How Did The Trinity Doctrine Develop

[Church_Militant]

I thought I had already commented on this in Deut. but maybe it was on another thread.

In any event it is also one of the verses some use in order to reject the Trinity. It can mean a few different things. One could say that it proves there is only one God, not three; one could say it proves that Jesus is not God (remember that at that time this was said, no one knew of Jesus).

One could ( I suppose) attempt to make any interpretation one wanted. However, the person that attempts to use tis verse to oppose the Trinity is refuting himself as I pointed out back in post 86 when I posted.

Those who reject the Trinity will often point out this verse as a proof text which on its face is pretty convincing…until one looks into the Hebrew that this comes from.

The Hebrew word “echad” is used there for “one” and it is important to note what this word means. It is also used in Genesis 2:24 where it says

Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.

The fact is that the one means “one unity” which, although it doesn’t prove the Trinity, certainly disqualifies the Sh’ma as a counter argument.

And then again in Luke 18:19, And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me

good? none is good, save one, that is, God.Here, it’s pretty obvious that Jesus is inferring that He is divine.

So this is one of those verses many of you do not believe can be interpreted, except by the church, so why then do you attempt to use it to show that there is a Trinity?

Probably because only heretics have historically opposed the Trinity and the church has unfailingly defined and defended it, even as they do today.

The idea that the Church is the only authoritative source of interpretation is irrelevant to this topic, so I’ll ignore that comment.

But on a side note, remember that God is not alone. He has angels, archangels, the Holy Spirit, etc. So it proves nothing to show that He said, “Let us.”

This is wrong.

Since God is here literally saying. “…Let us make man in our image and likeness:…” He is discussing the act of creation and and since none but God can create then that means He was not speaking to angels etc.

The fact that St. John clarifies that for us with regard to Jesus when he writes. [1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2] He was in the beginning with God;
[3] all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. The context outright tells us that St. John is speaking of Jesus.

Since you have already acknowledged the Holy Spirit (indicating that at least you accept a plurality of persons sharing the same divine nature), you now have a case for the Trinity made from the Word of God.

 

[JOE_OBERR]

You should study your catechisms a little more. I will list some that pertain to the Scripture as the basis for doctrine:

186 From the beginning, the apostolic Church expressed and handed on her faith in brief formula normative for all.1 But already very early on, the Church also wanted to gather the essential elements of her faith into organic and articulated summaries, intended especially for candidates for Baptism:

This synthesis of faith was not made to accord with human opinions, but rather what was of the greatest importance was gathered from all the Scriptures, to present the one teaching of the faith in its entirety. And just as the mustard seed contains a great number of branches in a tiny grain, so too this summary of faith encompassed in a few words the whole knowledge of the true religion contained in the Old and the New Testaments.2

St Cyril of Jerusalem didn’t say “everything”, nor did he say that all doctrine must be supported by Scripture, he simply said of the greatest importance.

Again, if what you assert is true, then where is the inspired index of canonical books in the bible? Please name the book(s) of the bible that contains this index of the the 73 canonical books.

The Popes and councils since the 4th century have declared doctrinally that only 46 books of the OT and 27 from the NT constitute the whole and complete canon of Scripture. Where is this doctrine supported in the bible? After all, there were over 250 books that were candidates for the NT.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I believe I have answered this already in another post but I will do it again.

I suppose you don’t have questions about the inspiration of the Old Testament because there are thousands of references there that said, “The word of the Lord came to me,” etc. I don’t believe that is in question.

**## **

• **1. Most - probably all - of those phrases are talking about the spoken message of the prophets concerned. They don’t refer to the OT as a collection of books. **
• 2. Those phrases are authoritative as Scripture only because they have been recognised as such later than when first uttered. So they are proof of nothing.
• **3. To argue for the Divine inspiration of a text by quoting a claim to Divine inspiration made in that text is circular. **

However it is a little more difficult for the New Testament because it had not yet been written.

**However we know Jesus gave us the New Testament. The resurrection was the proof that God had approved His teachings. His stamp of approval was put on Jesus when He was raised from the dead. **

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:23) Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24) Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Romans 1:3 Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord**, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4) And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
This is certainly a very strong case that God had approved Jesus and had sent Him. We don’t need further proof of that.
John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.

I feel certain you would agree that Jesus promised the apostles would get the knowledge and truth.
He had already taught them so much but He promised them more.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

This was His promise to be sure they would remember everything and He had already promised them the knowledge of future events. (second part of 16:13)
Now we know without a doubt that they were taught by Jesus and promised the holy Ghost Who would tell them all they should know and also the future. This was the truth that their writings would be inspired.

