Hello Everyone,

First, This is what I mean when speaking about the Trinity. What is it? It is the believe of 3 almighty, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All are not separate, but one. All are all knowing and omniscient.. No above the 0ther.

The Catholic encyclopedia says: “The trinity is the central teaching of the Christian religion.”

The Baptist encyclopedia says: “That Jesus is Jehovah or YHWH, and that the Holy spirit is Jehovah or YHWH.

Remember now Christians do not believe the Hindu religion to be the true religion and yet they also believe in Triad God’s as the Egyptians also believed in Triune Gods.

In 1553 they burned people alive for not believing in the Trinity. Was that Christian?

Isaiah 42:38 we read: Isaiah 42:8 (Young's Literal Translation)
8 I [am] Jehovah, this [is] My name, And Mine honour to another I give not, Nor My praise to graven images.

Genesis 17:1 (American Standard Version)
1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, Jehovah appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be thou perfect. ALSO take a look at

Rev. 16:7 Jehovah the almighty. No where else in the Bible does it refer to anyone else as almighty. Jesus is referred to as mighty but not almighty. Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah says:

Isaiah 43:10 (American Standard Version)
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Does this mean that, because Jesus Christ is prophetically called “Mighty God” at Isaiah 9:6, Jesus must be Jehovah? Again, the context answers, No! None of the idolatrous Gentile nations formed a god before Jehovah, because no one existed before Jehovah.
Nor would they at a future time form any real, live god that was able to prophesy. Isa. 46:9, 10

No where in the scriptures is Jesus referred to as “God the son” but he is referred to as “God’s son”. Take notice:

John 3:16 (New King James Version)
16 For God so loved the world that ‘He gave His only begotten Son,” that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

Notice how Jesus himself said he is “the son of God” Not “”God the son.”
John 10:33-36 (New King James Version)
33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’?[a] 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

In Matthew after Jesus’ baptism, Jehovah was heard to say, “you are my “Son” the beloved. Not “God my Son.” If all are equal then why did Jehovah continue in Matthew to state that he approved of Jesus. Notice:
Matthew 3:17 (New King James Version)
17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

Jehovah has not beginning or end. Jesus did. Notice Col 1:15
Colossians 1:15 (King James Version)
15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

The Bible says God can not die. Jesus though was raised from the dead, showing Jesus is not God almighty because he could die and did and was resurrected.

Acts 3:15 (New King James Version)
15 and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.

This is just some of the things I find very puzzling when it comes to the teaching of the Trinity. The Trinity doctrine is not compatible with the Bible teachings. If one loves God and believes the Bible to be the truth, how can 0ne believe the Trinity teaching. This information just touches on the lack of compatibility of the Bible and the trinity doctrine

Do you believe in the Trinity? If not, state why you do not believe in it. If you do believe in the doctrine of the trinity then state please why you do and how do you explain the above discrepancies?

Please state your understanding in the matter of the Trinity.

Take care, Hope12

Here's the way I see it, if we can be made up of three parts (spirit, soul & body or mind, body & soul - which ever one you prefer) then it would make sense that the God Who created us in His/Her own image also has three parts; Holy Spirit, Christ the Body, and God the Soul. The fact that there are different names attributed to God in the Bible I think had something to do with translation and the fact that those in the old testament had such a fear of God that they were afraid to call Him by name, the result of which was the YHWH (Yaweh, con't quite remember how it was derived) you were referring to which became loosely translated as Jehovah (I think, don't quote me my theology is a bit rusty). Hope that helps. I have noticed that you seem to be asking a lot of questions about Christianity, do you mind if I ask, are you a new convert or just curious?

Also would like to add that we as humans have one body but many different parts we have make a whole body. Same idea with trinity. It is One God, that is made up of different parts.

Joe

Hope, I find it a lot more credible to accept the many passages that support the doctrine of the Trinity than to take one passage that says "with the voice of the archangel" and interpret that to mean Jesus is actually the archangel Michael.

And one other thing Hope, the "thumbs down" icon for your question was a nice touch when asking us to discuss our beliefs. If one didn't know better it might make them think your mind is already made up and you think we're fools - before we ever say a word.

1 John 5:20 We also know that the son of God has come and has given us discernment to know the one who is true. And we are in the one who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

Matthew 3:16,17 After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon him.And a voice came from the heavens, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.

BWT, the doctrine of the Trinity has been documented to have been accepted as far back as 200 A.D.

I believe in the trinity- the three attributes of God Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but not three Gods. In other words three offices of God , God once lived in the Fatherhood, Sonship and now the Holy Spirit. And Father, Son and Holy Ghost is not God's name , his name is Jesus.

Hi Hope,

Here are some reasons I believe in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.




First, This is what I mean when speaking about the Trinity. What is it? It is the believe of 3 almighty, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All are not separate, but one. All are all knowing and omniscient.. No above the 0ther.

