Trinity Proof Scriptures

[JudgeRightly]

Yes/No, 1 John 2:1 KJV, is not about me, is not written to me, or any other member of the boc, in this dispensation. And you, in deception, left out the verses, preceding, and following.....



1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him

You keep all of his commandments, today, do you, rummy? No? Then you are a liar.

See how that works?

What sin? What sins? The Lord Jesus Christ died for all of my sins(plural), every last one of them, depositing them in hell, and became a sin offering for me, being judged, condemned, in my place, as who I was "in Adam," was executed at Calvary-dead. I, a dead man, cannot be put on trial again, as that would be double jeopardy, and pervert the justice of God. Not only have a been forgiven all of my trespasses(Colossians 2:13 KJV), Christ dying for my sin debt(1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV...), I have been given the righteousness of God, because I am "in Christ."

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117813-quot-The-Big-Switch-quot

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-s-children-of-the-devil-Cain-Jr-s-What-sins



Slower....follow the bouncing ball, Mitch. He was my High Priest, when I was a sinner, "in Adam." Now that I am "in Christ," the LORD God, when He looks down upon me, sees only His Christ, as I am in Him, and sees only the righteousness of God, in Him. He is now my advocate, not my High priest. The High Priest is for the lost person-you, given your above "testimony.".

You hate that, and are grinding your wolf molars, as you read this.


Another wolf is exposed.


Get saved, wolfie.

Preach it, Brother John W!

 

[Rosenritter]

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

If Unitarianism meant "there is one God" then you might have something, but what Unitarianism really means is "there is one God but no matter what it won't be Jesus."

 

[Rosenritter]

I have heard this argument before:

It sounded absurd then but in this case the meaning of equivalence is shifting behind the scenes.

 

[JudgeRightly]

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

It only "appears" that way because you ignore the context of the verses you use as proof-texts.

Namely, Genesis-Revelation.

 

[Rosenritter]

Lets see if the principles that I reason are meaningless and inconsistent, answer these questions, if you could, based on them.

Who did Jesus say created Man according to Mark 10:6 , himself or God?

(Mark 10:5,6) "..Jesus said to them...However, from the beginning of creation, ‘He made them male and female...Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.."

According to Hebrews 1:1,2 who created the world, including man?

(Hebrews 1:1, 2) "..[God] at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the world.

Defective premise.

 

[clefty]

My posts stand, and picks apart your "argument," as I gave you chapter, verse, in which to soak your brain, Scarecrow, re. "glory," and re. to whom shall every knee bow-the LORD of hosts, the Lord Jesus Christ, God, in the flesh, the man, Christ Jesus. You will bow down eventually, bend that knee, and confess Him as the LORD God-you will have no choice.

Can you dig it?

Good.

Yup Isaiah concludes

“From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me," says Yah”

HalleluYah

Just like when the church was in the wilderness following its Head drinking from His rock...that body of Christ...no distinction there...no temple either...

 

[Rosenritter]

What you call flimflam and scripture in its simple form, and depsite my reasoning being "flimflam" you cannot refute it, have another go so that others can see:

To whose glory does every knee bending to Jesus go to, his own or the Fathers?

(Philippians 2:8-11) "..More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake. 9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.."

Which would confirm the question of identity of Jesus. You're sidestepping the impact of the quote: according to the Paul's interpretation of the Old Testament and his revelation, the name of Jesus is LORD.

 

[Rosenritter]

You raise a good point. However what you miss is that Jesus was quoting the old testament when speaking to Satan, in the account he states to Satan “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘It is the Lord your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”

As you can see Jesus was clearly quoting scripture, hence his said "it is written" Jesus was quoting from Deut 6:13 that states "Jehovah your God you should fear, and him you should serve, and by his name you should swear." (Deuteronomy 6:13)

As we have been talking about, Jehovah is the Father,(Isaiah 64:8) ".But now, O Jehovah, you are our Father.".

So Jesus wasn't stating that we should worship himself when speaking to Satan, but rather Jehovah the Father. Jesus wasnot "the Lord" to which Jesus Christ himself refers to in Matt 4:10, its the Father Jehovah.

Did you notice that all of those challenge responses to Satan work equally well if Jesus was referring to himself?

Matthew 4:4 KJV
(4) But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

The words of Jesus are every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, for as God his words are the words of God. He is even called "the Word of God" and man shall live by Him, the bread of life.

Matthew 4:7 KJV
(7) Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

In this context, the devil was trying to tempt Jesus. "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" refers to Jesus.

Matthew 4:10 KJV
(10) Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.




The devil was trying to get Jesus to worship him. Jesus was the one that should be worshiped and as we also see in scripture, Jesus was worshiped and accepted worship and even the angels in heaven are commanded to worship him. Those angels tell us, "Worship God."

I'm sure you don't like that reading, but consider the odds (the coincidence) that would have to occur for all three of these to line up with an accidental double meaning. I think it is more likely that it was spoken that way on purpose.

 

[oatmeal]

If Unitarianism meant "there is one God" then you might have something, but what Unitarianism really means is "there is one God but no matter what it won't be Jesus."

