Trinity Proof Scriptures

[7djengo7]

Nope.
The holy spirit is God's mind, which is the Father's mind, which is the identity of Jehovah/YHVH God.
One mind, MULTIPLE names.

Nope. I have consistently said there is only one true God, and that's the Father. The holy spirit is the ONLY true God's mind, and the power produced by God's mind.

Nope. You're still a liar. You have posited TWO minds, one that you call "the Father", and another one that you call "the holy spirit". You have distinguished the one mind that you call "the Father" from the other mind that you call "the holy spirit" by,

1. calling the one mind, "the Father", while calling the other mind, "the holy spirit", and by
2. affirming that the one mind is the only true God, while affirming that the other mind is NOT the only true God.

It's all there, in the forum record. As often as you want to deny it, I'll just affirm it again, again, and again.

What it all comes down to is that you're simply not cookin' on all four burners, and you're extremely prideful in, and of, your error, confusion, inconsistency, dishonesty, and hypocrisy. It's actually quite astonishing just how unashamed you appear to be of your gross affronts to logic and truth.

 

[Dartman]

So by literal existence you mean a specific living physical existence beginning in Nazareth.

Yes.

If you mean merely living physical existence I understand the conception to death definition of "existence" but it is worth noting that there's quite a few references indicating that Jesus actually existed (creation of the earth, casting down the devil, speaking to Moses, mourning over the prophets that Jerusalem killed) before he physically existed.

Matthew 23:37 KJV
(37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Revelation 12:9 + Isaiah 14:12 + Luke 10:17-18 KJV
(9) And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
(12) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
(17) And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
(18) And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

John 1:1, 3, 14 KJV
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
(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 8:57-58 KJV
(57) Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
(58) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

John 17:5 KJV
(5) And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Colossians 1:15-16 KJV
(15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
(16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Isaiah 48:12-13 + Revelation 1:17-18 KJV
(12) Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
(13) Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.
(17) And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
(18) I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

When the volume of references reach that level and amount, it becomes less plausible that these are all misunderstood coincidence. So far (above) I've got a running count of seven. Maybe more or maybe less depending on how they are grouped or tallied (by styles of reference or by passages?)

This list mingles Scriptures about Jehovah, with Scriptures about Jesus, with assumptions regarding the timing..... it's a mess.

Matthew 23:37
(37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
This text is discussing the history of Jerusalem, and Christ's sorrow for the destruction they have brought on themselves. It in no way indicates Jesus existed before he existed.

Revelation 12:9
(9) And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Yep, this is Satan ..... but NOTHING about Jesus existing before he existed.

Isaiah 14:12 (12) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Nope, not Satan ..... the king of Babylon.

Luke 10:17-18 (17) And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
(18) And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Yep, this is Satan, and again NOTHING about Jesus existing before he existed

John 1:1, 3, 14
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

This is about God, and God's words.


(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.

This is about Jesus' birth, as a fulfillment of God's words/word ... again NOTHING about Jesus existing before he existed

John 8:57-58
(57) Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
(58) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
This is about Abraham "seeing (Christ's) day".... which was known even before Abraham was.

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.


Notice, Jesus did NOT say "and he saw ME, and was glad"..... Abraham saw his DAY .... a future time.

John 17:5
(5) And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Jesus wasn't present when God first thought of him, and planned for him, and saw glory in that plan.
Jesus was asking his God to fulfill the glory which God had planned from before the world was.
So, again NOTHING about Jesus LITERALLY existing before he LITERALLY existed.