The Trinity can be summed up as this: God, who is one and unique in his infinite substance or nature, is three distinct persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The one and only God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God the Father is not God the Son, but generates the Son eternally, as the Son is eternally begotten. The Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but a distinct person having his divine nature from the Father and the Son by eternal procession. The three divine persons are co-equal and co-eternal. So, here you have one God in three distinct persons.
John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7 - the Father and the Son send the Counselor, the Holy Spirit - Isaiah 9:6 - the Counselor is Mighty God. 1 Cor. 12:4-6 - there are varieties of gifts but the same Spirit, varieties of service but the same Lord, varieties of working but same God.

Rev. 16:7 Jehovah the almighty. No where else in the Bible does it refer to anyone else as almighty. Jesus is referred to as mighty but not almighty.

Matt. 4:7; Luke 4:12 - Jesus tells satan, "you shall not tempt the Lord your God" in reference to Himself.
1 John 5:20 Jesus is called True God. Also check out John 1:1-14. Focusing on vrs. 1-3 and 13 and 14.
John 8:58 - Jesus says, "Before Abraham was, I AM." Exodus 3:14 - "I AM" means "Yahweh," which means God. John 13:13 - Jesus says, "You call me Teacher and Lord and you are right for so I AM."


The Bible says God can not die. Jesus though was raised from the dead, showing Jesus is not God almighty because he could die and did and was resurrected.

Jesus is fully human and fully God (Hypostatic Union). His physical body was put to death, but his inner self is eternal and did not die.


Jehovah has not beginning or end. Jesus did. Notice Col 1:15
Colossians 1:15 (King James Version)
15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Rev. 1:8 Jesus says he is the Alpha and Omega.

I would not rise to the bait, Hope. You have your views and I have mine and they do not agree. Peace.

Firstly, I'd like to say that I do not believe in the Trinity, simply because after a long time of studying the Bible's contents, I have found no evidence to firmly confirm this teaching.. If it was rue it would be fundemental, therefore emphasised. Which it is not. Many can only go as far as tosay it is 'implied'.

Secondly, a Protestant publication states: “The word Trinity is not found in the Bible.. . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century.” (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary) And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity “is not.. . Directly and immediately [the] word of God.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia.

Mark 13:32- “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead.)

John 14:28- “[Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”

1 Cor. 11:3- “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E. some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. So the truth here stated applies to the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.)

I needn't go on, we were given free will to accept what we choose, peace be with all. I hope I have perhaps cleared this u a little.
A

It is not a provable proposition anymore than the WatchTower's interpretation of the bible ,and your subsequent beliefs in henotheism;.Both are matters of faith .Both concepts have sufficient biblical passages supporting them for those who like to split hairs and endlessly debate .Trinitarians are monotheists. We believe in one indivisible God.The Trinity doctrine states very clearly and deliberately that there is one God.Therefore there is no contradiction in the belief in the Trinity by a monotheist

Hope12 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/../members/hope12.html) disagrees: Hi Joe, Totally disagree. According to the Bible there is only one True God.

You better not start trouble here like you have done else where. You asked for different opinions then you stick your DIRT in my face.

I never said there was more then one God. So stop twisting around my words and back off.

Joe

Also would like to add that we as humans have one body but many different parts we have make a whole body. Same idea with trinity. It is One God, that is made up of different parts.

Joe

Re Read my post Hope.
I am done here.

BWT, the doctrine of the Trinity has been documented to have been accepted as far back as 200 A.D.


Btw: For every Scripture there is for the Trinity there are two against it's false teachings.

Notice:

Here are some scriptures misapplied to support the false teachings of the Trinity doctorine.
Genesis 1:1
Genesis 1:26
Deuteronomy 6:4
Isaiah 7:14
Isaiah 9:6
Isaiah 43:10-11
Isaiah 44:6
Micah 5:2
Matthew 1:23
Matthew 3:16, 17
Matthew 28:19
John 1:1
John 1:18
John 1:23
John 2:19
John 5:18
John 8:58
John 10:30
John 14:9
John 20:28
Acts 20:28
Romans 9:5
1 Corinthians 12:4-6
2 Corinthians 13:14
Phlippians 2:5, 6
Colossians 2:9
1 Timothy 3:16
Titus 2:13
Hebrews 1:6
Hebrews 1:8
Hebrews 1:10-12
1 John 5:7
1 John 5:20
Revelation 1:11
Revelation 1:17
Revelation 22:12-13

Total of 37 sited scripture used to support the Trinity teaching which are falsely interpreted and misunderstood.
Let’s first start with the fact that neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament.

