ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Is The Trinity Concept Made Up

Was the Trinity concept made up by the Catholic Church 300 years after Christ?

Join Our Christian Penpals and Visit Our Apostles Creed
 ---canda3996 on 1/10/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (21)

Post a New Blog

You can not separate these 3.
They were from the beginning forever and always shall be, world without end ...Do you deny this?

Thankfully no "denial" what is posted not in Word of God

John 1:1 in the beginning were TWO The Word and The Father ...even a child can understand this simple passage

TWO exist today The Father in heaven and Christ at HIS right hand ...where is other "god" called Holy Spirit is IT footstool? is IT seated to the left?

IT simply is breath of God IT is HOLY because IT is from God

Greek word for spirit is pneuma - Hebrew it is ruah

word pneuma is neuter properly represented in English with pronoun IT

Gods Spirit is Holy because IT is from God
---Rhonda on 3/13/09

The Trinithy doctrine was named to explain how JESUS and GOD the Father could be equal yet there still be only one GOD. It is the best explaination that we can use to describe the relationship of the Father, Son and HOLY SPIRIT into whose name singular we are to be bapized.
---Samuel on 3/13/09

kath4453 le t me give alittle corrretion, without TRINITY there is no RCC or prot. denominations. Coptic, and other churches are christian yet do not nessecarely advocate trinity.
---Andy on 3/13/09

Without the TRINITY you have no CHURCH. And that is an anit-christ doctrine to say there is no trinity. It was on the day of Pentacost the CHURCH began, those baptized into the Church by the Holy Spirit.

And the Promise was the Promise of the Holy Spirit as we se taught in Galatians.

You will also see in Hebrews 11 at the end of the chapter those wonderful Saints starting with Abel on, died without receiving the PROMISE. What Promise? Salvation? NO NO NO, it was the Promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

THAT day came AFTER Jesus rose from the dead..
---kathr4453 on 3/7/09


Matthew exist(ed)

Mark exist(ed)

Luke exist(ed)

= Three

Are they one and the same person?

The scriptures certainly mention the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Where your reasoning takes a theological leap is making them one and the same person. The scriptures make no such statement.
---scott on 3/2/09

The Father exists
The Son exists
The Holy spirit exists
= 3
= The Trinity
= God, the Eternal One, Creator of all.

You can not separate these 3.
They were from the beginning forever and always shall be, world without end.AMEN.
All Glory and honor go the The Father ,The Son and the Holy Spirit!


Do you deny this?
---paul on 2/26/09

Rhonda *the Holy Spirit is not a god* Correct! The Holy Spirit is fully God as much as Jesus is fully God (as Scott and I seem to agree) and the Father is fully God. Have you any scripture to refute that the Holy Ghost is not fully God?

I'll re-quote for you Geoff in the hopes you will grasp it this time....

***the Holy Spirit is not a god***

The Fathers Spirit is not ANOTHER "god" ...The Father Spirit is identified as HOLY because it is from God

there are no scriptures that describe The Fathers Spirit as another "entity"
---Rhonda on 1/16/09

Geoff re my "Integrity"

The list of my personal flaws and shortcomings is long indeed. If you feel the need to add your personal accusations or insults to the list so be it.
I won't return that favor.

If you feel you've made the case for the trinity based on the two scriptures you cited as proof...

1 John 5:7-8 (Not in the original manuscripts. Never used by apologists during the Arian "controversy")

And John 1:1 (Discusses 2 not three. Therefore clearly no trinity. Other information is needed, scriptural or otherwise, to draw that conclusion)...

...That's ok with me.

"Examine everything carefully..." 1 Thess 5:21 NASV

God bless you and your family.
---scott on 1/16/09

Scott, quite honestly, I question your integrity on this topic. You haven't answered many of my direct questions requiring a commitment for or against key doctrinal positions, such as if you accept that Jesus is fully God as much as the Father is fully God. To be quite honest, I am convicted to leave you to the prompting of the Holy Spirit rather than attempt to convince you or show you any more of the overwhelming evidence. In fact, since there is so much evidence, including our jealous God promoting worship of the Son while forbidding worship of angels or any other, I will bow out even at the risk of your claiming victory in this debate in my absence. Bottom line is that we will give account in the judgement-2 Cor 5:10.
---Geoff on 1/16/09

Geoff 1
I've focused on the two verses you cited to (like the Beoreans) make a careful examination of those scriptures. Do they really say what apologists would have us believe? Are they, on there own, reliable evidence or do we need to piece things together, a theological crazy quilt if you will to "prove" a point?

It is extremely important to note that the bible does not contain one complete, clear statement of fact (like that contained in the later creeds) that simply spell out the identification of God as a three in one trinity.

