Trinity revisited!

[Don]

hrhema, they ignore your posts for the same reason they ignore mine: There's a lot going on here, and sometimes you have to choose which posts you personally feel require a response.

 

[hrhema]

First of all Jehovah was erroneously transliterated from the Masoretic Hebrew Text.

It was transliterated from the Hebrew YHWH. The scribes trying to make others understand that his name was too holy to speak added the vowel meaning Adonai or Lord into the mix. Jewish interpreters did not realize this thus created the name Jehovah. The name Jehovah means: "HE WHO IS." The name is in the third person singular which indicates ONE GOD.

The name Jehovah does not translate THEY WHO ARE,
BUT HE WHO IS.

I believe the reason people do not respond sometimes is because they know they don't have the answers. They cannot explain why God did not reveal himself in the Old Testament as a 3 person Trinity. They cannot explain why the post Apostolic Fathers did not believe in the trinity.
That they only believed in two and that the Holy Ghost was the emanated spirit of the FAther sent through the son. They cannot explain why Jesus said the FAther is a spirit not a person yet this doctrine says he is a person. They cannot explain why the Bible says that the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus bodily yet they say that there are three. They cannot explain why certain scriptures show Jesus being subservient to the Father yet this doctrine teaches they are co-equal.

There are so many discrepancies in the doctrine of the Trinity. Why anyone would believe a doctrine created by the Roman CAtholic Church is beyond me.

 

[hrhema]

The word beget by Webster's dictionary means to procreate as the Father. Seems like Jesus being begotten would mean he was procreated by God the FAther.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by hrhema:
First of all Jehovah was erroneously transliterated from the Masoretic Hebrew Text.

It was transliterated from the Hebrew YHWH. The scribes trying to make others understand that his name was too holy to speak added the vowel meaning Adonai or Lord into the mix. Jewish interpreters did not realize this thus created the name Jehovah. The name Jehovah means: "HE WHO IS." The name is in the third person singular which indicates ONE GOD.

The name Jehovah does not translate THEY WHO ARE,
BUT HE WHO IS.

Where do you get your information from. Some of it is obviously false. The masoretes never changed the meaning of the word Jehovah; they simply added vowel pointing. No one here (to my knowledge)said that the name meant "They who are." Where are you getting this from? Can you please document it.

Here is what Easton's dictionary says about the name Jehovah:

Jehovah
"The special and significant name (not merely an appellative title such as Lord [adonai]) by which God revealed himself to the ancient Hebrews (Ex 6:2-3). This name, the Tetragrammaton of the Greeks, was held by the later Jews to be so sacred that it was never pronounced except by the high priest on the great Day of Atonement, when he entered into the most holy place. Whenever this name occurred in the sacred books they pronounced it, as they still do, "Adonai" (i.e., Lord), thus using another word in its stead. The Massorets gave to it the vowel-points appropriate to this word. This Jewish practice was founded on a false interpretation of Le 24:16. The meaning of the word appears from Ex 3:14 to be "the unchanging, eternal, self-existent God," the "I am that I am," a convenant-keeping God. (Comp. Mal 3:6; Ho 12:5; Re 1:4,8.)

The Hebrew name "Jehovah" is generally translated in the Authorized Version (and the Revised Version has not departed from this rule) by the word LORD printed in small capitals, to distinguish it from the rendering of the Hebrew Adonai and the Greek Kurios, which are also rendered Lord, but printed in the usual type. The Hebrew word is translated "Jehovah" only in Ex 6:3; Ps 83:18; Isa 12:2; 26:4, and in the compound names mentioned below. It is worthy of notice that this name is never used in the LXX., the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Apocrypha, or in the New Testament. It is found, however, on the "Moabite stone" (q.v.), and consequently it must have been in the days of Mesba so commonly pronounced by the Hebrews as to be familiar to their heathen neighbours."

"The meaning of the word appears from Ex 3:14 to be "the unchanging, eternal, self-existent God," the "I am that I am," a convenant-keeping God. (Comp. Mal 3:6; Ho 12:5; Re 1:4,8.)"
No one has ever said anything different. This same Jehovah is the Jesus of the New Testament.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by hrhema:

I believe the reason people do not respond sometimes is because they know they don't have the answers. They cannot explain why God did not reveal himself in the Old Testament as a 3 person Trinity.