Also Jesus’ early followers drew clear distinctions between God, Christ, and the holy spirit. In fact, they baptized disciples
(1) in the name of the Father,
(2) in the name of the Son, and
(3) in the name of the holy spirit
Not in the name of a Trinity. We need to differentiate between God, his Son, and the holy spirit.
(Matthew 28:19) Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit,

The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be “beyond the grasp of human reason.”
Many who accept the Trinity view it that same way. Monsignor Eugene Clark says: “God is one, and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it.”
Cardinal John O’Connor states: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.”
And Pope John Paul II speaks of “the inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity.”
A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge says: “Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves.”
We can understand, then, why the New Catholic Encyclopedia observes: “There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, ‘But how does one preach the Trinity?’ And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors.”
The truth of that observation can be verified by going to a library and examining books that support the Trinity. Countless pages have been written attempting to explain it. Yet, after struggling through the labyrinth of confusing theological terms and explanations, investigators still come away unsatisfied.
Jus then how do Trinitarians explain the Trinity doctrine? Contending that since the Trinity is such a confusing mystery, it must have come from divine revelation creates another major problem. Why? Because divine revelation itself does not allow for such a view of God:
“God is not a God of confusion.”—1 Corinthians 14:33, Revised Standard Version (RS).
In view of that statement, would God be responsible for a doctrine about himself that is so confusing that even Hebrew, Greek, and Latin scholars cannot really explain it?
Do people have to be theologians ‘to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent’? (John 17:3, JB) If that were the case, why did so few of the educated Jewish religious leaders recognize Jesus as the Messiah? His faithful disciples were, instead, humble farmers, fishermen, tax collectors, housewives. Those common people were so certain of what Jesus taught about God that they could teach it to others and were even willing to die for their belief.
Matthew 15:1-9;
Matthew 21:23-32, 43;
Matthew 23:13-36;
John 7:45-49;
Acts 4:13.

Does the Bible teach us about the Trinity? NO!
If the Trinity were true, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible. Why? Because, as the apostles affirmed, the Bible is God’s revelation of himself to mankind. And since we need to know God to worship him acceptably, the Bible should be clear in telling us just who he is.
First century believers accepted the Scriptures as the authentic revelation of God. It was the basis for their beliefs, the final authority. For example, when the apostle Paul preached to people in the city of Beroea,
“they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.” Acts 17:10, 11.
What did prominent men of God at that time use as their authority?
Acts 17:2, 3 tells us: “According to Paul’s custom.. . He reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references [from the Scriptures].”
Jesus himself set the example in using the Scriptures as the basis for his teaching, repeatedly saying:
“It is written.” “He interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.” Matthew 4:4, 7;
Luke 24:27.
Jesus, Paul, and first-century believers used the Scriptures as the foundation for their teaching. They knew that
“all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16, 17;
1 Corinthians 4:6;
1 Thessalonians 2:13;
2 Peter 1:20, 21.
These scriptures that prove the trinity teaching as false.
(Deuteronomy 6:4)
(Galatians 3:20)
(1 Corinthians 8:4-6)
(Isaiah 42:8)
Exodus 20:2-3)
(Isaiah 45:5)
(Psalm 83:18)
(John 17:3)
(Genesis 17:1)
(Exodus 18:11)
(John 3:13)
(John 6:62)
(Colossians 1:15)
(Revelation 3:14)
(1 Corinthians 8:6)
(Matthew 4:1)
(Matthew 4:8-9)
(Deuteronomy 32:4)
(James 1:13)
(Matthew 4:10)
(1 Timothy 2:5-6)
(1 Corinthians 15:22)
(1 John 4:9)
(Hebrews 11:17)
(John 1:18)
(Colossians 1:15-17)
(Matthew 8:29)
(Matthew 27:54)
(Genesis 1:2)
(Psalm 143:10)
(Numbers 11:17)
(2 Peter 1:20-21)
(2 Timothy 3:16)
(Micah 3:8)
(2 Corinthians 4:7)
(Judges 14:6)
(Mark 1:10)
(Luke 5:17)
(Luke 7:35)
(Matthew 3:11)
(Mark 1:8)
(Ephesians 5:18)
(Acts 6:3)
(Acts 13:52)
(2 Corinthians 6:6)
(John 14:16)
(John 16:13)
(John 16:7-8)
’ (2 Corinthians 4:4)
(John 8:44)
( John 8:32.)

Here alone are just 52 scriptures that prove the trinity teach false. Pick anyone of these scriptures and tell me what version of the Bible you use and I will explain using your version of the scriptures how each one of the above scriptures prove the trinity teaching as false and not Bible based. One at a time. You pick the scripture and I will prove how it shows the trinity is false.

BTW: True Christianity started before 200AD.

Take care,
Hope12

Hope12 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/../members/hope12.html) disagrees: Hi Joe, Totally disagree. According to the Bible there is only one True God.

You better not start trouble here like you have done else where. You asked for different opinions then you stick your sh__ in my face.

I never said there was more then one God. So stop twisting around my words and back off.

Joe

Hello Joe,
I don't start trouble, just made a simple statement. I know that if you believe in the Trinity you believe that God the father, God the son, and God the holy Chost, Right? All are almighty and all are one, right?

My disagreement is not to start trouble but to exercise my freedom of speech by saying that I believe that there is one Almighty God, and that he is a separate being from His Son Jesus Christ. I also do not believe in the holy spirit as a being but as God's force or power. Therefore, yes we all have different body parts that work together but does not the Bible say that "God can not die?" That being the case and if God are the same but different parts of God, did part of God die?

You better not start trouble here like you have done else where. You asked for different opinions then you stick your sh__ in my face. "

I have never treated you badly nor do I as a Christian speak to anyone with such volugar language. You desire your freedom and you tell us about your opinion. Am I also not allowed that same freedom? If I am able to listen and read your opinion, should not I be given that same respect?

