Biblical Proof Text of the Trinity: All Christian Apologists welcome to join.

[Daniel_Marsh]

So, in your view of logic all 3 of these statements mean the same thing?

1. Daniel’s Son
2. Son of Daniel
3. Daniel the Son

In my view of basic logic, #1 and #2 are the same

However, #3 is pointing in a different direction.

But, if you can’t see that or we can’t agree on this fundamental statement of rudimentary logic, there’s no way we could go onto agree on deeper discussions

Yep all three are saying that Daniel is my Father’s Son.

In fact, if you replace “the Son” in your stucture with my last name, Daniel the Marsh, I am still my fathers’ son, and you have seen how last names came about.

BTW, why does the NWT have such a low grade level in reading?

 

[BibleSteve]

So, you deny “reading” watchtower books? If someone here who could affoard it ( not me ) were to send you a book, would you read it?

I have ready many books from every religious point of view. I’ve read Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Jewish, Jehovah’s Witnesses, SDA, Mormon, etc. etc.

I don’t need anyone to send me books. You are free to send me your recommendations and I’m glad to buy them myself and read them if I think they’d be worth the time.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Now Steve, if you claim to be led by the holy spirit and I came to be led and taught by the Holy Spirit. Then how do we determine whoose interpretation is true, if either?

 

[BibleSteve]

Yep all three are saying that Daniel is my Father’s Son.

In fact, if you replace “the Son” in your stucture with my last name, Daniel the Marsh, I am still my fathers’ son, and you have seen how last names came about.

I am truly bewildered at how you think.

Let’s say you have a son named “Johnny”.

Little “Johnny” can be called “Daniel’s Son”
He can be called 'The Son of Daniel".
But, he isn’t called “Daniel The Son”

Wow, I’m seriously in shock at the lack of rudimentary logic in your view of how to understand this phrase.

 

[BibleSteve]

Now Steve, if you claim to be led by the holy spirit and I came to be led and taught by the Holy Spirit. Then how do we determine whoose interpretation is true, if either?

If I understand your position, you claim to have been taught by the Catholic Church and the ECF’s…

You use them as an authority in your belief system.

 

[Marc1152]

Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky
Orthodox dogmatic theology

Chapter 2. Dogma of the Holy Trinity

intratext.com/X/ENG0824.HTM

 

[BibleSteve]

In fact, not to be flippant, but this reminds me of the type of logic questions my 8 year old is asked at school:

If Daniel has a son named Johnny, which of the following descriptions could be used to describe Johnny:

A) “Daniel’s Son”
B) 'The Son of Daniel".
C) “Daniel The Son”
D) All of the Above.

How would you answer?

 

[ralphinal]

Perhaps I am missing something, as this is a long thread, and I tend to get distracted. When a pro-Trinity poster points to a verse such as John 14:9-10 or John 5:18, the non-Trinity folks say that that proves nothing. Conversely, when the non-Trinity posters state that a verse disproves the Trinity, then the pro-Trinity people point out the problems with the interpretation. What we have is failure to communicate (I love that movie). Can we start with the idea of where is Truth? We know that whoever hears Jesus hears the Truth. We also know that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to be the guide to all Truth. Now, we have to believe, since Jesus said it, that the Holy SPirit is guiding people to the correct interpretation of the Scripture. Which people? That is, in my opinion, the question here. Jesus said that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church. What does that mean? TO me, and many others, it means that the Church would never cease to exist on this earth, until the second coming. If that is correct, then Christ’s Church has existed since the first century. That is the Church lead by the Holy SPirit to all Truths. If we find the church that has existed since then, we find those guided by the Spirit and we can trust their interpretation.

If you say that the church vanished for a time, allowing those who would beleive no opportunity to believe and that Hell prevailed against it, where does that leave Christ’s words?

I know that this does not answer the Trinity question directly, but it may give some idea as to why we are at an impass.

 

[cascherman]

Perhaps I am missing something, as this is a long thread, and I tend to get distracted. When a pro-Trinity poster points to a verse such as John 14:9-10 or John 5:18, the non-Trinity folks say that that proves nothing. Conversely, when the non-Trinity posters state that a verse disproves the Trinity, then the pro-Trinity people point out the problems with the interpretation. What we have is failure to communicate (I love that movie). Can we start with the idea of where is Truth? We know that whoever hears Jesus hears the Truth. We also know that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to be the guide to all Truth. Now, we have to believe, since Jesus said it, that the Holy SPirit is guiding people to the correct interpretation of the Scripture. Which people? That is, in my opinion, the question here. Jesus said that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church. What does that mean? TO me, and many others, it means that the Church would never cease to exist on this earth, until the second coming. If that is correct, then Christ’s Church has existed since the first century. That is the Church lead by the Holy SPirit to all Truths. If we find the church that has existed since then, we find those guided by the Spirit and we can trust their interpretation.