"Let us make man in our own image," gives credence to a triune Godhead. Who was God speaking to besides himself??

They cannot explain why the post Apostolic Fathers did not believe in the trinity.
That they only believed in two and that the Holy Ghost was the emanated spirit of the FAther sent through the son. They cannot explain why Jesus said the FAther is a spirit not a person yet this doctrine says he is a person.

Be sure of your allegations before you state them. Have you read ALL of the church Fathers, every one of their writings? Are you absolutely sure that not one of them did not believe in the trinity?

They cannot explain why the Bible says that the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus bodily yet they say that there are three.

This is your foolishness, and the foolishness of people like the J.W.'s who reject the trinity on the grounds that they will not believe anything they cannot understand. Must I believe only those things I can understand. Do you understand all about electricity when you turn on a switch and your light goes on? Do you know neutrinos exist, and do you understand them? This is the foolishness of men. Can a finite man understand an infinite God?

Christ is God. Being God, all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him. The Bible says "He has the fullness of the Spirit without measure." If you look up John 3:13 you will find that He declares to Nicodemus that He is both on earth and in Heaven at the same time. He declares to Philip, "Know ye not that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." Yes, in Christ is all the fulness of the Godhead. The Bible teaches. I believe it. I believe it by faith because it is God's revelation to man, even though I may not understand every concept that is taught in the Word.

They cannot explain why certain scriptures show Jesus being subservient to the Father yet this doctrine teaches they are co-equal.

Certain Scriptures show Jesus subservient to the Father because He became a man that He might die for the sins of mankind. However, he never gave up His deity. He was the God-man--fully God and fully man at the same time. Only as man could he die for our sins, and only as God could he take the penalty for our sins. He had to be both. As a man he suffered all that a man would suffer. He thirsted as a man, hungered as a man, was tempted as a man, and submitted himself to his father as a man. And yet He was still God. Remember when he went to the cross, he rebuked Peter, declaring his deity, when he said, "Know ye that I could call 12 legions of angels." He did not have to go to the cross. He could have delivered himself. But he went willingly, as a man, that he might deliver us from the penalty of sin.

There are so many discrepancies in the doctrine of the Trinity. Why anyone would believe a doctrine created by the Roman CAtholic Church is beyond me.

There are no disrepancies if you are willing to study it out for yourself and look at it objectively. You are obviously biased against this doctrine when you say it is something created by the Roman Catholic Church, because that is not true. It is a doctrine taught in the Bible. It did not take the Catholics to figure it out.
DHK

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by SolaScriptura in 2003:
Because obviously Christ did not tell the Jews they were lost (John 8:21, John 8:44) and He obviously didn't tell them they were hypocrites (Mat 15:7) and He certainly didn't call them vipers. (Mat 12:34) And, that great servant of Jesus, the apostle Paul so obviously never called anyone an heretic. (Titus 3:10) ***SARCASM ALERT*** By the way, that great prophet of God, Elijah, used sarcasm against idolators. (1 Ki 18:27)

Am I a.....

Jew?

Am I an...

Idolator?

Am I a

Hypocrite?

Am I a...

Viper?

Am I LOST??????

Those verses that I posted STAND.

I am a Christian, saved by the precious blood of Jesus, my sins are washed away, and I have the promise of Eternal Life through Jesus Christ my Lord.

You and DHK BOTH can take your heady and high minded judgments to someone else, because they don't mean a thing to me.

I know who I have believed in, and He is ABLE, to do exactly what He has commited to do, all the way until the LAST DAY.

You got that?

By continuing in this line of attack, you are only making yourselves look WORSE.

I have already gotten SEVERAL PM's and Emails from people who are NOT saying anything in this board, REINFORCING to me, that what you are saying is WRONG, and OUT OF LINE.

I have NOTHING to worry about.

Carry on.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by hrhema:
The word beget by Webster's dictionary means to procreate as the Father. Seems like Jesus being begotten would mean he was procreated by God the FAther.

If what you say is true concerning this word, then you have not been born again or saved.

