Basic Trinitarian Doctrine

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by Norman:
"If the son is the Father, there is but only one witness to the Son."

This is where you keep misrepresenting oneness doctrine. The son is NOT the Father; but Jesus is both the Father and the Son because Isaiah 9:6 says so.

First off if Jesus is both the Father and the Son, then you have one not two witnesses. If he is as you say a father and a son, just as I am a daughter and mother, then that is one person, therefore one witness. Jesus' testimony is still invalid according to your doctrine.

This is nothing more then double speak to try to justify your doctrine when scripture clearly shows it faulty.

Let's look at what you said:

The Son is Jesus
Jesus is the Father
The Son would then be said to be the Father.

We do believe in One God. Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God. All these make up the one being that is God! You totally misunderstand and purposely misrepresent what we say.

You keep equating the word person with human. I never said the Spirit was flesh, or human or had a physical body. The Spirit is a personal being with characteristics apart from the Father and the Son.

Stop trying to define God and limit him with human termonology and concepts. You may not understand One being in 3 separate persons, but the Bible clearly differentiates between the 3 yet demands that there is One God.

Don't envision a human being when we use the word person. We are trying to define a unique and infinite being with our limited terminology. No, you are right it can't be done very well. But we can't deny the Father or the Son.

Originally posted by Norman:
""Who took the scroll from the one sitting on the throne? If the Father did, then who is on the throne? If the Father, then why was someone needed to take it? Why were they weeping that no one could if the Father took the scroll out of the Father's hand?"

I see you didnt' answer the question but asked another one. In the question you ask me you clearly reveal yet another incident where Jesus is sitting down with His Father, as we will sit with Him. Showing that Jesus is with the Father and is not the Father proves your case how??????

Originally posted by Norman:
"Also tell me who is the first and the last in Rev. 1:11-18.

God. There is only One God.

~Lorelei

 

[Norman]

"We do believe in One God. Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God. All these make up the one being that is God! You totally misunderstand and purposely misrepresent what we say."

No, I don't misrepresent what you say at all; I just point out how it is a contradiction, and you don't want to see that.

 

[Norman]

"Jesus' testimony is still invalid according to your doctrine.

This is nothing more then double speak to try to justify your doctrine when scripture clearly shows it faulty."

Lorelei, answer this:
Does Isaiah 9:6 say a son will be called the Everlasting Father, or does it not say that?
Did Jesus say in John 10:30 "I and my Father are one" or did he not say that?
Did Jesus say in John 14:9 "Have I been so long time with you, Philip, and yet thou hast not known me? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how sayest thou then, show us the Father?"
Does it say that, or not?
You accuse me of double speak but I'm just pointing out what the Bible says; it's not my fault if it contradicts your man-made trinity doctrine.
OH, there was a time that Paul referred to himself as two or three witnesses. But in the verse you are talking about, there is the witness of the Spirit, plus the witness of the physical person of Jesus; that makes two witnesses.

 

[Norman]

----------------------------------------------

"No, John was not wrong. John was giving the evidence of a Christian's salvation, not the prerequisites of a sinner in order to be saved. There is a huge difference. You say that baptism (along with other works) are necessary to salvation. John says they are a result of salvation. They are an evidence of salvation "

I can agree with that. Works are necessary in that they will follow salvation; not that they produce salvation. So if someone claims to believe but does not have any of the works following, would that not indicate that his faith is faulty?

 

[Norman]

"Norman,

Do you believe that the people that heard them speak in tongues were there at the time it happened or not? "

Well of course they were there, but not when it first started happening; they showed up while it was still happening.

 

[Norman]

Grannygumbo, your question about blaspheming the Holy Ghost shows that you still don't get what we are saying. It's late and time for me to shut this computer down but I will get back to you on this.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Norman:
----------------------------------------------
"No, John was not wrong. John was giving the evidence of a Christian's salvation, not the prerequisites of a sinner in order to be saved. There is a huge difference. You say that baptism (along with other works) are necessary to salvation. John says they are a result of salvation. They are an evidence of salvation "

I can agree with that. Works are necessary in that they will follow salvation; not that they produce salvation. So if someone claims to believe but does not have any of the works following, would that not indicate that his faith is faulty?

