There is no Trinity

Discussions about the Bible, and any issues raised by Scripture.
secretfire6
Established Member
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:34 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: There is no Trinity

#76

Post by secretfire6 » Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:56 pm

B. W. wrote:Next Lesson:

Numbers 6:24,25,26,27 NASB reads:

"24 The LORD bless you, and keep you;
25 The LORD make His face shine on you, And be gracious to you;
26 The LORD lift up His countenance on you, And give you peace.'
27 So they shall invoke My name on the sons of Israel, and I then will bless them."


How many times is LORD used in these verses?

Note that when LORD is spelled in all caps it is spelled as YHWH in the Hebrew text.

Look up the words face and countenance - what is the Hebrew word used, and its meaning, and what is the word's grammar type and tense?

Next, who demonstrated grace to humanity - please see John 1:14 and John 1:16 for a few clues

What does Acts 9:31, Rom 14:17, Rom 15:13, Gal 5:22, and Eph 4:3 share what in common with Numbers 6:26?

Who are the presences - of YHWH mentioned in verse 25 and 26?

YHWH mentioned three times - one YHWH revealing his One YHWH Nature - as three distinct YHWH presences...

Hmmm, How is one blest?
-
-
-
ok Hebrew for face is Panaw and is a noun..has no tense. Hebrew is not a tense language is it? From what I've learned you can't actually tell whether it's past, present or future tense by looking at the words, you have to find it in context. Hebrew for countenance is also panaw. Countenance in English can also mean "admit as exceptable" but that's only in English. The Christ, as Jesus reflected perfectly the light of God to humanity, so Jesus was the best demonstration of grace to humanity. Not seeing a connection to those verses and numbers 6:26 other than one uses the term LORD, which again is a very generic term. Those verses are mostly about what the Holy spirit does for people and a community. So far I'm seeing that to be blessed is to have God turn his face to you and accept that you and the things you do are good and sends peace, joy, patience and love to you by sending you or reconnecting you with his spirit. I do not at all see anything that promotes three different presences, just three different ways of describing the same thing. Also since the Hebrew word for face is also the word that countenance is, you should be able to replace countenance with face and get the same original intended meaning. In fact the NIV does exactly that, so the secondary meaning of countenance can be used only if the Hebrew panaw has a figurative meaning that is the same as countenance. Strong's Hebrew lexicon does have "regard" and "have respect". I'm still left with the question of whether or not The holy spirit is a person.

secretfire6
Established Member
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:34 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: There is no Trinity

#77

Post by secretfire6 » Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:52 pm

B. W. wrote:Next Lesson:

Zec 7:8,9,10,11, "Then the word of the LORD came to Zechariah, saying..." NASB

Notice YHWH - the word of YHWH spoke to Zechariah.

Now notice in these verses how 'LORD of Host' and 'His Spirit' are set apart as distinct from each other and the speaker as well - word of YHWH as verse 9 indicates? Note the use of He, His, and I are used in verses 12 and 13 too...

Zec 7:12 NASB - Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets. Thus great wrath came from the LORD of hosts.

Zec 7:13 NASB -Therefore it happened, that just as He proclaimed and they would not hear, so they called out and I would not listen," says the LORD of hosts."


The Lord is speaking, yet, he sets apart two distinct presences in the text that share one divine essence ...

Next Lesson:

Now look at Amos 4:11 NASB, "I overthrew you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, And you were like a firebrand snatched from a blaze; Yet you have not returned to Me," declares the LORD.."

What do you see interesting in what YHWH said here?

Why would YHWH say God (Elohim) overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah? and in the following verses why is YHWH speaking of meeting your God and notice LORD (YHWH) God (Elohim) of host in verse 13. You have one speaking of another as a person, yet same as himself in the usges of Him and He...

Amos 4:12, 13, "Therefore thus I will do to you, O Israel; Because I will do this to you, Prepare to meet your God, O Israel." 13 For behold, He who forms mountains and creates the wind And declares to man what are His thoughts, He who makes dawn into darkness And treads on the high places of the earth, The LORD God of hosts is His name." NASB

...see it yet?

Let me break this down for you:

Amos 4:11 NASB, "I (the Father) overthrew you, as God (The Son and Holy Spirit) overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, And you were like a firebrand snatched from a blaze; Yet you have not returned to Me," declares the LORD (The Father).

Amos 4:12, "Therefore thus I (the Father) will do to you, O Israel; Because I will do this to you, Prepare to meet your God (The Son), O Israel."

Amos 4:13, "For behold, He (the Son) who forms mountains and creates the wind (note: John 1:3,10, Col 1:16,17; Heb 1:2,3) And declares to man what are His thoughts, He (the Son) who makes dawn into darkness And treads on the high places of the earth, The LORD God ( YHWH Elohim -the Son) of hosts is His name.
" NASB

Please note that the two angels were Maleks - Messengers sent to Sodom. These were not angelic beings but rather the pre incarnate Son and the Holy Spirit in an theophany.