James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
DHK

 

[hrhema]

DHK: Let us look at Genesis. Yes, it says that God said Let us make man in our image and in our likeness. Yet the same writer stated that God created man in HIS image. Not their image.
Why did these scriptures say "OUR".

Have you ever read literature written during the times that the King James Version and other translations of the Bible were written. YOu would find that most writers then wrote in the plural.
Even royalty when speaking of themselves would say "OUR" OR "WE" and other plural adjectives.
Anyone should know that the people in Biblical days did not say THEE AND THOU ETC. These translators used this venacular in their writing.
Otherwise the next verses would be erroneous when they wrote HIS IMAGE instead of their images.
An image is singular not plural.

Yes, I have read many things written by the post Apostolic Fathers and no they did not teach a Trinity as it is taught today. They did not teach three persons in the Godhead. One of the most popular writings in their day was the Shepherd and it specifically spoke of God the FAther as Spirit and Jesus the Son a person and the Holy Ghost the emanated spirit of the FAther sent by the son.

Later one of the Fathers taught that Jesus was created by the Father and the Holy Ghost was created by Jesus.

Most of them believed Jesus was created by the FAther sometime in past eternity. Way before the creation of the Earth and man.

As far as that being my foolishnes, Paul himself disagreed with you. He declared that the Godhead can be understood and we are without excuse for not understanding it.

The Book of Revelation shows Jesus being subservient to the Father after he is no longer in Human Flesh. I know he was while walking on EArth but the Bible shows him as such in Heaven.
This would not make him CO-EQUAL.

I am not biased because of Catholicism. I am biased because I can see very clearly that this is a man made doctrine and not taught by the Bible. The truth is the doctrine was not taught until the Councils of Rome. Not the way it is taught today. I find it very strange that Non-Trinitarians do not believe the Godhead is a mystery but the Trinitarians do. Why is that?

I have read plenty writings and books and on line articles on the Trinity and they never explain it
in a way that would make me believe it or accept it. I also feel when anyone says they have to take this doctrine by faith that it is a cop out on their part.

I got my information on Jehovah on Encarta.

Last but not least, the word beget can be used towards believers because we have been CREATED IN HIS LIKENESS.

Jesus was called God's firstborn. Why would the scriptures refer to him as such if he did not have a beginning?

The first person of the Trinity, The Father could not be Jesus' father if the Holy Ghost the third person impregnated Mary unless the truth is that the Holy Ghost is only the poured out spirit of the Father. This would also explain why Jesus said (speaking of the Other comforter) that they knew him for he dwelled with them but would be in them in the future. Who dwelled with them? Jesus. So who is the other comforter? Jesus. The "other" means he no longer would be with them in fleshly manifestation but the spirit would dwell within them.

 

[Dualhunter]

Jesus was called God's firstborn. Why would the scriptures refer to him as such if he did not have a beginning?

Jesus is the preeminent Son of God.

13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,
14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. - Colossians 1:13-17 NASB

The Son was before all created things and all created things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things and in Him all things hold together, simply put He is eternal. He has no begining for He is the begining (and the end).

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by hrhema:


Have you ever read literature written during the times that the King James Version and other translations of the Bible were written. YOu would find that most writers then wrote in the plural.
Even royalty when speaking of themselves would say "OUR" OR "WE" and other plural adjectives.
Anyone should know that the people in Biblical days did not say THEE AND THOU ETC. These translators used this venacular in their writing.
Otherwise the next verses would be erroneous when they wrote HIS IMAGE instead of their images.
An image is singular not plural.

We are made in his likeness. The likeness is that we are tripartite beings: body, soul and spirit--just as God is a triune God: the Father, Son and Spirit.
We are made in His image. The only person made in the image of God is Christ. Adam and Eve were originally created in the image of Christ. But that image was marred because of sin. Christ came into the world to restore man back to the image of Christ. This is God's will. See Romans 8:

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

If your reasoning were correct about God referring to Himself in the plural as a matter of respect, it would be totally inconsistent with the rest of the translation of the chapter, where God does not refer does not refer to Himself in the same manner.

As far as that being my foolishnes, Paul himself disagreed with you. He declared that the Godhead can be understood and we are without excuse for not understanding it.

Then stick to your own words. You are without excuse, if that is what you believe. You are without excuse to understand what the Bible teaches.

