God.
This actually does state that our Father is God. Your analogy is flawed, because it does not use equivalent terms. If Socrates is 'our man', then 'our man' is necessarily Socrates.
It is also interesting that "God" is further distinguished by "our Father" as though there may by others who could bear the title of God.
Find me any Greek commentary which agrees with your interpretation of the grammar.
Corinthians 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
I Corinthians 15:24 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
II Corinthians 11:31 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Again, same as the previous.
Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
Wow, here we have an indication that Christ was not a man. For Paul, an apostle, did not come of men or by man
, but by Jesus Christ
You cannot argue that without arguing that Jesus was not a man, which contradicts the trinitarian dogma.
Yet, getting back to the explicitness, this passage does not explicitly state the Father is God, nor does it mean there aren't others who could be "God". In order to it to be explicit that "the Father" is God, it would have to read something like: "and the Father, who is God, raised him from the dead."
It says that God, identified as the Father
, raised him from the dead. It specifically declares that God is one person, 'the Father'. Remember, that is the case I am proving - that God is described as one person, 'the Father'.
Philippians 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Again not explicit.
It is explicit. It refers to God as one person, the Father.
Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Still not explicit for one has to assume two persons aren't be referred to (i.e., one God and one Father = two)
It is grammatically impossible to assume two persons here (one 'God' and the other 'Father').
Ephesians 5:20 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
Ephesians 6:21 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
II Thessalonians 2:16 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,
I Timothy 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
My comments regarding previous passages you provided apply here also. While there is an implicitness that the Father is God, it is not explicit.
They are all explicit. You appeal either to fallacies of grammar or fallacies of false reasoning.
IMPORTANT: I want to emphasise to all that what I am doing is not denying the Father is God. Rather I am denying it is explicitly stated "the Father is God". One always has to draw the conclusion or assumption that the Father is God, and also often that there aren't other Fathers or Gods (however obvious may be the author's intention).
These are all in fact explicit statements. They are not implicit statements, and it is not grammatically possible to read them in another way.
The fact you had to make comments to make it more obvious to me, reveals the passages you provided are only "implicit" (however strongly implicit they may be).
I didn't have to make any comments, I just gave you the list of quotes you had requested.
This is a great passage with which to finish:
I Corinthians 8:
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
There is one God
, and that God is one person
, and that person is the Father
Oh... so some sort of Pantheism is true in so much as we are all God? We are all the Father?
It is not possible to derive such a conclusion from this passage.
Of course I don't believe this, but again a few assumptions are required in the passage.
You are not actually addressing the grammar here. No assumptions are required.
In addition, this passage actually favours Christ's divinity. For if all things are by one God who is the Father, and all things are by one Lord Jesus Christ, then Christ is not created but eternal. Only God is eternal. Therefore Christ is also God.
This is a fallacy of equivocation which leads to the Oneness theology (I hope you don't want to go there).
Oh no, there are passages, but they need to be taken collectively and together they uphold a concept such as the Trinity, which was developed in response to Scripture, not in the absense of Scripture or against it.
Which means you are in fact telling me is that there are no passages in the Bible which refer to God as consisting of three persons in one being.
Fortigurn wrote:You are instead telling me that the trinity is a logical inference from a chain of reasoning which involves interpreting certain passages as stating that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God.
Yes, that is pretty much it... only it has seemed to me that you relegate logical inferences as unimportant when it suits you. Martin Luther was for Scripture and reason alone, and I strongly believe one shouldn't divorce reason from their interpretation of Scripture.
I have already explained that I do not believe that logical inferences are unimportant.