Take care,
Hope12

Why did you write this Joe? "

Hope, I appologize I might have used the wrong word sh__ . Although it is a real word and not really a curse word. It is used to describe dirt, crap and other things, I guess I could have came up with a better word, and I did.

So I changed the word to dirt. Sorry again.



Joe

Then again Hope, You need to apologize to me for twisting my words around to suit your beliefs. Making it sound like I believe in more then one God, which I never said, so pretty much you know the reason why I said what I said but you came here for one mission and that is to hammer people over the head with your preaching style posts.

Hello Joe,

I will humble myself and apologize if I have made your agry by giving my opinion. I am of the understanding that a Father is not his son, as a Son is not his father. They both can not be the same. You are claiming Jesus is God and I made the statement that God is one God the father. Not Jesus but the God almighty, the Father.



I quote what you said: “Also would like to add that we as humans have one body but many different parts we have make a whole body. Same idea with trinity. It is One God, that is made up of different parts.”

Do I understand you then to say that there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy spirit? All the same God?

If I am understanding that correctly then I do owe you an apology. You are claiming then that there is one God but three different and equal personalities but all the same being. Correct?

I do not believe this though because Jesus died and if he is God or even a part of God it would make the Bible inaccurate. The bible calls Jesus God’s only begotten son.

(1 John 4:7-9).. . Beloved ones, let us continue loving one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born from God and gains the knowledge of God. 8 He that does not love has not come to know God, because God is love. 9 By this the love of God was made manifest in our case, because God sent forth his only-begotten Son into the world that we might gain life through him.. .

How can part of God die? Where and how can that be Joe? That is what I meant by there is only one God and Jesus is not God. That is my belief.

I am sorry if my stating my opinion and understanding of the "Bible got you so angry. I only was adding my understanding to everyone else's understanding. I am not here to cause trouble and you need to please calm down and remember that not all people who give their opinion will always agree. I in the future will stay away from commenting to anything you post, if that is what you want me to do. I certaintly did not come to this board to argue with you or anyone else.

Take care,
Hope12

BTW: True Christianity started before 200AD.


Amen to that! Yes, true Christianity started before 200 A.D. My point in referencing this date is to show just that. This was in reference to “Tertullian against Praxeas”, a document dated 213 A.D. (pardon me for being off 13 yrs.) This was in defense of the Trinity, and shows that the Trinity was being taught long before then.

Remember that the teaching of Christianity was preached by the Apostles before they were written down in what would become the New Testament. The New Testament is a reflection of these teachings. Calling Jesus the Son of God does not contradict the understanding of his divinity or the understanding of the Trinity.
I understand that there are different interpretations of Scripture, which is why there are so many denominations.

P.S. You put together a very nice presentation. However, I just disagree. :)

Hello Wang,

I appreciate your polite response and also I truly respect you right to your opinion. Yes, we do disagree on the Trinity teaching, however, I am sure there are other things we do agree on. I look forward to further communication and always welcome other's opinions.

Take care,
Hope12

The point is Hope, Even though everybody here is sharing their opinion. Your not supposed to give bad comments for a belief. That is exactly what you did. You gave me a disagree for what I shared as my point and belief and what did you do with it? You gave me a disagree with a comment about how I believe in more then one God which is untrue.

You try to act all innocent but your not, If you truly appreciated my opinion like the rest you would have disagreed in a post but not give me a bad comment and at the same time twist my words around. That is the point I was trying to make.

Yes, You did start it but I was not the smart one and I should have stayed out of it because I know how you can get, examples of you on other websites.

Best wishes

BWT, the doctrine of the Trinity has been documented to have been accepted as far back as 200 A.D.


If so then why this?

The Encyclopedia Americana 1956

"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian (believing in one God). The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967

"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."


The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism 1995

". . . scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the trinity as such in either the Old Testament or the New Testament."


Dictionary of The Bible 1995 John L. Mckenzie

"The trinity of God is defined by the church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief."


HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE TRINITY (http://www.christadelphia.org/trinityhistory.htm)

Here is part of the document from which I referred.

Tertullian, Against Praxeas, (A.D. 213).
"In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her--being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas."

The main thing is that since there are verses that show there is a trinity, there has to be, the other verses that speak of each separate are also true, since each have a entire being separate. But these separate things are still one and the same.

If you don't understand it, great, we can't, because man has limited being and limited understanding now and a lot less 2000 and 4000 years ago and could only write from how they understand life.

And of course in the Old Testement, the idea of one God is all they had, since Christ was merely a promise and they did not understand.
Now that he has come, we still can't understand since we want it to fit things the way mans laws of science says it has to be.
We have to understand that God and his power is far beyond anything we could dream, so if the bible only says once there is a trinity, then there has to be one, no question about it. If you don't accept that, then you are not accepting Gods word. The fact they also name each separate is great also, since it means that each part of God has its own relationship with us.