That is right.

God is God

The son of God is the son of God

God is not the son of God

The son of God is not God.

There is no "God the Son" mentioned in the scriptures

 

[genuineoriginal]

You don't need Open Theism to believe that Jesus is God, you just need a Bible and some faith.

No one can become a Trinitarian from reading the Bible.
Trinitarianism comes from outside the Bible.

 

[Rosenritter]

But you're totally ignoring the title "God" as shown separate from Jesus in the chapter. Also, the expression of Jesus "coming" or "coming quickly" is completely different as the "one who is, was, and is to come".

1. "Jesus" is not a title.
2. Nor is the name of "Jesus" incompatible with the title (or designation) of "God."

You're attempting to dismiss the premise on the basis of the premise, rather than allowing the passages to prove themselves. Honest assessment please. It is certainly not unheard of for people to have more than one name or more than one title, both among men and especially in the instance of God, who has many names and titles and has revealed them differently throughout history.

Once again, God is the one who gave Jesus the revelation, thus Jesus is not the God who gave Jesus the revelation.It is clear the revelation came from God, was given to Jesus, who passed it to the Angels to reveal it to John.

False assessment, fails to consider the premise.

How does is my example not in line with the verse?

"..A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him... he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave John.."

It is not in line because that passage does not exclude Jesus from God, but the surrounding passages identify Jesus with exclusive titles for God. If you wanted to prove your point (or were able to) you'd only need ONE passage in the whole scripture where Jesus says (or is said of Jesus) that he is NOT God. The whole wide scripture.

Regardless, considering that the premise is that the character of Jesus that we all knew and recognized is being introduced for the purpose of being revealed as God, nothing is harmed by referring to the figures separately. If I were to speak to someone about the burning bush and later about God appearing in the whirlwind, I could still refer to the bush and the whirlwind separately. The important part is when I identity them by the same name and title, and no separate references to the bush and the whirlwind can undo that.

Unless you have a passage, even a single passage, that has a clear statement that "Jesus is not God" then your present position has a real problem, because considering how many positive statements and equivalences and unique exclusive titles exist, then there's no other explanation than that it really means what it says.

God is mentioned in Rev 1:8, based on the context of Rev 1:1 this would place the God who gave the revelation to Jesus as that one. Thus, the God mentioned in Rev 1:1, who we know to be the Father (Rev 1:6) is the "one who is, was and is coming". Why is in ever other place in Revelation God is always separate from Jesus, can you show me a single place where is clearly calls Jesus God in the entire book of Revelation?

1. You don't recognize "I am the first and the last, beside me there is no other God" as legitimate scripture? (Isaiah 44:6)
2. You don't recognize the acceptance of one bowing down in worship as unique behavior of God? (compare Rev 1:17 with Rev 19:10, 22:9)
3. You don't recognize "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him" (Zech 12:10) with Rev 1:7, "and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him?"
4. You don't recognize "the Almighty" as a unique title for God? (Compare Rev 1:8 with Rev 1:11 & Rev 22:13?)
5. It doesn't strike you as significant that "God and the Lamb" have single ownership of the throne in Revelation 22:1, and that the singular pronoun "him" is used for "God and of the Lamb?" (see Rev 22:1, 3, 4)

You know as well as I that as you have been up to this point you would easily dismiss the word "God" arguing for "representational deity" and with claims that "Moses was called God" and "Kings have been called God" or from others claims even more unusual and strained.

Also, how is it possible that the F&L is in reference to his deity when it states he became dead?

Is this really about a failing of faith that God can raise himself from the dead? Perhaps you believe that God is all powerful, but not powerful enough to do that? I'm baffled as to why you would present that as a challenge but by whatever paradigm you currently have it must seem real to you.

NWL, even for you, with your mortal self, is it possible for one part of you to die while the other part continues to live? Let's consider your hand. If your hand is severed and it withers and dies, is it theoretically possible for you to drive to a hospital? Now if God exists in heaven and also choses to exist in a form on earth, is it really that strange that if he allowed his earthly form to be killed, that he could also raise it from the dead?

I think you are confusing the person of God (his self, his character) with the Heavenly Status of God.

 

[Rosenritter]

I've already debunked this. The "Lord" mentioned in Matt 4:10 is father as shown by the quoted verse of the old testament he was reciting to Satan, Jesus was talking about the Father Jehovah when saying who to worship.

(Matthew 4:10) "..Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘It is the Lord your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service..’”

(Deuteronomy 6:13) "..Jehovah your God you should fear, and him you should serve, and by his name you should swear.."

... and Jesus accepted worship.

Matthew 8:2-3 KJV
(2) And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
(3) And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.

Matthew 9:18 KJV
(18) While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.

Matthew 14:31-33 KJV
(31) And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
(32) And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.
(33) Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I don't see that as proof that He is NOT God.

Do not make that mistake.
The burden of proof is always on the Trinitarian, since the Bible teaches Unitarianism and never ever teaches Trinitarianism.