Colossians 1:15-16
(15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
(16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Paul VERY clearly shows Jesus is a creature ... (a created thing), and that Jesus created the thrones, dominions, principalities and powers in existence when Paul wrote the epistle.
We KNOW Jehovah/YHVH God is the Creator of the Universe, and Jesus is His servant;

Isa 42:1-8 Behold, My servant, whom I uphold; My chosen, in whom My soul delighteth: I have put My spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the Gentiles.
2 He will not cry, nor lift up his voice, nor cause it to be heard in the street.
3 A bruised reed will he not break, and a dimly burning wick will he not quench: he will bring forth justice in truth.
4 He will not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set justice in the earth; and the isles shall wait for his law.
5 Thus saith God Jehovah, He that created the heavens, and stretched them forth; He that spread abroad the earth and that which cometh out of it; He that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
6 I, Jehovah, have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thy hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
7 to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house.
8 I am Jehovah, that is My name; and My glory will I not give to another, neither My praise unto graven images.

Acts 4:24-30 And they, when they heard it, lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, O Lord, thou that didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that in them is:
25 who by the holy spirit, (by) the mouth of our father David thy servant, didst say, Why did the Gentiles rage, And the peoples imagine vain things?
26 The kings of the earth set themselves in array, And the rulers were gathered together, Against the Lord, and against His Anointed:
27 for of a truth in this city against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together,
28 to do whatsoever Thy hand and Thy council foreordained to come to pass.
29 And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants to speak thy word with all boldness,
30 while Thy stretchest forth Thy hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Thy holy servant Jesus.

Acts 17:24-31
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

John 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

1 Cor 15:24-28 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till He hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For He hath put all things under his feet. But when He saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that He is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.


John 14:28 ... I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.


Deut 18:17-19 And Jehovah said unto me, They have well said that which they have spoken.
18 I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My words which he shall speak in My name, I will require it of him.


John 12:49-50 For I spake not from myself; but the Father that sent me, He hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that His commandment is life eternal: the things therefore which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak.

John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my words: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me.


So, in the end, what you have is nothing but misinterpreted verses. And what I have are clear, outright statements and explanations.

 

[Dartman]

Nope. You're still a liar. You have posited TWO minds, one that you call "the Father", and another one that you call "the holy spirit". You have distinguished the one mind that you call "the Father" from the other mind that you call "the holy spirit" by,

1. calling the one mind, "the Father", while calling the other mind, "the holy spirit", and by
2. affirming that the one mind is the only true God, while affirming that the other mind is NOT the only true God.

It's all there, in the forum record. As often as you want to deny it, I'll just affirm it again, again, and again.

What it all comes down to is that you're simply not cookin' on all four burners, and you're extremely prideful in, and of, your error, confusion, inconsistency, dishonesty, and hypocrisy. It's actually quite astonishing just how unashamed you appear to be of your gross affronts to logic and truth.

If you won't listen, I won't reply.

 

[7djengo7]

Nope, it's the same mind, not a second mind

You say that here, but elsewhere, you posit two distinct minds, one, which you call "the Father", affirming that it is the only true God, and another one, which you call "the holy spirit", affirming that it is NOT the only true God. So, you are inconsistent. But, in addition to your inconsistency, you're just trying to play stupid, now. You're just begging for attention with your flimflam posts, and, of course, that's going to get really old, really fast.

 

[7djengo7]

If you won't listen, I won't reply.

It has been by listening to you, very carefully, that I have been able to expose your self-damning discrepancies and hypocrisies. By all means, feel free NOT to reply! Nothing you say is going to have any hope of whitewashing the glaring irrationality inherent in all that you've handed us thus far. You've given us what you had, and it has all turned out to be crap. Thank you.

 

[Rosenritter]

I got it that you have never seen "GJohn" used as shorthand for "Gospel of John" (it's ok if you face-palm yourself, :chuckle.

I have never seen "GJohn" used as that shorthand. I suspected it might be a purposeful disrespectful misspelling (I'll spare you what I imagined), but it is nice to know that wasn't the case. Thank you for the clarification, sir.

I didn't say ALL of John 1:1-18 was/is metaphorical. Certainly (almost) everyone recognizes metaphor in the passage. The problem exists on which parts trinitarians interpret as metaphor and which parts trinitarians interpret as literal. I think you are intentionally "playing dumb" to further the conversation, not to be confrontational.