Please note Jer 50:40 NASB as well too: "As when God overthrew Sodom And Gomorrah with its neighbors," declares the LORD, "No man will live there, Nor will any son of man reside in it."

Now notice the text in Genesis 19:24 how YHWH or LORD is used denoting two locations for YHWH – read and what do you see?

"Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven," Genesis 19:24 NASB

Who was in Sodom and called fire down? See Gen 19:13 for the answer...

"Then the LORD (Son and Holy Spirit) rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD (Father) out of heaven, Genesis 19:24 NASB

Gen 19:13 NASB, "for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the LORD (The Father) that the LORD (Father) has sent us to destroy it."

Need further evidence -then go to Gen 18:

Gen 18:20 And the LORD (The Father) said, "The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.
Gen 18:21 "I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know."
Gen 18:22 Then the men (Son and Holy Spirit) turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before the LORD.


Verses cited are from the NASB with Father, Son, Holy Spirited in ( ) to help reader see what is going on...

Noticed the two maleks left - so how could YHWH say that he himself will go down into the cities to see for himself yet remained with Abraham unless he sent his two Panim - presences to do so and thus keep his word just spoken? Note that angelic beings are not the - I - YHWH uses... If these were two angelic beings - then he would have said, I send them, and not used I will go down... see the difference?
-
-
-
ok, 2 points I need to make about the Zechariah verses. I read the whole chapter to make sure I was seeing it right. My first point is that the Word of the lord makes a very clear distinction between itself and the lord Almighty. This justifies my earlier concern that LORD may just be a title, not an entity. John 1:1 identifies the Word as the spirit of the Christ. We see Christ interacting with people in the old testament in spirit form. This is very cool! However it is clear that Christ is simply relaying a story of what God had told people in the past. The sharing of an essence is not there apart from a memory, which we can all share if we had been there too.
Amos 4:11 is a mess. Other versions of the Bible have it written differently. NIV removes the word "god" making it sound like just the father relaying a story. I checked the Hebrew and Elohim is in there, so with it, it gives the idea that the Christ is talking and reminding someone that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. However having looked at the Hebrew and defining every word in it, there is one in the English that has no spot in the Hebrew... The "I" in "I have overthrown" or where yours says "I overthrew you". Without that "I" having a true spot , the Hebrew can be re written in different ways, so I'm not going to say yea or nae about this verse helping me. I'm not one to believe that Christ was idle the whole time he wasn't incarnated, so a statement showing supernatural involvement wouldn't surprise me.
I don't see at all how you attached Father with YHWH and how Elohim becomes the son and holy spirit. Strong's has this: 430 'elohiym el-o-heem' plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty. and 433 is: 433 'elowahh el-o'-ah; rarely (shortened) >eloahh {el-o'-ah probably prolonged (emphat.) from 410; a deity or the Deity:--God, god.
So from the Hebrew point of view, in their culture, The use of Elohim in Amos 4:11could easily mean that a group of very powerful angels destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. I tried to look up Malek, but only found people with that last name, a pizza place and characters in fantasy books. All Angels are messengers, that's what Aggelos means in Greek.
I think I'm going to stop here at least for now. For one, I'm getting sleepy and for two, so far your whole lesson seems to hinge on YHWH meaning God the father and Elohim being the Son and Holy spirit. From the bit of learning I did today, that formula seems to be off. A very informative and respected Hebrew dictionary says that Elohim was the primary word for the Hebrew's ultimate one true God and as a secondary for groups of high level spirits. You also gave some examples where the term YHWH was used undoubtedly for the Christ. I don't really know what YHWH is supposed to mean at this point, but it's almost unanimously translated as LORD. If there is some accuracy to that translation, then that term could be applied to many different people or beings in the Bible. If YHWH is the title LORD then YHWH=Christ and YHWH=Father that makes some logical sense.

User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8365
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado
Has liked: 102 times
Been liked: 260 times