1John 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Generally speaking the evidence of one who is born again is a changed life. Different Christians mature and grow at different rates. For example, I was not baptized until two years after the time that I was saved. Some might say that I therefore was not saved because, they say that baptism is necessary to salvation.
Whereas the Bible teaches that only faith is necessary for salvation. Our works follow. In any true Christian there will be a change. But we are saved by faith.
DHK

 

[SolaScriptura]

(1 John 5:7 KJV) "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

The Father, Word, and Holy Ghost - these 3 are one.

"No, John was not wrong. John was giving the evidence of a Christian's salvation, not the prerequisites of a sinner in order to be saved. There is a huge difference. You say that baptism (along with other works) are necessary to salvation. John says they are a result of salvation. They are an evidence of salvation"

How can something be an evidence if it be not necessary? It if it not necessary, then not all men will have it as evidence!!! If baptism is evidence that is not necessary, only a select few will be baptized and therefore only a few will have the evidence. BUT BY THE FACT THAT ALL CHRISTIANS will have THIS evidence, we see it to be necessary - for anything unnessary could not be universal - for the evidence to be universal, it must also be necessary!

[ May 24, 2002, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]

 

[DHK]

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

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.

God the Word was made flesh. He was God manifest in the flesh (1Tim.3:16). This person, Christ, God in the flesh, was at the same time in Heaven (3:13). He claims here his omnipresence.

1Tim.3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Look at the teaching in this verse. "God was manifest in the flesh." God appeared in the flesh. God came in the person of Jesus Christ. This God was "justified in the Spirit." This refers to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit gave evidence that Christ was the Son of God or justified His claims to that effect. When He was baptized, the Holy Spirit descended upon Him, like a dove (Mat.3:16). In Mat.12:28, He testifies that He casts out demons by the Holy Spirit. It was the Holy Spirit that testified of His works. God the Father, appeared in God the Son, was justified or proven to be God the Son, by God the Holy Spirit. These three infinite beings unite themselves into one God. Three persons, but one God.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by SolaScriptura:
How can something be an evidence if it be not necessary? It if it not necessary, then not all men will have it as evidence!!! If baptism is evidence that is not necessary, only a select few will be baptized and therefore only a few will have the evidence. BUT BY THE FACT THAT ALL CHRISTIANS will have THIS evidence, we see it to be necessary - for anything unnessary could not be universal - for the evidence to be universal, it must also be necessary!

"How can something be an evidence if it be not necessary" By the very fact that it is an evidence and not a prerequisite. One of the evidences of William Carey's salvation was his devotion to the Lord, and his missionary service in India. If missionary service was an evidence of his salvation, and thus necessary, then you also must be a missionary to India. See how your logic fails.
The evidence of a Christian is a changed life. How God changes that life is different in different people. For you to put restrictions that God never put, is blasphemous. Christ paid the full penalty and weight for our sin. He offers us the gift of eternal life simply by receiving it by faith, on the basis of the sacrifice that he has already paid for us. To squeeze works (baptism or tongues) into the payment of the blood of Christ is simply blasphemous. We are saved by grace through faith.
Our works will follow.
DHK

 

[Norman]

Who is the Holy Spirit?
Who is the Spirit of Christ?
Who is the Spirit of God?
Galations 4:6, "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father."
Who is the "Spirit of his Son"? Why is this not "the Holy Spirit"? I Cor. 12:4-11 plainly shows there is one Spirit; II Cor. 3:17 says the Lord is that Spirit; Ephesians 4:4 says there is one Spirit. So who is the Spirit of his Son? Do you have two different "persons" who share the same Spirit, but that Spirit is yet another person? Why can you not see how confused that idea is?
Then you want to take Matthew 12:32 and claim that shows a distinction of "persons" when it does no such thing. Is your intellect a distinct person from your emotions? Is your intellect the same as your emotions? Don't be silly. We repeatedly explain that the physical body of Jesus is not the eternal Spirit, but you seem to ignore that. There is a distinction between the "Spirit" and the "Son of man" but that does not make the Spirit a person. Why is that too hard to understand?