As for as the Chistian church, Trinity is part of the majority of all, and is part of basic Christian doctrine. But it was not fully accepted, and the teaching came from some of the early church Councils. There Bishops and leaders from all the major churches meet and worked out the basics for Christian teachings.

Here is part of the document from which I referred.

Tertullian, Against Praxeas, (A.D. 213).
"In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her--being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas."

Yes, I understood your original post and was not challenging its accuracy. By the time you refer to there certainly had to be indications that the Trinity doctrine was in existence. My question was in reference to the comments made by these biblical scholars. If indeed the case for the Trinity doctrine's existence from the outset of Christianity is as clear-cut as you describe, then why would these respected publications make such statements?


Fra Chuck

The Nicene Council's decision to adopt this concept was strongly influenced by Emperor Constantine and his prime directive was Imperial Roman unity not doctrinal accuracy.
To claim that rejection of this council's sudden decision to formalize the Trinity belief
Due in large measure to the influence of a Sun Worshipping emperor constitutes rejection of God's Word is naïve at best and ludicrous at worst. The Council of Trent added the apocryphal books, does that make them inspired as well? If one Catholic Church council decision is to be taken as sacrosanct because it was a Catholic Church council decision, then you are obligated to take all CC Council decisions as such and judging by the historical record, I sincerely doubt that you would feel comfortable holding to that criterion.

Were the Early Christians Catholics? (http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Rome.html)


Historical Doctrinal Continuity Problem

As Christians we agree that the Hebrews were entrusted with the sacred writings of God and received inspired illumination via God's holy spirit. Yet, they were not Trinitarians. In short, they were not worshipping the Christian God. That seems rather strange since Christians accept that they were God's chosen people entrusted with his sacred writings.

The Trinity (http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/trinity.htm)

Is it basic because you understand it as so?


It's comforting to think that such is the case but the premise is defective from a cogent reasoning perspective and unfortunately makes the conclusion false.

Appeal to Majority


Also, bandwaggon, or the appeal to majority or popularity of a belief, is fallacious reasoning. Why? Because majority doesn't guarantee accuracy. For example, the majority of scientists are atheists and they are dead wrong. The majority once thought the Earth was flat. Neither does the convening of said majority in order to formulate and officially sanction a popular idea centuries after Jesus died automatically make such conclusions irrefutably true. It only indicates popularity of belief and majority.

By the time church councils formally declared the Trinity to be a valid doctrine the idea of the Trinity was not novel. Early Christians taught and believed in the Trinity. Yet, this teaching was not condemned as heresy, in fact, it was later formally approved and declared valid. It is worthy to note that formal declarations of doctrine will often happen after a large challenge to a held truth is made. Then, the church will act to formally define and declare held beliefs to be valid. Since the Trinity's validation there has been no incontrovertible reason to declare it invalid. It stands: A Christian truth.

Instead of saying "Abracadabra Lo and behold!" , why not present some solid evidence indicating such a belief existed during Christianity's first century in order to refute the sources below which say otherwise?

The Encyclopedia Americana 1956

"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian (believing in one God). The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967

"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."


The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism 1995

". . . scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the trinity as such in either the Old Testament or the New Testament."

Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity?' (http://www.cogwriter.com/trinity.htm)



It was a totally alien concept to the nation of Israel, the people God had chosen to reveal his truths and continues to be a stumbling block because they find no evidence of such a concept in OT.

BTW
It wasn't novel by that time but neither was it universally accepted. If it had been universally accepted then there would not have been a controversy.


Excerpt

Many early Christians were very concerned that the developing doctrine of the Trinity was a departure from monotheism. Some Christians clearly saw it as polytheistic heresy. It had been bitterly debated until it was settled by Constantine's coercion and edict at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Even with that pronouncement of the Nicene Creed, the theological pendulum swung back and forth until later in the century, as different Roman church officials went in and out of power. Those who were on the losing side at any given time were banished, and some even lost their lives over the issue.

The Trinity (http://www.bibletexts.com/glossary/trinity.htm)

The real question is why are you looking for something to be wrong with the Bible or the Holy Trinity? Either you believe it or not. Either you are lost or saved.

Actually, the Apostles Creed preceded the Nicene Council Creed and the Apostles' Creed was Unittarian. So the heresy, if we are to go by which preceded which, would have to be the latter that deviated from the former.



Excerpt
The Apostles' or Unitarian Creed was the creed used during the first two centuries AD. It was not written by the Apostles, though it bears their name:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

And in Jesus Christ, his only son our Lord: who was conceived by the holy ghost (spirit), born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell (the grave); the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God, the Father Almighty: From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

I believe in the holy ghost (spirit); the holy catholic (general) Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine (http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm)

the real question is why are you looking for something to be wrong with the Bible or the Holy Trinity? either you believe it or not. either you are lost or saved.


First, this is a discussion forum where questions are asked, answered, and sometimes discussed extensively. A question was asked on this forum and I responded. There is nothing unusual about this nor does it constitute a breaking of forum rules.

Second, nowhere in the Bible does it say that if I don't share your faith in the Nicene Council's decision to invalidate the Apostles' Creed that preceded it, that I am not saved. That is totally YOUR idea.