Paul used essentially the entire 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians to EXPLAIN the resurrection. And Romans Chapter 4 to EXPLAIN salvation by faith.

Here's why this is important. Cont.
---scott on 1/16/09

Geoff 2 Cont

This issue would have been monumentally important for the Jewish Christian converts who believed in One God (Deut. 6:4) for centuries NOT a trinity. And now IF with the appearance of Christ they would be required to change THE most important view they had held from the beginning...the very nature of God himself...

*** Where is the explanation?***

SInce Christ and the apostles explained at great length many new ideas for the Jewish converts, would THIS not have required it more that any other change in thinking they would be required to make? ESPECIALLY if, as trinitarian hold, their very salvation would be based on accepting this new idea?

Where is it?
---scott on 1/16/09

Scott, as much as I enjoy religious discussion, this is not an exercise in debate. For me, it is a matter of eternal consequences. It is important that we know God.

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

It is not enough to know the only true God because we would be no better off than the condemned demons.

James 2:19
Thou believest that there is one God, thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Wouldn't it be a shame to know so much about God, just to be destroyed with them? Let's be honest.
---Geoff on 1/16/09

Scott *you are eager to jump elsewhere*

Then why did I mention a previous text (1 Jn 5:7-8) you were stuck on? I've consistently demonstrated we need to study each text in light of the entire Bible.

John 1:1 is clear that God the Son was with God in the very beginning. Do we have agreement so far?

Your theology is flawed without the understanding that Jesus is as much fully God as God the Father. Do you agree, YES or NO?
---Geoff on 1/15/09

John 1:1 was your choice. It's clear why you are eager to jump elsewhere.
It didn't say (according to the actual Greek) what you thought it did.

In spite of the simple text itself, you've distorted John's words to say something that he never did under inspiration. Context can only help or apply if you first analyze the CENTRAL scripture that is the topic of this discussion (the verse you cited) and work outward from there.

Since you've added to John's clear description of two individuals (the Word and God) by adding a grammatically non-existent third "person" why would your analysis of surrounding contextual verses be anymore sound?

It's a flawed and unreliable premise.
---scott on 1/15/09

canda, please read the Gospel of John. Jesus speaks of the Trinity throughout that Gospel.

However, you must have spiritual eyes and ears to hear what He's saying and receive it as the Truth. "Thy word is Truth."

One example is: Jesus said, "Father that they may be one, even as WE are ONE, I in them and thou in ME."

"The Father and I are one." The natural mind cannot comprehend what Jesus is talking about, but the spiritually renewed mind, walking by the Spirit of God DOES understand this because truth is revealed, not taught. Amen?
---donna8365 on 1/15/09

Scott, I've consistently maintained the continuity, compliment, and agreement of scripture with scripture.

The evidence of the Godhead is not dependent on any single text and cannot be destroyed by the exclusion of 1 Jn 5:7-8. So move on buddy! It's unwise to park on the shoulder.
---Geoff on 1/4/09

Scott, my theological understanding is not based on just one single text. Is yours?
---Geoff on 1/4/09

You, however, insist on making conclusions based on isolated text.

My only request is that you choose ONE
---scott on 1/5/09

Do you not agree with me that the Bible is harmonious?
---Geoff on 1/15/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises

Initially you cited John 1:1 as proof of a three in one trinity.

Not John 1:1 combined with John's gospel as a whole or John 1:1 combined with verses x, y or z from any other part of God's word. THAT'S a different case and one that you may or may not be able to effectively make.

But your attempt to force the *ONE* verse that we have been discussing to say something that it doesn't (even using illogical math) changes this conversation from a purely scriptural one into one involving theological gymnastics.

If that's what this conversation will continue to be about I'm not interested.

I'm simply a student of God's inspired word, the original languages and 1st century "primitive" Christianity.
---scott on 1/15/09

Yes!~ It was. (not sure of that date though!) While Jesus spoke of three in Heaven, he did as he did most things--as a symbol. There are numerous scriptures on the oneness of God (as in Jesus is God--God is Jesus) Here are a few:

ISAIAH 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

MATHHEW 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which means, God with us.
---cindy on 1/15/09

Scott *does John 1:1 ALONE support a three in one trinity?* I already warned you of the danger of trying to isolate scripture and build doctrine on single texts. We must examine each text thoroughly as well as in light of the rest of the Bible. One text won't contradict another, only add detail and perspective. John 1:1 does not exclude the Trinity.
---Geoff on 1/15/09

Rhonda *the Holy Spirit is not a god* Correct! The Holy Spirit is fully God as much as Jesus is fully God (as Scott and I seem to agree) and the Father is fully God. Have you any scripture to refute that the Holy Ghost is not fully God?

Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God-Acts 5:3,4.
---Geoff on 1/15/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation

Not to worry, with calculators and other modern gadgets, basic math skills are probably not that important anymore. I've survived with my limited abilities in that regard.

I'll ask again though, does John 1:1 ALONE support a three in one trinity? Without any assumption, commentary or theology, Do John's words ALONE state what you are concluding?

It's fascinating to watch you work so hard to infuse the holy spirit into the equation, and into the discussion when John makes no mention of it here.

And based on the Greek of John 1:1 I've explained what the apostle meant in referring to the word as "Theos." A godlike quality or one in a class. Not the Almighty himself.
---scott on 1/15/09

Jn 1:1 would then describe Jesus (the Word) with God (the Father and Holy Ghost). Therefore, God would be "at least" One. 2 is at least 1 and 3 is at least 1.

WOW looks like a pagan babylonian trinity mystery chaotic babbling there ...only a fool would ADD to Gods Holy Word to serve their religious systems pagan trinity

or is Geoff's John 1:1 trinity skit superimposed over Whose on First - was that Laurel and Hardy or Abott and Costello I never can remember...

...Gods TRUTH is not chaotic or a mystery LIKE the whore's trinity given by the father of lies and god of this world(John 8:44, 2Corin 4:4) through Constantine

the Holy Spirit is not a god
---Rhonda on 1/15/09

Scott, rather it is eisegetic to go it alone (without Biblical support) to deny the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Godhead.

The math is sound. You agree God includes the Father and Son, Two Persons. In light of the whole Bible, why would not God include the Father and the Holy Ghost, Two? Jn 1:1 would then describe Jesus (the Word) with God (the Father and Holy Ghost). Therefore, God would be "at least" One. 2 is at least 1 and 3 is at least 1. Not just Father and Son are One-Jn 10:30, Father, Son and Spirit are One.
---Geoff on 1/15/09

The next time you help one of your sons with his math homework and you tell him that 1 plus one is "at least" 2 possibly more, i'd love to see the look on his face, let alone his teacher's when he turns that homework in.

I agree that context is of the utmost importance. But using language like "at least" is not an examination of context. It is going beyond what the apostle said. Eisegesis.

"At least" is unscriptural as well as ambiguous. If someone held the view that God exists in a form that included 2 but possibly 20, would you agree that John 1:1 allows for that as a possibility?

Does John 1:1 ALONE support a three in one trinity? I personally don't believe you've made your case.
---scott on 1/15/09

Send a Free Inspirational Ecard

Yes Ronnnie, *Jesus told the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the (Holy) Spirit... Jesus gave the Holy Spirit equal standing with Himself and the Father*

In fact it was such an important matter that the only incidence of re-baptism recorded in the Bible is where 12 disciples came to a better understanding of who God is when they recognized there really is a Person, the Holy Ghost. Acts 19:1-7.

Correct Ronnie *the Spirit is a very important "Person"*
---Geoff on 1/15/09

Jesus told the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the (Holy) Spirit. From Jesus' own mouth, there appears to be a Trinity in this statement. Also, in another passages, Jesus states that there is one sin that will not be forgiven: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. That means that the Spirit is a very important "person." Jesus gave the Holy Spirit equal standing with himself and the Father.
---Ronnie on 1/15/09

Scott, Isaiah 28:10 (and 13) tells us:

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, and there a little.

This tells us precept upon precept (teaching does not contradict teaching), line upon line (must be in context) and here a little there a little (must be consistent). Doctrine is not established upon a single text. A truthful testimony is established by two or three witnesses-Mt 18:16, 1 Cor 14:29, 2 Cor 13:1, 1 Tm 5:19, Heb 10:28.

Here's the John 1:1 math:
the Word (1) was with God (at least 1)
1 + at least 1 = ?
at least 1 = or > 1 (I believe it's 2>1)
therefore, 1 + 2 = 3, Ro 15:30
---Geoff on 1/14/09

Geoff Re "Two individuals...based on preconceived ideas?"

Great. Now you're going to test my math skills. Not an expert there either but let me give it a shot:

"The Word" - (Who John says is God, Divine, Godlike, etc.) = 1
And "God" - (Who John says the Word is with.) = 1

1 + 1 = (well you know the rest)

Unless I'm missing something here, I'm counting two.
Anything else would be considered theological fuzzy math. John wrote what he meant. No preconception required.

From the simple Greek that the apostle uses at John 1:1 explain where you find a third "Divine" individual.

