Proof of the Trinity. No takers?

[justbyfaith]

In the New Testament, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are clearly three Persons.

That, too!

 

[101G]

Yes they are one Person...but you have to see that the Father remained behind in eternity at the same "time" that He descended to become a Man...thus the Father was in heaven and the Son on earth.

ONE PERSON? hold it, is not the trinity doctrine in it's statement states ONE God but three PERSONS.

and two you ERROR by stating, "the Father remained behind in eternity at the same "time" that He descended to become a Man", if that's true then 1 Timothy 6:16 disprove that assessment.

and third, you said, "thus the Father was in heaven and the Son on earth" well lets see what the bible says,
John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven".

at the SAME TIME our Lord was here on Earth talking to Nicodemus he was in HEAVEN, read the scripture again.

 

[101G]

That, too! ;)

you can't have it both ways, see your ERROR.

 

[farouk]

That, too! ;)

I don't see how the Son supposedly became the Son in the New Testament after supposedly being otherwise previously.

He is the eternal Son; John 1; Hebrews 1.

 

[justbyfaith]

ONE PERSON? hold it, is not the trinity doctrine in it's statement states ONE God but three PERSONS.

See post #281 (Proof of the Trinity. No takers?)

and two you ERROR by stating, "the Father remained behind in eternity at the same "time" that He descended to become a Man", if that's true then 1 Timothy 6:16 disprove that assessment.

How so?

and third, you said, "thus the Father was in heaven and the Son on earth" well lets see what the bible says,
John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven".

at the SAME TIME our Lord was here on Earth talking to Nicodemus he was in HEAVEN, read the scripture again.

Of course He was in heaven and on earth. Your point?

you can't have it both ways, see your ERROR.

I can have it both ways; for I understand how it can be: and once you know what the doctrine is, it is so simple that a child can understand and receive it. But carnally-minded people reject the truth (1 Corinthians 2:14).

 

[justbyfaith]

I don't see how the Son supposedly became the Son in the New Testament after supposedly being otherwise previously.

He is the eternal Son; John 1; Hebrews 1.

Yes, he ascended to become outside of time and sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Lord.

And the Father became the Son in the incarnation. See Ephesians 3:11.

 

[farouk]

Yes, he ascended to become outside of time and sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Lord.

And the Father became the Son in the incarnation. See Ephesians 3:11.

I don't see that the passage says that the Father is the Son.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit are totally united in their purpose, while their Personalities remain distinct.

 

[Harvest 1874]

We stated:If Jesus were God, whom would God have to become obedient to? No one! Therefore, this must be another entity, namely, his only begotten Son, clearly distinguishable from the Heavenly Father.

God became obedient to His former self in order to set an example for us.

Once again your humor astounds.

When we build a building, it is important that in constructing the second story of the building, we do not demolish the first. Of course, there are some who have a ministry of tearing down that which is not of the Lord (Jeremiah 1:10).

If however the first is found to be constructed of "wood, hay, and stubble" (the errors and teachings of men) then it should be torn down promptly when understood, and the proper materials "gold, silver and precious stones" (the divine truths and promises) put in place.

We stated: If the trinity is a mystery and cannot be reasoned then it is inherent contradiction and cannot be true.

It is a very reasonable doctrine and can be understood...in my own life, I find that the true Trinity is both reasonable and simple.

Every Trinitarian I have encounter has claimed the same, and yet each appears to have a different perspective or slant on how to explain it.

In reply to Malsi Si Live you state: I think that your problem is that you reject the solid answer that is given to you that Jesus is both human and divine

This statement stands in direct contradiction to the doctrine of the ransom.

At the very foundation of ALL Christian doctrine lies the doctrine of the RANSOM (Greek, “anti-lutron”), the Scriptural teaching that “we were (all) bought with a price” a corresponding price for Adam’s sin, “even the precious blood of Christ” (1 Tim 2:5, 6; 1 John 2:2)

Any teaching, therefore, which either openly denies or quietly ignores this foundation doctrine, “the Ransom for ALL, to be testified in due time” is a doctrine at variance with God’s revelation. Our attitude toward it should be prompt and decided opposition. If some should waver, we who have learned that the ransom is the TEST by which all other doctrines are to be proved, need not waver, and should not. (The false doctrine of the Trinity fells this TEST, and is therefore proven Anti-Christ.)

 

[101G]

See post #281 (Proof of the Trinity. No takers?)