The Book of Revelation shows Jesus being subservient to the Father after he is no longer in Human Flesh. I know he was while walking on EArth but the Bible shows him as such in Heaven.
This would not make him CO-EQUAL.

The Book of Revelation gives many pictures and images of Jesus Christ. It pictures Him as an infant, as a Bridegroom, as a Lamb, as a warrior on a horse, as a Judge. Yet He is still God, co-equal with the Father. Infant or not, that does not take away from His deity.

I am not biased because of Catholicism. I am biased because I can see very clearly that this is a man made doctrine and not taught by the Bible. The truth is the doctrine was not taught until the Councils of Rome. Not the way it is taught today. I find it very strange that Non-Trinitarians do not believe the Godhead is a mystery but the Trinitarians do. Why is that?

Perhaps it is for the same reason that virtually every cult that denies salvation is by the grace of God, also denies the deity of Christ.

I have read plenty writings and books and on line articles on the Trinity and they never explain it
in a way that would make me believe it or accept it. I also feel when anyone says they have to take this doctrine by faith that it is a cop out on their part.

The very first words of the Bible are: "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth." Do you believe that statement? If you do, you must take it by faith. The Bible does not set out to prove the existence of God, it assumes it. I must accept it by faith. If you don't you are an atheist. There are many things in the Bible I accept by faith including my salvation. Accepting the doctrine of the trinity by faith is not a cop-out.

I got my information on Jehovah on Encarta.

Good for you. There are far better resources than a secular encyclopedia.

Last but not least, the word beget can be used towards believers because we have been CREATED IN HIS LIKENESS.

Please don't be naive here. Words have different meanings. This is the purpose of a Hebrew/Greek lexicon. Look in an English dictionary? How many meanings can you find for the word "church?" There is only one that is Biblical.

Jesus was called God's firstborn. Why would the scriptures refer to him as such if he did not have a beginning?

The word "firstborn" does not mean born first." Words change meaning. In the context it means "having the pre-eminence, or being the most important, of the greatest rank. Look at Psalm 89:27. David is called the firstborn, yet David was the youngest one in the family. All his brothers were older than him. Why is he then referred to as the firstborn? Because he was the pre-eminent one, the one that would be the king of Israel.

The first person of the Trinity, The Father could not be Jesus' father if the Holy Ghost the third person impregnated Mary unless the truth is that the Holy Ghost is only the poured out spirit of the Father. This would also explain why Jesus said (speaking of the Other comforter) that they knew him for he dwelled with them but would be in them in the future. Who dwelled with them? Jesus. So who is the other comforter? Jesus. The "other" means he no longer would be with them in fleshly manifestation but the spirit would dwell within them.

You have a lot of confusion here. Who said the Holy Spirit is "the poured out spirit of the Father? That is heresy. The Holy Spirit is God, co-existent with the Father and the Son from all eternity. It was Jesus that said I will sent you a comforter, referring to the Holy Spirit, not referring to Himself, but rather to the Holy Spirit. Jesus, by the power of the Holy Spirit resides in the heart of every believer.
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

In the NAME of the "Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" - Matt 28. Co-equal, co-eternal.

"You have not lied to men but you have Lied TO the Holy Spirit" Acts 5:3

The Holy Spirit is "grieved", and can be lied to.

He has the ability to present the word of Christ Christ says "HE takes from Me " just as Christ said that HE took from the Father and gave to us - showing perfect unity among the three.

In 1Cor 12 it is the Holy Spirit that gives gifts to the church "as HE wills".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[neal4christ]

Have you ever read literature written during the times that the King James Version and other translations of the Bible were written. YOu would find that most writers then wrote in the plural.
Even royalty when speaking of themselves would say "OUR" OR "WE" and other plural adjectives.

I am sorry, but that is a silly explanation, and it is not it. It is because the Hebrew is 1st common plural here for image, thus translated 'our.' It is not because KJV translators chose it that way. Look at other translations and you will see it is a Hebrew thing, not a KJV thing.

Neal

[ April 14, 2003, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

[hrhema]

DHK:

Jesus did not say he was sending another person if you read John correctly. Jesus made it very clear that he was leaving but would be coming back in spirit form. Read it carefully. Jesus said the other comforter had been living with them. Who was living with them? jesus. The only difference would be that he physically would no longer be with them but his spirit would be dwelling in them. This scripture does not teach the Trinity nor a third person.