And by the way, please explain how someone can be with himself?
---scott on 1/14/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages

Geoff Re "Detecting my answer"

Sticking to John's ACTUAL (please don't make me shout, I have my reputation to think of) words in Chapter 1 and verse one:

1. Where do you find reference to "The Godhead"?

2. Where do you find any mention that "The Godhead" (that isn't mentioned in John 1:1) is something that can be divided into "Parts" whether 2, 3 or 70?
---scott on 1/14/09

Scott, the Bible must not be approached with preconceived ideas. May be virtually impossible, so that's why we pray and ask God to direct our thoughts and over-ride human error to lead us to the truth. If a tree fell in the forest and there was no one to witness it, the tree would have still existed. The presence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not dependent upon our reasoning. Rather, our perception is dependent on them and our willingness to accept the evidence.

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handywork-Ps 19:1.

And the heavens shall declare His righteousness: for God is judge Himself. Selah-Ps 50:6.

The heavens declare His righteousness, and all the people see His glory-Ps 97:6.
---Geoff on 1/14/09

Scott, that's where Romans 1:20 comes in:

For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse

Scott *in fact there are only two individuals mentioned?* Is this based on any preconceived ideas?

I may have managed to detect your answer to my question in your response that God the Father is part of the Godhead and so is God the Son. Jn 1:1

Are you ready to determine whether God the Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead?

BTW, thanks, It's fun being dad to "My 3 Sons."
---Geoff on 1/14/09


I'm happy to hear that you have three sons. I hope they are all well.

Your analogy is interesting though (if I understand it). What if someone spoke to you about MY sons and yet you are unfamiliar with my family. Would you conclude that I've got a particular number of sons? 2, 6, 12?

Your analogy only works if there is a basis for coming to any particular conclusion. Some foreknowledge about the number of sons that you and I have. In MY case it would be just a guess because you simply don't know.

Is it possible you are reading a "family" of three into John 1:1 because you have a preconceived notion of what it is "supposed" to say? When in fact there are only two individuals mentioned?
---scott on 1/13/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans

This is essentially my 1st response...I think. Perhaps it will address your other questions.

I am not a Greek scholar either but the simple principles of Grammar in John's words don't require one. Since the definite article is missing when referring to the 2nd theos/Word, then He's either being described as having godlike qualities or is one in a group or class. Not that the Word is the Almighty God himself. That's simply the rule of Greek grammar that John employed, and why some 40 translators have rendered the verse differently than "The Word was God." "Divine," Godlike," "A god," etc.

Forcing the verse to say something that it doesn't or ignoring the literal Greek is theological spin.
---scott on 1/13/09

Scott, I am glad you have not jumped to the faulty conclusions of uninspired commentaries. Since you have not excluded Jesus in John 1:1 from being "was God" and since this text is about at least two Persons (which does not necessarily exclude Three), is this text reliable evidence that the Godhead includes more than One divine Person? If you can accept the Two (your coined "Binity") while holding there is only One God-Dt 6:4, Mk 12:29, then why not the Trinity?
---Geoff on 1/13/09

Scott, feel free to resend that 1st response. I know "divine" has been misused, but I am referring to Diety, exclusively God or the word you used "Almighty."
---Geoff on 1/13/09

Scott, I have three sons. When someone refers to my son, they could mean any one of them. If they say my sons, they are talking about at least two and at most three.

If you have accepted your coined word "Binity" or God the Father and God the Son, then "the Word was with God" in John 1:1 tells us Jesus was with God the Father or Jesus was with The Father and the Spirit. Now I haven't had your response that you accept the Spirit as a Divine Person yet, so for now (as far as I assume your thinking goes) the text includes at least Two Persons.

Once I have your response on that we can move on to evidence of the Third Person. For now, there are at least Two Divine Persons in John 1:1.
---Geoff on 1/13/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance

Geoff (I don't think my first #1 response made it over. I'll wait before resending).

In the meantime- Re "We do not agree...Jn 1 is AT LEAST 2, which could be 3."

First of all my comment was about your use of the word "Divine" (which I see you've left out this time) instead of "God."

But more importantly when you say "Could be three" please prove or establish from John's actual statement how that's possible. Be careful you're not adding something that isn't there.
---scott on 1/13/09

Geoff 2 Re "Ex 7:1 is Hebrew."

Agreed. And I appreciate that you've referred to Strong's list of possible meanings for Elohim.

In answer to your question "What would make you chose the last?" Not sure I have. But what we know about Moses should make a selection fairly easy. I'm pretty sure Moses is not the Almighty. And not an angel.

In Exodus 7 Moses is certainly filling (to some degree) the role of judge in delivering God's powerful message of judgment against Pharaoh. So that's a possibility as well.

Either way it's clear that referring to someone as God in the bible is not necessarily equating him, or making him equal to, the almighty.
---scott on 1/13/09

Well, it doesn't happen too often, but it's nice to be on the same side of an issue with Lee for a change.

