12,000 were redeemed. It isn't close to the number of someones who are righteous in each "nation". Redeemed may mean saved or fixed rather than the simple rescue. Rescue is the meaning of the name Yeshu.
Exploring Trinitarian Logic
- Thread starter RedFan
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
I've been more disappointed with the logical analysis proffered as so-called "proofs" for and against the Trinity. For example, @Wrangler posited that
and my efforts to explain that his syllogism was not valid across all definitions of "father" and "brother" (my Dad, for example, is my biological father and my brother in Christ) met with no grasp of the issue whatsoever. Yet I suspect that if I had proposed a proof of Jesus' divinity on the order of
P1. Jesus is good
P2. “No one is good except God alone” (Luke 18:19)
C. Jesus is God
@Wrangler would have immediately objected that the syllogism failed because "good" has multiple meanings and levels -- and rightly so!
I'm not expecting the ghosts of Quine and Carnap to show up on this forum, but logical analysis does seem pretty scarce.
My analysis is this. The Holy ghosty begets Yeshu. The HG is the father. The son is never directly called God or god the son. Therefore, mistranslation is heavily implied.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
The one God formula for the Trinity skews the meaning of over a hundred scriptures and the storyline of the Gospels….
And then here are over a hundred scriptural reasons why the one God formula for the Trinity is false.
Note: Feel free to verify all scriptural references in your own favorite translation.
This is a topic that is easy to prove because it connects to so many scriptures, which will be referenced directly and or indirectly through this discussion as well as the obvious storyline of the Gospels. The topic as a whole is interesting because it involves the thoughts and beliefs of the Early Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils that eventually influenced Catholic and Protestant beliefs.
Most Christian denominations proclaim a belief in the Trinity, and its existence is certain, it is the details that vary. Some define the Trinity as three persons in one God, some turn the perspective around and believe that the Trinity is one God with three aspects. Some reduce the Trinity to a duo, the Holy Spirit merely being the projection of Yahweh or Yeshua’s spirit...not a God….a spirit, different in substance than Yahweh or Yeshua. Part of this was due to not giving the Holy Spirit a name.
Some definitions of the Trinity…
Baptist definition of the Trinity
We believe that there is one, and only one, living and true God and infinite, intelligent Spirit, the Maker and Supreme Ruler of Heaven and Earth
Catholics believe in one single God, who made Himself known to the world (revelation) as three separate persons: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit. This is known as the doctrine of the Trinity, and is a fundamental belief for all Catholics.
Pentecostal definition of the Trinity
The doctrine states that there is one God, a singular divine spirit with no distinction of persons….who manifests himself in many ways, including as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This stands in sharp contrast to the doctrine of three distinct, eternal persons posited by Trinitarian theology.
Then there are those that believe Yeshua is the “one” and only God... representing three aspects of God or even Christ being the God that created the Heavens and Earth. Which would pretty much invalidate the entire Old Testament and the Apostle’s Creed, where God the Father is the Creator, or even the concept of God being the Father.
Now this one God formula makes you wonder how God the Father fits in! Oddly enough, the “confusion factor” comes from a “qualifying condition” from the 4th century on, the thinking is if it makes no sense or cannot be understood, that is the qualifying factor that it is of God! This is an interesting topic in itself. Debates over what the Trinity meant, and or what it is, has continued throughout the centuries. The winning point always has been and is, that the Gospels clearly document the presence, actions, communications, and movements, of three persons (Gods). But the most commonly accepted doctrine of the Trinity, is that there are three persons in one God, called God, named God, as if the word God is a name. This is the larger intent and underlying reason for this doctrine of the Trinity, and that is to say “one God” not Gods. Because of this the reasons for and explanation of the errors with the one God formula for the Trinity starts with the removal of Yahweh’s name from the Old Testament. This was the event that set the stage for the one God formula and it started with the removal of God’s name from the Old Testament scriptures. That is to change the name of the Yahweh to God. Rather than “God” representing spiritual position, to change the word God to a proper name. At which point they could manipulate it very easily.
The truth is that God the Father's name at one time appeared around 6,800 times in the Old Testament and He was adamant that He was the only one and no one like Him existed. There are a few words in the OT that refer to Yahweh, like EL and Elohim and at times they referred to locations or holy sites, but they are references not proper names, or they could not say or write them. On the other hand YHWH does refer to the proper name of God the Father and at one time it appeared over 6.800 times in the Old Testament.
The exact pronunciation of Yahweh name is debatable but from around 840 BC on, His name was represented by the Tetragrammaton….YHWH. Then during the Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible (The Septuagint, beginning around 280 BC) they removed the Tetragrammaton and replaced it with the words Lord or God or both. So then during the Ecumenical Councils they could argue that the Trinity was a functional unnamed trio in the Old Testament ….because God was now all their names!
So now the bumper sticker “IN GOD WE TRUST” can mean any god.
The word Trinity is not in the Bible but it was coined by early Christian writers but they did not define the Trinity as three Gods in one person or entity. So why and when was the doctrine of the one God Trinity proposed? The doctrine of the one God Trinity was created by the Ecumenical Councils to settle irreconcilable arguments within the Council on the nature of God the Father and God the Son. Irreconcilable but Emperor Constantine commanded an agreement on this issue.
In and out of the Council, Christians had differing beliefs regarding Yahweh and Yeshua. The big topic was about some seeing a big difference in the character and nature and actions of Yahweh and Yeshua. Which was one of the concerns of the Gnostics. Now modern Christians believe as the Ecumenical Councils and the Roman Catholics believed that Gnostics were heretics and preached false beliefs, and that was correct, but some Gnostic beliefs were gaining popularity with Christians towards the end of the 1st century and beyond. The Gnostics believed that the Old Testament God was either evil or insane. So they believed that Yeshua was the Creator God and God Almighty, essentially the only true God.
Now beliefs are ideas and do not necessary commitment to a particular religion as a whole. And some Gnostic beliefs or similar beliefs were accepted by some “mainstream” Christians. Part of this may have been because of the Gospel of John. John’s writings came out towards the end of the 1st century when Christians were thirsty for more information. Now John’s writings seemed to have a Gnostic flavor. Not that He condemned God the Father but promoted Christ as the Creator God and God Almighty. He also embraced the concept of the Logos which was a Greek belief from 6 centuries prior that described a universal knowledge.
The Ecumenical Councils saw Gnostic beliefs as a threat because it was so popular at the time, and of course the beliefs outlined in John’s writings where as Yeshua was the Creator God and God Almighty and these beliefs were popular with some within the Councils so this was some of the irreconcilable arguments within the Councils. On the other hand…..
“Some” being people in the council and outside of the council.
Some believed that Yahweh was the Creator God and some believed that Yeshua was the Creator God.
Some believed in a hierarchy, that God the Father was senior to God the Son.
Some saw a difference in the character of Yahweh and Yeshua, a difference in their nature and actions.
Some believed that because God the Father begot a Son that was a God, that was proof of two Gods.
