Doctrine of the Trinity - Stated or Implied?

[annsni]

Jesus being referred to as "Son" could certainly mean that He was created, right? That's how it works on Earth.

That is how it works on earth but not in heaven. John 1:3 is very clear that there is nothing that was created that was not created by Jesus. If He created all things, how could He be created?

The Spirit as a helper or advocate certainly doesn't have to mean that He is also a deity.

Acts 5:3-4 has Peter asking Ananias why he lied to the Holy Spirit - and then he said that Ananias lied to God.

1 Corinthians 2:10-11 tells us that the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit - one very much with God. How could He not be God?

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

You are absolutely right.

My heartfelt apologies.

I treated you miserably. Please forgive me.

You are clearly a very studied Christian.

Have a wonderful Christmas,

Brother Davis

No worries, we all make mistakes! Apologies for anything I said that offended you. have a great Christmas yourself. See you around on here. God bless you brother!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

That is how it works on earth but not in heaven. John 1:3 is very clear that there is nothing that was created that was not created by Jesus. If He created all things, how could He be created?



Acts 5:3-4 has Peter asking Ananias why he lied to the Holy Spirit - and then he said that Ananias lied to God.

1 Corinthians 2:10-11 tells us that the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit - one very much with God. How could He not be God?

None of those texts state or prove that there is a triune deity.

Jesus being referred to as "Son" could certainly mean that He was created, right? That's how it works on Earth.

The Spirit as a helper or advocate certainly doesn't have to mean that He is also a deity.

The doctrine of the Trinity is formed by implication.

The Bible clearly says that Jesus Christ is YAHWEH. For example, in John 8:58, Jesus says, "Before Abraham came into existence, I AM", which the Jews clearly understood to refer to Exodus 3:14, where Moses asks God, what Name should he use to say Who sent him. To which God replied, "I AM THAT I AM", which is the basis for the Hebrew Name of God, YAHWEH (YHWH), which means, "the eternal, uncreated, self-existent One". Now, Jesus as YAHWEH cannot be "created", as He is ETERNAL! There are other passages that also clearly teach that Jesus is YAHWEH!

 

[percho]

The Bible clearly says that Jesus Christ is YAHWEH. For example, in John 8:58, Jesus says, "Before Abraham came into existence, I AM", which the Jews clearly understood to refer to Exodus 3:14, where Moses asks God, what Name should he use to say Who sent him. To which God replied, "I AM THAT I AM", which is the basis for the Hebrew Name of God, YAHWEH (YHWH), which means, "the eternal, uncreated, self-existent One". Now, Jesus as YAHWEH cannot be "created", as He is ETERNAL! There are other passages that also clearly teach that Jesus is YAHWEH!

Did God reply, speak the Word, "I Am that I Am," or did God reply, speak the Word, I Will Be who I Will Be," And did the spoken Word made flesh, born of woman, Jesus, say, "before Abraham was, I Am" ?

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Did God reply, speak the Word, "I Am that I Am," or did God reply, speak the Word, I Will Be who I Will Be," And did the spoken Word made flesh, born of woman, Jesus, say, "before Abraham was, I Am" ?

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

"πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί", literally, "before Abraham came into existence, I AM". The contrast between, " γενέσθαι" (was), that is, "began to be" of Abraham; and " ἐγὼ εἰμί" the "timeless existence" of Jesus, is very important. The Jews in had accused Jesus of making Himself to be "greater" than Abraham, and that Abraham actually rejoiced to "see" Jesus, which the Jews could not fathom. Abraham, says Jesus, had a "beginning" as he was born in time; whereas He did not have any "beginning", as He has always existed, which is seen in the force of the words ἐγὼ εἰμί", which is in the present, continuance

Exodus 3:14, as translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls, into English, reads: "And God said to [Moses, “I] am that I am.” And he said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’ ” (Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, Eugene Ulrich; The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible). The Jews also recognise this to be the best rendering of the Hebrew text, "Te true pronunciation of the name YHWH was never lost. Several early Greek writers of the Christian Church testify that the name was pronounced “Yahweh.” This is confirmed, at least for the vowel of the first syllable of the name, by the shorter form Yah, which is sometimes used in poetry (e.g., Ex. 15:2) and the -yahu or -yah that serves as the final syllable in very many Hebrew names. In the opinion of many scholars, YHWH is a verbal form of the root hwh, which is an older variant of the root hyh “to be.” Te vowel of the first syllable shows that the verb is used in the form of a future-present causative hiphʿil, and must therefore mean “He causes to be, He brings into existence.” The explanation of the name as given in Exodus 3:14, Eheyeh-Asher-Eheyeh, “I-Am-Who-I Am,” (Encyclopaedia Judaica). And, " And God said unto Moses: ‘I AM THAT I AM’; and He said: ‘Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you.’" (The Jewish Publication Society of America, The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text ). The Hebrew verb, “’ehyeh” is in the first person singular, “to exist, to be”. It is quite wrong to conclude, as some do, that this verb is always used in the “future tense”. We have examples like Jeremiah 31:9, “They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am (ehyeh) a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.”, and Micah 7:1, “Woe is me! for I am (ehyeh) as when they have gathered the summer fruits, as the grape gleanings of the vintage: there is no cluster to eat: my soul desired the first ripe fruit.”, and, Job 11:4, “For thou hast said, My doctrine is pure, and I am (ehyeh) clean in thine eyes.”. In each case the verb “’ehyeh” is in the “present tense”.

The Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX), which was completed some 150 years before the Birth of Jesus Christ, and carried out by the best Jewish scholars, who would have been experts in both Hebrew and Greek, render the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14, by "Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν", which literally has the meaning, "I am He Who Exists", or "I am the Eternal One". Which is the basis of the Name of God in Hebrew, "YHWH".