Scott, I'm no Greek scholar, but if you are one, I'm glad to have you in the house. But Ex 7:1 is Hebrew, not Greek, and 'elohiym could be rulers, judges, divine ones, angels, gods, god, goddess, godlike one, works or special possession of God, the (true) God, or God-see your Strongs H430. Now what would make you choose the last? Furthermore, why are you inconsistent with your Greek in John 1, translating theos (Strongs G2316) only in v1 as "a god" while "God" for v6, 13 & 18?

We do not agree. I said Jn 1 is AT LEAST 2, which could be 3.
---Geoff on 1/12/09

If the Holy Spirit is simply the power of God, why did Paul say not to grieve the Holy Spirit?

If the Holy Spirit is simply the power of God, why did Christ say:
John14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever,
John14:17 Even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Christ speaks of some who do not know the Holy Spirit, and speaks of the Holy Spirit as a he.

Scriptural References for the Trinity:
Matt 3:16-17, II Cor 13:13, Eph 1:3-14, Gen 1:26, 1 John 5:7, etc.
---trey on 1/12/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays

Scripture tells us that we should not grieve or quench the Holy Spirit.

If the Holy Spirit is merely a power instead of an actual being (part of the Triune God), then it is ridiculous to believe one can quench or grieve a "power", only persons can be quenched or grieved.

Me thinks I will stick with what the saints of His church has held over the centuries regarding the Person of the Holy Spirit.
---lee1538 on 1/11/09

God the father,God the son, God the holy spirit

"God the Holy Spirit" is NOT FOUND in Gods HOLY Word

Holy Spirit is described as POWER may abound in hope through the power, you shall receive power, power that worketh in us (Rom 15:13, Acts 1:8, Eph 3:16-20)

Same power that Christ used when he did the WILL of the Father (John 5:30, John 8:28)

POWER of Holy Spirit is dwelling in True Christians

qodesh Hebrew word for holy or a sacred thing

rauch Hebrew word for spirit, wind, breath

In NT hagious is Greek word for holy or sacred

In NT pneuma is Greed Word meaning current of air, breath, or breeze

Holy Spirit is NOT a person
---Rhonda on 1/11/09

Geoff, 1
We agree that John 1:1 refers to two divine persons (it could therefore not establish a trinity but a "Binity" at best).

The reason some translators use your word "divine" (Moffatt, Schonfield and Goodspeed) to render the Greek "kai theos en ho logos" rather than "God" (in reference to "The Word") is because of the infamous missing "definite article" of John 1:1c.

In English when we say,"THE man," we have a particular man in mind. When we use the indefinite article and refer to "A man," we are describing one of a group/class, or it's used to describe characteristics or qualities: "man-like," "or manly." Cont.
---scott on 1/11/09

Geoff 2 (cont)

However in Greek there is no indefinite article ("A") so to indicate the indefinite aspect of a word the "Definite" article (The) is generally left out.

In John 1:1 the first theos (God) who the Word is said to be with has the definite article but the 2nd theos in reference to the Word does not. So many (some 40 translators) see that as significant and have opted for a "qualitative" rendering like your word "Divine" even "a godlike sort." Johannes Schneider, Berlin, 1978

Therefore, Johns statement does not mean that the Word was the God with whom he was. It expresses a certain quality about Him.

Additionally- even Moses was referred to as God. Ex 7:1
---scott on 1/11/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance

well lets see. on many times,more than one occassion, jesus spoke of his father,our father in heaven, and about the holy spirit,and we all know he is the son of God. sounds like three separate spirits too know? God the father,God the son, God the holy spirit.hey that still adds up to three.
---tom2 on 1/11/09

Scott, you may be going for the medal in evasiveness. I'm going for patience-1 Cor 13:4, 2 Pt 1:7.

John 1:1 is about God. You must admit there are at least two divine Persons in this passage. Now, who is the "Word [that} was with God"?
---Geoff on 1/11/09

Scott, Geoff: As I read your posts, there is a general good tone of give and take. Let me encourage you to continue to endeaver to keep a spirit of unity and peace. I think you have it. Don't lose it.

Frankly, in some other blogs, there is a bitter, rival, conbative, and maybe even evil spirit. Let's not go there.

I think you two agree, but it is not clear.

The Bible does not have a black and white clear discription of the Trinity. The word Trinity is not there. It is a word to discribe a concept of Three Gods in One. A difficult concept to articulate, but it comes from a deduction of reasoning of different passages.
---Rod on 1/10/09

How many names does God have? Does Jesus have(as prophesied in the Old Testament)? How many names does the Holy Spirit have?

having many names and titles does not make God The Father and Christ a beastly Baal trinity ...if one is a mother, daughter, aunt, sister, neice is she really a 5-being creature??