These differences could not be resolved but Emperor Constantine insisted on an agreement, the one Church, one faith thing. But still the differences persisted. So the one God formula was developed…..with a whole slew theological terms to explain it, that are not in the scriptures. The reasoning was that if you imply that God is one person there cannot be a difference in character, nature, and substance and all events are attributed to that one person (God) The problem is the scriptures do not support this by direct explanation or even follow the storyline of events, particularly in the Gospels where Yahweh and Yeshua were interacting and referring to each other and referring to each other in different places. For example Christ said my Father in Heaven….Omnipresent? But Christ did not say, My Father everywhere, it is always My Father in Heaven.
So as it is….
The McKenzie Bible Dictionary explains it this way.... “The Trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God there are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly or formally a biblical belief.” Which hold true to the fact that the word Trinity does not occur in the Holy Bible.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
But issuing the doctrine of the Trinity was not enough because Emperor Constantine believed that all of Christianity should be one belief….one Faith. So the effort of belief control began. This doctrine had to be forced on Christianity in that they would excommunicate or kill anyone that preached anything contrary to the one God Trinity, even to the point that one could not be a Christian or saved if they did not believe in the one God Trinity.
The term and concept of heresy came from the Edict of Roman Emperor Theodosius 380 AD and the Catholic Church adopted the term. And by the way the Catholic Church considered all Protestants heretics. A heretic would be excommunicated by the Church and since the Catholic Church was the state religion of the Roman Empire, heretics were considered enemies of the Empire and could be killed. And you can get into the list of heretics that were killed as time went on as well as the groups that believed differently than the Roman Catholic Church. And yes eventually there were wars between the Catholics and Protestants.
But, as with many of the official doctrines of man, what Rome proposed and what the regional churches and the people believed were many times different than the prescribed doctrines coming out of Rome. The one God formulas for the Trinity was/is abstract and incongruent. So many in that time period did not agree with the one God concept, and many believed in the authoritative position of God the Father. The one God formula was not true or accurate but it did shutdown the arguments by outlawing public objections….
The problem with these doctrines is that as a whole the scriptures as well as the storyline of the Gospels do not support the one God formula. The Gospels clearly show the Father and Son interacting and communicating throughout Christ’s ministry. Even the people that were not Apostles understood that there were individuals Gods in the trinity…. Like the time the Mother of James and John Asked Christ that her sons sit on thrones on either side of Him? And Christ answered that the places at My right side and at My left side are not Mine to give. Whoever My Father says will have those places.” There are several examples like this but one God formula people are so brain washed that they cannot see the forest for the trees.
The Comma Johanneum as it is referred to originated as a common literary explanation for the one God Trinity formula. The first discussion against the one God formula may have been around the 3rd century. Some mention a connection with some of the early Church Fathers, like Cyprian which debated the oneness concepts of the Trinity. It first appeared in written form during the 4th century in the Latin homily Liber Apologeticus, which was probably written by Priscillian of Avila. This theological formula was circulated from then on, but was not accepted, or at least was not quoted by most of the early Church Fathers in which there was a continual disagreement on the construct of the Trinity.
At some point this short summary of the Trinity made its way into the margin notes of some of the manuscripts that were written after the 5th century. Unlike other examples of popular margin notes that made their way into the scriptures, the Comma Johanneum found its way into the verses of the Bible by way of another avenue. After the early 16th century, the Byzantines began to recopy and retranslate the available Greek texts of the New Testament. At this point some of these copies became known as the “Textus Receptus.” ---Erasmus--- It was in some of these that the formula was added and then later included in some of the Bibles. Most notably the King James Version, which relied heavily on these texts. On the 2nd of June 1927, Pope Pius XI decreed that the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute. The updated " Nova Vulgata" edition of the Vulgate, published in 1979 as a result of the Second Vatican Council, does not include the Comma. In the Catholic study Bible I have that was printed around 1960 includes a combination of these two scriptures, with a side note that explains that it was a re-phrasing of the scriptures by the Holy See, as it was his prerogative. But as such are open to debate.
As it happened the Comma Johanneum Addition was much more than a re-translation, or an addition, but rather a replacement of the original scriptures with a theological statement. They kept the verse numbers in sequence so that it would not be as noticeable, but replaced the words.
The scriptures involved are 1st John 5:6-8. The original scriptures read as follows... (Quoting 6 through 8, so it can be read in context)
“6. This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. 7. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8. And it is the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”
This was replaced with what came to be called the Comma Johanneum Addition.
6: This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7: For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8: And there are three that bear witness in Earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
As one can see there is no chance that this is simply a different translation, but rather a removal of the scriptures and an insertion of a known theological statement for an intended purpose. Of course and again, there is no question that the Trinity exists, just that the Bible does not support the commonly explained formula or description of it. And this is the larger problem, if everybody changes the scriptures to what they believe, then we do not get an accurate reading of the Word of God, but instead a denominational sermon of beliefs. The Comma Johanneum Addition is a good illustration of the frustration that some had with trying to promote their beliefs and to what extent they would go to, to promote their beliefs above and over the Bible. This is not a unique observation but rather the opinion of many scholars and most of the well known reference material explains the Trinity as more of a doctrine than a biblical teaching.
Now the term Trinity was coined early on in post biblical Christian writings but the one God formula or definition was not in those writings. Nor the theological terms of the Catholic Church to explain it…..
Equality: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal in the Holy Trinity
Incarnation: Only the Son became incarnate as Jesus Christ
Coeternality: The Son is coeternal with the Father and begotten from his same substance
The Son is completely divine, or homoousion tō Patri, which means "of one substance with the Father"
The council drew up the Nicene Creed, which states that the Son is of the same substance as God the Father
Those that believe in the one God formula cling to a couple scriptures but there are so many scriptures that disagree with this formula directly or by circumstance or congruency of the Gospel storyline. It does happen, people get fascinated by the "one liners" in the Bible and employ imagination to fill in the blanks...it is a good thing that they did not promote the scriptures about hating your mother and father and pretty much your wife and your whole family (Luke 14:46) or the scriptures that says that It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (Matt. 19:24) Or we would have a religion that only appealed to the poor and they would not consider Christianity unless they hated their mother and father and their whole family. LOL
The Truth is, the Trinity is not the merging or mixing of three entities into one, like you would a cake mix, nor is it a three headed God. It is a condition and a reality that is beyond our understanding, but how the Trinity manifested itself in the Gospels.....I believe and define that there are three Gods in one Godhead, a Devine unity, but not one.
The Trinity exists simultaneously in an unexplainable spiritual condition of union, that allows for the sharing of traits, principles, powers and abilities, but prevents any possibility of disagreement. Still, this being true, they have their own individual presence, minds, wills, and characters. Three Gods that can sit side by side on three thrones. (I am not going to address spiritual thrones thing, it is just referenced that way in the Bible.) The Trinity makes sense, the scriptures that describe Their activity in the Gospels, make sense. The following discussion includes scriptures that speak of the Trinity as it is referenced in the Gospels. So we are going to put this in motion and as with reality and the truth, it will move through the story of Christ’s mission in the Gospels. The best example of the Trinity we have is how the three Gods interacted with each other during the Gospels. What they said to each other and about each other. Much of the proof comes from the lips of Christ Himself as He describes Himself and His Father as two persons in two different places as well as the communication between the two. Keeping in mind that it is very important to Christianity that Christ is the Son of God the Father.