The problem here is that there must be a dozen different types of Unitarian and they all have different ideas about how John should be interpreted so as to render Jesus not God. Some variations acknowledge Jesus as the creator of all things but a lesser "god" and others say that he was just "an idea in God's head" and that is how he existed. I have even seen one person go as far as to say that John (all of his writings) should be tossed out all-together, along with anything written by Paul or Peter... so I'm not able to guess what the argument is ahead of time.

Here again is GJohn 1:1-18. Which phrases are literal? Which phrases are metaphor?

I'll color that which I understand as metaphor in blue, and names or metaphorical names in Red.

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not. 6 There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light. 9 There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth. 15 John beareth witness of him, and crieth, saying, This was he of whom I said, He that cometh after me is become before me: for he was before me. 16 For of his fulness we all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

I started coloring "light" as purple because it blended from a metaphor for "eternal life" into a metaphor for Jesus, and thus started to cross into the boundary of a metaphorical name.

Convince me the trinitarian interpretation (Jesus is LITERALLY the "word of god" made flesh) and not as Jesus repeatedly and consistently declares throughout GJohn that he was sent to DELIVER the "word of god".

If I understand you correctly, you are questioning the usage of the word "Word" (capitalized, as a proper name) and "word" especially since they are in the form "Word of God" and "word of God?"

Revelation 19:11-13 KJV
(11) And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
(12) His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
(13) And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

John begins his gospels introducing the Word that was made flesh and made all things, and the New Testament also concludes with John in the vision of Revelation, where the returning Jesus as "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" is specifically named as the Word of God. That's the easiest to see, so I will spoiler tag the next three points to help keep the post cleaner.

Spoiler

As a supplementation, where John says that the Word created all things, Paul also says that the Son of God created all things. This provides an additional link between "the Word" as a literal name and "the Son of God" which even the Unitarians here acknowledge as Jesus Christ.

John 1:1-3 KJV
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:10-11 KJV
(10) He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
(11) He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Colossians 1:13-16 KJV
(13) Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
(14) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
(15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
(16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

As a third point, where John says that the Word was made flesh, Paul says that God was manifest in the flesh. Paul's reference leaves little doubt that "God manifest in the flesh" was Jesus, as he says that he was "preached unto the gentiles" and "received up into glory."

John 1:14 KJV
(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.

1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
(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.

One more thing to consider, is that John parallels his gospel with the familiar opening in Genesis. Where Genesis says "in the beginning God" John says "in the beginning was the Word. After this introduction he continues the parallel with confirming that the Word is the creator of all things, just as Moses related that God was the creator of all things.

Genesis 1:1 KJV
(1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

John 1:1 KJV
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

I think that there is an intentional word play (designed into the scripture itself) between "the word of God" and "the Word of God" as there are quite a few places where "the word of God" could be substituted with the capitalized version or even the name Jesus and it would make just as much sense, as the "word of God" spoken of is the gospel of Jesus Christ (and I know MAD will disagree on that) and thus can also be referred in short term as "Jesus." As in, "they preached Jesus" means "they preached the gospel of Jesus."

There isn't a conflict between Jesus being the Word of God (as in the gospel of John and Revelation) and that he is also preaching the word of God.... and that "word of God" (lowercase) is also about himself. But if there is a similarity between the two I think it is on purpose.

I am not Trinitarian but neither does this response represent a "Devil's Advocate" position. I agree with what I said here.

 

[Rosenritter]

Nope. You're still a liar. You have posited TWO minds, one that you call "the Father", and another one that you call "the holy spirit". You have distinguished the one mind that you call "the Father" from the other mind that you call "the holy spirit" by,

1. calling the one mind, "the Father", while calling the other mind, "the holy spirit", and by
2. affirming that the one mind is the only true God, while affirming that the other mind is NOT the only true God.

It's all there, in the forum record. As often as you want to deny it, I'll just affirm it again, again, and again.

