Trinity or no trinity?

DHK & Neal4Christ.

Excellent work on your explanations of the Trinity, I have really enjoyed what you both have had to say in this discussion.

DHK, when you are finished here, lets start another Sabbath Thread

 

3 Angels Mom -- I think DHK made an excellent point.

And I think your response to him was somewhat childish.

 

In verse 6 we find that Christ is fully entitle to equality with God and to exist in the form of God.

In verse 7 we find Him in the "form of man".

This brings in the concept of Christ as the God-Man. Fully God and Fully man.

The alternative is that He is neither God nor Man. But the text seems to argue for God-Man.

In Christ,

Bob

 

It is amazing to me that many who espouse to the Trinitarian Doctrine really don't understand the original creeds. They do say the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead. Coequal. Coeternal.
ANything else is not believing in the TRinity.

I know for a fact that there are those who say three personalities yet criticize the oneness movement for saying three offices.

Trinitarians criticize the Oneness people but they do believe Jesus is God and was man.
They just believe Jehovah who is spirit robed himself in a human body. Born of woman.

The apostles did not teach the Trinity. If you study Catholic apologetics and the life of the post apostolic father even the apologetics admit they did not teach the Trinity. The idea was not began until 300's ad. This in itself does not makes sense and to me it is ridiculous for people to say it took God that many years to reveal himself. No it did not.

You see the Jews knew that with Jesus claiming to be the Son of God he would be deity. Anything proceeding from God would be part of God or deity. This is why they said he being man was making himself God.

Let us look with reason at what the Romans were thinking. They had believed in multi-Gods who had sons and daughters. These were what was called Demi-Gods. This is what the post Apostolic Fathers taught. They taught that Jesus was the Son of God or son of Jehovah. The Romans was afraid many of the people would go back to worshipping the old Gods if this doctrine was not changed.

Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost. This is scriptural. Yet the Bible said he proceeded from the FAther. How is that possible if the Father and Holy Ghost are not the same. How is that possible if the Holy Ghost is not the spirit of the FAther now dwelling in men?

If God was a Trinity then it would be clear in the Bible. Paul said the Godhead is no mystery but others who think they are more knowledgable then Paul. Why would have Paul said this if he believed in the all mysterious Trinity. He would have plainly stated that the Godhead is a mystery but he did not.

Do I believe Jesus is God. Yes. DO I believe he is the second person of the Trinity. No. Do I believe in the Trinity, No.

 

It is amazing to me that many who espouse to the Trinitarian Doctrine really don't understand the original creeds. They do say the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead. Coequal. Coeternal.
ANything else is not believing in the TRinity.

I know for a fact that there are those who say three personalities yet criticize the oneness movement for saying three offices.

Trinitarians criticize the Oneness people but they do believe Jesus is God and was man.
They just believe Jehovah who is spirit robed himself in a human body. Born of woman.

The apostles did not teach the Trinity. If you study Catholic apologetics and the life of the post apostolic father even the apologetics admit they did not teach the Trinity. The idea was not began until 300's ad. This in itself does not makes sense and to me it is ridiculous for people to say it took God that many years to reveal himself. No it did not.

You see the Jews knew that with Jesus claiming to be the Son of God he would be deity. Anything proceeding from God would be part of God or deity. This is why they said he being man was making himself God.

Let us look with reason at what the Romans were thinking. They had believed in multi-Gods who had sons and daughters. These were what was called Demi-Gods. This is what the post Apostolic Fathers taught. They taught that Jesus was the Son of God or son of Jehovah. The Romans was afraid many of the people would go back to worshipping the old Gods if this doctrine was not changed.

Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost. This is scriptural. Yet the Bible said he proceeded from the FAther. How is that possible if the Father and Holy Ghost are not the same. How is that possible if the Holy Ghost is not the spirit of the FAther now dwelling in men?

If God was a Trinity then it would be clear in the Bible. Paul said the Godhead is no mystery but others who think they are more knowledgable then Paul. Why would have Paul said this if he believed in the all mysterious Trinity. He would have plainly stated that the Godhead is a mystery but he did not.

Do I believe Jesus is God. Yes. DO I believe he is the second person of the Trinity. No. Do I believe in the Trinity, No.

