Trinity

[Joedjr]

Originally Posted by mee

Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching?

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.

Thus 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; see also 1 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20, 21.

Since the Bible can ‘set things straight,’ it should clearly reveal information about a matter as fundamental as the Trinity is claimed to be. But do theologians and historians themselves say that it is clearly a Bible teaching?

Hi, Mee does have a point here.
.02
Joe

[mee]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I did, and the link ... and the content of that site is full of misdirection and error.



Thomas

Yes it would not be in harmony with a manmade doctrine such as the trinity , because it promotes pure bible teachings instead .

[mee]

“Beyond the Grasp of Human Reason”

THIS confusion is widespread. 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.”

Thus, 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.

In this regard, Jesuit Joseph Bracken observes in his book What Are They Saying About the Trinity?: “Priests who with considerable effort learned . . . the Trinity during their seminary years naturally hesitated to present it to their people from the pulpit, even on Trinity Sunday. . . . Why should one bore people with something that in the end they wouldn’t properly understand anyway?” He also says: “The Trinity is a matter of formal belief, but it has little or no [effect] in day-to-day Christian life and worship.” Yet, it is “the central doctrine” of the churches!

Catholic theologian Hans Küng observes in his book Christianity and the World Religions that the Trinity is one reason why the churches have been unable to make any significant headway with non-Christian peoples. He states: “Even well-informed Muslims simply cannot follow, as the Jews thus far have likewise failed to grasp, the idea of the Trinity. . . . The distinctions made by the doctrine of the Trinity between one God and three hypostases do not satisfy Muslims, who are confused, rather than enlightened, by theological terms derived from Syriac, Greek, and Latin. Muslims find it all a word game. . . . Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God’s oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?”

[mee]

How Is the Trinity Explained?

THE Roman Catholic Church states: “The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion . . . Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: ‘the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.’ In this Trinity . . . the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.”—The Catholic Encyclopedia.

Nearly all other churches in Christendom agree. For example, the Greek Orthodox Church also calls the Trinity “the fundamental doctrine of Christianity,” even saying: “Christians are those who accept Christ as God.” In the book Our Orthodox Christian Faith, the same church declares: “God is triune. . . . The Father is totally God. The Son is totally God. The Holy Spirit is totally God.”

Thus, the Trinity is considered to be “one God in three Persons.” Each is said to be without beginning, having existed for eternity. Each is said to be almighty, with each neither greater nor lesser than the others.

Is such reasoning hard to follow? Many sincere believers have found it to be confusing, contrary to normal reason, unlike anything in their experience. How, they ask, could the Father be God, Jesus be God, and the holy spirit be God, yet there be not three Gods but only one God?

[mee]

Originally Posted by Joedjr

Hi, Mee does have a point here.
.02
Joe

Why Did God’s Prophets Not Teach It?

WHY, for thousands of years, did none of God’s prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the latest, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the “central doctrine” of faith?

Are Christians to believe that centuries after Christ and after having inspired the writing of the Bible, God would back the formulation of a doctrine that was unknown to his servants for thousands of years, one that is an “inscrutable mystery” “beyond the grasp of human reason,” one that admittedly had a pagan background and was “largely a matter of church politics”?

The testimony of history is clear: The Trinity teaching is a deviation from the truth, an apostatizing from it.

[Pico]

If the Holy Spirit nor the Son are God, why does Jesus talk about blaspheming them? Blasphemy is something you do against God, right?

Matthew 12:
30 “Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone who isn’t working with me is actually working against me. 31 “So I tell you, every sin and blasphemy can be forgiven—except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will never be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Pico

If the Holy Spirit nor the Son are God, why does Jesus talk about blaspheming them? Blasphemy is something you do against God, right?

Matthew 12:
30 “Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone who isn’t working with me is actually working against me. 31 “So I tell you, every sin and blasphemy can be forgiven—except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will never be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come.

Matt. 12:31, 32, RS: “Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” (If the Holy Spirit were a person and were God, this text would flatly contradict the Trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son. Instead, what Jesus said shows that the Father, to whom the “Spirit” belonged, is greater than Jesus, the Son of man.)

[Joedjr]

Hi Pico,

Originally Posted by Pico

If the Holy Spirit nor the Son are God, why does Jesus talk about blaspheming them? Blasphemy is something you do against God, right?

Matthew 12:
30 “Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone who isn’t working with me is actually working against me. 31 “So I tell you, every sin and blasphemy can be forgiven—except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will never be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come.

You kinda answered your own question. From the NASB: Matt 12:

30:"He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.
31:"Therefore I say to you , any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.
32:"Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit , it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

Joe

[Joedjr]

Hi,
Sorry about that I see Mee is a little quicker at the keyboard!
Joe

[mee]

Originally Posted by Joedjr

Hi,
Sorry about that I see Mee is a little quicker at the keyboard!
Joe

no need to be sorry , you have a right to say what ever you like its good

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by mee

If the Holy Spirit were a person and were God, this text would flatly contradict the Trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son. Instead, what Jesus said shows that the Father, to whom the “Spirit” belonged, is greater than Jesus, the Son of man.)