What it all comes down to is that you're simply not cookin' on all four burners, and you're extremely prideful in, and of, your error, confusion, inconsistency, dishonesty, and hypocrisy. It's actually quite astonishing just how unashamed you appear to be of your gross affronts to logic and truth.

I don't think that's what he was saying at all. It seemed pretty clear to me that he considers the Holy Spirit to be the spirit of God. He also has repeated (for your benefit) that God has one mind.

 

[Rosenritter]

You say that here, but elsewhere, you posit two distinct minds, one, which you call "the Father", affirming that it is the only true God, and another one, which you call "the holy spirit", affirming that it is NOT the only true God. So, you are inconsistent. But, in addition to your inconsistency, you're just trying to play stupid, now. You're just begging for attention with your flimflam posts, and, of course, that's going to get really old, really fast.

But isn't it Trinity doctrine assert that God has three minds? Three persons, three different beings, one God as in the way we would say "one species of Cat" but different individuals with different minds?

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/1998/04/29/a-brief-definition-of-the-trinity/

"We must first remember that very few have a good idea of what the Trinity is in the first place – hence, accuracy in definition will be very important. The doctrine of the Trinity is simply that there is one eternal being of God – indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit."

"It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms “being” and “person.” It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So what is the difference? We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day. We recognize what something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. For example, we speak of the “being” of man—human being. A rock has “being”—the being of a rock, as does a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well. That is, we recognize both “what” and “who” when we talk about a person."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_White_(theologian)

"White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a presuppositional apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He received a BA from Grand Canyon College, and an MA from Fuller Theological Seminary. He was also a critical consultant for the Lockman Foundation's New American Standard Bible.^[1]"

James White isn't "fringe" and I haven't heard one Trinitarian on these forums denounce him or say that his explanation was heretical or in error. Yet he clearly describes "God" as being "One" in SPECIES the way we would have "one human race" or 'one species of cat" with three persons just like the way you or I are persons, or the way you would have individual cats.

It's not much of a hop of imagination to say that if there are three "Gods" in the "One God Being [classification]" that this also means there are thee different minds being postulated as well.

It just seems rather ironic and/or hypocritical to twist Dartman's words backwards to "two minds" when he repeatedly affirms that he says "one single mind" when your position posits multiple minds. I'm not saying he's correct in all things, but deal with what he says, rather than viciously attacking that straw man. And if you didn't agree with White, perhaps be willing to clean house in the Trinitarian camp first and get their story straight.

 

[Silent Hunter]

No, it doesn't. See the title of the thread.

I already explained how and that it does. The Church's bishops, those men holding the authentic teaching office of the Church, instituted by the Apostles of Christ, teach the Trinity. The office of Bishop, and individual bishops, are depicted in Scripture. In fact anything the bishops teach are fair game when we limit it to just what the Scripture says, because the exercise presupposes that it's worth our time to try to tease out and stitch together theology from only the Scripture, and simultaneously ignoring what the Church's authentic pastors---remember they and their beginning are recorded in Scripture---altogether teach.

You're still not getting the concept of "the topic of the thread is 'Trinity Proof Scriptures'" are you? I'm not at all interested in your assertion of "extra-biblical passed-down orally tradition". Your undocumented claim cannot be cross-examined and is worthless to the discussion.

No, it doesn't. Look it up.

I did. Here's what I found. From its chapter seven, here are two English renderings:

truly the Almighty Creator of the Universe, the Invisible God Himself from heaven planted among men the truth and the holy teaching which surpasseth the wit of man, and fixed it firmly in their hearts, not as any man might imagine, by sending (to mankind) a subaltern, or angel, or ruler, or one of those that direct the affairs of earth, or one of those who have been entrusted with the dispensations in heaven, but the very Artificer and Creator of the Universe Himself truly God Himself, who is almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from heaven, and placed among men, [Him who is] the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word, and has firmly established Him in their hearts. He did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, or angel, or ruler, or any one of those who bear sway over earthly things, or one of those to whom the government of things in the heavens has been entrusted, but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things

​

I made bold the salient proposition, though it is widely divided by numerous other clauses in the text:
From 1st source: "the Almighty Creator of the Universe...planted among men...the...Creator of the Universe Himself"
From 2nd source: "the Creator of all things...has sent...the very Creator...of all things"

Do you see what I'm seeing? How does the "Creator" plant /send the "Creator?" We need an object and a subject, but there appears to be just one or the other here. The Trinity has no trouble with this. One's the Father, and One's the Son. Or, One's the Father, Son, and Spirit together, and One's the Son alone. Either way, easy peasy for the Trinity.