**## These words prove nothing unless one: **

• **1. accepts the testimony of the Church to the character & meaning of the words in the book. **
• 2. has received the gift of faith to do so.
  **

In addition, the apostles knew as they wrote their words that they were inspired.

**

Even if they did, there is no reason to assert this, because there is no evidence of it, no proof of it, & the NT texts can’t prove it: as texts, they show only that some early Christians thought certain things.​

They claimed a two-fold promise of Jesus; that the teachings were based on the foundation that Jesus provided and that their words were inspired.
Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone;
2 Peter 3:1 This second epistle beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2) That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
Heb 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; 4) God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
From reading Scripture, it is obvious that the apostles thought their words were inspired and they believed Jesus’ promise. It is even more evident in all of Paul’s epistles. They were all convinced that the Holy Spirit empowered both their teaching and writing.
In Luke 10:7 and in Matthew 10:10, Jesus draws from the Old Testament and this indicates to a reasonable person that the Scripture is not complete, nor the end of the matter. If any writings are considered inspired, surely the words of Jesus would be.

**## If one lacks faith, there is no reason to believe a word He says. So no NT writing read by one who has no faith indicates anything of the kind. Judged by the OT, which was - most of it - regarded as inspired Scripture by the Judaism of His time, He is all the bad names His opponents called Him. Without faith, there is no reason at all to accept that any of His teaching is inspired, or is a supplement to the then-existing Books; for one can easily, without faith, accept that He & His followers respected His ideas & that the NT is a more or less faithful account of them - it in no way follows from the faithfulness of the account, that the account is inspired Scripture. **

**Not one word of anything quoted validates the myth that the Apostles had a written NT - a lot of what’s quoted favours belief in the Church’s Tradition instead. **

And what is the use of quoting the Fathers, when they did not have the same canon as one another, or as Protestants ? That they refer to the Sacred Scriptures does not mean they were speaking of a 66-book canon. The NT was in the making, so they can hardly be credited with using all & only the NT books now used; nor did they. But they did have Tradition. It was Tradition, not marks on paper, that gave them the Catholic sense of Scripture instead of the Arian or some other.
**

In II Peter 15-16, Peter certainly considers Paul’s writings Scripture and alludes to them giving them such status. In Jude 17-18 as well, the writings are considered Scripture.

**

**The doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture is anchored so deeply in the teaching of Jesus, if we are to believe the Bible at all. His resurrection should prove the reliability of what we read in Scripture. Scripture is the assurance of the grounds of our faith **

**## Never without faith, & only one canonised. It cannot be the formal cause of that assurance, but a material cause of its continuance; & not the only one. **
**

and gives us a theological primer for the understanding of the Bible as a guide for our spiritual life.

**

## **The NT is known to be Scripture from its use in the Church; it is “self-evidencing” up to a point; for the individual. For the Church at large, which is a public body, something more than the experience of individuals or of churches is needed. **

**Jesus says nothing about its inspiration. And what He says is valid only for those with faith in Him. The NT is a witness to Him: it is not the formal cause of faith in Him - it increases, or is meant to increase, a faith existing already. **

 

[Old_Scholar]

That’s the the manner, & the history, of its development & definition, in a nutshell ​

**The very St. Irenaeus you quoted against the Catholic ****understanding of Tradition witnesses to the fact of the Apostolic ****Succession. **​

The bishops are not Apostles, for** they are not eye-witnesses of the earthly Life of Christ - but the Apostles’ authority to bind & loose, & to baptise & teach, which is that of Christ, is perpetuated in that of the bishops. If there is a Church, with the mission Christ gave it, it can have no authority & mission but Christ’s authority & mission. So either the Church ceased to exist when the last Apostle died - or it survives today , & has in it the Apostolic commission, authority, & s**uccession. ****

**It is superstition to accept the Bible while rejecting the very authority which has - under & in Christ - recognised & preserved the Bible. **

**I would like to see the Scripture that tells us that the succession of bishops gave them the authority of the apostles. Or even writings of the early church fathers that say so.

The church was set up primarily by Paul and it still exists today in many churches as he set it up. There is nothing to tell us that there was any succession of bishops that gave the bishops the same authority as the apostles. If so I am sure you can post it.**

 

[Jordan_Francis]

The authority of the bishops recieved in Apostolic Succession is an Apostolic Tradition.