The term and concept of heresy came from the Edict of Roman Emperor Theodosius 380 AD and the Catholic Church adopted the term. And by the way the Catholic Church considered all Protestants heretics. A heretic would be excommunicated by the Church and since the Catholic Church was the state religion of the Roman Empire, heretics were considered enemies of the Empire and could be killed. And you can get into the list of heretics that were killed as time went on as well as the groups that believed differently than the Roman Catholic Church. And yes eventually there were wars between the Catholics and Protestants.
But, as with many of the official doctrines of man, what Rome proposed and what the regional churches and the people believed were many times different than the prescribed doctrines coming out of Rome. The one God formulas for the Trinity was/is abstract and incongruent. So many in that time period did not agree with the one God concept, and many believed in the authoritative position of God the Father. The one God formula was not true or accurate but it did shutdown the arguments by outlawing public objections….
The problem with these doctrines is that as a whole the scriptures as well as the storyline of the Gospels do not support the one God formula. The Gospels clearly show the Father and Son interacting and communicating throughout Christ’s ministry. Even the people that were not Apostles understood that there were individuals Gods in the trinity…. Like the time the Mother of James and John Asked Christ that her sons sit on thrones on either side of Him? And Christ answered that the places at My right side and at My left side are not Mine to give. Whoever My Father says will have those places.” There are several examples like this but one God formula people are so brain washed that they cannot see the forest for the trees.
The Comma Johanneum as it is referred to originated as a common literary explanation for the one God Trinity formula. The first discussion against the one God formula may have been around the 3rd century. Some mention a connection with some of the early Church Fathers, like Cyprian which debated the oneness concepts of the Trinity. It first appeared in written form during the 4th century in the Latin homily Liber Apologeticus, which was probably written by Priscillian of Avila. This theological formula was circulated from then on, but was not accepted, or at least was not quoted by most of the early Church Fathers in which there was a continual disagreement on the construct of the Trinity.
At some point this short summary of the Trinity made its way into the margin notes of some of the manuscripts that were written after the 5th century. Unlike other examples of popular margin notes that made their way into the scriptures, the Comma Johanneum found its way into the verses of the Bible by way of another avenue. After the early 16th century, the Byzantines began to recopy and retranslate the available Greek texts of the New Testament. At this point some of these copies became known as the “Textus Receptus.” ---Erasmus--- It was in some of these that the formula was added and then later included in some of the Bibles. Most notably the King James Version, which relied heavily on these texts. On the 2nd of June 1927, Pope Pius XI decreed that the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute. The updated " Nova Vulgata" edition of the Vulgate, published in 1979 as a result of the Second Vatican Council, does not include the Comma. In the Catholic study Bible I have that was printed around 1960 includes a combination of these two scriptures, with a side note that explains that it was a re-phrasing of the scriptures by the Holy See, as it was his prerogative. But as such are open to debate.
As it happened the Comma Johanneum Addition was much more than a re-translation, or an addition, but rather a replacement of the original scriptures with a theological statement. They kept the verse numbers in sequence so that it would not be as noticeable, but replaced the words.
The scriptures involved are 1st John 5:6-8. The original scriptures read as follows... (Quoting 6 through 8, so it can be read in context)
“6. This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. 7. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8. And it is the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”
This was replaced with what came to be called the Comma Johanneum Addition.
6: This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7: For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8: And there are three that bear witness in Earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
As one can see there is no chance that this is simply a different translation, but rather a removal of the scriptures and an insertion of a known theological statement for an intended purpose. Of course and again, there is no question that the Trinity exists, just that the Bible does not support the commonly explained formula or description of it. And this is the larger problem, if everybody changes the scriptures to what they believe, then we do not get an accurate reading of the Word of God, but instead a denominational sermon of beliefs. The Comma Johanneum Addition is a good illustration of the frustration that some had with trying to promote their beliefs and to what extent they would go to, to promote their beliefs above and over the Bible. This is not a unique observation but rather the opinion of many scholars and most of the well known reference material explains the Trinity as more of a doctrine than a biblical teaching.
Now the term Trinity was coined early on in post biblical Christian writings but the one God formula or definition was not in those writings. Nor the theological terms of the Catholic Church to explain it…..
Equality: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal in the Holy Trinity
Incarnation: Only the Son became incarnate as Jesus Christ
Coeternality: The Son is coeternal with the Father and begotten from his same substance
The Son is completely divine, or homoousion tō Patri, which means "of one substance with the Father"
The council drew up the Nicene Creed, which states that the Son is of the same substance as God the Father
Those that believe in the one God formula cling to a couple scriptures but there are so many scriptures that disagree with this formula directly or by circumstance or congruency of the Gospel storyline. It does happen, people get fascinated by the "one liners" in the Bible and employ imagination to fill in the blanks...it is a good thing that they did not promote the scriptures about hating your mother and father and pretty much your wife and your whole family (Luke 14:46) or the scriptures that says that It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (Matt. 19:24) Or we would have a religion that only appealed to the poor and they would not consider Christianity unless they hated their mother and father and their whole family. LOL
The Truth is, the Trinity is not the merging or mixing of three entities into one, like you would a cake mix, nor is it a three headed God. It is a condition and a reality that is beyond our understanding, but how the Trinity manifested itself in the Gospels.....I believe and define that there are three Gods in one Godhead, a Devine unity, but not one.
The Trinity exists simultaneously in an unexplainable spiritual condition of union, that allows for the sharing of traits, principles, powers and abilities, but prevents any possibility of disagreement. Still, this being true, they have their own individual presence, minds, wills, and characters. Three Gods that can sit side by side on three thrones. (I am not going to address spiritual thrones thing, it is just referenced that way in the Bible.) The Trinity makes sense, the scriptures that describe Their activity in the Gospels, make sense. The following discussion includes scriptures that speak of the Trinity as it is referenced in the Gospels. So we are going to put this in motion and as with reality and the truth, it will move through the story of Christ’s mission in the Gospels. The best example of the Trinity we have is how the three Gods interacted with each other during the Gospels. What they said to each other and about each other. Much of the proof comes from the lips of Christ Himself as He describes Himself and His Father as two persons in two different places as well as the communication between the two. Keeping in mind that it is very important to Christianity that Christ is the Son of God the Father.
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Now for reasoning and scriptures….
1. If Christ’s throne is on the right hand of God, He is not within God and that position although important is second to God the Father. Mark 16:19 “So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into Heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.”