The quote you cite reads essentially like John 1:1-18. Wasn't "the word" the "creator of all things" ("3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made"), and, 18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

Your extra-biblical source has nothing new to offer.

It really doesn't matter when only that scholars agree additions were made or even that the entire "epistle" was a forgery used to support a particular doctrine. Don't believe me? Look it up.

I don't believe you because you're mischaracterizing what these unnamed 'scholars' say. They say the last two chapters of the epistle are likely additions, period. And as to whether the whole thing is a phony; it still goes to when it was written, because you're claiming the Trinity didn't manifest until the 3rd century, and I'm seeing most estimates dating the document to no later than AD 132. Do you have some other estimate?

Do you shift the burden of proof often or is this your first time? I don't really care what your extra-biblical "gospel" says and if part of it is "phony" all of it could be. It's your burden to prove otherwise. Your evidence isn't evidence and is hearsay at best.

Oh, I see, you thought I meant Father, Son, and Holy Spirit doesn't appear in scripture. No, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit = Trinity, which doesn't appear in scripture even as a concept except in the imagination of the trinitarian. I apologize for confusing you. I at least gave you a straw man to attack. You should thank me.

How did God purchase the Church with His own blood? Acts 20:28 KJV The Trinity has no trouble with this. Why did Paul write Philippians 2:9-10 KJV in that way, when he knew what Isaiah 45:23 KJV already read? The Trinity has no trouble with this.

Yeah, so? Metaphorically speaking the freedoms enjoyed by those of us living in the United States were purchased by our own blood in that we send our children to fight in war. Metaphorically speaking Jesus, as the "son of god" was sacrificed for sin. Your "point" is no point at all.

I'm not so sure you want to use Philippians 2:9-10 as any kind of proof text since it says god exalted Jesus to a lofty station. If Jesus is equal to "the Father" why would this be necessary?

In my opinion, the debate over weather Beowulf started as an oral tradition is MUCH less important than ensuring the preservation (documentation) of a critical Christian theological doctrine. Your priorities my differ.

Your irrelevant to the topic opinion is noted, and we all further note, that you implicitly concede therefore, that just because an oral tradition isn't written down, doesn't mean that it didn't exist for quite a long time beforehand.

Hey, you brought it up so my "opinion" is definitely in play. If the doctrine of the trinity is as important as you claim it is why did it take almost 300 years for it to become an officially published church doctrine?

 

[Aimiel]

I don't buy that God is three different 'persons' because Jesus said that He always does The Will of His Father, which wouldn't be possible unless they're one and The Same. He also said that The Holy Spirit would say to us whatever He says. They are different in manifestation, only; IMHO. They constitute but One God.

 

[Rosenritter]

Yeah, so? Metaphorically speaking the freedoms enjoyed by those of us living in the United States were purchased by our own blood in that we send our children to fight in war. Metaphorically speaking Jesus, as the "son of god" was sacrificed for sin. Your "point" is no point at all.

Considering that actual blood was shed, the phrasing of "with his own blood" rather than "with his Son's blood" or simply "by blood" or even "with his blood" (where "his" could be argued to mean Jesus which could then be argued to be "not God).... tends to place the emphasis on "his own" which makes it less likely that it is simply a poetic "his" without actually being "his."

With so many ways that it could be said, why would it be "with his own blood" if it wasn't with his own blood?