If you say that the church vanished for a time, allowing those who would beleive no opportunity to believe and that Hell prevailed against it, where does that leave Christ’s words?

I know that this does not answer the Trinity question directly, but it may give some idea as to why we are at an impass.

Unfortunately I tried to turn the discussion that way like 4 pages ago, no one bit onto it.

This thread is just a bible verse fight. 'Read this… ok now read this,… no you read that… and that… ’

but, unfortunately while this may work with some, it doesn’t seem to work with steve. He interprets the Bible by his own authority and apparently, he is infallible. He will not and has not even slightly accepted the fact that there may be a more capable interpreter of scripture besides the island of steve, or even that there may be a better translation to interpret from.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

In fact, not to be flippant, but this reminds me of the type of logic questions my 8 year old is asked at school:

If Daniel has a son named Johnny, which of the following descriptions could be used to describe Johnny:

A) “Daniel’s Son”
B) 'The Son of Daniel".
C) “Daniel The Son”
D) All of the Above.

How would you answer?

Since, God is not a title in God the Son, I would say that Human the Son would be used. **Johnny the Son **would be correct to describe my Son, but since I am still a Son myself, Daniel the Son is still correct grammar.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

If I understand your position, you claim to have been taught by the Catholic Church and the ECF’s…

You use them as an authority in your belief system.

Ah, I am not catholic, and reading the church fathers has not changed my views. I learned my views by sitting down and reading the scriptures in Hebrew in my room with NO outside books to influnce me. Only after I derived at my theology with the Holy Spirit as my teacher, then only did I start reading other books.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Basically, it boils down to what we mean by “God the Son”.

Letters (St. Basil of Caesarea) > Letter 236

1. The distinction between οὐσία and ὑ πόστασις is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man. Wherefore, in the case of the Godhead, we confess one essence or substance so as not to give a variant definition of existence, but we confess a particular hypostasis, in order that our conception of Father, Son and Holy Spirit may be without confusion and clear. If we have no distinct perception of the separate characteristics, namely, fatherhood, sonship, and sanctification, but form our conception of God from the general idea of existence, we cannot possibly give a sound account of our faith. We must, therefore, confess the faith by adding the particular to the common. The Godhead is common; the fatherhood particular. We must therefore combine the two and say, “I believe in God the Father.” The like course must be pursued in the confession of the Son; we must combine the particular with the common and say “I believe in God the Son,” so in the case of the Holy Ghost we must make our utterance conform to the appellation and say “in God the Holy Ghost.” Hence it results that there is a satisfactory preservation of the unity by the confession of the one Godhead, while in the distinction of the individual properties regarded in each there is the confession of the peculiar properties of the Persons. On the other hand those who identify essence or substance and hypostasis are compelled to confess only three Persons, and, in their hesitation to speak of three hypostases, are convicted of failure to avoid the error of Sabellius, for even Sabellius himself, who in many places confuses the conception, yet, by asserting that the same hypostasis changed its form to meet the needs of the moment, does endeavour to distinguish persons.

newadvent.org/fathers/3202236.htm

For they maintained that the homoousion set forth the idea both of essence and of what is derived from it, so that the essence, when divided, confers the title of co-essential on the parts into which it is divided. This explanation has some reason in the case of bronze and coins made therefrom, but in the case of God the Father and God the Son there is no question of substance anterior or even underlying both; the mere thought and utterance of such a thing is the last extravagance of impiety. What can be conceived of as anterior to the Unbegotten? By this blasphemy faith in the Father and the Son is destroyed, for things, constituted out of one, have to one another the relation of brothers.

