Your Views on The Trinity

[civic]

And we have these men who knew the Apostles who carried on their beliefs from Scripture on the Deity of Christ

• Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50–117): Referred to Jesus as "our God" and "the blood of God".
• Polycarp (c. 69–155): Wrote of believing in "our Lord and God Jesus".
• Justin Martyr (c. 100–165): Argued in his writings that Christ is called both "God and Lord of hosts".
• Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202): Stated that Christ is "Himself God, and Lord, and King Eternal" and that he is "the God of the living" with the Father.
• Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215): Called Jesus "the Author of all blessings" and "truly most manifest Deity".
• Tertullian (c. 150–225): Wrote that "only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God". He also said that Christ "remained what he was: God" after taking on flesh

Also Hippolytus who learned from Irenaeus

 

[Gatekeeper]

Who else but the one true God could say:

“For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another.” Isaiah 48:11

No one should have the slightest difficulty in identifying the speaker as God. The context of the passage and the grammar of the text are both very clear. But prejudiced anti-Trinitarians must object because the God who is speaking says that He, along with the Holy Spirit, are sent by God.

“Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, from the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.” Isaiah 48:16

If the passage is interpreted in its natural and normal meaning, there are three persons in this passage who are all God! But how can God be sent by God unless there are several Persons within the Godhead? Since the Father sent the Son and the Spirit in Trinitarian theology, this is exactly the kind of passage which we expect to find.

How can non-Trinitarians handle a passage like this? They can’t. So they deny that the speaker is God and claim that it is actually Isaiah who is speaking.

 

[Peterlag]

Jesus says he was before Abraham. You just do not believe Jesus.

All that means is Jesus is the subject matter that was written before Abraham.

 

[Runningman]

so you are saying Jesus was wrong in giving the instructions of Matthew 28:19?

It doesn't mean to water baptize in the name of three persons in an alleged trinity god. That's where trinitarians are wrong because no one baptized that way. You aren't suggesting all of the apostles and the early church disobeyed Jesus and he never corrected them are you? Or do you agree with the apostles who baptized in the name of Jesus only?

 

[dwight92070]

It doesn't mean to water baptize in the name of three persons in an alleged trinity god. That's where trinitarians are wrong because no one baptized that way. You aren't suggesting all of the apostles and the early church disobeyed Jesus and he never corrected them are you? Or do you agree with the apostles who baptized in the name of Jesus only?

Baptizing in the name of Jesus is equivalent to baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

"Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father." Col. 3:17

No, the apostles did not disobey Jesus, they knew that the two were equivalent.

They were not legalistic. They knew that water baptism does not save anyone. They also knew that "in the name of" meant "in the authority of", and to baptize in the name of Jesus WAS in the authority of the Father and the Holy Spirit.

 

[mikesw]

All that means is Jesus is the subject matter that was written before Abraham.

if you want to deny Jesus, you could suggest that.

 

[mikesw]

It doesn't mean to water baptize in the name of three persons in an alleged trinity god. That's where trinitarians are wrong because no one baptized that way. You aren't suggesting all of the apostles and the early church disobeyed Jesus and he never corrected them are you? Or do you agree with the apostles who baptized in the name of Jesus only?

how many people did you survey in the first century to come to your denial of following Jesus's words?

 

[Runningman]

Baptizing in the name of Jesus is equivalent to baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Which verse says that?

"Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father." Col. 3:17

So the thanks goes to God the Father, not Jesus.

No, the apostles did not disobey Jesus, they knew that the two were equivalent.

They were not legalistic. They knew that water baptism does not save anyone. They also knew that "in the name of" meant "in the authority of", and to baptize in the name of Jesus WAS in the authority of the Father and the Holy Spirit.

So you are admitting there is no Trinity formula to water baptism?

 

[Runningman]

how many people did you survey in the first century to come to your denial of following Jesus's words?

We know that the Father alone is God in the absolute sense according to what Jesus explicitly stated in John 17:3. Matthew 28:19 is simply about God the Father, Jesus as the appointed mediator and Lord, and the power of the Holy Spirit. That explains perfectly why no one followed a trinitarian formula.

 

[dwight92070]

Which verse says that?

So the thanks goes to God the Father, not Jesus.

So you are admitting there is no Trinity formula to water baptism?

It's clear that one can baptize in the name of Jesus or in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - either one is being obedient to God.

If the apostles were disobeying Jesus every time they baptized someone, you can be sure that the Lord would have let them know.

 

[mikesw]

We know that the Father alone is God in the absolute sense according to what Jesus explicitly stated in John 17:3. Matthew 28:19 is simply about God the Father, Jesus as the appointed mediator and Lord, and the power of the Holy Spirit. That explains perfectly why no one followed a trinitarian formula.

but they have just one name. Only a trinitarian can deny the obvious.