People resort to Jesus' baptism to prove the Trinity. That is so ridiculous. The dove is not the Holy Spirit. It symbolized the spirit as a witness to John the Baptist only. If you take these thing literally then the Holy Ghost is a bird not a person. Again a person cannot be poured out. Common sense knows this.

The Bible says Jesus was from the beginning and he was there at creation but it does not state where he was before the Earth was created or whether or not he even existed there.

Jesus is the Son of God. A son is created. This is where trinitarians miss the mark.

As far as David goes how do you know he was not the first born. It has been widely speculated that his mother was not the same mother as the other 7 brothers. Why would that be speculated.
The things that was said. Normally the youngest is not out in the fields with the sheep. The older boys are. The only time this happened is if the son was of lower status then the other brothers. When the prophet Samuel came to Bethlehem he made it known he came to sacrifice with Jesse and his sons yet David was not present when he arrived. They had plenty of warning that Samuel was coming so David should have been present unless again they did not feel him worthy of being in the presence of the prophet because his mother was of lower status. Thus he would have been her first born.

You believe that if Jesus came forth from the FAther this would not make him God. If he was of the essence of God he would be God. That is plain and simple. I am my father's son because he created me. I have his essence. His genes. His dna. Jesus would have to have all this to be his son. This would make him full God.

I believe he is God. Just like 3Angels mom does.
I believe in his deity. He would have to be God to create the EArth and everything in it.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by hrhema:
DHK:

Jesus did not say he was sending another person if you read John correctly. Jesus made it very clear that he was leaving but would be coming back in spirit form. Read it carefully. Jesus said the other comforter had been living with them. Who was living with them? jesus. The only difference would be that he physically would no longer be with them but his spirit would be dwelling in them. This scripture does not teach the Trinity nor a third person.

hrhema,
Jesus promised that He would send the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit would speak of Him, Jesus. Jesus would not speak of Himself. For him to say that would be absurd. But the Holy Spirit would exalt the Lord Jesus Christ. Read John 16:

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself[/]; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.

The comforter is the Holy Spirit.

[QUOTEPeople resort to Jesus' baptism to prove the Trinity. That is so ridiculous. The dove is not the Holy Spirit. It symbolized the spirit as a witness to John the Baptist only. If you take these thing literally then the Holy Ghost is a bird not a person. Again a person cannot be poured out. Common sense knows this.[/QUOTE]

Mat.3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

I agree with you, "the dove is not the Holy Spirit, and the Bible does not say it is. To my knowledge no one here said it is. The Holy Spirit descended on Jesus like a dove.
The Holy Spirit was present at the baptism as the third person of the trinity.

"Again a person cannot be poured out. Common sense knows this."

Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19 And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

Your argument is not with me, but with God. If God says it, why don't you believe it?

The Bible says Jesus was from the beginning and he was there at creation but it does not state where he was before the Earth was created or whether or not he even existed there.

You are way off base here. The Bible no where says that Christ is a created being. That is heresy. Christ always was. He was from everlasting (Micah 5:2). Here is a description of Christ taken from Hebrews 7:

King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life;

Jesus is the Son of God. A son is created. This is where trinitarians miss the mark.

30 I and my Father are one.

The Jews attempt to stone Jesus

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

The Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy twice here. Once in berse 33, because he, being a man, made himself God.
Secondly in verse 36, because he said that he was the Son of God, which to them meant the exact same thing, i.e., that He was God. That is why they tried to stone him. He was claiming to be God.

{qb]

As far as David goes how do you know he was not the first born. It has been widely speculated that his mother was not the same mother as the other 7 brothers. Why would that be speculated.
The things that was said. Normally the youngest is not out in the fields with the sheep. The older boys are. The only time this happened is if the son was of lower status then the other brothers. When the prophet Samuel came to Bethlehem he made it known he came to sacrifice with Jesse and his sons yet David was not present when he arrived. They had plenty of warning that Samuel was coming so David should have been present unless again they did not feel him worthy of being in the presence of the prophet because his mother was of lower status. Thus he would have been her first born.[/QB]

What a wild imagination you have, and a complete disregard for Scripture. To make up a story like this is almost blasphemous. First of all when Samuel came to Jesse, all of the older sons passed by Samuel. He then asked if there were any others in the family.