I have no idea what you said but I can asure you the only way to be saved is to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and to live a life he would be proud of.

Instead of saying "Abracadabra Lo and behold!" , why not present some solid evidence indicating such a belief existed during Christianity's first century in order to refute the sources below which say otherwise?


From Catholic Encyclopedia, Newadvent.org

The doctrine of the Trinity is formally taught in every class of ecclesiastical writing. From among the apologists we may note Justin, "Apol." I, vi; Athenagoras, "Legat: pro Christ.", n. 12. The latter tells us that Christians "are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, and the Father, and their distinction in unity." It would be impossible to be more explicit. And we may be sure that an apologist, writing for pagans, would weigh well the words in which he dealt with this doctrine.

Amongst polemical writers we may refer to Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", I, xxii, IV, xx, 1-6. In these passages he rejects the Gnostic figment that the world was created by aeons who had emanated from God, but were not consubstantial with Him, and teaches the consubstantiality of the Word and the Spirit by Whom God created all things.
Yet further evidence regarding the Church's doctrine is furnished by a comparison of her teaching with that of heretical sects.

The controversy with the Sabellians in the third century proves conclusively that she would tolerate no deviation from Trinitarian doctrine. Noetus of Smyrna, the originator of the error, was condemned by a local synod, about A.D. 200. Sabellius, who propagated the same heresy at Rome c. A.D. 220, was excommunicated by St. Callistus.

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom ("Ad. Autol.", II, 15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian ("De pud." c. xxi). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:
There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P. G. X, 986).

i have no idea what you said but i can asure you the only way to be saved is to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and to live a life he would be proud of.


And you equate not agreeing with the Catholic Nicene Council as a rejection of Jesus, of not living a Christian life and of eternal damnation. Fortunately that concept isn't a biblical teaching. I would also like to humbly remind you that the only one qualified to determine whether you or I or anyone else is or isn't going to gain eternal life is God via Jesus Christ whom he has appointed judge. So I would seriously recommend that you try not to wield an authority which has never been given you due to your lack of qualification for it.

As to not understanding plain English, that's a matter which can't be resolved in this forum but requires perhaps remedial reading and comprehension classes. In any case, it definitely isn't the virtue which you seem to believe it is.

On the other hanbd perhaps it's simply that you aren't meant to understand. That too is a possibility. But as I said before, only God knows for sure and it woud be hubris to assume otherwise.

From Catholic Encyclopedia, Newadvent.org

The doctrine of the Trinity is formally taught in every class of ecclesiastical writing. From among the apologists we may note Justin, "Apol." I, vi; Athenagoras, "Legat: pro Christ.", n. 12. The latter tells us that Christians "are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, and the Father, and their distinction in unity." It would be impossible to be more explicit. And we may be sure that an apologist, writing for pagans, would weigh well the words in which he dealt with this doctrine.

Amongst polemical writers we may refer to Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", I, xxii, IV, xx, 1-6. In these passages he rejects the Gnostic figment that the world was created by aeons who had emanated from God, but were not consubstantial with Him, and teaches the consubstantiality of the Word and the Spirit by Whom God created all things.
Yet further evidence regarding the Church's doctrine is furnished by a comparison of her teaching with that of heretical sects.

The controversy with the Sabellians in the third century proves conclusively that she would tolerate no deviation from Trinitarian doctrine. Noetus of Smyrna, the originator of the error, was condemned by a local synod, about A.D. 200. Sabellius, who propagated the same heresy at Rome c. A.D. 220, was excommunicated by St. Callistus.

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom ("Ad. Autol.", II, 15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian ("De pud." c. xxi). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:
There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P. G., X, 986).
Thank you for posting the entire article. But it doesn't offer evidence that the Trinity Doctrine was taught during the first century. It merely quotes sources which came much later than that time. Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the Apostles' Creed which was Unitarian and which Christians accepted as truth during the first two centuries preceded the Nicene Council decision.


Apostles' Creed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:

3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:

4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:

5. The third day he rose again from the dead:

6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:

7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:

9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:

10. The forgiveness of sins:

1l. The resurrection of the body:

12. And the life everlasting. Amen.


Why you ignore this fact I don't know. Care to explain?


BTW
One thing I would like to clarify is that I am in no way judging anyone who adheres to the Nicene Council decision as either saved or unsaved. That is for God to decide.

Well Starman, I have reached my limit of dooming people to hell this week, so I guess you are safe for another week.

But you are right, even at the Nicene convention, it was not 100 percent agreement by the Bishops there, But over discussion, they finally agreed on these. While no one knows what points were taken out, what was added toward the end to reach this agreement, We know it was a discussion.

But also we can see ( and I will pick on all denominations here) that they all by this claim to believe in the universal ( catholic) church, so they are saying that they believe all christians are of the same over all fellowship. But if you discuss this as to doing things together, try to get a baptist and a catholic to do activities together, it just does not happen normally.

But if a person does not accept the full idea of the trinity, but believes on Christ as the Son of God for his salvation, there is no reason to believe he is not saved.