Re: There is no Trinity

#78

Post by B. W. » Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:40 pm

secretfire6 wrote:
B. W. wrote:...Numbers 6:24,25,26,27 NASB reads:
ok Hebrew for face is Panaw and is a noun..has no tense. Hebrew is not a tense language is it? From what I've learned you can't actually tell whether it's past, present or future tense by looking at the words, you have to find it in context. Hebrew for countenance is also panaw. Countenance in English can also mean "admit as exceptable" but that's only in English. The Christ, as Jesus reflected perfectly the light of God to humanity, so Jesus was the best demonstration of grace to humanity. Not seeing a connection to those verses and numbers 6:26 other than one uses the term LORD, which again is a very generic term. Those verses are mostly about what the Holy spirit does for people and a community. So far I'm seeing that to be blessed is to have God turn his face to you and accept that you and the things you do are good and sends peace, joy, patience and love to you by sending you or reconnecting you with his spirit. I do not at all see anything that promotes three different presences, just three different ways of describing the same thing. Also since the Hebrew word for face is also the word that countenance is, you should be able to replace countenance with face and get the same original intended meaning. In fact the NIV does exactly that, so the secondary meaning of countenance can be used only if the Hebrew panaw has a figurative meaning that is the same as countenance. Strong's Hebrew lexicon does have "regard" and "have respect". I'm still left with the question of whether or not The holy spirit is a person.
The Hebrew word is: pāniym / panim not the singular panaw. Panyim ie panim is masculine plural noun and not is the singular form. It expresses the presence of one through the sense of being in the presence of someone. Panim means seeing the face /presence - what is inside a person; as if a face is the best way to access what is inside a person. Think of Panim as the access point to see what is inside a person. So to see the Lord's Panim/face is the means to see what is inside a person. Panim reveals the inside... it expresses knowing someone very well... Research the Hebrew definitions of Panyim ie panim on the internet and not Panaw for more insight in how I derived the above explanation...

Now note the concept of panim shines through the NT in the roles Jesus and the Holy Spirit reveals God the Father. Jesus said he who sees him see's the Father and that the Holy Spirit will reveal truth, teach, convict, guide, etc and etc -- so to stand in the panim of the Lord we gain access to know God - know his face - know him face to face... we learn what is inside God - his desires, will, purpose, plans, character etc and etc. The Panim is the entrance and access points we use to get to know someone. We stand and see someone’s face, we discern their presence, and read their countenance.

It is a plural collective noun with which the context in which the word is used is how the plural is defined. Two people can be face to face, like a groom and a bride, or good friends, or in the crowd. When dealing with being in a person's panyim - you are entering into their presences, countenances, in other words, you see all aspects of a person's intellectual, physical, and charisma power.

In the context of God's panim - it is like you are entering in, seeing the Lord's intellectual, physical, and charisma power. That is the idea of YHWH/Elohim panim. Moses spoke to God panim to panim - he was encountering aspects of God's intellectual power, physical spiritual power, and charisma power. He was seeing God inside and God inside him so to speak. Moses was encountering the presences of God in detail as a close friend knows his friend.

In Numbers 6:24-27 YHWH reveals how to be blessed by knowing his Presences as his presences are the only way to enter in and know YHWH. His Presences are living, and are capable self existing because the sum toll of God is living and self existing. Notice the entry point to knowing God is to know his graciousness and his peace…

Num 6:25-27, "The LORD make His face (Panim) shine on you, And be gracious to you;
26 The LORD lift up His countenance (Panim) on you, And give you peace.'
27 "So they shall invoke My name (Character) on the sons of Israel, and I then will bless them.
' NASB

Note what John 1:14,16,17c states about Jesus and grace…

Note what Rom 15:13, Gal 5:22 states about the Holy Spirit and peace…

How do Jesus and the Holy Spirit reveal the real character of God? Are they not the entry point towards knowing God?

God consists of three living coeternal, self existing, living presences – the Father being the sum total – greater. To know God one must come through his living Presences…Jesus said something on this in John 14:6 and that he would send the helper – the Holy Spirit John 14:16,26c the living coeternal, living, presences of haElohim ie Godhead…the Father.

Jesus is called the Word – Logos and that word means the expression of intelligence in action. The Holy Spirit is often referred as the Power to live, create, etc and etc. The Father is often mentioned as the source that wills.

The Father wills and the Word (the Son) brings it into action and the Holy Spirit makes it come about. Three living presences make up God and to know God, one must come by coming through his panim (Son and Holy Spirit) that way His character is made known and displayed.

This is what the OT is revealing about God… This is rather deep stuff. Take your time and think about it for awhile. Keep in mind as God lives and is self existent so would his presences be also…

Next, regarding the name YHWH, it is unknown how to say it because the ancient Hebrews removed the vowels. Look on the internet to find out why. I use Yahweh or YHWH, others use Yehovah. In Numbers 6:24-27 the context reveals it referring to whom? You tell me…

YHWH and Elohim can refer to any of the self existing presences of the Godhead. The titles used help identify whom is speaking. This takes a bit of time to learn to discern but it is rather easy once you grasp more about Jesus, his role, and character traits… If we continue, you’ll begin to see this unfold but for now enough has been said to keep the reader very busy mediating and mulling over all of this. Just roll it around the brain and may the Lord grant you His light to see more clearly in ways that changes your very life for the better. Amen…
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys

User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8365
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado
Has liked: 102 times
Been liked: 260 times

