Featured Does the Word of God evidence the Trinity or is the Godhead simply reasoned out from Scripture?

Well, why didn't you say so, Patrick!?

Of course God is one being in three equal persons.

Now, go find that word trinity in that Bible of yours their Patrick...I mean really, Patrick...

 

Can you give an example of someone doing this?

 

I agree that God is One, and that He is Triune in some manner.

I can't get on board with 3 Persons.
I think people want so badly to see their doctrines in scripture that they won't allow themselves to be honest.

There is a way to understand the Tri-Unity of God without "Persons"

And most who have chimed in have gone outside the parameters of the OP and have made mere assertions that cannot be found in any text of scripture.

Those people should be disqualified from the discussion, imho

 

You found a glorious way to muck it up.

 

Hey, I told you, you finally cleared it up. You should have just stated it in the first place. This thread would not still be going if you had just been forthright.
I am sure you think you are speaking clearly. You can see it in your mind. You just struggle to explain your thoughts to others. I am pretty sure you were never a teacher.

 

Just to make myself clear from all misrepresentations, I believe that the Scriptures are perfectly clear that God is a Trinity.
The doctrine is portrayed almost as clearly as that of Penal Substitution.
In either case, only those determined not to believe will refuse to do so.

In particular, if you could establish that 1 John 5:7 is original, you would be on firmer ground, but you can't. None of the other texts you quote establish the Deity of the Spirit in a way that would convince a Unitarian. He would believe that the very mention of 'The Spirit of God' means that the Spirit is the non-personal active force of God.
There is a way of presenting the Deity of the Spirit, but simply saying 'The Spirit of God' and expecting a JW to roll over and holler "uncle" is a vain hope.

 

...how about "God is a Spirit"? John 4:24

 

You believe you properly interpret scripture. Who is closer to Charles Taze Russell, Martin or Jon?

For anyone wondering, the answer is Jon.

 

Jon, you've told yourself (and us) this lie so long that you actually believe it. Problem is...no one else actually believes it.

 

Look, Sally, Look!
CJon throw a hissy!
OJon!

 

Because that's exactly what's going on. AustinC had said that JonC's demanding to be shown the word 'substitute' be found in the Scripture before conceding to the fact that Christ is our substitute, though the role is clearly defined, is like demanding to be shown the word 'trinity' before conceding to the fact that God is One in three Persons.

As is his custom, JonC reimagined AustinC's eminent rebuttal into what you see in the OP.

 

Once again, this verse will not convince Unitarians. They will tell you that the Word was 'a God,' not in the sense of there being more than one God, but in the sense of Psalms 82:6 and John 10:34ff.

And here again, as I already pointed out to you, Unitarians will say that John 10:30 cannot mean that The Father and Son are one Being because elsewhere, the Lord Jesus says, "The Father is greater than I." Therefore (they say), the verse must mean that Father and Son are one in agreement, specifically on the protection of the sheep.

You may say that these are silly and specious arguments, but they are no more silly and specious than your arguments against Penal Substitution.

 

I watched Greg Boyd go off the deep end and fall into open theism. I feel sorry for anyone you may have taught. They had to be more confused after they left your class.

 

I have shown you. Do you bother to read posts? Would you like me to post them again?