I think we will all find out that the entire concept of the trinity is just beyond mans ability to understand, and that it is more complicated and we try to explain it with our limited knowledge.

It would be like someone from the 1500 trying to explain to someone what a airplane is, just no frame of reference

Thank you for posting the entire article. But it doesn't offer evidence that the Trinity Doctrine was taught during the first century. It merely quotes sources which came much later than that time. Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the Apostles' Creed which was Unitarian and which Christians accepted as truth during the first two centuries preceded the Nicene Council decision.


To which I have referred is to show that the “Trinity of God” as Theophilus said, was being taught and not condemned long before the Nicene Creed was formally declared.
I will not challenge the Apostle Creed, for it does not contradict the Holy Trinity, and is a creed that I confess as well.

To which I have referred is to show that the “Trinity of God” as Theophilus said, was being taught and not condemned long before the Nicene Creed was formally declared.
I will not challenge the Apostle Creed, for it does not contradict the Holy Trinity, and is a creed that I confess as well.


Theophilus was not teaching the trinity:

Excerpt

Theophilus might have coined the expression "trinity" but he was by no means a trinitarian since considered the holy spirit a force or power of God and not a person...

... It is not totally clear how Theophilus views the Holy Spirit, though life-giving breath may be close. The above writings suggest that it is the power of God, as opposed to a specific person--in no place does Theophilus suggest that the Holy Spirit is a separate person.. . Theophilus did not teach that the Holy Spirit was, or somehow was, one of three persons in any trinity. He simply did not teach the trinity.


Theophilus of Antioch (http://www.cogwriter.com/theophilus.htm)


BTW

The Apostle's Creed was used for the purpose of declaring one's faith during baptism. If the Trinitarian doctrine was as prominent as you say during that three-century pre- Nicene-Council period, then its inclusion in the Apostles' Creed would have been deemed essential.

Below is a link to the entire work of Tertullian Against Praxeas (213 A.D.) This is a clear defense of the Trinity. Take note of the phrases that are used to suggest this is not a new teaching.

“But this conception of theirs has been, in fact, already confuted in what we have previously advanced”

“But the tares of Praxeas had then everywhere shaken out their seed, which having lain hid for some while, with its vitality concealed under a mask, has now broken out with fresh life. But again shall it be rooted up…”

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Praxeas (Tertullian) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm)

Tertullian's trinity was not identical to the Nicene Council Trinity. But even if it had been, that still would not be proof that it is a first century Christian teaching since his ideas took form much later. Actually, the Catholic Church accuses Tertullian of not teaching the Nicene Council concept correctly and even accuses him of laying the groundwork for heresy. Later Tertullian lashed out at the church and became a member of a heretical sect. Not finding solace there he founded his own heretical sect. Hardly a person I would trust with my spiritual enlightenment. What really impresses me is how he began to write against the church with more vehemence than he had done against what he had perceived as its opposers. That's a complete turnaround of biblical proportions!

Excerpt:

Tertullian

Ecclesiastical writer in the second and third centuries, b. probably about 160 at Carthage...

It was after the year 206 that he joined the Montanist sect, and he seems to have definitively separated from the Church about 211 (Harnack) or 213 (Monceaux).After writing more virulently against the Church than even against heathen and persecutors, he separated from the Montanists and founded a sect of his own.[/b]




Here is some background on the sect that Tertullian decided was better than the Catholic Church and its teachings:

Montanus was a recent convert when he first began to prophesy in the village of Ardabau in Phrygia. He is said by Jerome to have been previously a priest of Cybele; but this is perhaps a later invention intended to connect his ecstasies with the dervish-like behavior of the priests and devotees of the "great goddess." The same prophetic gift was believed to have descended also upon his two companions, the prophetesses Maximilla and Prisca or Priscilla. Their headquarters were in the village of Pepuza. The anonymous opponent of the sect describes the method of prophecy (Eusebius, V, xvii, 2-3): first the prophet appears distraught with terror (en parekstasei), then follows quiet (adeia kai aphobia, fearlessness); beginning by studied vacancy of thought or passivity of intellect (ekousios amathia), he is seized by an uncontrollable madness (akousios mania psyches). The prophets did not speak as messengers of God: "Thus saith the Lord," but described themselves as [b]possessed by God and spoke in His Person. "I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete,"


Then we have the Catholic Church's less than flattering opinion about Tertullian's quasi Trinitarian ideas:

His Trinitarian teaching is inconsistent, being an amalgamation of the Roman doctrine with that of St. Justin Martyr. Tertullian has the true formula for the Holy Trinity, tres Personae, una Substantia. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are numerically distinct, and each is God; they are of one substance, one state, and one power. So far the doctrine is accurately Nicene. But by the side of this appears the Greek view which was one day to develop into Arianism: that the unity is to be sought not in the Essence


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tertullian (http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyKVMBJNGX4EBjnVrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=11ucb1fnh/EXP=1184126412/**http%3a//www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm)


Early Trinitarian Ideas were not Nicene Council Ideas

Trinitarians also deny any form of subordination of one person to another in power or eternality. However, they often say God the Father is the head of the trinity, God the Son is begotten by the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father or Son or both. Again, they insist there is no contradiction, because our finite minds simply cannot comprehend the fulness of meaning described by these relationships.