Re: There is no Trinity

#79

Post by B. W. » Sat Feb 08, 2014 12:01 am

secretfire6 wrote: ok, 2 points I need to make about the Zechariah verses. I read the whole chapter to make sure I was seeing it right. My first point is that the Word of the lord makes a very clear distinction between itself and the lord Almighty. This justifies my earlier concern that LORD may just be a title, not an entity. John 1:1 identifies the Word as the spirit of the Christ. We see Christ interacting with people in the old testament in spirit form. This is very cool! However it is clear that Christ is simply relaying a story of what God had told people in the past. The sharing of an essence is not there apart from a memory, which we can all share if we had been there too.
Amos 4:11 is a mess. Other versions of the Bible have it written differently. NIV removes the word "god" making it sound like just the father relaying a story. I checked the Hebrew and Elohim is in there, so with it, it gives the idea that the Christ is talking and reminding someone that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. However having looked at the Hebrew and defining every word in it, there is one in the English that has no spot in the Hebrew... The "I" in "I have overthrown" or where yours says "I overthrew you". Without that "I" having a true spot , the Hebrew can be re written in different ways, so I'm not going to say yea or nae about this verse helping me. I'm not one to believe that Christ was idle the whole time he wasn't incarnated, so a statement showing supernatural involvement wouldn't surprise me.
I don't see at all how you attached Father with YHWH and how Elohim becomes the son and holy spirit. Strong's has this: 430 'elohiym el-o-heem' plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty. and 433 is: 433 'elowahh el-o'-ah; rarely (shortened) >eloahh {el-o'-ah probably prolonged (emphat.) from 410; a deity or the Deity:--God, god.
So from the Hebrew point of view, in their culture, The use of Elohim in Amos 4:11could easily mean that a group of very powerful angels destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. I tried to look up Malek, but only found people with that last name, a pizza place and characters in fantasy books. All Angels are messengers, that's what Aggelos means in Greek.
I think I'm going to stop here at least for now. For one, I'm getting sleepy and for two, so far your whole lesson seems to hinge on YHWH meaning God the father and Elohim being the Son and Holy spirit. From the bit of learning I did today, that formula seems to be off. A very informative and respected Hebrew dictionary says that Elohim was the primary word for the Hebrew's ultimate one true God and as a secondary for groups of high level spirits. You also gave some examples where the term YHWH was used undoubtedly for the Christ. I don't really know what YHWH is supposed to mean at this point, but it's almost unanimously translated as LORD. If there is some accuracy to that translation, then that term could be applied to many different people or beings in the Bible. If YHWH is the title LORD then YHWH=Christ and YHWH=Father that makes some logical sense.
Amos 4:11,, "I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a brand plucked out of the burning; yet have ye not returned unto Me, saith the LORD." Jewish Publication Society Bible

God is used in the text and the I is used as the first word in the verse in majority of translations. The NIV sadly sometimes messes up the original languages of the bible, it is okay in some things but mostly, it changes and leaves out words in a few places due to translator issues between translators. The NIV is not the best to do a translation study with... NIV changed God into I but that is incorrect.

As for Zec 7:8, read Zec 7:9, as it begins to reveal who is speaking. I should have mentioned that but at least I included it so read Zec 7:8,9,10,11 again...

One thing to note, you cannot say everywhere Elohim or YHWH (LORD) is speaking, this member of the Trinity of God is speaking or that one. It does not work that way due to God's nature of Oneness. However, there are certain titles that parallel certain clear attributes, tasks, deeds that match Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the NT that identify who is speaking. YHWH, EL, Elohim can express any member of the Godhead and haElohim expresses the Godhead in total sum. There are titles attached too that show who is speaking and the language used and how personal pronouns are used also help. Keep it simple, go slow, you'll catch on it time.
-
-
-
One more Lesson:

Look at these verses from the JPS.

Isa 48:12 Hearken unto Me, O Jacob, and Israel My called: I am He; I am the first, I also am the last.

Isa 48:13 Yea, My hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand hath spread out the heavens; when I call unto them, they stand up together.

Isa 48:14 Assemble yourselves, all ye, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? He whom the LORD loveth shall perform His pleasure on Babylon, and show His arm on the Chaldeans.

Isa 48:15 I, even I, have spoken, yea, I have called him; I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.

Isa 48:16 Come ye near unto Me, hear ye this: From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord GOD hath sent me, and His Spirit.


Notice it is the Lord speaking in the text and the reread verse 16 and ask yourself why did the LORD use third person speech that identifies whom ?
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys

krystyna
Acquainted Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:47 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: There is no Trinity

#80

Post by krystyna » Sun Feb 23, 2014 4:12 am

I like this one:
"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the fourth century. . . . Among the apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." -New Catholic Encyclopedia.
The inventors of the Trinity God admit openly that it has nothing to do with the Bible.

Thanks vanquish29

User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8365
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado
Has liked: 102 times
Been liked: 260 times

Re: There is no Trinity

#81

Post by B. W. » Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:09 am

krystyna wrote:I like this one:
"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the fourth century. . . . Among the apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." -New Catholic Encyclopedia.
The inventors of the Trinity God admit openly that it has nothing to do with the Bible.

Thanks vanquish29
I like the bible as it is written:

God is clearing speaking in the textual contextual continuity (verse 22) so ask yourself: why the use of third person speech used?