Holy Spirit is the POWER of God The Father it is NEVER identified as a "god"

AND WHY OH WHY does God The Father and Christ have MANY actual names YET Gods Holy Spirit ONLY has adjectives to describe IT

Gods Holy Spirit does not have a NAME because it is not another being
---Rhonda on 1/10/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Dating

Geoff (The "dear brother" sarcasm was a nice Christian touch by the way).

To begin with would you say that John 1:1 contains a description of one, two or three individuals?
---scott on 1/10/09

My dear Brother Scott, doctrine is not built on a single text but on the entire Bible as a whole-Is 28:10 (context and continuity). But one at a time, I believe John 1:1 is a great place to start:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

What is going on here? If this is not enough, a response to either or both of my two questions yesterday would be appreciated.
---Geoff on 1/9/09

Re "You haven't kept your word." How so?

In your most recent post you finally gave what seemed to be a direct answer to the question. I apologize if I didn't recognize it in your earlier comments... perhaps my rapidly aging brain is to blame.

I only asked that, rather than sending 4 or 5 scriptures at once, you select one (at a time) that defines or describes God as three in one and I would do my best to respond.

I'm sure that my comments (based on what you've said to me thus far...calling me a liar in your most recent post) are of little value to you. That said I'm happy to oblige if you care to send a verse that describes the three in one trinity.
---scott on 1/9/09

Scott *I have promised to respond to another verse (after receiving your answer) I'm happy to do so*

Yet, you haven't kept your word. That's OK anyway. Just tell me, do you believe, as the Bible teaches, that there is only one God (Dt 6:4), a unity of three co-eternal Persons, immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, ever present, infinite, beyond human comprehension and forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service (Jn 1:1-3, Gen 1:1-2, Heb 1:6, Jude 1:25)?

Or do you speculate that Jesus is any less than God (whether created or just a smaller god) and that the Holy Spirit is a mere force and not a Person?
---Geoff on 1/9/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments

You may find the following of interest. Particularly the source.

"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even REMOTELY APPROACHING such a mentality or perspective." Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p299
---scott on 1/8/09

Scott: We share the passion of "love of God's Word," and I probably have some of that "little patience for those who wield it in a way that was never intended." In some of the other blogs, I try to point out the fallacies of eisegesis, hoping that as people read the Word in context they'll be able to discern truth from error. I hold to, "it says what it says," it's up to me to believe it. The problem, concerning especially end times, is what to understand literally, spiritually, or even allegorically. I usually error, if it is an error, on interpretting the Bible in context literally.
---Rod on 1/5/09

Yes, I think the general assumption by trinitarians is that the concept is clearly contained or outlined in scripture, when on closer examination (by objective and sincere bible students) it appears that an awful lot of theology, yes eisegesis, comes into play to make the text say what they want it to.

The complete trinitarian "formula" was not clearly defined until Constantinople 381ce. Reason for anyone to give pause.

Incidentally I don't have a theological "dog in the fight" as the saying goes, what anyone choses to believe is his or her business.

I have a passionate love of God's word and, admittedly, little patience for those who wield it in way that was never intended.
---scott on 1/5/09

Scott: I love the word eisegesis. I'm surprised that I haven't heard it used more often. You added a new word to my vocabulary. Although you may be right about baptism and the usage of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, however, using all of scripture it would take about 150 years for someone to conceptualize the three in one concept, and about another 150 for someone to coin the word "Trinity." See a previous blog for details. Personally, I don't get too hung up with the term "Trinity," and hardly ever use it, but I focus on Jesus the Son of the living God, who created the world, who died and rose again for mankind. Do I believe it, and will I follow Him? Wanting to be clear, I do believe in the concept of the Trinity.
---Rod on 1/5/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program

Geoff 2

Since I have promised to respond to another verse (after receiving your answer) I'm happy to do so.

My only request is that you choose ONE (yes I know that you've included many in your posts already) but choose one that you feel describes God as three in one and I'll do my best to offer a reply.

I'm no expert, but I'm always fascinated by the eisegesis (rather than exegesis) of scripture. For example, if you were to drop the baptismal account of Christ onto a deserted island (with people that had no preconceived theological notions about God) would the mention of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit give them the impression that those three are part of one God equal in all respects? No.

Welcome to eisegesis.
---scott on 1/5/09

Geoff, 1 Re: "ONE single text."

My concern is that someone who would willing use ANY spurious or rejected text to support his view is not really looking for meaning and accuracy from God's word. It brings into question (for me) ANY scriptural point that he would offer.

To what lengths would someone like that go to prove a point whether it can really be supported by the original languages, context, lexicons, etc.

Would it really matter (for him) if under the surface of his scriptural explanation the argument couldn't really be supported or at the very least could be viewed more than one way?