 

[Norman]

I am trying hard to help you people understand something. I ask questions to make you think about what the Bible really says, but you seem to ignore those questions and ask more questions you think we can't answer.
I explain that the Son is not the Father, but Jesus is the Father and the Son; you call that double talk, but it is precisely what the Bible says.
Galations 3:20 says very plainly, "God is one." Where does the Bible say "God in three persons"? It doesn't.
I Timothy 6:15 says "the blessed and only Potentate"; so can there be more than one "only Potentate"? No.
I Timothy 6:16 says "Who only hath immortality"; so who has immortality?
Who is the first and the last in Rev. 1:11-18? Can there be more than one who is the first and the last?
If we are supposed to understand that God is three persons, then when Philip said "Lord, show us the Father" in John 14, why did Jesus not show him? How did Jesus answer him? Is what Jesus said not significant? There is a great revelation in John 14:9 that you seem to ignore. Did you see me twist that verse? Did I re-arrange the words? Did I add in something it does not say? Be honest. What does that verse really say?
What did Jesus say in John 12:44-45? "He that believeth on me believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me." Can you accept that?

 

[Norman]

Lorelei said:
"You keep equating the word person with human. I never said the Spirit was flesh, or human or had a physical body. The Spirit is a personal being with characteristics apart from the Father and the Son.

Stop trying to define God and limit him with human termonology and concepts"

But it seems to me that's precisely what you are doing by insisting that the Holy Spirit is a person. The Bible doesn't say the Holy Spirit is a person. Why is the Holy Spirit not the same as the Spirit that is God (John 4:24)? The Bible does not say God the Father is Spirit; it just says God is Spirit (or a Spirit, KJV). Why would God not be the whole God being?
If the Holy Spirit is a personal being with characteristics apart from the Father, then how are these characteristics different? How is the personality of the Spirit different from the personality of the Father? Where in the Bible does the Holy Spirit ever speak to the Father?
What should I envision by the word "person"? Please explain. A personal being? Consisting of what?

 

[Norman]

"In Mat.12:28, He testifies that He casts out demons by the Holy Spirit. "

But if he is God the Son, equally God with the Father and the Spirit, one of three infinite persons, why can't he just do it himself?

Luke 11:20, Jesus says he cast out devils with the finger of God. Imagine that. Was Jesus confused? I know you don't think that.

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by Norman:
OH, there was a time that Paul referred to himself as two or three witnesses.

Can you please find the reference? I would like to read that verse.

Originally posted by Norman:

But in the verse you are talking about, there is the witness of the Spirit, plus the witness of the physical person of Jesus; that makes two witnesses.

That isn't what Jesus said. He said one witness was himself and the other was His Father.

Jesus said he was One with the Father and I don't deny that. We are one in Christ, does that actually make us Christ? In marriage it says the two shall become one? Am I now my husband, does he cease to exist as his own person because we are united as one? While Jesus said he was one with the Father, he also said that the Father was greater then himself. If he was One as in he was the Father, then how is he greater then himself?

Isaiah 9 is the only place that refers to the Son as the Father. I have heard others say that the words used was commonly used as the creator. I am not certain for I am not an expert on the Hebrew and Greek, I do know that one verse can not contradict several others.

~Lorelei

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by Norman:
"Norman,

Do you believe that the people that heard them speak in tongues were there at the time it happened or not? "

Well of course they were there, but not when it first started happening; they showed up while it was still happening.

So do you are do not agree that the tongues spoke in Acts 4 were specific languages that other people understood in thier own tongues?

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by Norman:
I am trying hard to help you people understand something. I ask questions to make you think about what the Bible really says, but you seem to ignore those questions and ask more questions you think we can't answer.

The questions I ask aren't becuase I think you can't answer them, the scriptures I ask are because no one who believes as you do has ever answered them for me. Granted my experience is limited, but I am very curious how these scriptures can be ignored. The best I get is but the Bible also says this...which we explain how that does not contradict our belief and they say...well I don't know, but I know I am right. It gets very frustrating.

Now if you could realize that all of us are trying hard to make each other understand and we are also asking questions to make you think about what the Bible really says, maybe we can have a productive conversation.

Originally posted by Norman:
I explain that the Son is not the Father, but Jesus is the Father and the Son; you call that double talk, but it is precisely what the Bible says.

Then how can Jesus be the Son? That makes no sense.