2. If one had to leave before the other could come, as in the case of the Holy Spirit, this would suggest individuality. John 16:7
3. If there is any conversation at all between the three entities; that would indicate some individuality.
4. If the conversation included a request, like Yeshua asking His Father to bypass the cup (so-to-speak); it indicates individuality and hierarchy. Matthew 26:36-46
5. If the conversation is in the form of a pray. For example; Our Father which art in Heaven.....But the Son was standing before them. This indicates individuality and hierarchy.
6. If one God refers to Himself or others refer to Him as the Father and the other God refers to Himself or others refer to Him as the Son; This indicates individuality and hierarchy. This is particularly significant because this is a self defined and self described definition by God Himself. God decided to define their positions as God the Father and God the Son, so we would understand their relationship. God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son…. John 3:16
It was God that chose to describe Himself as a Father, so we could understand our relationship with Him and His relationship with His Son, in human terms. There is a clear authoritative aspect associated with the Father and Son relationship. There is no possible way of mistaking this relationship as equal or the same person. Yeshua was the begotten Son of Yahweh. Yahweh did not begot Himself.
7. Again, for God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son...John 3:16 There is no part of this verse that suggest that He begot Himself, or sent Himself, or that his Son was Him. The meaning of the verse is that, it took a lot of love for God to offer His real Son as a sacrifice for the world. This verse is talking about two Gods. God the Father and God the Son.
8. If a person can sin against one God worse than the other...as in the case of the un-pardonable sin. This indicates separation of some sort as well as a very special uniqueness in regard to the Holy Spirit. Matthew 12:30-32
9. When Yeshua said, “...the father is greater than I.” John 14:28 --- then this is proof of His understanding of individuality and hierarchy.
10. Then he said, "And do not call anyone on earth your father, for One is your Father, He who is in Heaven. And do not be called leaders, for One is your Leader, that is, Christ." Matthew 23:9-10 This refers to Yahweh as Father and Christ as leader. Similar to other scriptures referring to Christ as the head of the Church.
11. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 1st Corinthians 11:3 This clearly defines hierarchal positions.
12. John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (How many ways does this prove two persons, in two places, God the Son referring to His Father as His God.) Matt. 27:46, Mark 15:34, John 20:17
13. There is not a single verse that would indicate or suggest that God the Father was crucified, or that They were crucified together, or that all three were crucified. Christ the God was crucified and ascended to His Father and took his place on a throne...at the right hand of His Father, His God, God Almighty. The storyline does not suggest that Christ is talking to Himself when He is talking to His Father.
14. Matthew 20:20….Mark 10:35…When asked by the mother of John and James if they could sit on the right and the left of Christ in the kingdom to come, One of the things Christ said to her (them) was “....this is not Mine to give....” This would indicate that it was someone else’s to give...another God...Not Himself and higher authority. This point is further exemplified by John 3:35 The Father loves the Son, and hath given all things into His hands. John 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come forth from God, and was going back to God; >>> Definitely defining two persons, giving and receiving occurs between two persons and so does coming from and going back to. These verses indicate hierarchy and individuality. God the Father had the authority to give, you will never see where Yeshua gave authority to His Father.
15. If the conversation includes an element of surprise, like when Yeshua was on the cross and asked His Father why He had forsaken Him. This would be strong evidence of individuality. Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:4
16. If the conversation indicates disparity of location and movement between the two deities, such as ascended to my Father, I came forth from the Father, or was sent by the Father, or because I go to the Father, this would all indicate individuality, hierarchy, and different location.
17. If one knows something that the other does not, like in Matt. 24:36 where Yeshua said, He did not know when the “end of the age” would occur, only the Father knew. This definitely indicates individuality and is conclusive proof that we are not talking about a single mind.
18. If the Son was sent by the Father. This indicates individuality and hierarchy of authority. One person sent somewhere by another. You will never read that Yeshua sent the Father anywhere.
19. If Christ said, (John 5:30) “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” The statement regarding the will of the one Who sent Him, occurs in other verses. John 6:38 & 39 Matt 12:50. Then there is Matthew 26:36-46 Mark 14:36 “And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.” This is a request from one person to another of higher authority and a designation of two separate wills... “not what I will, but what thou wilt.” The wills and minds of two Gods, clearly defined in words and actions with a clear show of respect from Son to Father agreeing to subject Himself to the will of the Father.
20. The oldest of the Christian Creeds is called the Old Roman Creed 2nd century…
I believe in God the Father almighty; and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord, Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried, on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh,
21. And Christ said this while He walked the earth...But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven" Matthew 10:33 God the Father and God the Son. Two persons in two different places and the Son denying someone before His Father.
22. “The My Father verses” are the most prevalent and best examples of Yeshua’s relationship with Yahweh. Over fifty times in the Gospels Yeshua refers to Yahweh as “My Father.” As far as understanding the interconnecting relationship between Yeshua and Yahweh these verses are very important to understand in content, context, and perspective. In most of these verses the differences between Yahweh and Yeshua are expressed, either by hierarchy, authority, interaction, will, mind, movement, communication, or physical location.
23. In John 2:16, Yeshua indicates that the Temple is His Father’s house .....not His. Christ never indicates that the Temple belongs to Him, the temple belongs to another. Nor did Christ ever suggest that after He left they should worship Him in the Temple.
24. In John 14:2 Christ tells of a place that would await the Apostles. He says, “In My Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.” Note that He is not saying, His house. In 14 of the “My Father” verses, Yeshua refers to Yahweh as the Father in Heaven, precisely written, “Father which is in Heaven.” In 7 of these verses He is referring to His Father in Heaven, worded “Father in Heaven.” So Christ was standing on Earth referring to God the Father in Heaven, two different places.
25. In John 5:7 Christ says, “And the Father who sent Me, He has borne witness of Me. And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. You have neither heard His voice at anytime, nor seen His form.” In this verse one should understand that it takes someone else to bare witness of another, and the voice and form they were hearing and seeing then, was not that of God the Father. He was not baring witness of Himself.
1. If Christ’s throne is on the right hand of God, He is not within God and that position although important is second to God the Father. Mark 16:19 “So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into Heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.”
2. If one had to leave before the other could come, as in the case of the Holy Spirit, this would suggest individuality. John 16:7
3. If there is any conversation at all between the three entities; that would indicate some individuality.
4. If the conversation included a request, like Yeshua asking His Father to bypass the cup (so-to-speak); it indicates individuality and hierarchy. Matthew 26:36-46
5. If the conversation is in the form of a pray. For example; Our Father which art in Heaven.....But the Son was standing before them. This indicates individuality and hierarchy.
6. If one God refers to Himself or others refer to Him as the Father and the other God refers to Himself or others refer to Him as the Son; This indicates individuality and hierarchy. This is particularly significant because this is a self defined and self described definition by God Himself. God decided to define their positions as God the Father and God the Son, so we would understand their relationship. God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son…. John 3:16
It was God that chose to describe Himself as a Father, so we could understand our relationship with Him and His relationship with His Son, in human terms. There is a clear authoritative aspect associated with the Father and Son relationship. There is no possible way of mistaking this relationship as equal or the same person. Yeshua was the begotten Son of Yahweh. Yahweh did not begot Himself.