 

[Yeshua1]

Certainly they demonstrate the doctrine of the Trinity, but none of them state the doctrine of the Trinity. There is no post that says, I am a Trinity, Yours sincerely, God. And that is the sort of thing you are demanding concerning Penal Substitution.

I assume you know the provenance, or lack of it, of 1 John 5:7. Do you really think you would convince a Unitarian with that?

[Actually, there is nothing in any of those verses that clearly states, in the Greek, the Personality of the Spirit. You have to go to verses like Acts 5:3-4 and Ephesians 4:30 for that]

The early church was compelled to accept as doctrine truth that the scriptures teach to us that there are 3 distinct Persons called Father/Jesus/Holy Spirit, who are also all at same time the Being called God, yet that was not explicit , but they collected all saying regarding the three and formulated doctrine of trinity.

 

[Mr. Davis]

Is anyone else aware that one Pope was an Arian?

 

[Yeshua1]

Is anyone else aware that one Pope was an Arian?

More importantly, how many were really saved?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

1 Corinthians 2:10-11 tells us that the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit - one very much with God. How could He not be God?

JWs believe that the Spirit is God's 'active force' and without personality.

"πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί", literally, "before Abraham came into existence, I AM". The contrast between, " γενέσθαι" (was), that is, "began to be" of Abraham; and " ἐγὼ εἰμί" the "timeless existence" of Jesus, is very important.

That is absolutely correct, but it does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity because it says nothing of the Spirit.
The Trinity can certainly be shown quite easily from Scripture, but not in a single verse or periscope. It is 'necessarily contained' in Scripture, but not directly stated.

Just like Penal Substitution.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Oops! Before someone else points it out, I should have written 'pericope' not 'periscope.'

 

[annsni]

JWs believe that the Spirit is God's 'active force' and without personality.

Which is crazy since the most obvious argument is that if you can "grieve" someone, they must have a personality and not just be a force!

 

[JonC]

JWs believe that the Spirit is God's 'active force' and without personality.

That is absolutely correct, but it does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity because it says nothing of the Spirit.
The Trinity can certainly be shown quite easily from Scripture, but not in a single verse or periscope. It is 'necessarily contained' in Scripture, but not directly stated.

Just like Penal Substitution.

You are mistaken here, brother. Unlike the the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement Scripture testifies directly to the divinity of Father, Son, and Spirit (as Annsi pointed out, Luke equates the Spirit with God). Perhaps this is why a rejection of the Trinity is unorthodox, yet within Christianity there are and have been several theories of atonement.

That said, I will grant two points. First, the degree to which one takes the doctrine (how the persons of the Trinity exist and operate within the Godhead) may very will include theory not present in Scripture. There is so much that we are not given to know. Second, you may not recognize that Scripture speaks of the Holy Spirit as being God. Perhaps Annsi's reference will correct this oversight. But the basic doctrine of the Trinity is directly stated in Scripture.

 

[Revmitchell]

....Scripture testifies directly to the divinity of Father, Son, and Spirit ...

But that does not explicitly give us the Trinity.

 

[JonC]

But that does not explicitly give us the Trinity.

Why not? (God is One, God is Father, Son, and Spirit, the Father sent the Son, the Father and Son sent the Spirit).

 

[Revmitchell]

Why not? (God is One, God is Father, Son, and Spirit, the Father sent the Son, the Father and Son sent the Spirit).

If it doesn't say "This is the Trinity" then its not explicit. Cant redefine terms.;

 

[agedman]

If it doesn't say "This is the Trinity" then its not explicit. Cant redefine terms.;

I disagree.

Explicit does not have to state "This is the Trinity." Rather, by presenting the three individually as God, that is being explicit.

Explicit can mean that stated specifically, but it also means that which is plain, clear, understandable, and evidenced.

For example:

The Scriptures do not say Elijah did not die.

The evidence is explicit within the context of the scene that Elijah did not die. Same with Methuselah.

 

[JonC]

If it doesn't say "This is the Trinity" then its not explicit. Cant redefine terms.;

That's one of the oddest claims I have heard.

Scripture does not state God is immutable because it does not use the word "immutable".

It does not state abortion is wrong because it does not use the word "abortion".

It does not claim the Bible God's Word because it does not use the Word "Bible".

And it does not state the God is triune because it does not use the word "trinity".

You seem to base a lot on what you believe implied rather than written.

What you have ignored is that words themselves are symbols, conveying ideas. If I say God is One, Father, Son, and Spirit are all God then I have - BY DEFINITION- explicitly affirmed the Trinity. You simply can't get around it.

 

[Revmitchell]

That's one of the oddest claims I have heard.

Scripture does not state God is immutable because it does not use the word "immutable".

It does not state abortion is wrong because it does not use the word "abortion".

It does not claim the Bible God's Word because it does not use the Word "Bible".

And it does not state the God is triune because it does not use the word "trinity".

You seem to base a lot on what you believe implied rather than written.

What you have ignored is that words themselves are symbols, conveying ideas. If I say God is One, Father, Son, and Spirit are all God then I have - BY DEFINITION- explicitly affirmed the Trinity. You simply can't get around it.

I did not say any of those things

 

[JonC]

I did not say any of those things

No. I did. If you are consistent, that is how you view things.

If Scripture states that each person of the Trinity is God, and God is One, but somehow only implies the existence of God (as a triune God) because it does not use the word "trinity" then the rest is true.

In other words, if you can only find the Trinity as something implied in Scripture, perhaps you are putting the telescope to the blind eye.

 

[Revmitchell]

No. I did. If you are consistent, that is how you view things.

This is where these conversations break down for me. I didn't say those things, you do not get to impose your version of what is consistent on me. Good luck