 

[genuineoriginal]

If Unitarianism meant "there is one God" then you might have something

That is all Biblical Unitarianism means.

but what Unitarianism really means is "there is one God but no matter what it won't be Jesus."

No, Biblical Unitarians have to read the scriptures and accept that Jesus was telling the truth when He said that the Father is the only true God.

 

[genuineoriginal]

It only "appears" that way because you ignore the context of the verses you use as proof-texts.

Namely, Genesis-Revelation.

No, it only appears that way because I refuse to ignore the context of the verses the way the Trinitarians do with their proof texts.
The teaching of scripture is Unitarian: There is only one true God and Jesus the Messiah is His Son.

 

[Right Divider]

No one can become a Trinitarian from reading the Bible.
Trinitarianism comes from outside the Bible.

Constantly repeating this false accusation does not make it magically come true.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Constantly repeating this false accusation does not make it magically come true.

Most Trinitarians are too invested in their beliefs to accept the truth that the Bible does not teach Trinitarianism.

Is the Trinity Biblical? Surely a teaching as widespread and popular as the Trinity is scriptural, isn't it? Yet time and again, theologians and researchers admit it isn't found in the Bible. Cyril Richardson, professor of church history at New York’s Union Theological Seminary, though a dedicated Trinitarian himself, said this in his book The Doctrine of The Trinity: “My conclusion, then, about the doctrine of the Trinity is that it is an artificial construct . . . It produces confusion rather than clarification; and while the problems with which it deals are real ones, the solutions it offers are not illuminating. It has posed for many Christians dark and mysterious statements, which are ultimately meaningless, because it does not sufficiently discriminate in its use of terms” (1958, pp. 148-149). He also admitted, “Much of the defense of the Trinity as a ‘revealed’ doctrine, is really an evasion of the objections that can be brought against it” (p. 16). Professor Charles Ryrie, in his respected work Basic Theology, writes: “Many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity . . . In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that ‘clearly’ states that there is one God who exists in three persons” (1999, p. 89). Millard Erickson, research professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes that the Trinity “is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church. “In view of the difficulty of the subject and the great amount of effort expended to maintain this doctrine, we may well ask ourselves what might justify all this trouble” ( God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, 1995,p. 12). Professor Erickson further states that the Trinity teaching “is not present in biblical thought, but arose when biblical thought was pressed into this foreign mold [of Greek concepts]. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond and even distorts what the Bible says about God” (p. 20). Shirley Guthrie, Jr., professor of theology at Columbia Theological Seminary, writes: “The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word ‘trinity’ itself nor such language as ‘one-in-three,’ ‘three-in-one,’ one ‘essence’ (or ‘substance’), and three ‘persons,’ is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy” ( Christian Doctrine, 1994, pp. 76-77).”

​

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Most Trinitarians are too invested in their beliefs to accept the truth that the Bible does not teach Trinitarianism.

Is the Trinity Biblical? Surely a teaching as widespread and popular as the Trinity is scriptural, isn't it? Yet time and again, theologians and researchers admit it isn't found in the Bible. Cyril Richardson, professor of church history at New York’s Union Theological Seminary, though a dedicated Trinitarian himself, said this in his book The Doctrine of The Trinity: “My conclusion, then, about the doctrine of the Trinity is that it is an artificial construct . . . It produces confusion rather than clarification; and while the problems with which it deals are real ones, the solutions it offers are not illuminating. It has posed for many Christians dark and mysterious statements, which are ultimately meaningless, because it does not sufficiently discriminate in its use of terms” (1958, pp. 148-149). He also admitted, “Much of the defense of the Trinity as a ‘revealed’ doctrine, is really an evasion of the objections that can be brought against it” (p. 16). Professor Charles Ryrie, in his respected work Basic Theology, writes: “Many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity . . . In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that ‘clearly’ states that there is one God who exists in three persons” (1999, p. 89). Millard Erickson, research professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes that the Trinity “is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church. “In view of the difficulty of the subject and the great amount of effort expended to maintain this doctrine, we may well ask ourselves what might justify all this trouble” ( God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, 1995,p. 12). Professor Erickson further states that the Trinity teaching “is not present in biblical thought, but arose when biblical thought was pressed into this foreign mold [of Greek concepts]. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond and even distorts what the Bible says about God” (p. 20). Shirley Guthrie, Jr., professor of theology at Columbia Theological Seminary, writes: “The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word ‘trinity’ itself nor such language as ‘one-in-three,’ ‘three-in-one,’ one ‘essence’ (or ‘substance’), and three ‘persons,’ is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy” ( Christian Doctrine, 1994, pp. 76-77).”

​

What does The Bible teach then? lain:

 

[Right Divider]

Most Trinitarians are too invested in their beliefs to accept the truth that the Bible does not teach Trinitarianism.

You're wrong and apparently love it.

I will not follow your silly links nor read their silly content.

 

[john w]

There is no "God the Son" mentioned in the scriptures

There is no scripture mentioning that God is "omniscient,"............ and there is no "God the Father" mentioned in the OT.

Is God the Father married?