We find, however, that throughout history prominent Trinitarians have interpreted their own doctrine in a way that subordinates Jesus Christ or makes him inferior. Tertullian, the first prominent exponent of Trinitarianism, taught that the Son was subordinate to the Father and that the trinity is not eternal. [77] He taught that the Son did not exist as a separate person in the beginning, but was begotten by the Father to accomplish the creation of the world. Furthermore, Tertullian held that the distinction of persons would cease in the future. Origen, the first great proponent of Trinitarianism in the East, also saw the Son as subordinate to the Father in existence and he even maintained that prayer should be addressed to the Father alone. [78] Both men meant the deity of Christ when they used the term Son. It can, therefore, be said that trinitarianism began as a doctrine that subordinated Jesus to God.

Chapter 11 (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Ch11.htm)

It is also wise to keep in mind that the first Nicene Council doctrinal conclusions did not proclaim the holy spirit as co-eternalor and coequal with God. The decision to officially promote the holy spirit to that privileged position was reached much later at another council.

Here is an interesting article on the subject:
Booklet > Who Is God? > The Holy Spirit: Not a Personal Being (http://www.ucg.org/booklets/WG/holyspirit.htm)

Hey Hope12,

I know you are asking for Christian/Bible proof, but as I am not well versed in either I can only provide a muslim viewpoint!

Here are some verses from the Quran regarding Jesus/Easa alaihi salaam and trinity.

Chapter 004 verse 171
" O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs."

Chapter 005 verse 073
" They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them."


Hope this is helpful... :) :)

That is absolutely correct. TRUE Christianity reflects the teachings of God's Word the Bible, and such teachings of the Bible dispel falsehoods of men including the teaching that God is a trinity. The scriptures make it very clear, upon close scrutiny and examination, that God (commonly referred to as "Jehovah" - see Psalms 83:18) is the Almighty alone. Jesus Christ, is God's Son, a created being as clearly stated in Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14. As someone who has had a beginning, and was created, Jesus cannot be God or a part of a triune God. The holy spirit is not a being at all, it is rather a force that God uses to accomplish his purpose. Certain Bible mis-translations will change various passages to try and lend support to the man-concocted doctrine of the trinity, but the Bible as a whole dispels such an irreverant, blasphemous teaching.

The Trinity is not mentioned directly in the Bible. However, there are verses that refer to the Father, Son and Spirit as being of One Mind, One Will. This is the reason many Christians believe in this.

Luke 10:22
All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”

John 10:30
I and My Father are one.”

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

Ephesians 2:18
For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.

Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

Luke 3:16
John answered, saying to all, “I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Also check out the names of God listed in the Bible.
The Names of God (http://www.characterbuildingforfamilies.com/names.html)

Saying Jesus is not God and that he was created is Blasphmy!

Putting Jesus and God on equal footing, when the Bible teaches otherwise is BLASPHEMY and gross disrespect to them both.

Matthew 2:11 And they came into the house and saw the young child with Mary his mother; and they fell down and worshipped him; and opening their treasures they offered unto him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

Matthew 8:2 And behold, there came to him a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

Matthew 14:33 And they that were in the boat worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Matthew 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and took hold of his feet, and worshipped him.

Luke 24:51-52 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.

The worship of Jesus is Biblical is it not? Please explain why it is that Jesus is worshipped with out rebuke. If He is not God manifested in the flesh, then this would have been false worship and these people would have been rebuked for it.

Hello Everyone,

First, This is what I mean when speaking about the Trinity. What is it?

The question should be, "Who is He?" The Trinity is Mighty God. One God in three Divine Persons.


... No where in the scriptures is Jesus referred to as “God the son” but he is referred to as “God’s son”. Take notice:

But He is referred to as God:

John 20 28 Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God.

2 Peter 1 1 Simon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained equal faith with us in the justice of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 1 8 But to the Son: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom.


Do you believe in the Trinity? If not, state why you do not believe in it. If you do believe in the doctrine of the trinity then state please why you do and how do you explain the above discrepancies?

The apparent discrepancies are simply the writings of a skeptic. Someone who does not believe the evidence. In reality, there are no discrepancies.

As for me, I can look at nature and see that it is trinitarian. The most profound truths in our life are trinitarian.

Let us look at space and time.

Space is trinitarian. There is height, width and length. Yet all are seamlessly one.

Time is trinitarian. There is past, present and future. Yet all is seamlessly one.

Our very being is trinitarian as another person already disclosed.

Therefore, a Trinitarian God would produce a Trinitarian world.

A Unitarian God would produce a one dimensional world. And it is proven scientifically that a one dimensional world exists only in our imaginations.


Please state your understanding in the matter of the Trinity.

Take care, Hope12

I hope this helps.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Jesus is NOT God. He never was was and he never will be. Source? The Bible.

As this has turned into a big argument I have removed the offending posts
If you are going to discuss religion do so in a civil manner or stern action WILL be taken.
If you have a problem with that PM me.

Thread Closed.