Isaiah 48:16 JPS, "Come ye near unto Me, hear ye this: From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord GOD hath sent me, and His Spirit..." Jewish bible rendering...

Isa 48:16 NASB "Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord (adoni YHWH) GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit." NASB with Hebrew words added in for clarity...

You have the LORD Jesus (preincarnate Christ) mentioning himself, the Father and the Holy Spirit in this verse...

Have a nice day...
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys

krystyna
Acquainted Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:47 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: There is no Trinity

#82

Post by krystyna » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:33 am

B.W.
I like the bible as it is written:

God is clearing speaking in the textual contextual continuity (verse 22) so ask yourself: why the use of third person speech used?
Hi BW.

I have few questions to you if I may.

Why you ask me to ask myself instead of showing a verse or verses clearly stating what you are alluding to? Which verse tells you that when God speaks in third person (provided the translation is correct) it refers to a Trinity God?

Why the prophets, Jesus and the New Testament writers didn’t know what you know?

Why the Catholics who invented the Trinity God don’t know what you know?

And lastly, why you look the other way on many clear verses making what you allude to a contradiction?

God bless.

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5922
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 91 times
Been liked: 137 times

Re: There is no Trinity

#83

Post by Byblos » Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:31 am

krystyna wrote:B.W.
I like the bible as it is written:

God is clearing speaking in the textual contextual continuity (verse 22) so ask yourself: why the use of third person speech used?
Hi BW.

I have few questions to you if I may.

Why you ask me to ask myself instead of showing a verse or verses clearly stating what you are alluding to? Which verse tells you that when God speaks in third person (provided the translation is correct) it refers to a Trinity God?

Why the prophets, Jesus and the New Testament writers didn’t know what you know?

Why the Catholics who invented the Trinity God don’t know what you know?

And lastly, why you look the other way on many clear verses making what you allude to a contradiction?

God bless.
Such is the sad reality of beliefs that want to distance themselves from Catholicism so desperately that they end up denying the very nature of God. :shakehead:

Never mind the fact that the trinity can be proven directly from scripture, never mind the fact that it was believed and preached by the early church fathers, never mind the fact that it was formalized (not formulated) in the 3rd century precisely to combat countless heresies such as the denial of Christ's deity. If there ever was a single Christian doctrine that stands on solid ground biblically and historically and unites most Christian denominations and creeds, the trinity would be it, bar none.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8365
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado
Has liked: 102 times
Been liked: 260 times

Re: There is no Trinity

#84

Post by B. W. » Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:17 am

krystyna wrote:I like this one:
"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the fourth century. . . . Among the apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." -New Catholic Encyclopedia.
The inventors of the Trinity God admit openly that it has nothing to do with the Bible.

Thanks vanquish29
You simply misquoted your source, for a readers full rending please go to the following link...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
Sources quoted from: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:

There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).

It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies. In view of this assertion it is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by Holy Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparative religion to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compelling men to group the objects of their worship in threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation.

Proof of doctrine from Scripture

New Testament

The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:20. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the Twelve step by step.

First He taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:18). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures.

The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible.

The supernatural appearance at the baptism of Christ is often cited as an explicit revelation of Trinitarian doctrine, given at the very commencement of the Ministry. This, it seems to us, is a mistake. The Evangelists, it is true, see in it a manifestation of the Three Divine Persons. Yet, apart from Christ's subsequent teaching, the dogmatic meaning of the scene would hardly have been understood. Moreover, the Gospel narratives appear to signify that none but Christ and the Baptist were privileged to see the Mystic Dove, and hear the words attesting the Divine sonship of the Messias.

Besides these passages there are many others in the Gospels which refer to one or other of the Three Persons in particular and clearly express the separate personality and Divinity of each. In regard to the First Person it will not be necessary to give special citations: those which declare that Jesus Christ is God the Son, affirm thereby also the separate personality of the Father. The Divinity of Christ is amply attested not merely by St. John, but by the Synoptists. As this point is treated elsewhere (see JESUS CHRIST), it will be sufficient here to enumerate a few of the more important messages from the Synoptists, in which Christ bears witness to His Divine Nature.