7. Again, for God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son...John 3:16 There is no part of this verse that suggest that He begot Himself, or sent Himself, or that his Son was Him. The meaning of the verse is that, it took a lot of love for God to offer His real Son as a sacrifice for the world. This verse is talking about two Gods. God the Father and God the Son.
8. If a person can sin against one God worse than the other...as in the case of the un-pardonable sin. This indicates separation of some sort as well as a very special uniqueness in regard to the Holy Spirit. Matthew 12:30-32
9. When Yeshua said, “...the father is greater than I.” John 14:28 --- then this is proof of His understanding of individuality and hierarchy.
10. Then he said, "And do not call anyone on earth your father, for One is your Father, He who is in Heaven. And do not be called leaders, for One is your Leader, that is, Christ." Matthew 23:9-10 This refers to Yahweh as Father and Christ as leader. Similar to other scriptures referring to Christ as the head of the Church.
11. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 1st Corinthians 11:3 This clearly defines hierarchal positions.
12. John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (How many ways does this prove two persons, in two places, God the Son referring to His Father as His God.) Matt. 27:46, Mark 15:34, John 20:17
13. There is not a single verse that would indicate or suggest that God the Father was crucified, or that They were crucified together, or that all three were crucified. Christ the God was crucified and ascended to His Father and took his place on a throne...at the right hand of His Father, His God, God Almighty. The storyline does not suggest that Christ is talking to Himself when He is talking to His Father.
14. Matthew 20:20….Mark 10:35…When asked by the mother of John and James if they could sit on the right and the left of Christ in the kingdom to come, One of the things Christ said to her (them) was “....this is not Mine to give....” This would indicate that it was someone else’s to give...another God...Not Himself and higher authority. This point is further exemplified by John 3:35 The Father loves the Son, and hath given all things into His hands. John 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come forth from God, and was going back to God; >>> Definitely defining two persons, giving and receiving occurs between two persons and so does coming from and going back to. These verses indicate hierarchy and individuality. God the Father had the authority to give, you will never see where Yeshua gave authority to His Father.
15. If the conversation includes an element of surprise, like when Yeshua was on the cross and asked His Father why He had forsaken Him. This would be strong evidence of individuality. Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:4
16. If the conversation indicates disparity of location and movement between the two deities, such as ascended to my Father, I came forth from the Father, or was sent by the Father, or because I go to the Father, this would all indicate individuality, hierarchy, and different location.
17. If one knows something that the other does not, like in Matt. 24:36 where Yeshua said, He did not know when the “end of the age” would occur, only the Father knew. This definitely indicates individuality and is conclusive proof that we are not talking about a single mind.
18. If the Son was sent by the Father. This indicates individuality and hierarchy of authority. One person sent somewhere by another. You will never read that Yeshua sent the Father anywhere.
19. If Christ said, (John 5:30) “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” The statement regarding the will of the one Who sent Him, occurs in other verses. John 6:38 & 39 Matt 12:50. Then there is Matthew 26:36-46 Mark 14:36 “And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.” This is a request from one person to another of higher authority and a designation of two separate wills... “not what I will, but what thou wilt.” The wills and minds of two Gods, clearly defined in words and actions with a clear show of respect from Son to Father agreeing to subject Himself to the will of the Father.
20. The oldest of the Christian Creeds is called the Old Roman Creed 2nd century…
I believe in God the Father almighty; and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord, Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried, on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh,
21. And Christ said this while He walked the earth...But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven" Matthew 10:33 God the Father and God the Son. Two persons in two different places and the Son denying someone before His Father.
22. “The My Father verses” are the most prevalent and best examples of Yeshua’s relationship with Yahweh. Over fifty times in the Gospels Yeshua refers to Yahweh as “My Father.” As far as understanding the interconnecting relationship between Yeshua and Yahweh these verses are very important to understand in content, context, and perspective. In most of these verses the differences between Yahweh and Yeshua are expressed, either by hierarchy, authority, interaction, will, mind, movement, communication, or physical location.
23. In John 2:16, Yeshua indicates that the Temple is His Father’s house .....not His. Christ never indicates that the Temple belongs to Him, the temple belongs to another. Nor did Christ ever suggest that after He left they should worship Him in the Temple.
24. In John 14:2 Christ tells of a place that would await the Apostles. He says, “In My Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.” Note that He is not saying, His house. In 14 of the “My Father” verses, Yeshua refers to Yahweh as the Father in Heaven, precisely written, “Father which is in Heaven.” In 7 of these verses He is referring to His Father in Heaven, worded “Father in Heaven.” So Christ was standing on Earth referring to God the Father in Heaven, two different places.
25. In John 5:7 Christ says, “And the Father who sent Me, He has borne witness of Me. And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. You have neither heard His voice at anytime, nor seen His form.” In this verse one should understand that it takes someone else to bare witness of another, and the voice and form they were hearing and seeing then, was not that of God the Father. He was not baring witness of Himself.
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
26. In Matthew 18:10, where Christ was warning not to offend the “little ones”....Christ indicates that their Angels constantly behold the face of Yahweh...in Heaven. Now surely, there is an understanding of the concept of omni-presence, but if you notice, Christ is not saying, they behold My face, or Our faces everywhere. Throughout the storyline of the Gospel, Christ makes it clear that He and His Father are in two different places. Christ’s overall mission on Earth is to fulfill the will of God which is Yahweh....and He makes it clear that Yahweh, His Father sent Him. Yeshua never said in the Gospels that He sent Himself or came on His own behalf, or was doing His own will, or begot Himself. Over 40 times Christ says in the Gospels that His Father sent Him. This denotes the higher authority of the Father and that His Father is another person at a different place.
In several verses Christ indicates that God the Father gives or appoints certain things to Him. To appoint or give is an indication of hierarchy, authority, and an indication of two positions, given and received. You will not find a scripture where Christ says He sent the Father somewhere, or that the Father was doing His will, or He gave authority to the Father, it is not His position to do any of that. Other examples, Christ would not say, I gave Myself, all things, nor would He say that He loved Himself.
27. In John 10:17, Christ says, “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again.” The same is true of honor or glory.
28. Honor is a heartfelt expression from one person to another. Christ does not honor Himself or love Himself. John 8:54, “If I honor myself, my honor is nothing: it is my Father that honoreth me; of whom ye say, that He is your God. All three of these expressions describe something happening from one...to... another.
29. Apostolic Perspective. There is a continual reference to Father and Son and a designation of Yahweh as God the Father in Heaven while Christ was on earth. And if you look closely the scriptures give distinctions to God as the Father and Christ as Lord in the same sentence. As in the benediction of some of books in the NT...2nd Corinthians, Ephesians, and Philippians.
30. 1st Timothy 6:13
“I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate.”
Matthew 5:16
Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 5:48
Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Matthew 6:1
Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 7:11
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!