Based on your "defense" (without offering a defense) of the "Comma," I feel that describes you.
---scott on 1/5/09

yes, rod, I say we do agree.

I also really liked steveng statement. Amen there brother!

There are so many that dissect the Bible. That is good for learning what is literal and what is Spiritual. But then we have to put it back together and look at it as a whole.
Like God. He is 3 entities(Father, Son, Holy Spirit), with many manifestations(burning bush, pillar of fire, etc.) but still only 1 God.
Yes, it can be difficult to wrap one's thoughts around. But, like you said, we don't have to understand God to be loved by him and saved by Him and live in his will.
God bless you all!!
---miche3754 on 1/4/09

Scott, my theological understanding is not based on just one single text. Is yours? Is Jesus fully God? Is 9:6. Is the Holy Spirit fully God? Acts 5:3-4. Is the Father fully God? John 17:3. Who comprises the Godhead? Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9. Would a real Berean know?

Rhonda, the Bible clearly teaches the Godhead. Please tell us Who comprise the Godhead? Gen 1:26, 11:7, Mt 28:19.
---Geoff on 1/4/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts

But Rhonda,
What you are saying denies the Holy Spirit comes from God and and is an entity of God. The Bible clearly says the Holy Spirit is one part of God.
And they do not contradict.
The Holy Spirit is how we discern Gods word and teaches us to live as God wants us to live. If it is not of God then how can this be?

Also, denying the Holy Spirit is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is God's human form.
Holy Spirit is Spirit of God.
And God is the father.
There are three parts of God that make up one God.
---miche3754 on 1/4/09

miche: I was a bit confused by your response. I think we agree, but I didn't understand your point. You seemed to indicate that John the Baptist wrote the Gospel of John. John the apostle, His disciple, and close friend of Jesus wrote St. John. He also wrote I,II, III John, and Revelation. John the Baptist was 6 months older than Jesus, true, but I failed to understand the point. I am not saying that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are completely three distinct separate entities without being One in entity and unity. Trying to articulate the Unity and diversity of the Godhead is a challenge to the best technical theological minds. To be able to perfectly understand the Godhead, I don't think is a prerequsite for Salvation.
---Rod on 1/4/09

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

The word trinity is only another word to define God. In God/Trinity there are three distict persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. All three to help bring the human race back to the Garden of Eden. One cannot work without the other two. Take away one and God's plan of salvation won't work.

How many names does God have? Does Jesus have(as prophesied in the Old Testament)? How many names does the Holy Spirit have?

Besides, the first commandment spoken of by Jesus is to "love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength" whether there are two in the godhead or three.

So stop this bickering and start loving.
---Steveng on 1/4/09

You have chosen to disregard 1 Jn 5:7-8 yet use it as a device for argument

YOU DO understand 1John 5 verse 7 IS ADDED and NOT in the original Greek text YET in DEFIANCE you choose to remain "faithful" and embrace this LIE that was INJECTED into Gods Holy Word and deem all who do as "faithful bible students" and all others as "argumentative"? how curious

god of this world is author of antichrist trinity (2Corin 4:4) deceived the whole world (Rev 12:9, 2Corin 11:3-4) merging pagan Baal (1Kings 18:21)OVER The Father and Christ

there is a reason the trinity is a mystery (Rev 17:5) ...Christians today follow ancient Israel to pagan idolatrous worship
---Rhonda on 1/4/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Acne Treatment

there are 3, and together they make God(1) or godhead.
1 john 5:7
St. John 1:1

CURIOUSLY YOU FAIL to realize that these TWO VERSUS contradict one another by way of MODERN translations

ORIGINAL Greek text DOES NOT HAVE most of verse 6 in 1John 5, and ALL of verse 7 was inserted

word "earth" was ADDED to verse 8

John 1:1 speaks of ONLY two personages of God in Gods Holy Word

God The Father
The Word (Christ)
NO OTHER "gods" in John 1:1

1John 5:7 was injected into Gods Holy Word

rightfully divide Gods Truth understanding this verse describes Christs baptism, blood and sacrifice did not "do away with" the Ten Commandments
---Rhonda on 1/4/09

Filling your gas tank with impure or defective fuel can be problematic down the road.

To use words that John never spoke under inspiration to (help) form your theological viewpoint (especially now that you you know) is equally problematic. It is no different than Mormans who have added an entire book to support views not found in God's word.

Paul shows the futility of such thinking.