Acts 20:28 KJV
(28) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Hebrews 13:12 KJV
(12) Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

I checked a lot of different bible translations, and found the New Jerusalem Bible which inserts the word "Son" (I doubt it has manuscript evidence for adding that word) and also the Rotherham translation "through means of the blood of his own" but otherwise pretty much all other translations seem to render this consistently in Acts 20:28.

I'm not so sure you want to use Philippians 2:9-10 as any kind of proof text since it says god exalted Jesus to a lofty station. If Jesus is equal to "the Father" why would this be necessary?

1. Jesus was exalted because he first took a lowly station, even the role of the sacrifice of the lamb.
2. He was exalted by God because his exaltation was not of men but affirmed through divine power and miracle as legitimate.
3. If Jesus was equal why would this be necessary? Because he had humbled himself for the suffering of death.

Hebrews 2:9 KJV
(9) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Hebrews 2:16 KJV
(16) For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

The point (and clarification) is that when Paul speaks in Phil 2:10, he is quoting an Old Testament passage in Isaiah, but where the Old Testament says "LORD" (YHWH, the name that not even the Unitarian disputes as God) Paul uses the name "Jesus" in its place.

Hey, you brought it up so my "opinion" is definitely in play. If the doctrine of the trinity is as important as you claim it is why did it take almost 300 years for it to become an officially published church doctrine?

A good question that I've asked others.

 

[7djengo7]

The holy spirit is the Father.

There is no other "true God" than Christ's God ... Jehovah/YHVH God, the Father.

Here, you're saying that the Holy Spirit IS the only true God, since you are saying that the Holy Spirit IS the Father, and that the Father IS the only true God.

 

[Silent Hunter]

I got it that you have never seen "GJohn" used as shorthand for "Gospel of John" (it's ok if you face-palm yourself, :chuckle.

I have never seen "GJohn" used as that shorthand. I suspected it might be a purposeful disrespectful misspelling (I'll spare you what I imagined), but it is nice to know that wasn't the case. Thank you for the clarification, sir.

"GJohn" was common in church literature of my denominational circle when I was (much) younger and I'm shocked you'd think I was being intentionally (even accidentally) disrespectful even in passing. There are many theologically connected words I do not capitalize, not out of disrespect but because those words do not have proper noun meaning to me; "god", "holy spirit", "christian" and "christianity" among others (though I do err from time-to-time and TOL's autocorrect function sometimes takes over). Also, I will often refer to the christian deity as, you guessed it, "the christian deity" and, if speaking to someone directly about their choice of deity, "your personal preferred concept of deity" because, in the end, everyone's idea of what constitutes "god" is theirs alone. I offend a few people here with my "style" of writing but you can't please everyone. The axiom, "No matter what you say, no matter what you do, someone, somewhere will be offended.", is verified every second of every minute, of every hour of every day of every week of every month of every year of every decade of every century of every millennia to infinity and beyond on TOL and around the world.

I didn't say ALL of John 1:1-18 was/is metaphorical. Certainly (almost) everyone recognizes metaphor in the passage. The problem exists on which parts trinitarians interpret as metaphor and which parts trinitarians interpret as literal. I think you are intentionally "playing dumb" to further the conversation, not to be confrontational.

The problem here is that there must be a dozen different types of Unitarian and they all have different ideas about how John should be interpreted so as to render Jesus not God. Some variations acknowledge Jesus as the creator of all things but a lesser "god" and others say that he was just "an idea in God's head" and that is how he existed. I have even seen one person go as far as to say that John (all of his writings) should be tossed out all-together, along with anything written by Paul or Peter... so I'm not able to guess what the argument is ahead of time.

This is exactly my point. What you highlight below in GJohn 1:1-18 are what you personally think are metaphorical phrases, someone else might (and often does) have a differing opinion. It's akin to our personal concept of what defines the attributes of what constitutes "god".

Here again is GJohn 1:1-18. Which phrases are literal? Which phrases are metaphor?