Matthew 7:21
Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
Matthew 10:32
Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 10:33
But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 12:50
For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.
Matthew 16:17
And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 18:10
See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 18:14
So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.
Matthew 18:19
Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 23:9
Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
Luke 2:49
And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” (Note again: His Father’s house, not His house, not Our house.)
The True concept of “oneness” is really not a matter of arithmetic. In modern times we are all about numbers, but a modern grade schooler would know more about numbers than most of the people of antiquity. The concept of one could have a symbology in this time period, not just the literal one, but also the concept of “unity.” The word “one” in regard to relationships can also mean solidarity. Again, in relation to the Trinity it is the unity and the solidarity, in mind, in heart, and in spirit between Yahweh, Yeshua, and the Holy Spirit. God the Father gives us in Genesis 2:24 an idea of how the concept of two people being one can be applied; “For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” Yeshua reiterates this concept in Mathew 19:5 & 6 and Mark 10:8, specifically saying, “And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.” Certainly everyone understands that husbands and wives do not merge to be one physical human, nor do they lose their character. They certainly join physically but they are not absorbed into one person, even though the condition of solidarity may exist between them. So in that case the word one is not denoting “the number one” or the singularity of the two persons in the marriage.
Beyond what is listed in the examples above, in the New Testament Yeshua gives us a clearer explanation of this concept of one. Speaking to God the Father (He was not talking to Himself) Yeshua says this about the concept of one... John 17:19-24 For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
In several verses Christ indicates that God the Father gives or appoints certain things to Him. To appoint or give is an indication of hierarchy, authority, and an indication of two positions, given and received. You will not find a scripture where Christ says He sent the Father somewhere, or that the Father was doing His will, or He gave authority to the Father, it is not His position to do any of that. Other examples, Christ would not say, I gave Myself, all things, nor would He say that He loved Himself.
27. In John 10:17, Christ says, “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again.” The same is true of honor or glory.
28. Honor is a heartfelt expression from one person to another. Christ does not honor Himself or love Himself. John 8:54, “If I honor myself, my honor is nothing: it is my Father that honoreth me; of whom ye say, that He is your God. All three of these expressions describe something happening from one...to... another.
29. Apostolic Perspective. There is a continual reference to Father and Son and a designation of Yahweh as God the Father in Heaven while Christ was on earth. And if you look closely the scriptures give distinctions to God as the Father and Christ as Lord in the same sentence. As in the benediction of some of books in the NT...2nd Corinthians, Ephesians, and Philippians.
30. 1st Timothy 6:13
“I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate.”
Matthew 5:16
Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 5:48
Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Matthew 6:1
Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 7:11
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!
Matthew 7:21
Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
Matthew 10:32
Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 10:33
But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 12:50
For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.
Matthew 16:17
And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 18:10
See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 18:14
So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.
Matthew 18:19
Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 23:9
Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
Luke 2:49
And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” (Note again: His Father’s house, not His house, not Our house.)
The True concept of “oneness” is really not a matter of arithmetic. In modern times we are all about numbers, but a modern grade schooler would know more about numbers than most of the people of antiquity. The concept of one could have a symbology in this time period, not just the literal one, but also the concept of “unity.” The word “one” in regard to relationships can also mean solidarity. Again, in relation to the Trinity it is the unity and the solidarity, in mind, in heart, and in spirit between Yahweh, Yeshua, and the Holy Spirit. God the Father gives us in Genesis 2:24 an idea of how the concept of two people being one can be applied; “For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” Yeshua reiterates this concept in Mathew 19:5 & 6 and Mark 10:8, specifically saying, “And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.” Certainly everyone understands that husbands and wives do not merge to be one physical human, nor do they lose their character. They certainly join physically but they are not absorbed into one person, even though the condition of solidarity may exist between them. So in that case the word one is not denoting “the number one” or the singularity of the two persons in the marriage.
Beyond what is listed in the examples above, in the New Testament Yeshua gives us a clearer explanation of this concept of one. Speaking to God the Father (He was not talking to Himself) Yeshua says this about the concept of one... John 17:19-24 For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Beyond what is listed in the examples above, in the New Testament Yeshua gives us a clearer explanation of this concept of one. Speaking to God the Father (He was not talking to Himself) Yeshua says this about the concept of one... John 17:19-24 For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
Because Yeshua says “just as” this is an exactness, a duplication of a condition that we can achieve, and He states that this condition of “oneness” can apply to us, but it has nothing to do with absorption or singularity, but rather a condition of spiritual union and solidarity between God and us. The next verse further defines this by describing a unity with Christ that would cause the same condition with us as it did with them, a condition of perfection. Again, not talking to Himself, in John 17:23 “I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me.” In this context millions of people could be made one...one being a abstract concept of one, but a more literal meaning of unity, solidarity, and perfection and even a “body” that is considered one....the body of Christ or the body of the Church being one. And then, the next verse is probably one of the best verses to put this oneness concept into perspective. The leading verses are speaking of the works of the Holy Spirit and then ends with this explanation. 1st Corinthians 12:11-13 “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.”
The same is true of the Godhead, which is made up of three Gods, but if there would have been a hundred named Gods that talked with each other and did all the above, the Church would have labeled them all one in order to get their theology to work and to say there is only one God. Certainly multiple persons in one God is a difficult concept, but the more persons the more difficult the concept becomes. If there would have been eight, sixty, or a hundred persons it would have been a concept near to impossible to convey. Tri-unity is difficult enough, but sixty-unity would have been intolerable and unacceptable. But as it was, three aspects of one god was a common scenario in Pagan beliefs, the triple goddess is a good example. Christianity worshipped Yahweh and Yeshua and the Holy Spirit which was familiar to the Pagans converting to Christianity….Gentiles. And so was the story of a god impregnating a woman and giving birth to a god.
The one God formula for the Trinity did not occur for several centuries after the biblical era but the first documented time the word Trinity was used in relations to Christianity was written in the second century. (Now, the definitions that follow are not that hard to lookup and for anyone that is truly interested, I recommend it.) The Greek word used for Trinity was Τριάς, meaning "a set of three." The only meaning of one in this word was that it was one set of three.
Webster’s definition of Trinity
1. the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma
2. not capitalized : a group of three closely related persons or things
3. a set of three
And again the McKenzie Bible Dictionary explains it this way.... “The Trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God there are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly or formally a biblical belief.” Which hold true to the fact that the word Trinity does not occur in the Holy Bible.
As time went on and the Church’s definition for the word Trinity changed, the next word for Trinity came from two Latin words. Trinitas, meaning, "the number three” and Unitas, meaning, unity; state of being one or undivided · sameness, uniformity · agreement, concord.