Post #181 “To the Op. the the religious rulers of Jesus time wished to kill him because he made himself equAl to God”. if he’s EQUAL then he’s GOD alone, supportive scripture, Isaiah 40:25 "To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One”.
"ME" is one PERSON. and "SHALL" is future tense, and Jesus the Christ came in the Future from Isaiah stand point.

Isaiah 46:5 "To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like? "ME" is a single designation, meaning ONLY ONE PERSON.

NO PERSON is “EQUAL” to the Spirit/God, but his “OWNSELF”… in Flesh as the OFFSPRING.

How so?

I answered that, just read 1 Timothy 6:16 again. no one was LEFT behind in eternity....

Of course He was in heaven and on earth. Your point?

see the above answer,

I can have it both ways; for I understand how it can be: and once you know what the doctrine is, it is so simple that a child can understand and receive it. But carnally-minded people reject the truth (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Jesus is the WAY, the ONLY way. the HOLY SPIRIT is JESUS, which you put on Ice in your OP. when in Fact he's the ONLY ONE in the Godhead, which I see you don't know.

so I suggest you check you doctrine that's in error.


justbyfaith, your doctrine of the trinity has been exposed.

God the Spirit don't have three Souls. the only answer to the Godhead is "Diversified Oneness"

 

[Harvest 1874]

Bring forth your evidences.

I would suggest you take a look at our blog post entitled, How to Choose a Bible Translation, it will reveal to you just how poorly your beloved KJV is rated amoungst many of the various translations.

 

[101G]

I would suggest you take a look at our blog post entitled, How to Choose a Bible Translation, it will reveal to you just how poorly your beloved KJV is rated amoungst many of the various translations.

I must disagree with that assessment. the KJV is a very good translation, if one knows how to use it. I have studied several translation, some have some good points, but in accuracy in "Spiritual Matters" the KJV to me is the best.

that's just my opinion.

 

[Harvest 1874]

I must disagree with that assessment. the KJV is a very good translation, if one knows how to use it. I have studied several translation, some have some good points, but in accuracy in "Spiritual Matters" the KJV to me is the best.

that's just my opinion.

And you are entitled to your opinion my friend.

 

[101G]

I'm going to leave the Holy Spirit out of this one (as a subject matter--). It is clear that He is a member of the Godhead.

let's for the moment put the Holy Spirit back in

scripture, John 4:24 "God is a Spirit". the TERM "God" is identified with "Spirit", or Holy Spirit.

Ephesians 1:2 "Grace be to you, and peace, from God (the Spirit, the Holy Spirit) our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

is not the Lord Jesus the Christ "IN FLESH and BLOOD?". but Jesus in the OT without Flesh and Blood is he not the "FATHER".

 

[101G]

And you are entitled to your opinion my friend.

thanks,
be blessed.

 

[Enoch111]

I would suggest you take a look at our blog post entitled, How to Choose a Bible Translation, it will reveal to you just how poorly your beloved KJV is rated amoungst many of the various translations.

That is to be expected from anyone promoting the critical texts and the modern versions. But it is mostly (if not completely) sheer nonsense.

No Bible would have been the leading English language Bible WORLDWIDE for over 300 years if it was not an outstanding translation.

Unless you want to call all Christians during that time stupid. Now do you see the stupidity of attacking the KJV?

 

[Harvest 1874]

That is to be expected from anyone promoting the critical texts and the modern versions. But it is mostly (if not completely) sheer nonsense.

No Bible would have been the leading English language Bible WORLDWIDE for over 300 years if it was not an outstanding translation.

Unless you want to call all Christians during that time stupid. Now do you see the stupidity of attacking the KJV?

You too, my friend are entitled to your opinion, however that does not make it correct, it is still only an opinion.

 

[Malsi Si Live]

justbyfaith said,

However, the Son is called God in Hebrews 1:8-9. Trinity established!

Even if Jesus is called God, that doesn't prove a TRINITY!
Several translations have a host of mistakes, they all inject their trinitarian slant. The Trinitarian KJV interpreters of Hebrews 1:8 did the same. Look at the verse...

"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."

The interlinear shows it much different! Psalm 45:6, which is where Hebrews 1:8 is quoted from... Psalm 45:6...(which may be a reference to Solomon)

"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness;
This is clearly addressing the king Solomon as a God.

Hebrews 1:8 is correctly translated like this...