I'll color that which I understand as metaphor in blue, and names or metaphorical names in Red.

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not. 6 There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light. 9 There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth. 15 John beareth witness of him, and crieth, saying, This was he of whom I said, He that cometh after me is become before me: for he was before me. 16 For of his fulness we all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

I started coloring "light" as purple because it blended from a metaphor for "eternal life" into a metaphor for Jesus, and thus started to cross into the boundary of a metaphorical name.

Pretty... even if I am colorblind. See above.

Convince me the trinitarian interpretation (Jesus is LITERALLY the "word of god" made flesh) and not as Jesus repeatedly and consistently declares throughout GJohn that he was sent to DELIVER the "word of god".

If I understand you correctly, you are questioning the usage of the word "Word" (capitalized, as a proper name) and "word" especially since they are in the form "Word of God" and "word of God?"

The Greek text is ALL capital letters. Who are we to define the metaphorical use of "word of god" as a proper noun, our own biased preference perhaps?

Revelation 19:11-13 KJV
(11) And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
(12) His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
(13) And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

John begins his gospels introducing the Word that was made flesh and made all things, and the New Testament also concludes with John in the vision of Revelation, where the returning Jesus as "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" is specifically named as the Word of God. That's the easiest to see, so I will spoiler tag the next three points to help keep the post cleaner.

Spoiler

As a supplementation, where John says that the Word created all things, Paul also says that the Son of God created all things. This provides an additional link between "the Word" as a literal name and "the Son of God" which even the Unitarians here acknowledge as Jesus Christ.

John 1:1-3 KJV
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:10-11 KJV
(10) He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
(11) He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Colossians 1:13-16 KJV
(13) Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
(14) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
(15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
(16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

As a third point, where John says that the Word was made flesh, Paul says that God was manifest in the flesh. Paul's reference leaves little doubt that "God manifest in the flesh" was Jesus, as he says that he was "preached unto the gentiles" and "received up into glory."

John 1:14 KJV
(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.

1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
(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.

One more thing to consider, is that John parallels his gospel with the familiar opening in Genesis. Where Genesis says "in the beginning God" John says "in the beginning was the Word. After this introduction he continues the parallel with confirming that the Word is the creator of all things, just as Moses related that God was the creator of all things.

Genesis 1:1 KJV
(1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

John 1:1 KJV
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

I think that there is an intentional word play (designed into the scripture itself) between "the word of God" and "the Word of God" as there are quite a few places where "the word of God" could be substituted with the capitalized version or even the name Jesus and it would make just as much sense, as the "word of God" spoken of is the gospel of Jesus Christ (and I know MAD will disagree on that) and thus can also be referred in short term as "Jesus." As in, "they preached Jesus" means "they preached the gospel of Jesus."

There isn't a conflict between Jesus being the Word of God (as in the gospel of John and Revelation) and that he is also preaching the word of God.... and that "word of God" (lowercase) is also about himself. But if there is a similarity between the two I think it is on purpose.

I reject your cobbled together explication of GJohn 1-18 on the same grounds you reject my analysis of GJohn 10 using GJohn 17.

I am not Trinitarian but neither does this response represent a "Devil's Advocate" position. I agree with what I said here.

That's nice. Everyone has their opinion.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Yeah, so? Metaphorically speaking the freedoms enjoyed by those of us living in the United States were purchased by our own blood in that we send our children to fight in war. Metaphorically speaking Jesus, as the "son of god" was sacrificed for sin. Your "point" is no point at all.

Considering that actual blood was shed, the phrasing of "with his own blood" rather than "with his Son's blood" or simply "by blood" or even "with his blood" (where "his" could be argued to mean Jesus which could then be argued to be "not God).... tends to place the emphasis on "his own" which makes it less likely that it is simply a poetic "his" without actually being "his."

With so many ways that it could be said, why would it be "with his own blood" if it wasn't with his own blood?