He declares that He will come to be the judge of all men (Matthew 25:31). In Jewish theology the judgment of the world was a distinctively Divine, and not a Messianic, prerogative.
In the parable of the wicked husbandmen, He describes Himself as the son of the householder, while the Prophets, one and all, are represented as the servants (Matthew 21:33 sqq.).
He is the Lord of Angels, who execute His command (Matthew 24:31).
He approves the confession of Peter when he recognizes Him, not as Messias — a step long since taken by all the Apostles — but explicitly as the Son of God: and He declares the knowledge due to a special revelation from the Father (Matthew 16:16-17).
Finally, before Caiphas He not merely declares Himself to be the Messias, but in reply to a second and distinct question affirms His claim to be the Son of God. He is instantly declared by the high priest to be guilty of blasphemy, an offense which could not have been attached to the claim to be simply the Messias (Luke 22:66-71).
St. John's testimony is yet more explicit than that of the Synoptists. He expressly asserts that the very purpose of his Gospel is to establish the Divinity of Jesus Christ (John 20:31). In the prologue he identifies Him with the Word, the only-begotten of the Father, Who from all eternity exists with God, Who is God (John 1:1-18). The immanence of the Son in the Father and of the Father in the Son is declared in Christ's words to St. Philip: "Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?" (14:10), and in other passages no less explicit (14:7; 16:15; 17:21). The oneness of Their power and Their action is affirmed: "Whatever he [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner" (5:19, cf. 10:38); and to the Son no less than to the Father belongs the Divine attribute of conferring life on whom He will (5:21). In 10:29, Christ expressly teaches His unity of essence with the Father: "That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all . . . I and the Father are one." The words, "That which my Father hath given me," can, having regard to the context, have no other meaning than the Divine Name, possessed in its fullness by the Son as by the Father.

Rationalist critics lay great stress upon the text: "The Father is greater than I" (14:28). They argue that this suffices to establish that the author of the Gospel held subordinationist views, and they expound in this sense certain texts in which the Son declares His dependence on the Father (5:19; 8:28). In point of fact the doctrine of the Incarnation involves that, in regard of His Human Nature, the Son should be less than the Father. No argument against Catholic doctrine can, therefore, be drawn from this text. So too, the passages referring to the dependence of the Son upon the Father do but express what is essential to Trinitarian dogma, namely, that the Father is the supreme source from Whom the Divine Nature and perfections flow to the Son. (On the essential difference between St. John's doctrine as to the Person of Christ and the Logos doctrine of the Alexandrine Philo, to which many Rationalists have attempted to trace it, see LOGOS.)

In regard to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the passages which can be cited from the Synoptists as attesting His distinct personality are few. The words of Gabriel (Luke 1:35), having regard to the use of the term, "the Spirit," in the Old Testament, to signify God as operative in His creatures, can hardly be said to contain a definite revelation of the doctrine. For the same reason it is dubious whether Christ's warning to the Pharisees as regards blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31) can be brought forward as proof. But in Luke 12:12, "The Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say" (Matthew 10:20, and Luke 24:49), His personality is clearly implied. These passages, taken in connection with Matthew 28:19, postulate the existence of such teaching as we find in the discourses in the Cenacle reported by St. John (14, 15, 16). We have in these chapters the necessary preparation for the baptismal commission. In them the Apostles are instructed not only as the personality of the Spirit, but as to His office towards the Church. His work is to teach whatsoever He shall hear (16:13) to bring back their minds the teaching of Christ (14:26), to convince the world of sin (16:8). It is evident that, were the Spirit not a Person, Christ could not have spoken of His presence with the Apostles as comparable to His own presence with them (14:16). Again, were He not a Divine Person it could not have been expedient for the Apostles that Christ should leave them, and the Paraclete take His place (16:7). Moreover, notwithstanding the neuter form of the word (pneuma), the pronoun used in His regard is the masculine ekeinos. The distinction of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son is involved in the express statements that He proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son (15:26; cf. 14:16, 14:26). Nevertheless, He is one with Them: His presence with the Disciples is at the same time the presence of the Son (14:17-18), while the presence of the Son is the presence of the Father (14:23).

In the remaining New Testament writings numerous passages attest how clear and definite was the belief of the Apostolic Church in the three Divine Persons. In certain texts the coordination of Father, Son, and Spirit leaves no possible doubt as to the meaning of the writer. Thus in 2 Corinthians 13:13, St. Paul writes: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all." Here the construction shows that the Apostle is speaking of three distinct Persons. Moreover, since the names God and Holy Ghost are alike Divine names, it follows that Jesus Christ is also regarded as a Divine Person. So also, in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11: "There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit; and there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord: and there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all [of them] in all [persons]." (Cf. also Ephesians 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2-3)

But apart from passages such as these, where there is express mention of the Three Persons, the teaching of the New Testament regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit is free from all ambiguity. In regard to Christ, the Apostles employ modes of speech which, to men brought up in the Hebrew faith, necessarily signified belief in His Divinity. Such, for instance, is the use of the Doxology in reference to Him. The Doxology, "To Him be glory for ever and ever" (cf. 1 Chronicles 16:38; 29:11; Psalm 103:31; 28:2), is an expression of praise offered to God alone. In the New Testament we find it addressed not alone to God the Father, but to Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18; Revelation 1:6; Hebrews 13:20-21), and to God the Father and Christ in conjunction (Revelations 5:13, 7:10).