"But with regard to the son, the Throne of God is forever and ever a scepter of his righteousness.
That verse does not say Jesus is God NOR does it imply a Trinity whatsoever.

This is how it's worded in the Textus Receptus...

Yet toward the Son the throne of you God is for eons and eons a scepter of his righteousness....

Take a look...

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/heb1.pdf

 

[justbyfaith]

I don't see that the passage says that the Father is the Son.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit are totally united in their purpose, while their Personalities remain distinct.

No, it doesn't say that: you're right. It says the Son is the Father, not the other way around.

This statement stands in direct contradiction to the doctrine of the ransom.

At the very foundation of ALL Christian doctrine lies the doctrine of the RANSOM (Greek, “anti-lutron”), the Scriptural teaching that “we were (all) bought with a price” a corresponding price for Adam’s sin, “even the precious blood of Christ” (1 Tim 2:5, 6; 1 John 2:2)

Any teaching, therefore, which either openly denies or quietly ignores this foundation doctrine, “the Ransom for ALL, to be testified in due time” is a doctrine at variance with God’s revelation. Our attitude toward it should be prompt and decided opposition. If some should waver, we who have learned that the ransom is the TEST by which all other doctrines are to be proved, need not waver, and should not. (The false doctrine of the Trinity fells this TEST, and is therefore proven Anti-Christ.)

By all means, tell us how the doctrine of the Trinity denies the doctrine of Christ's blood being a ransom (this should be good :eating popcorn: )

I answered that, just read 1 Timothy 6:16 again. no one was LEFT behind in eternity....

I'm sorry I don't see how that verse refutes the idea that I am putting forth. You will have to be more concise.

I would suggest you take a look at our blog post entitled, How to Choose a Bible Translation, it will reveal to you just how poorly your beloved KJV is rated amoungst many of the various translations.

I'll look into it when I have some more time.

let's for the moment put the Holy Spirit back in

scripture, John 4:24 "God is a Spirit". the TERM "God" is identified with "Spirit", or Holy Spirit.

Ephesians 1:2 "Grace be to you, and peace, from God (the Spirit, the Holy Spirit) our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

is not the Lord Jesus the Christ "IN FLESH and BLOOD?". but Jesus in the OT without Flesh and Blood is he not the "FATHER".

Yes indeed, that is true impaho. The preincarnate Jesus is the Father dwelling in eternity. However, you should consider that John 16:27-28 and John 15:26 show that the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct from the Father.

justbyfaith said,

Even if Jesus is called God, that doesn't prove a TRINITY!
Several translations have a host of mistakes, they all inject their trinitarian slant. The Trinitarian KJV interpreters of Hebrews 1:8 did the same. Look at the verse...

"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."

The interlinear shows it much different! Psalm 45:6, which is where Hebrews 1:8 is quoted from... Psalm 45:6...(which may be a reference to Solomon)

"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness;
This is clearly addressing the king Solomon as a God.

Hebrews 1:8 is correctly translated like this...

"But with regard to the son, the Throne of God is forever and ever a scepter of his righteousness.
That verse does not say Jesus is God NOR does it imply a Trinity whatsoever.

This is how it's worded in the Textus Receptus...

Yet toward the Son the throne of you God is for eons and eons a scepter of his righteousness....

Take a look...

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/heb1.pdf

None of that is going to convince me because I am kjv-only/superior in my view of Bible translations. And I figure, I am not going to be able to convince everyone else of that point of view; but that for those who will accept it, there is an extra-special blessing that will defeat the curse of hell. For the way to life is narrow and few there be that find it. Matthew 7:13-14.

 

[Malsi Si Live]

all means, tell us how the doctrine of the Trinity denies the doctrine of Christ's blood being a ransom

I already explained that if Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, and being that God cannot be tempted or sin. That makes the blood of Christ shed at the crucifixion a hoax, and Jesus a fraud because being God he could not have sinned anyway!

 

[justbyfaith]

I already explained that if Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, and being that God cannot be tempted or sin. That makes the blood of Christ shed at the crucifixion a hoax, and Jesus a fraud because being God he could not have sinned anyway!

His blood was sinless and therefore it was a perfect price to pay in ransom.

It seems to me that if His blood was not sinless (i.e. if He were only a sinful human being), that it is then that the ransom would be a hoax.

What strange doctrine leads you to believe the opposite?

btw, the challenge was not addressed to you, it was addressed to @Harvest 1874.

So I am more interested in what he has to say on the subject, since he is the one who brought it up.