 

3AM,
I find it odd, even hypocritical, that you use other people's resource material in your posts, and yet disdain those who resort to the same.
DHK

 

Belief in the Trinity is belief in God. This issue was settled ages ago by the early Christians, and it has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Institution. Any attempt to say that believing in the Trinity is submission to Rome is way, way out of line.

I stand on what the Bible says, that the three who bear witness in heaven are one (John 5:7, KJV) and also John Ch. 1 (KJV). As for other verses, I believe that they emphasize the functions that each person in the Trinity has (eg. that only the Father knows the day and hour).

Finally, if one wants to look at the Trinity mathematically, don't think of it as 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, but rather as 1 x 1 x 1 = 1.


mozier

 

Mozier: The scripture you quoted is very doubtful that it was in the original transcriptions and is not included in most newer translations.

Yes the Roman Catholic Church is responsible for this doctrine. Again, no one believed in it nor taught it until 325 a.d. This has been proven historically.

 

This is a matter for textual criticism, a topic which is better discussed in the versions forum, which you are able to do since your profile identifies you as a Baptist. There are basically only two Bibles: those taken from the the historic received text, and those taken from the Westcott Hort text, from which almost all the modern versions are taken from. Naturally then they will differ from the KJV. That doesn't make them right. There is good evidence that 1John 5:7 is in the original manuscripts, and no need to cast aspersions on its validity here. Surely you can come up with a better argument than that.
DHK

 

Most modern translatations go back to earlier manuscripts than were available for the KJV 1611 version. And translations into other languages are not translations from English to some new language - but translations from the early Greek texts.

Paul did not speak English.

The Trinity is not a "phrase" found in scripture but "The Word WAS GOD" is.

And the texts presenting the Holy Spirit as God were as fully accepted by first century NT saints as the ones that Present Christ as "My Lord and My God" - the Alpha and the Omega - "without beginning and without end".

In Christ,

Bob

 

The "earlier manuscripts" that the modern versions "go back to" are the Aleph and B (Vaticanus and Sinaticanus) manuscripts, which from what I've read were hidden in the Vatican library and a Catholic Cathedral until the 1800s and which also show 1000s of signs of tampering such as one scribe writing in the margin "you fool, why can't you leave the old reading alone?" with reference to an alteration made by a previous scribe and signs of acid being used to remove words, signs of letters being written over with other letter, etc. (this info is from memory, so I suggest checking it out yourself)

[ March 29, 2003, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

Actually, there are many others besides just these two. And before you start bashing Catholics concerning these two, the TR, which is the basis for the KJV NT, was put together by a Catholic cleric, Erasmus. Many readings in the KJV follow the Vulgate, which as I am sure you know, was the official Bible of the Catholic church for centuries.

Neal

 

Even John the first chapter has different wordings in other translations from the KJV. Some says in the Beginning was an idea etc.


DHK: I find it funny that you don't like it when someone says something that sheds truth on why a doctrine is very questionable.

It has been proven historically that the Catholic Church messed with scriptures. Added words and subtracted words. Why would anyone question that they did this in light of all the atrocities they have done in the past. Refusing to let people have Bibles etc.

I don't understand why any protestant church would give allegiance to creeds from the Roman Catholic Church like the Nicene Creed, Athansius Creed etc then turn around and criticize their obvious mother church for other unbiblical doctrines such as the worship of Mary etc.

 

Your are right hrhema.
It has been proven historically that the Catholic Church messed with scriptures. Added words and subtracted words.
The ironic thing here is that you have taken a position alongside the Roman Catholic Church that has omitted 1John 5:7.
DHK

 

And so, 3AM, your "comments" here are better than some other man's opinion?

DHK uses commentaries and other sources, in addition to the scriptures (instead of saying "besides" the scriptures), in order to show you that he's studied the subject as thoroughly as possible.

Why are your "comments" any better than those of everyone else who's written a commentary?

 

I'm sorry, WHO'S material have I used?

I DO NOT use commentaries. Never have, never will.

They are just another mans opinion.

You use them like we should all just agree with you because someone else does!

Give me a break. </font>[/QUOTE]

I didn't say commentaries; I said other resource materials (still the work of men) which you have used. This is your quote is it not?
DHK