St. Iranaeus writes about this in “Against the Heresies”

“t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (Against the Heresies, 4:26:2).

 

[savedsinner]

Thanks, I enjoy Paul’s epistles…

I understand what you are saying but you must realize that Peter was the ignorant one. Peter had the gift of great speech but we are not even sure he could write or read. The Scriptures say he was ignorant, so maybe he was speaking of himself. Other wise what Scripture was he talking about? Scripture tells us that when a person has the Holy Spirit, then all things are easy to understand. I thoroughly believe that.

There are some things in Scripture that are difficult to understand however, as Peter states. It is very difficult if you are not a believer but once you are filled with the Holy Spirit, Scripture comes easy. Peter was writing to those that would be facing heretics and those who did not understand what the Scriptures were about and warning them of what to expect. The Jews still did not understand this new teaching of Jesus and they had been violent. Peter knew he was not going to be there much longer and all this has to be considered when reading what he wrote here. A scholarly reading of his epistle will show this and indicate that he is trying to prepare them for this eventuality.

Peter was writing about the false teachers which were around at the time of his writing who were questioning the 2nd coming of Christ. Jesus was expected at any time but hadn’t arrived yet. The fase teachers were questioning his coming, and living in sin and were then leading there fellow christians into sin.
But Peter was telling them not to follow them into sin, and that if Jesus hadn’t come yet, it was not because he wasn’t coming again, it was because of Jesus’ patience and wishing that everyone have a chance to repent and be saved. This was the same message that Paul wrote about, to persevere until then end.

2 Peter 3:9-18
The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up.
Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness,
waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.
And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

And as for Peter being ignorant, well that might be, maybe he only dictated his epistles to someone who wrote them down, but his words which are recorded in scripture are the infallible inerrant word of God, and so it is God who is telling us that some people distort the writings of Paul to their destruction. Just as the false teachers did the time of this letter distorted Pauls writings, so with the protestant reformers who distorted Paul’s writings to come up with false teachings of “scripture alone”, “saved by faith alone”, and " once saved always saved" some 1,500 years later.

If the Holy Spirit makes scriptures so easy, then why are there thousands of Protestant denominations, each claiming to be lead by the Holy Spirit, each teaching some different doctrine from the bible?

I agree that the Holy Spirit can lead you to truth in the bible, but there are still things that are hard to understand, and you need the church to teach you. That might be why one of the things Christ left us were teachers.

As the eunuch said to St. Phillip " how can I understand unless someone teaches me?"

 

[rtconstant]

I would like to see the Scripture that tells us that the succession of bishops gave them the authority of the apostles. Or even writings of the early church fathers that say so.

We’d like to see the scripture that tells us that the spiritual gifts that Christ gave to leaders of His Church were on a time limit.

The church was set up primarily by Paul and it still exists today in many churches as he set it up. There is nothing to tell us that there was any succession of bishops that gave the bishops the same authority as the apostles. If so I am sure you can post it.

You’ve been given examples.

 

[Old_Scholar]

The authority of the bishops recieved in Apostolic Succession is an Apostolic Tradition.

St. Iranaeus writes about this in “Against the Heresies”

This doesn’t prove what you claim. It just says they have received the truth that the Father has wanted them to know. I have never doubted that bishops ordained bishops, etc. and succeeded each other but my claim is that none received the power the apostles had.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Peter was writing about the false teachers which were around at the time of his writing who were questioning the 2nd coming of Christ. Jesus was expected at any time but hadn’t arrived yet. The fase teachers were questioning his coming, and living in sin and were then leading there fellow christians into sin.
But Peter was telling them not to follow them into sin, and that if Jesus hadn’t come yet, it was not because he wasn’t coming again, it was because of Jesus’ patience and wishing that everyone have a chance to repent and be saved. This was the same message that Paul wrote about, to persevere until then end.

I agree with you 100%. The only reason I said Peter was ignorant was because the Scriptures tell us he was. I also said he was articulate in his speach; that’s why I believe he was probably the most outspoken of the apostles. It is clear that he did not actually write his epistles. They were done by another but at his wording, I am sure. As a matter of fact, Paul’s writing was terrible and Silas wrote most of his epistles. At one time he bragged about writing something in one of them in his own hand.