 

[Peterlag]

Thomas had his shot when Jesus asked...​

“who do men say I am?” No claiming God and neither did Peter and for that matter not even the people who saw him.
The response was “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah, or one of the Prophets.” Not even the common folk detected a God, and we know who was given the keys for the answer Jesus sought.

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from...

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

And basically that's all trinitarians have. And I mean 100 percent of what they have. They have nothing else.

 

[mikesw]

Thomas had his shot when Jesus asked...​

“who do men say I am?” No claiming God and neither did Peter and for that matter not even the people who saw him.
The response was “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah, or one of the Prophets.” Not even the common folk detected a God, and we know who was given the keys for the answer Jesus sought.

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from...

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

And basically that's all trinitarians have. And I mean 100 percent of what they have. They have nothing else.

you sound like someone who has never read the bible.

The focus is on the Messiah in the preaching to the Jews. Maybe you missed that topic of focus in the gospels. Still, Jesus points it out in subtle ways. Thomas recognizes it finally when seeing Jesus resurrected. You probably missed that too. These points go beyond the hyperliteralist reading of scripture.

 

[Capbook]

The son of man is not the Ancient of Days. Why do you keep quoting things that soundly and effectively prove that Jesus is not God and then ask a bunch of questions about it?

I recommend you read more of the chapter. The sovereignty and dominion is something the people in general have, they received it from God, not from the son of man. They all serve the Most High together. Means Jesus is not the Most High.

My point is who do you think is "Him" that was given dominion, Glory and kingdom by the Ancient of Days Runningman?
Are they two separate beings or just one being?

I just thought Unitarian believe that God the Father exist in the Old Testament, then become Jesus in the NT.
And become the Holy Spirit after Jesus. Is it true?

Dan 7:14 "And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.

 

[Capbook]

I don't understand what you are referring to when writing the above.

We believe Titus 2:13 speaks of Jesus as God and Savior.
Would you accept that Peterlag?

Tit 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

 

[mikesw]

I just thought Unitarian believe that God the Father exist in the Old Testament. God the Father become Jesus in the NT.
And God the Father become the Holy Spirit after Jesus. Is it true Runningman?

That would be a modalist view of which one does post here. The unitarians here do not see Jesus as divine at all.

 

[Capbook]

The son of man is not the Ancient of Days. Why do you keep quoting things that soundly and effectively prove that Jesus is not God and then ask a bunch of questions about it?

I recommend you read more of the chapter. The sovereignty and dominion is something the people in general have, they received it from God, not from the son of man. They all serve the Most High together. Means Jesus is not the Most High.

I thought you've the same faith with Modalist Runningman.

As to prove Jesus as God, I'll get back to why the Father called Jesus God that Unitarian cannot? (Heb 1:8,9)

 

[Capbook]

well done !!!

Thanks civic and to the One that provide us the thoughts and understanding about His Word.

 

[Peterlag]

We believe Titus 2:13 speaks of Jesus as God and Savior.
Would you accept that Peterlag?

Tit 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

Here's 25 translations all done by Greek scholars that you say I did not send you before. The verse is saying it's the glory that will appear. Not God.

New International Version
while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

New Living Translation
while we look forward with hope to that wonderful day when the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be revealed.

English Standard Version
waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

Berean Literal Bible
awaiting the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

New American Standard Bible
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

NASB 1995
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

NASB 1977
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus;

Legacy Standard Bible
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

Christian Standard Bible
while we wait for the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
while we wait for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

American Standard Version
looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

GOD'S WORD® Translation
At the same time we can expect what we hope for-the appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Good News Translation
as we wait for the blessed Day we hope for, when the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ will appear.

New Heart English Bible
looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ;

World English Bible
looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

Literal Standard Version
waiting for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

Berean Literal Bible
awaiting the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

Young's Literal Translation
waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,

Smith's Literal Translation
Expecting the blessed hope, and appearance of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Douay-Rheims Bible
Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ,

Catholic Public Domain Version
looking forward to the blessed hope and the advent of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ.

New American Bible
as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ,

New Revised Standard Version
while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Godbey New Testament
looking for the blessed hope even the appearing of the glory of our great God and our Saviour Christ Jesus;

Worrell New Testament
looking for the blissful hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ;

 

[Jim]

In biblical research and in any other reasonable study. If we have 10 clear verses on a subject and 1 verse that does not fit with the other 10 verses on the same subject. We are not to disregard the 10 clear verses and hold on to the 1 verse and then say we have proof that the 1 verse is well documented.

In biblical research if you have ten clear verses on a subject and one verse that does not fit with other ten, then you need to reconsider what you think that one verse is saying. Obviously, you are misinterpreting and misunderstanding what that one verse says and means or what those other ten verses say and mean.