Not less convincing is the use of the title Lord (Kyrios). This term represents the Hebrew Adonai, just as God (Theos) represents Elohim. The two are equally Divine names (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:4). In the Apostolic writings Theos may almost be said to be treated as a proper name of God the Father, and Kyrios of the Son (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 12:5-6); in only a few passages do we find Kyrios used of the Father (1 Corinthians 3:5; 7:17) or Theos of Christ. The Apostles from time to time apply to Christ passages of the Old Testament in which Kyrios is used, for example, 1 Corinthians 10:9 (Numbers 21:7), Hebrews 1:10-12 (Psalm 101:26-28); and they use such expressions as "the fear of the Lord" (Acts 9:31; 2 Corinthians 5:11; Ephesians 5:21), "call upon the name of the Lord," indifferently of God the Father and of Christ (Acts 2:21; 9:14; Romans 10:13). The profession that "Jesus is the Lord" (Kyrion Iesoun, Romans 10:9; Kyrios Iesous, 1 Corinthians 12:3) is the acknowledgment of Jesus as Jahweh. The texts in which St. Paul affirms that in Christ dwells the plenitude of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9), that before His Incarnation He possessed the essential nature of God (Philippians 2:6), that He "is over all things, God blessed for ever" (Romans 9:5) tell us nothing that is not implied in many other passages of his Epistles.

The doctrine as to the Holy Spirit is equally clear. That His distinct personality was fully recognized is shown by many passages. Thus He reveals His commands to the Church's ministers: "As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas . . ." (Acts 13:2). He directs the missionary journey of the Apostles: "They attempted to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not" (Acts 16:7; cf. Acts 5:3; 15:28; Romans 15:30). Divine attributes are affirmed of Him.

He possesses omniscience and reveals to the Church mysteries known only to God (1 Corinthians 2:10);
it is He who distributes charismata (1 Corinthians 12:11);
He is the giver of supernatural life (2 Corinthians 3:8);
He dwells in the Church and in the souls of individual men, as in His temple (Romans 8:9-11; 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19).
The work of justification and sanctification is attributed to Him (1 Corinthians 6:11; Romans 15:16), just as in other passages the same operations are attributed to Christ (1 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 2:17).
To sum up: the various elements of the Trinitarian doctrine are all expressly taught in the New Testament. The Divinity of the Three Persons is asserted or implied in passages too numerous to count. The unity of essence is not merely postulated by the strict monotheism of men nurtured in the religion of Israel, to whom "subordinate deities" would have been unthinkable; but it is, as we have seen, involved in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:19, and, in regard to the Father and the Son, expressly asserted in John 10:38. That the Persons are co-eternal and coequal is a mere corollary from this. In regard to the Divine processions, the doctrine of the first procession is contained in the very terms Father and Son: the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son is taught in the discourse of the Lord reported by St. John (14-17) (see HOLY GHOST).

Old Testament

The early Fathers were persuaded that indications of the doctrine of the Trinity must exist in the Old Testament and they found such indications in not a few passages. Many of them not merely believed that the Prophets had testified of it, they held that it had been made known even to the Patriarchs. They regarded it as certain that the Divine messenger of Genesis 16:7, 16:18, 21:17, 31:11; Exodus 3:2, was God the Son; for reasons to be mentioned below (III. B.) they considered it evident that God the Father could not have thus manifested Himself (cf. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 60; Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.20.7-11; Tertullian, Against Praxeas 15-16; Theophilus, To Autolycus II.22; Novatian, On the Trinity 18, 25, etc.). They held that, when the inspired writers speak of "the Spirit of the Lord", the reference was to the Third Person of the Trinity; and one or two (Irenaeus, Against Heresies II.30.9; Theophilus, To Autolycus II.15; Hippolytus, Against Noetus 10) interpret the hypostatic Wisdom of the Sapiential books, not, with St. Paul, of the Son (Hebrews 1:3; cf. Wisdom 7:25-26), but of the Holy Spirit. But in others of the Fathers is found what would appear to be the sounder view, that no distinct intimation of the doctrine was given under the Old Covenant. (Cf. Gregory Nazianzen, Fifth Theological Oration 31; Epiphanius, "Ancor." 73, "Haer.", 74; Basil, Against Eunomius II.22; Cyril of Alexandria, "In Joan.", xii, 20.)

Some of these, however, admitted that a knowledge of the mystery was granted to the Prophets and saints of the Old Dispensation (Epiphanius, "Haer.", viii, 5; Cyril of Alexandria, "Con. Julian., " I). It may be readily conceded that the way is prepared for the revelation in some of the prophecies. The names Emmanuel (Isaiah 7:14) and God the Mighty (Isaiah 9:6) affirmed of the Messias make mention of the Divine Nature of the promised deliverer. Yet it seems that the Gospel revelation was needed to render the full meaning of the passages clear. Even these exalted titles did not lead the Jews to recognize that the Saviour to come was to be none other than God Himself. The Septuagint translators do not even venture to render the words God the Mighty literally, but give us, in their place, "the angel of great counsel."