The biblical testament of the authority of the Father has always been a thorn in the side of the Catholic Church’s doctrine of the Trinity, because hands down, the Old Testament and Christ Himself testified clearly and definitively, of the authority of the Father, over a hundred times, dozens of these coming from Christ Himself. In the Old Testament Yahweh makes it clear that He is singular God. He never functions as a trio, and specially indicates that He is the only one and no one like Him. There are zero suggestions of a Godhead in the Old Testament. Yahweh never suggested that there is a Godhead. There are zero suggestions that Yahweh recognized any other entity but Himself. There are zero suggestions that He recognized any name as a Deity other than Himself. No accounts in Old Testament of Yahweh conversing with Yeshua, no discussion defined between the two. There is One God in the religion of the Jews. You shall have no other Gods before me. There is zero evidence of God having a Son in the Old Testament. If a Jew started praying to another named God they would have been stoned. But things change in the New Testament.
The facts and the bottom line is, Yeshua is the Son of the Almighty God. Yeshua called Yahweh His Father and Yeshua calling Yahweh His God appears three times in the Gospels. Matt. 27:46, Mark 15:34, John 20:17
Yahweh---God Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and mankind. Father and God to Yeshua.
Yeshua---A full-fledged God, The Son of God Almighty, Messiah and Savior
The unnamed God referred to as the Holy Spirit, a full-fledged God. Helper, guide, nurture, teacher, wisdom. Because the Holy Spirit was not named and given the designation of Spirit, people think the Holy Spirit is different in substance than Yahweh and Yeshua....but no scripture suggests that.
So that is it, truth for you. While those that believe in the one God formula cling to a couple scriptures, I have provided hundreds that the Trinity is made up of three Gods, unique and distinct and united in purpose. The worst way to understand the New Testament is to take a couple unexplained incongruent scriptures and make a religious belief out of it when they do not agree with the whole New Testament.
On the other hand, these biblical proofs of the authority of God the Father in no way conflict with beliefs regarding the Trinity. In the Old Testament it is easy to see that Yahweh proclaims Himself as the ultimate authority and does not define Himself as a trio. In the New Testament after Yahweh begets a Son, His Son repeatedly attests to the authority of the Father. A numerical count of the three Gods occur as the Gospels progress, but descriptions or discussions regarding the trio of Gods does not occur until after Christ ascends to Heaven, and rightly so, the trio did not form until He ascended to Heaven. At which time, God the Father still holds the positional authority as God Almighty. In relation to each other the Bible assigns them positional seniority as we would understand the relationship of Father and Son....more or less the chain of command...But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and head of woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1st Corinthians 11:3
Then from our perspective they have equal authority over us. Then in relation to the salvation of humanity, Christ has all authority. To put this in simple terms it would be like delegating authority to complete a task, but Yahweh is still chairman of the board in Heaven. The Truth makes sense. The Shield of the Trinity is still compatible as a representation of the Godhead, in that God in center represents that spiritual unity, while there is a God called Yahweh, a God called Yeshua, and a God called the Holy Spirit. And at the same time the representation makes it clear the Yahweh is not Yeshua and neither are the Holy Spirit. Three individual Gods that are in accord. But still I see people scratching their heads over it.
Because Yeshua says “just as” this is an exactness, a duplication of a condition that we can achieve, and He states that this condition of “oneness” can apply to us, but it has nothing to do with absorption or singularity, but rather a condition of spiritual union and solidarity between God and us. The next verse further defines this by describing a unity with Christ that would cause the same condition with us as it did with them, a condition of perfection. Again, not talking to Himself, in John 17:23 “I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me.” In this context millions of people could be made one...one being a abstract concept of one, but a more literal meaning of unity, solidarity, and perfection and even a “body” that is considered one....the body of Christ or the body of the Church being one. And then, the next verse is probably one of the best verses to put this oneness concept into perspective. The leading verses are speaking of the works of the Holy Spirit and then ends with this explanation. 1st Corinthians 12:11-13 “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.”
The same is true of the Godhead, which is made up of three Gods, but if there would have been a hundred named Gods that talked with each other and did all the above, the Church would have labeled them all one in order to get their theology to work and to say there is only one God. Certainly multiple persons in one God is a difficult concept, but the more persons the more difficult the concept becomes. If there would have been eight, sixty, or a hundred persons it would have been a concept near to impossible to convey. Tri-unity is difficult enough, but sixty-unity would have been intolerable and unacceptable. But as it was, three aspects of one god was a common scenario in Pagan beliefs, the triple goddess is a good example. Christianity worshipped Yahweh and Yeshua and the Holy Spirit which was familiar to the Pagans converting to Christianity….Gentiles. And so was the story of a god impregnating a woman and giving birth to a god.
The one God formula for the Trinity did not occur for several centuries after the biblical era but the first documented time the word Trinity was used in relations to Christianity was written in the second century. (Now, the definitions that follow are not that hard to lookup and for anyone that is truly interested, I recommend it.) The Greek word used for Trinity was Τριάς, meaning "a set of three." The only meaning of one in this word was that it was one set of three.
Webster’s definition of Trinity
1. the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma
2. not capitalized : a group of three closely related persons or things
3. a set of three
And again the McKenzie Bible Dictionary explains it this way.... “The Trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God there are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly or formally a biblical belief.” Which hold true to the fact that the word Trinity does not occur in the Holy Bible.
As time went on and the Church’s definition for the word Trinity changed, the next word for Trinity came from two Latin words. Trinitas, meaning, "the number three” and Unitas, meaning, unity; state of being one or undivided · sameness, uniformity · agreement, concord.
The biblical testament of the authority of the Father has always been a thorn in the side of the Catholic Church’s doctrine of the Trinity, because hands down, the Old Testament and Christ Himself testified clearly and definitively, of the authority of the Father, over a hundred times, dozens of these coming from Christ Himself. In the Old Testament Yahweh makes it clear that He is singular God. He never functions as a trio, and specially indicates that He is the only one and no one like Him. There are zero suggestions of a Godhead in the Old Testament. Yahweh never suggested that there is a Godhead. There are zero suggestions that Yahweh recognized any other entity but Himself. There are zero suggestions that He recognized any name as a Deity other than Himself. No accounts in Old Testament of Yahweh conversing with Yeshua, no discussion defined between the two. There is One God in the religion of the Jews. You shall have no other Gods before me. There is zero evidence of God having a Son in the Old Testament. If a Jew started praying to another named God they would have been stoned. But things change in the New Testament.
The facts and the bottom line is, Yeshua is the Son of the Almighty God. Yeshua called Yahweh His Father and Yeshua calling Yahweh His God appears three times in the Gospels. Matt. 27:46, Mark 15:34, John 20:17
Yahweh---God Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and mankind. Father and God to Yeshua.
Yeshua---A full-fledged God, The Son of God Almighty, Messiah and Savior
The unnamed God referred to as the Holy Spirit, a full-fledged God. Helper, guide, nurture, teacher, wisdom. Because the Holy Spirit was not named and given the designation of Spirit, people think the Holy Spirit is different in substance than Yahweh and Yeshua....but no scripture suggests that.
So that is it, truth for you. While those that believe in the one God formula cling to a couple scriptures, I have provided hundreds that the Trinity is made up of three Gods, unique and distinct and united in purpose. The worst way to understand the New Testament is to take a couple unexplained incongruent scriptures and make a religious belief out of it when they do not agree with the whole New Testament.