2 Peter 3:9-18
The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up.
Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness,
waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.
And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

And as for Peter being ignorant, well that might be, maybe he only dictated his epistles to someone who wrote them down, but his words which are recorded in scripture are the infallible inerrant word of God, and so it is God who is telling us that some people distort the writings of Paul to their destruction. Just as the false teachers did the time of this letter distorted Pauls writings, so with the protestant reformers who distorted Paul’s writings to come up with false teachings of “scripture alone”, “saved by faith alone”, and " once saved always saved" some 1,500 years later.

If the Holy Spirit makes scriptures so easy, then why are there thousands of Protestant denominations, each claiming to be lead by the Holy Spirit, each teaching some different doctrine from the bible?

The same question can be asked of the RCC. Why do so many parishes, churches and in some cases, entire provinces disagree on the teachings of the church. There are about as many disagreements there as in the different Protestant denominations.

I agree that the Holy Spirit can lead you to truth in the bible, but there are still things that are hard to understand, and you need the church to teach you. That might be why one of the things Christ left us were teachers.

As the eunuch said to St. Phillip " how can I understand unless someone teaches me?"

**I agree that there are many who do not understand but in most cases, they don’t even try. I know some Protestants who believe anything and everything their Pastor tells them, right or wrong. The world is not much different. But for those who want to learn the truth, it is all there in Scripture.

The case of the eunuch, we must also remember that the gospel was entirely new to all in those days. Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures are difficult for many.**

 

[Old_Scholar]

We’d like to see the scripture that tells us that the spiritual gifts that Christ gave to leaders of His Church were on a time limit.

You’ve been given examples.

But I am expecting Scriptures that do so. After all, I am required to answer everything I say by all of you, why can’t you do the same?

 

[rtconstant]

But I am expecting Scriptures that do so. After all, I am required to answer everything I say by all of you, why can’t you do the same?

So ECF’s are now not applicable? A few posts ago you said they were if they were within the first 3 centuries. We gave you those examples but now they are invalid and only Scripture will do. You’ve been given at least implicit examples from Scriptures which are backed up by the early Christians. So I can only assume then that the only evidence that you will accept is explicit instructions from the Scriptures.

If that is the case then the circle of argument begins again. Because you’re now requiring us to prove a position explicitly from a source who’s authority can not be explicitly defined from within itself. That really doesn’t make much sense.

This whole thread began because that you were wanting explicit proof of the Holy Trinity from within Scripture. It isn’t there. There is certainly implicit evidence but nothing remotely approaching self evident. Further if the Scriptures are themselves to be trusted as authoritative we must go outside of them for that authority as they themselves do not as a whole declare themselves. The book of Revelations is about the closest to explicitly making that claim but it is only referring to itself and ironically it was one of the books who’s inclusion in the Canon was must controversial.

Without the traditions and authority of The Church its all just individual opinion and people following their concience for what seems right within themselves.

 

[mlchance]

But I am expecting Scriptures that do so. After all, I am required to answer everything I say by all of you, why can’t you do the same?

Because you’re the one claiming that everything you believe about Christianity is based solely in Scripture. So, once again, which Scripture actually says the power of the keys would not outlive the Apostles? You have yet to provide a single verse of Scripture that actually says the power of the keys had an Apostle-lifespan time limit.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Jordan_Francis]

Old Scholar,

“*t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (Against the Heresies, 4:26:2). *

Iraneus says they have recieved the CHARISM of truth. ie. a spiritual gift.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Because you’re the one claiming that everything you believe about Christianity is based solely in Scripture. So, once again, which Scripture actually says the power of the keys would not outlive the Apostles? You have yet to provide a single verse of Scripture that actually says the power of the keys had an Apostle-lifespan time limit.

– Mark L. Chance.

You are asking me to prove a negative. Why don’t you show the Scripture that says the power of the Keys would outlive the apostles?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Proof of the Trinity

Many can list Scripture that would appear to place doubt on the Trinity doctrine as I have done on this thread. It is easy to see how such belief in Jesus and God being Subordinate and Master are pretty clear in Scripture. Theologians, however, must look at many things when considering such claims. If you really want to disprove the Trinity, then you have a very good chance, according to Scripture. If you want to prove the Trinity, then it takes a little more hermeneutical absorption of the message. I had hoped for a great more deal of discussion on the subject but unless one reads Scripture often and seriously, then it is easy to overlook.

Many Bible verses are a little subtle in the mention of three Gods and doesn’t really have a great deal to say that three Gods are all in “one” God.

When we first look at Genesis, we are told: “Let “us” make God in “our” image.