Originally posted by Norman:
Galations 3:20 says very plainly, "God is one."

We agree, but look more closely to that Oneness.

Jesus said to baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. He called that one Name, yet in that one name are 3 distinct parts.

Ephesians 4:4There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to one hope when you were called-- 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

There is One Spirit, One Lord and One God and Father. There is only One, yet all 3 are represented.

You admit that Jesus said I and my Father are One. They are One God, yet he didn't say "I am my Father". There is a great difference. While saying they were One, he also recognized both distinct persons. The Father and Himself.

Originally posted by Norman:
I Timothy 6:15 says "the blessed and only Potentate"; so can there be more than one "only Potentate"? No.

Have we ever claimed there was more the One God?

Originally posted by Norman:

I Timothy 6:16 says "Who only hath immortality"; so who has immortality?

God!

Originally posted by Norman:

Who is the first and the last in Rev. 1:11-18? Can there be more than one who is the first and the last?

God is the First and the Last, they are the Same God. You again, confuse what we say.

I ask you, Who is sitting at the Father's right hand?

Originally posted by Norman:

If we are supposed to understand that God is three persons, then when Philip said "Lord, show us the Father" in John 14, why did Jesus not show him? How did Jesus answer him? Is what Jesus said not significant? There is a great revelation in John 14:9 that you seem to ignore. Did you see me twist that verse? Did I re-arrange the words? Did I add in something it does not say? Be honest. What does that verse really say?

It says, as I have explained that they are in each other. Read the entire chapter and explain these verses:

In v. 12 Jesus is going where:

"I am going to the Father"

Is he going to himself?

IN v 13 the Son is bringing glory to who?

"so that the Son may bring glory to the Father"

In v 16 & 17Jesus is asking the Father to give us the Spirit. He didn't ask himself to send himself.

"16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-- 17the Spirit of truth. "

In v 21 Jesus said the he too would love us along with the Father.

"21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."


In v 24 whose words was Jesus speaking? Who sent Jesus?

"These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me"

In v 26 The Father is sending the Spirit in the Name of the Son.

"26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

I could go on and on, but I don't really have the time. Your one verse is supposed to deny the rest of the chapter? Read it in context with the rest you will understand that In does make them the same person, but they are the same being.

The word person may be a poor word but they are distinct personalities and each part of the Godhead is personal.

Originally posted by Norman:
What did Jesus say in John 12:44-45? "He that believeth on me believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me." Can you accept that?

Actually the NIV reads:

John 12:Then Jesus cried out, "When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me."

(emphasis mine)

My KJV also has a footnote for the words not on me, it says "not only".

Do you accept v 50:

50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak KJV

Did the Father speak to the Son or not?

~Lorelei

 

[GrannyGumbo]

Now, I wasn't going to speak on these things anymore~hahaha, but there's something I find interesting in the Webster's 1828 dictionary. I know the word "trinity"(which I try not to use) is not in the Bible, but neither is the word "oneness"(as pertaining to the Godhead) & for that matter, neither is the word "bible". Anyhoo, I found one word used to describe both trinity & oneness & that is "unity".

Ponderings~~~
Is 'LORD' the only "name" that will match Son, Father, & Holy Ghost? If those are titles in Mt.28:19, wouldn't it say 'names'? Also, why is the word 'and' used between each one instead of commas? In Isa 9:6, are those words following (His name) considered titles too?

[ May 24, 2002, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: GrannyGumbo ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Norman:

I explain that the Son is not the Father, but Jesus is the Father and the Son; you call that double talk, but it is precisely what the Bible says.

This sounds like a variation of the old gnostic heresy that Jesus is human but Christ is divine.

 

[GrannyGumbo]

Moving right along now with more ponderings>>>"If LORD is the only "name" that will match Father, Son & Holy Ghost- and in Isa44:24 where it says "...I am the LORD that maketh all things...", then over in John1:1-3, how can an "idea/plan" create all the things of creation? God is not a "plan" or an "idea". The Word was (with) God; distinct persons. The Word (was)God: unity of being. I know God is NOT a 3-headed creature, nor are there 3 gods. I believe what the Bible says about Him & it does reveal clearly Who God is. Pure & simple.