Note also that Jesus sends the Spirit, which belongs to the Father, so the Son has authority of the Father ... which means the Son is Divine, and the Spirit, which proceeds from the Father, is also Divine ... all Three are in One, but are Three, and being Divine, suffer no diminution, no lessening, no limitation, no confinement ...

The argument above shows the failure to comprehend the manner of God's mercy and love — both of which are Infinite and beyond measure...

The reason why sin against the Holy Spirit is not forgiven is not that the Father will not forgive, but rather that by refusing the Holy Spirit one refuses the means by which one can come to know God — it is a refusal of grace, of mercy, of love.

Man refused the Father, which is why the Son, and man refused the Son, which is why the Spirit ("another paraclete" of John 14:16, signifying that the Son, too, is a paraclete).

But if man refuses the Spirit, then he places himself beyond the reach of God, as it were.

Thomas

[Joedjr]

Hi Thomas

Originally Posted by Thomas

Note also that Jesus sends the Spirit, which belongs to the Father, so the Son has authority of the Father ... which means the Son is Divine, and the Spirit, which proceeds from the Father, is also Divine ... all Three are in One, but are Three, and being Divine, suffer no diminution, no lessening, no limitation, no confinement ...
Thomas

When reading from John 14, seems the spirit comes from the Father.
John 14: from the NASB.

15:"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
16:"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever:
17:that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

25:"These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you.
26:"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in MY name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
27:"Peace I leave with you ; My peace I give to you ; not as the world gives do I give to you . Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.

Joe

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Joedjr

Hi, Mee does have a point here.
.02
Joe

No, Mee does not. Mee has an agenda. Mee has a goal and a mission to accomplish. Mee does not have a point concerning the trinity, because Mee refuses to look at anything but "Watch Tower Tract". Mee is becoming offensive to the majority of Christians, who do believe in the trinity of God.

v/r

Q

[Pico]

Originally Posted by mee

(If the Holy Spirit were a person and were God, this text would flatly contradict the Trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son. Instead, what Jesus said shows that the Father, to whom the “Spirit” belonged, is greater than Jesus, the Son of man.)

How does that contradict the doctrine of the Trinity? Blasphemy of the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" does this verse refer to.

The Holy Spirit convicts people of their sin and need for God. Which is why if you blaspheme the Holy Spirit (pretty much saying you don't need God's forgiveness) is unforgivable.

In the context of that passage (vv.22) the Pharisees said Jesus must've been empowered by Satan in order to cast out a demon such as that. The context is important. They knew the scriptures, they knew that only God could do something like that (which what Jesus did, healing someone who was blind and mute, is something no prophet has ever done. It was something only God could do), but they denied it, attributing it to Satan.

To deny something you knew only God could do is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit at work trying to convict you of God's work, but you still refuse to accept it. Such a sin cannot be forgiven because there is absolutely no reason why you should refuse it. Except that you completely refuse to believe. And that is the point of no return.

[Thomas]

Hi Joe —

Originally Posted by Joedjr

When reading from John 14, seems the spirit comes from the Father. John 14: from the NASB.

I prefer the Douai-Rheims version, but let me highlight a couple of points:

John 14:16
"And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever"
my emphasis ... the 'other' paraclete assumes Jesus is also a paraclete — something affirmed in 1 John.

'Helper' or 'Comforter' is a very loose translation of the Greek parakletos — and although the term has definite judicial overtones, the origin is in the verb 'to call to one's side', the contemplation of which, in light of this discussion, can be most fruitful.

John 15:26
"But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me."
This is a key text in the understanding of the Trinity, and the relation of the Three Persons — that both Son and Holy Spirit are proceed from the Father.

The three synoptic gospels treat primarily of the life of Jesus. John wrote his gospel some time later, and would have known of the message of the synopics, if he had not actually copies of them — they were the teaching of the Church. This gospel is the fruit of a mature and inspired reflection upon the Incarnate Son, and so the pneumatology is a lot more pronounced. The Discourse at the Last Supper encompasses John's eschatalogical vision.

Only in a Trinitarian doctrine can the contradictions of Jesus' words be reconciled to reason, and not subject to some indeterminate mode of pseudo-spirituality, "I and the Father are one" (10:30) whilst "the Father is greater than I" (14:28) ...

... and again, if sins against the Father are forgiven (witness the Salvation History of the Jews) ... and sins against the Son are forgiven ... then why are sins against the Holy Spirit not forgiven — is the Holy Spirit superior to the Father, or more intransigent ... and how can that which is sent by God be more unforgiving than the God who sent it?

Thomas

Aside:
John 15:26 is one of the sources that the Western Church cited in its clarification of the Creed, by insertion of the filioque clause, a source of great anguish between East and West. The East holds the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone; the West holds that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and also from the Son. The clause was put in to clarify a local dispute in Gaul, and whilst theologically it is correct, politically it was seen as somewhat insensitive towards the East, who saw themselves as the bastion of orthodoxy ... but then it would have required the convocation of another Council to agree the amendment, which seemed a great deal of effort for something which was a local question ... in reality, what might be as plain as day in Greek needs clarification in the Latin, and what in Latin might be as clear as a bell can become quite convoluted when translated into the Greek.