1Sam.12:11 And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither.

It is much easier to believe the Word of God than to explain it away.

You believe that if Jesus came forth from the FAther this would not make him God. If he was of the essence of God he would be God. That is plain and simple. I am my father's son because he created me. I have his essence. His genes. His dna. Jesus would have to have all this to be his son. This would make him full God.

Your Father did not create you; God did. You were born of a union between a mother and a father, and have the genes of both. Jesus was born of a virgin, conceived of the Holy Spirit--speaking both for his humanity and his divinity. The eternal God became man that he might live among men, suffer as a man, and as the God/man suffer and die for your sins. That is how much he loves you. If you reject that love and that sacrifice, there remains no sacrifice for sins, and no salvation. Only an eternity in Hell.

I believe he is God. Just like 3Angels mom does.
I believe in his deity. He would have to be God to create the EArth and everything in it.

3AM believes that Jesus is a god, not the Most High God, you can ask her that.
DHK

 

[FRED WILSON]

TRINITY,
MATTHEW 28;19-Go ye therefore,and teach all nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father,and of the Son,and of the Holy Ghost.

Trinity designates one eternal God in unity,yet existing in three eternal persons.The members of the Trinity are equal in nature,distinct in person,and subordinate in duties.

As the Son is eternally begotten by the Father,so Jesus is submissive to do the work of the Father,yet equal in nature to Him.The Father is the source of authority,the Son is the channel,and the Holy Spirit the agent whereby authority is exercised.

God Bless.

 

[MEE]

Hi Fred Wilson!

I see that you are a new poster. First I look to see if possibly the board may get a "Pentecostal" and to my surprise, YOU ARE.

I read your post and I see that you are a Trinitarian. I'm an "Apostolic Pentecostal." Let's see where this takes us.

Hold on!

MEE

 

[hrhema]

I find it amazing that two individuals will quote Matthew 28:19 as proof of a Trinity.

This scripture says, IN THE NAME. This is singular. What is the name? No Trinitarian will answer. Is it Jehovah? Jesus?

 

[FRED WILSON]

Hrhema,
Matthew 28;19-Baptizing them in the name of the Father,and of the Son,and of the Holy Ghost.

This is the Trinity.
John 14;16-And i pray the Father,and he shall give you another Comforter,(Holy Ghost) that he may abide with you for ever.

14;16-Another (allon) stresses that the Holy Spirit would be another like Jesus.A Comforter 9Paraclete) is an advocate called alongside for aid in time of trouble.

God Bless.

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by hrhema:
I find it amazing that two individuals will quote Matthew 28:19 as proof of a Trinity.

This scripture says, IN THE NAME. This is singular. What is the name? No Trinitarian will answer. Is it Jehovah? Jesus?

hrhema, I certainly don't have a problem with the name.

It is Jesus!

You know, Peter didn't have a problem with the name either. When Jesus quoted Matt. 28:19, saying, ..."In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: - Peter knew what that name was..as you can read in Acts 2:38, among other scriptures.

Acts 4:12) Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

That is why Peter told the ones, on the Day of Pentecost, to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Baptism does make a difference.

Don't just love it when the Bible comes together? God is so good!

MEE

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by hrhema:
I find it amazing that two individuals will quote Matthew 28:19 as proof of a Trinity.

This scripture says, IN THE NAME. This is singular. What is the name? No Trinitarian will answer. Is it Jehovah? Jesus?

26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
- Genesis 1:26-27 NASB

And the above is plural, then singular. God is triune.

Your understanding of the expression "in the name of" is flawed.

From dictionary.com:

Idioms:
in the name of
2. By the authority of: Open up in the name of the law!
2. For the reason of; using as a reason: grisly experiments performed in the name of science.

The singularity of "name" in the context of the idiom is irrelevant; "name" in such a context will always be singular (i.e. you could say "in the name of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John"). What is relevant is that the verse goes on to say "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", rather than just saying "in the name of [any one of those three]" or "in the name of God".