A still higher stage of preparation is found in the doctrine of the Sapiential books regarding the Divine Wisdom. In Proverbs 8, Wisdom appears personified, and in a manner which suggests that the sacred author was not employing a mere metaphor, but had before his mind a real person (cf. verses 22, 23). Similar teaching occurs in Ecclesiasticus 24, in a discourse which Wisdom is declared to utter in "the assembly of the Most High", i.e. in the presence of the angels. This phrase certainly supposes Wisdom to be conceived as person. The nature of the personality is left obscure; but we are told that the whole earth is Wisdom's Kingdom, that she finds her delight in all the works of God, but that Israel is in a special manner her portion and her inheritance (Ecclesiasticus 24:8-13).

In the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon we find a still further advance. Here Wisdom is clearly distinguished from Jehovah: "She is . . . a certain pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God. . .the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of God's majesty, and the image of his goodness" (Wisdom 7:25-26. Cf. Hebrews 1:3). She is, moreover, described as "the worker of all things" (panton technitis, 7:21), an expression indicating that the creation is in some manner attributable to her. Yet in later Judaism this exalted doctrine suffered eclipse, and seems to have passed into oblivion. Nor indeed can it be said that the passage, even though it manifests some knowledge of a second personality in the Godhead, constitutes a revelation of the Trinity. For nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person. Mention is often made of the Spirit of the Lord, but there is nothing to show that the Spirit was viewed as distinct from Jahweh Himself. The term is always employed to signify God considered in His working, whether in the universe or in the soul of man. The matter seems to be correctly summed up by Epiphanius, when he says: "The One Godhead is above all declared by Moses, and the twofold personality (of Father and Son) is strenuously asserted by the Prophets. The Trinity is made known by the Gospel" ("Haer.", lxxiv).
So in other words - krystyna - you twisted the context of the cited source to confrom to a view the source quoted does not hold...
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys

krystyna
Acquainted Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:47 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: There is no Trinity

#85

Post by krystyna » Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:12 pm

Byblos
Never mind the fact that the trinity can be proven directly from scripture…
Many things can be “proven” directly from the scriptures. No wonder why there over 33 000 Christian denominations fighting one another over many proven directly from the scriptures teachings.
… never mind the fact that it was believed and preached by the early church fathers…
Never mind that it (the Trinity) was not known to Jesus and the NT writers.
Never mind that the early Catholic Church Fathers began from two Gods and ended with three Gods “inspired” by the pagan Roman rulers. Please see the opening post.
… never mind the fact that it was formalized (not formulated) in the 3rd century…
The Trinity God was formulated in 381 (it is the fourth not third century) under the “inspiration” of Emperor Theodosius the Great.
If there ever was a single Christian doctrine that stands on solid ground biblically and historically and unites most Christian denominations and creeds, the trinity would be it, bar none.
Perhaps you should compare the Trinitarian faith fundamental Creeds like the Nicene and Athanasian. Perhaps you should pay more attention to what they really state.

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5922
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 91 times
Been liked: 137 times

Re: There is no Trinity

#86

Post by Byblos » Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:32 pm

B. W. wrote:So in other words - krystyna - you twisted the context of the cited source to confrom to a view the source quoted does not hold...
Which is precisely why he/she didn't include a link. Nice job BW. As I recall we do have rules on the forum against such behavior don't we?
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

krystyna
Acquainted Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:47 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: There is no Trinity

#87

Post by krystyna » Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:46 pm

B.W..
You simply misquoted your source…
I quoted from the opening post.
… , for a readers full rending please go to the following link…
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
Since when http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm is The New Catholic Encyclopedia?
So in other words - krystyna - you twisted the context of the cited source to confrom to a view the source quoted does not hold...
I noticed that you have switched the links.

Besides, your link exposes people’s way of thinking void of Biblical verses stating clearly what they allude to. We have to bear in mind that they were trying to accommodate Christ’s teaching into their prior beliefs.

As the matter of fact Catholics admit that the last part of Mt 28 including the Trinitarian baptismal formula of Mt 28:19 could have been added circa 130-140. The proof is that nobody on Biblical record was baptized in accordance with this formula. All were baptized according to Peter’s formula of Ac 2:38.

Further, the word translated as “name” in Mt 28:18 wasn’t used as today’s name-label. Thus God changed peoples “names” when he placed them in position of authority.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21026
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 191 times
Been liked: 1043 times

Re: There is no Trinity

#88

Post by RickD » Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:49 pm

Krystyna,

Are you open to the possibility that the trinitarian view is true? Or have you already made up your mind that it isn't?
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

krystyna
Acquainted Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:47 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: There is no Trinity

#89

Post by krystyna » Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:50 pm

Byblos
Which is precisely why he/she didn't include a link. Nice job BW. As I recall we do have rules on the forum against such behavior don't we?
Did you bother reading my post of Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:17 am?

krystyna
Acquainted Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:47 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: There is no Trinity

#90

Post by krystyna » Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:56 pm

RickD
Are you open to the possibility that the trinitarian view is true?
I believe in Jesus’ “view”. His “view” is that the Father is the only true God; his God.

Are you trying to say that Jesus’ “view” is wrong or that he didn’t know what you know?

Post Reply