1. Because even at that time there were men who asserted the Son to have been brought into being out of the non-existent, the term homoousion was adopted, to extirpate this impiety. For the conjunction of the Son with the Father is without time and without interval. The preceding words show this to have been the intended meaning. For after saying that the Son was light of light, and begotten of the substance of the Father, but was not made, they went on to add the homoousion, thereby showing that whatever proportion of light any one would attribute in the case of the Father will obtain also in that of the Son. For very light in relation to very light, according to the actual sense of light, will have no variation. Since then the Father is light without beginning, and the Son begotten light, but each of Them light and light; they rightly said “of one substance,” in order to set forth the equal dignity of the nature. Things, that have a relation of brotherhood, are not, as some persons have supposed, of one substance; but when both the cause and that which derives its natural existence from the cause are of the same nature, then they are called “of one substance.”

newadvent.org/fathers/3202052.htm

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

**As for your

Daniel the Son, Son of Daniel, Daniel’s Son, I think Augustine explains my and our thinking best, **

Tractates on the Gospel of John (Augustine) > Tractate 39 (John 8:26-27)

1. What I say you may gather from daily analogies. So it is with one man and another, if the one be a father, the other his son. He is man as regards himself, but a father as regards his son; and the son man as respects himself, but a son as respects his father. For father is a name given relatively, and so with son; but these are two men. And certainly God the Father is Father in a relative sense, that is, in relation to the Son; and God the Son is Son relatively, that is, in relation to the Father; but not as the former are two men are these two Gods. Why is it not so here? Because that belongs to one sphere and this to another; for this is divine. There is here something ineffable which cannot be explained in words, that there should both be, and not be, number. For see if there appear not a kind of number, Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost—the Trinity. If three, three what? Here number fails. And so God neither keeps apart from number, nor is comprehended by number. Because there are three, there is a kind of number. If you ask three what, number ceases. Hence it is said, “Great is our Lord, and great His power; and of His understanding there is no number.” When you have begun to reflect, you begin to number; when you have numbered, you cannot tell what you have numbered. The Father is Father, the Son is Son, the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit. What are these three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Are They not three Gods? No. Are They not three Almighties? No. Not three Creators of the world? No. Is the Father then almighty? Manifestly almighty. And is the Son then not almighty? Clearly the Son is also almighty. And is the Holy Spirit then not almighty? He, too, is almighty. Are there then three Almighties? No; only one Almighty. Only in Their relation to each other do They suggest number, not in Their essential existence. For though God the Father is, as respects Himself, God along with the Son and the Holy Spirit, there are not three Gods; and, though as respects Himself He is omnipotent, as well as the Son and the Holy Spirit, there are not three omnipotents; for in truth He is the Father not in respect to Himself, but to the Son; nor is the Son so in respect to Himself, but to the Father; nor is the Spirit so as regards Himself, in as far as He is called the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. I have no name to give the three, save the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God, one Almighty. And so one beginning.

newadvent.org/fathers/1701039.htm

This goes into more depth
newadvent.org/fathers/160390.htm

Son of God article in CE
newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm

 

[mozart-250]

In fact, not to be flippant, but this reminds me of the type of logic questions my 8 year old is asked at school:

If Daniel has a son named Johnny, which of the following descriptions could be used to describe Johnny:

A) “Daniel’s Son”
B) 'The Son of Daniel".
C) “Daniel The Son”
D) All of the Above.

How would you answer?

The problem here is that comparing the human versus the divine is not a valid comparison.

I as a human do not have any capacity to exist in three persons.

Therefore Daniel’s Son is not Daniel and is a totally separate entity from divine.

God being divine has the capacity to exist in three persons. Humans do not.

 

[mozart-250]

Can we start with the idea of where is Truth? We know that whoever hears Jesus hears the Truth. We also know that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to be the guide to all Truth. Now, we have to believe, since Jesus said it, that the Holy SPirit is guiding people to the correct interpretation of the Scripture. Which people? That is, in my opinion, the question here. Jesus said that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church. What does that mean? TO me, and many others, it means that the Church would never cease to exist on this earth, until the second coming. If that is correct, then Christ’s Church has existed since the first century. That is the Church lead by the Holy SPirit to all Truths. If we find the church that has existed since then, we find those guided by the Spirit and we can trust their interpretation.

If you say that the church vanished for a time, allowing those who would beleive no opportunity to believe and that Hell prevailed against it, where does that leave Christ’s words?

I know that this does not answer the Trinity question directly, but it may give some idea as to why we are at an impass.

Actually I as a non-Catholic totally agree with this.

(Now I am not convinced the answer is in one denomination but that is a separate topic…)

Anyway, the idea of restorationalism (that God somehow abandoned the church for a long period of ‘N’ years and only very recently restored the truth of the gospel to some sect) is very problematic, both according to Scripture and common sense.

This is true whether the sect is JW, Mormonism, or some extreme fundamentalist Protestant.

Even if you do not believe the statement “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” applies to one denomination, it certainly does apply against restorationalism.

So even if both sides can not logically prove either point through the Bible, I will any day of the week go with how God has moved through 2000 years of church history versus what a 100 year old sect says.