Acts 20:28 KJV
(28) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Hebrews 13:12 KJV
(12) Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

I checked a lot of different bible translations, and found the New Jerusalem Bible which inserts the word "Son" (I doubt it has manuscript evidence for adding that word) and also the Rotherham translation "through means of the blood of his own" but otherwise pretty much all other translations seem to render this consistently in Acts 20:28.

Or perhaps the phrase is used as metaphor in the way I suggest which doesn't rely on skipping around the bible in the hope of support from other books with differing agendas on how the author wished to portray his vision of Jesus. You can't object to my analysis of GJohn 10 using GJohn 17 (using the same book and using Jesus' own words) then do the same thing and worse.

I'm not so sure you want to use Philippians 2:9-10 as any kind of proof text since it says god exalted Jesus to a lofty station. If Jesus is equal to "the Father" why would this be necessary?

1. Jesus was exalted because he first took a lowly station, even the role of the sacrifice of the lamb.

Wait... Jesus, who IS god was "exalted by god"? :liberals:.

2. He was exalted by God because his exaltation was not of men but affirmed through divine power and miracle as legitimate.

Wait... Jesus, who IS god was "exalted by god"? :liberals:.

3. If Jesus was equal why would this be necessary? Because he had humbled himself for the suffering of death.

Really? Seriously, you don't see the obvious (to me) contradiction/inconsistency?

Hebrews 2:9 KJV
(9) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Hebrews 2:16 KJV
(16) For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Poof texting? I thought you said, "NO!", to this or are you confusing the literal with the metaphorical again?

The point (and clarification) is that when Paul speaks in Phil 2:10, he is quoting an Old Testament passage in Isaiah, but where the Old Testament says "LORD" (YHWH, the name that not even the Unitarian disputes as God) Paul uses the name "Jesus" in its place.

Paul saying something similar to a verse found in Isaiah doesn't mean he (Paul) was quoting Isaiah. Wishful thinking in a passage filled to the brim with metaphor doesn't prove Jesus = "the christian deity".

Hey, you brought it up so my "opinion" is definitely in play. If the doctrine of the trinity is as important as you claim it is why did it take almost 300 years for it to become an officially published church doctrine?

A good question that I've asked others.

Perplexing... isn't it?

 

[genuineoriginal]

1) Do you believe that the Messiah was prophesied before the birth of Jesus?
2) Do you understand that the Messiah also needed to fulfill the role of the Passover Lamb?
3) Could the sacrifice for the sin of mankind have sin (blemish) and still fulfill that role?

I'll continue but I'd like your answers for those first.

Moved conversation to new thread
Can Open Theists be Non-Trinitarian

 

[genuineoriginal]

Maybe you should consider that the Trinity argument from silence isn't a good argument.

Yes, the bible is silent about a Trinity, that doesn't make a good argument that "it is silent therefore it is." It is also silent about a Quaternity and a Septinity or a Noninity... and the same arguments I keep hearing for "Trinity" could apply just as easily to those constructions as well.

The Bible appears to have 100% support for Unitarianism, 1% support for Binitarianism, and 0.001% support for Trinitarianism.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I could answer that question consistently concerning myself. No matter which I would choose I can think of a reason why that answer would be wrong. I think that is because the meaning of the word "is" is not defined (too flexible) in that question.

I have heard this argument before:

 

[genuineoriginal]

The Church's bishops, those men holding the authentic teaching office of the Church, instituted by the Apostles of Christ, teach the Trinity.

There is no direct line of succession from the Apostles of Christ to the self-appointed bishops of the Catholic Church.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I got it that you have never seen "GJohn" used as shorthand for "Gospel of John" (it's ok if you face-palm yourself, :chuckle.

Never seen that before and anyone that uses GJohn as shorthand for Gospel of John needs to be slapped.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I don't buy that God is three different 'persons' because Jesus said that He always does The Will of His Father, which wouldn't be possible unless they're one and The Same.

You are mistaken when you assume that Jesus subverting His own will to do the will of the Father means that Jesus does not have a will of His own.

Luke 22:42 42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.​