On the other hand, these biblical proofs of the authority of God the Father in no way conflict with beliefs regarding the Trinity. In the Old Testament it is easy to see that Yahweh proclaims Himself as the ultimate authority and does not define Himself as a trio. In the New Testament after Yahweh begets a Son, His Son repeatedly attests to the authority of the Father. A numerical count of the three Gods occur as the Gospels progress, but descriptions or discussions regarding the trio of Gods does not occur until after Christ ascends to Heaven, and rightly so, the trio did not form until He ascended to Heaven. At which time, God the Father still holds the positional authority as God Almighty. In relation to each other the Bible assigns them positional seniority as we would understand the relationship of Father and Son....more or less the chain of command...But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and head of woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1st Corinthians 11:3
Then from our perspective they have equal authority over us. Then in relation to the salvation of humanity, Christ has all authority. To put this in simple terms it would be like delegating authority to complete a task, but Yahweh is still chairman of the board in Heaven. The Truth makes sense. The Shield of the Trinity is still compatible as a representation of the Godhead, in that God in center represents that spiritual unity, while there is a God called Yahweh, a God called Yeshua, and a God called the Holy Spirit. And at the same time the representation makes it clear the Yahweh is not Yeshua and neither are the Holy Spirit. Three individual Gods that are in accord. But still I see people scratching their heads over it.
Last edited:
face2face
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2015
- 8,243
- 1,202
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
RLT not every one can interpret the Revelation so don't feel dissapointed if your literal approach isn't working. The whole work is symbolic!
F2F
face2face
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2015
- 8,243
- 1,202
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
Your reference includes both natural and spiritual aspects, so the parameters of the syllogism are crucial. @Wrangler is using logic based on certain rules to arrive at a position that, in my opinion, aligns with both his understanding and the Word of God.
Let me show you:
Would you agree with this syllogism.
Major premise: The human mind possesses the idea of an absolutely perfect being.
Minor premise: Absolute perfection of being implies necessity of existence (for that which must exist is of a higher order than that which may exist).
Conclusion: An absolutely perfect being does exist—for that which must exist, does exist.
This is ontological argument using syllogism to prove a fact which some may find convincing.
Let me ask you a question. Setting aside the Trinitarian and Unitarian views, do you believe there exists a syllogism that God would recognize as true about Himself and Jesus?
Yes or No?
F2F
face2face
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2015
- 8,243
- 1,202
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
face2face
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2015
- 8,243
- 1,202
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
There is a flaw in your example Red.
P1 is rejected by Christ Himself, which means:
- P1 contains erroneous statements based on the Lord's words.
- P2 is correct, as only God has inherent goodness.
- C: A conclusion that is completely unrelated to both P1 and P2.
You inadvertently brought up a verse that also supports the idea that Jesus is not God—how ironic, lol.
Rather than me giving you the reason why... can you discern the Lords reply?
F2F
Note: The absolutely perfect being example establishes consistent parameters and leads to a relevant conclusion.
You can not analyze the SUPERNATURAL (and the Godhead is supernatural and the very essence who God is and has revealed Himself) by 1) typical Western logic, 2) by philosophical reasoning, 3) by scientific standards. Everyone who does will end up where you are now. The Godhead is a mystery, not meant to be understood and no analogy applies. The Godhead is to be believed because Scripture tells us so. So F2F, I have no struggles, just faith, convinced by Scripture.
My understanding in a nutshell -
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,
Conclusion : Jesus was God in the flesh, period.
One step further -
John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Jesus refers to Moses burning bush experience with YHWH, YHWH was Jesus all the time.
Genesis 1 speaks about Elohim (the Father)
Genesis 2 speaks about YHWH (the Son), the Father putting the Son in charge to deal with the devil and the fallen creation and when done Jesus will be subjected to the Father, mission accomplished so to say.
1Cor 15:24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
1Cor 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
1Cor 15:26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
1Cor 15:27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.
1Cor 15:28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.
face2face
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2015
- 8,243
- 1,202
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
You should have stated the positive.
The Shema, as presented in the Old Testament and affirmed by the Lord Jesus Christ, offers insight and understanding of the Godhead. It is important to read the Word through the lens of its original audience! This is where the Early Church Fathers (ECF) faltered; instead of following the Apostles' guidance on interpreting the Old Testament and its application to the New, they ventured into the realms of philosophy and mythology.
To be honest, your three examples above are rather underwhelming.
No it isn't and the Word of God makes that abundantly clear - its a mystery to you because those who do not know the Father, Abba, Yahwehand are shrouded in darkness, it appears - the Nicene curtain has vieled your eyes.
I am willing to rent it if allowed!
The Scripture do not command us to "know" God and the Lord Jesus Christ only for believers like yourself to describe them as a mystery. In fact, I challenge you to find a single verse that refers to the Godhead as a mystery or unknowable!
The Trinity cannot be found here no matter how hard you try. God manifestation is the MO and not incarnation!
Context:- Abraham rejoiced to "see" my day and was glad!
- to see with the mind, to perceive, know
This is very poor, Pro! Honestly, it's really bad exegesis.
There is One Yahweh and He manifests Himself through mighty ones (Angels) and the Saints. You need to learn how the Father works with His Children and especially the Master.
What I've done for you is place God and Jesus into the text to help you read with understanding.
So lets review the facts.
God and Jesus have different functions in this section of text.
Jesus is subject to God in all things!
God is the driving force behind Jesus' mission to bring about the subjugation of the nations. Once that mission is accomplished, Jesus will present the earth back to God as an offering, having conquered all power and authority on earth.
This is often understood as the 1000-year reign, during which Christ purifies the earth, preparing it for God to be all in all.
As you may have noticed, there is no mention of the Holy Spirit here — it's something worth noting (hint, hint).
God is always referred to as the Father. Christ is always referred to as the Son. Death, the last power to be defeated, is symbolically dealt with in Christ's own death, where God broke sin's power through Christs sacrifice.
Also, we know little to nothing about this time post 1000 years and God dwelling in His People other than the earth will be filled with immortals who have been granted divine nature.
F2F
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
You cannot legitimately make statements like this without addressing the dozens of scriptures in the Old Testament where Yahweh clearly repeats over and over again that He is the only God in Old Testament and there is no other. And Yeshua does not directly show up in the Old Testament and if He did and the Israelites worshipped Him, they would have been killed.
Yahweh and Yeshua do not refer to each other and talk to each other like they do in the New Testament. And in addressing these other scriptures, you might consider that part of the answer about time maybe because they experience time differently than you and I do.
And I am assuming that you know that the Word....the Logos was coined by the Greeks in 6th century BC.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
face2face
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2015
- 8,243
- 1,202
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
Everything is symbolic, including the churches. While these symbols point to literal truths / events, they must be understood through interpretation.
Happy for you to test this...
F2F
- Status
Similar threads