(particularly when the 100 year old sect has made prophecies concerning the coming of Jesus Christ that are patently false and against Scripture)

 

[Bishopite]

In fact, not to be flippant, but this reminds me of the type of logic questions my 8 year old is asked at school:

If Daniel has a son named Johnny, which of the following descriptions could be used to describe Johnny:

A) “Daniel’s Son”
B) 'The Son of Daniel".
C) “Daniel The Son”
D) All of the Above.

How would you answer?

Steve,
Again your logic fails because your premise is false; that being you falsely assume Jesus is not divine, ergo your conclusion is false again. You can’t make a parrallel with an eternal God and an eternal Son as you would with a mere human father and biological or otherwise son.

God does NOT have a biological son. Jesus is the second perSON God the Son in the Holy Trinity which is ONE God.

 

[BibleSteve]

Based on the last several answers, are you telling me your belief in the Trinity doctrine falls outside the basic rules of logic?

 

[Bishopite]

Based on the last several answers, are you telling me your belief in the Trinity doctrine falls outside the basic rules of logic?

No, not at all. The truth of the Trinity (God as three persons, yet one God) can be reasonably comprehended through reason and through faith, however it is also a supernatural truth that can’t be completely understood by episotomological means alone; yet God Himself can’t be completely understood by us as He says in Isaiah 55:8-9
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD.
9As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts.”

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

CHAPTER 16
Warning that the end is at hand

1 “Watch” over your life: “let your lamps” be not quenched “and your loins” be not ungirded, but be “ready,” for ye know not “the hour in which our Lord cometh.” 2 But be frequently gathered together seeking the things which are profitable for your souls, for the whole time of your faith shall not profit you except ye be found perfect at the last time; 3 for in the last days the false prophets and the corrupters shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall change to hate; 4 for as lawlessness increaseth they shall hate one another and persecute and betray, and then shall appear the deceiver of the world as a Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders and the earth shall be given over into his hands and he shall commit iniquities which have never been since the world began.

5 Then shall the creation of mankind come to the fiery trial and “many shall be offended” and be lost, but “they who endure” in their faith “shall be saved” by the curse itself. 6 And “then shall appear the signs” of the truth. First the sign spread out in Heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet, and thirdly the resurrection of the dead: 7 but not of all the dead, but as it was said, “The Lord shall come and all his saints with him.” 8 Then shall the world “see the Lord coming on the clouds of Heaven.”

earlychristianwritings.co…ache-lake.html

As you all may know, the anti-christ sets himself up to be God.

2 Thessalonians 2:4
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Just another example, of how Son of God in Jesus’ time was understood to be claiming to be God in the sense illuistrated above.

If one studies the history of worship or liturgy, one will see that they worshipped Jesus as God.

And, NO we do not think the antichrist is God, nor is he the pope.

I am simply showing an example of how Son of God is god is understood by those comtemporary with Jesus.

Note: The Didache is dated 90-110 AD which puts it in first and second generational chrisitans.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Based on the last several answers, are you telling me your belief in the Trinity doctrine falls outside the basic rules of logic?

So your God must fit in a box? explaining god to us humans is like explaining the mechanics of modern technology to a worm.

Did you not realise that those in the NT do not think by the modern rules of logic? That a prophecy for example is not a literal prophecy as we define prophecy today? see Matthew 2:15 with Hosea 11:1 in context for an example, or check out Peter’s quotes in Acts 1, neither fall into modern principles of interpretation – there are many examples, in fact just concentrate on the first 4 or 5 chapters of matthew.

God is far beyond us and does not fit in our little boxes like you are trying to do. Concerning God there is no perfect analogies for God or for the godhead.

again I ask, why does Matthew ( 3:3 ) apply a text from Isaiah that relates to Jehovah to Jesus?

This, in fact, is the one spoken of through Isaiah the prophet in these words: “Listen! Someone is crying out in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of Jehovah, YOU people! Make his roads straight.’” NWT

Isaiah 40:3 (New International Version)

   A voice of one calling: 
   "In the desert prepare 
   the way for the LORD; 
   make straight in the wilderness 
   a highway for our God.

Footnotes:

Isaiah 40:3 Or A voice of one calling in the desert: / "Prepare the way for the LORD
Isaiah 40:3 Hebrew; Septuagint make straight the paths of our God

Steve, why did Satan immiatate the trinity in pagan religions? I think it is because that is what he saw when he was in heaven before he rebelled. And, thus it makes sense that Satan would try to conterfiet the original or geniune godhead. One does not conterfiet a three dollar bill.