"For I bear witness that they possess an enthusiasm for God, but it is an unenlightened enthusiasm." Weymouth NT

Conversely the Beoreans "Were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
---scott on 1/4/09

Rhonda, although you and I are not RC and disagree with the doctrine of tradition over the authority of Scripture, we don't discard anything just because it is a shared belief. For instance, we don't jettison the truth of Jesus birth to the virgin Mary because the RCC agrees with us. Likewise, we wouldn't abandon the Godhead as exclusively RCC. There's never been a time when the Trinity didn't exist. Jerry brought out evidence of the Trinity at Jesus' baptism-Mt 3:16-17, 28:19. This is before the RCC.
---Geoff on 1/4/09


Yes, Matthew, Mark, Luke do speak of Jesus in that way.
BUT, you must understand WHY the book of John is different. John the Baptist knew Jesus before he was even born. John the Baptist was the Herald. He knew things of Jesus that NO MAN knew. This is because John had the Holy Spirit Upon him before he was even born. I trust his account because of this.
Each one of the Gospels are layers of who Jesus was/is and his life, death and resurrection. They complement each other. One speaks of certain things, the others help to fill in the gaps.
You must look at the Bible as a WHOLE and that it is the SUM of its parts.
God is 1 entity with 3 parts. Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
---miche3754 on 1/4/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Bad Credit Loans

Scott, if you have failed to detect my straight response that all scripture is useful or profitable, then I can understand why you also fail to recognize the Godhead in the Bible. You have chosen to disregard 1 Jn 5:7-8 yet use it as a device for argument so that you can sit on the shoulder while other faithful Bible students whiz right by you. Although you seek my company I have gone on to other evidences which confirm that 1 Jn 5:7-8 belongs right where it is in the Bible. The evidence of the Godhead is not dependent on any single text and cannot be destroyed by the exclusion of 1 Jn 5:7-8. So move on buddy! It's unwise to park on the shoulder.
---Geoff on 1/4/09

To be clear, I believe in the concept of the Trinity. It was conceptualized in about 170 a.d. by Theophilus of Antioch. Tertillian, in about the third century, coined the word Trinity. The concept of the Trinity is a means of defining Who God the Father is, who Jesus is , and who the Holy Spirit is, and what Their relationship is to each other. We know God is the Creator, Genesis 1:1. We know Jesus is the Creator, John 1:1-3. We know the God's Spirit was over the earth during Creation, Genesus 1:2. It's kind of like coining the word water to describe H2O, although the word water came first. The challenge is to believe that Jesus, the Creator, died for us, and rose again, and will we follow Him.
---Rod on 1/3/09

Matthew, Mark and Luke are pretty solidly behind God the Father and Jesus being 2 not one. However, John seems to hold to the "only one god" doctrine and at the same time make Jesus to be a God. Matthew, Mark and Luke seem to generally treat only God the Father as a god and Jesus as a "son" or "the annointed one". The trinity concept tries to harmonize the whole thing. Harmonizing is good when two accounts are trying to say the same thing, but not good if the two meant to disagree on key points. For example if someone tries to harmonize my thoughts with those from someone with whom I disagree, that harmonization would only happen by misconstruing or twisting my words or the other person's or both.
---doug on 1/3/09

there are 3, and together they make God(1) or godhead.
1 john 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
The Word is Jesus.
St. John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
St John 1:14
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
Colosians 2:9
For in him dwell all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
In fact, read 1 John it tells you. Also St. John.
---miche3754 on 1/3/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy

Donna: Jesus' baptism is indeed a perfect illustration of the interaction of the three members of the Godhead. This particular event cannot be logically explained without the interaction of three distinct personalities.

Jesus' command to baptise in all three names (Mat 28:19) is also completely nonsensical unless there exists three persons to whom the names may be attached.
---jerry6593 on 1/3/09

Scott, I can see that although I answered your question you are not going to answer mine. Maybe that's because you have no defense or answer for the Godhead-Acts 17:29


where is there a 3 in 1 beastly trinity in Acts 17:29? understand by IMPLYING this you have ADDED to Gods Word AND deviated from Paul's lesson using human reasoning to follow your cherished antichrist trinity belief given to you by MEN of rcc

It helps to read Acts 17:29 with ITS intended meaning through lesson of passage Acts 17:22-30 where Paul is discussing the IGNORANCE of Athens men who COVER all possible "gods" in their IDOLATROUS worship of an "UNKNOWN GOD"
---Rhonda on 1/3/09

Those who deny the trinity are cultic people here to spread doubt and confusion, don't be fooled.
---Warwick on 12/28/08

the fools are the ones who are fooled by rcc is this religious system that taught the trinity ...the first century church did not have Baal worship

idea of trinity originated in the minds of men ...pagan idol-worshippers ...rcc slowly developed trinity over the centuries ...rcc Christianized pagan god Baal slapping God The Father and Christ over it

most never question the lies given to them by their religious system rightly dividing Gods Truth because they cherish antichrist doctrines that cannot be proven in Gods Word
---Rhonda on 1/3/09

Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.