We all know God is not alone, as we are told that in the beginning He was. God could have been speaking to angels or anyone who was with Him there. Believers will say that Jesus was there, although not named such at that time and some will say the Holy Spirit was there. Many will make the claim that the Holy Spirit is simply the “power” of God and how He does His work.

If we look further at Genesis, we will find in chapters 18 and 19, God is walking around on earth in human form with angels. Scripture calls them three men but it also says “the Lord said.” So theologians will say that it was Jesus in human form with two angels also in human form talking to Abraham. Jesus is the one who talked with Abraham.

There is a word for God taking a human appearance on earth. It is “Theophanies.”

In Genesis, chapter 19 and verse 24 gives us a *Lord on earth *and a Lord in heaven. This is an indication that there are two Gods. We are told that the God on earth rained fire and brimstone from the God in heaven. The Scriptures do not tell us emphatically that this was Jesus, as we would later call Him, and two angels talking to Abraham but theologians will tell you that Jesus said He was the one who talked with Abraham when Jesus was on earth. This is affirmed by John 8:56. “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.”

Read these Scriptures: Gen 18:1-2, 13, 16-17, 22, 23, 32, 33; and in the 19th chapter, these verses: Gen 19:1, 2, 13-15, 24.

Theologians will go on and speak of the plural pronouns, We, *Us *and Our and how they each mean a different thing, but for the purposes of this discussion, I will not go that deep, unless someone really wants to then I will be glad to discuss the theological questions.

We are told in the New Testament that Christ is the exact image of God. Paul tells us so in 2 Corinthians 4:4, *“In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” *

Again in Collossians 1:15, “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:“

After telling us that Christ, the Son, made the world, the writer of Hebrews says in 1:3, “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Then the writer tells us in verse 4 that *Christ is greater than the angels. * So for anyone to say that Michael the archangel is Christ, is certainly not true. Sorry JWs.

In 1 Timothy 6:16, when Paul is speaking of God, we are told that God has not been seen or ever will be seen but the one seen on earth was Christ. “who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see.”

So in establishing that God and Jesus are two different persons, let’s look at whether Jesus is God.

John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

John is saying this to the Jewish people because they used the term “word” for all their authority and John wanted them to know that the “word” was God, Jesus here on earth.

We know that Jesus forgave sins while on earth and in Mark 2:5-12 we read that the Jews thought Jesus was blaspheming because He forgave the sins of a paralytic and they knew that only God could forgive sins. Further proof that Jesus was God.

Then in John 5:18 we read: “For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.”

Reading further in John we find in John 8:58, Jesus said unto them, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”

If you remember Moses on the mountain, God identified Himself as “I am.”

John 10:25-39 tells us of Jesus being asked if He is the Christ. Jesus answered and said,* “I and the Father are One*.” Read the entire story.

In John 19:7 the Jews are complaining that “He made Himself out to be God.”

There are several other verses that show that Jesus is God but I won’t list them all here. You get the idea I think.

So now we need to know whether the Holy Spirit is a person or simply the power of God.

In order to prove the Holy Spirit is God and separate from Jesus and the Father, we need only to prove that the Holy Spirit is a person.

I will not take the time to list all the verses because of space limitations but I hope readers will take the time to look them up in order to prove that I have used them correctly.

Mark 13:11 tells us that while Christ is teaching the apostles, He tells them it will not be them speaking but the Holy Spirit. In John 16:13-14, Christ calls the holy Spirit “He” and says “He” will “speak” to you. This should tell us The Holy Spirit is a person. In Acts 8:29, the Holy Spirit speaks to Philip. There is no mention of this being a “spiritual thing” either. Scripture says “*He said *unto Philip.” In Acts 10:19, The Holy Spirit “spoke” to Peter.

Again in Acts 13:2, the Holy Spirit spoke. In 1 Timothy 4:1, Again the holy Spirit speaks.

We know from many Scriptures that the Holy Spirit has power, administrative ability, can appear, has all knowledge and we have just given proof that He could see and speak.

So I must conclude from that that the Holy Spirit is a person, separate from Jesus and separate from God. All three showing attributes of God.

continued:

 

[Old_Scholar]

Continued

**The only thing left to prove is that all three Gods are one. **

In the Old Testament, it is often stated that there is but one God. So much in fact, that it is a foregone conclusion that there is but one God and it shouldn’t even have to be discussed. This is a doctrine that is not clearly understood by most Christian laymen and in fact, most do not even have the desire to research it, instead just accept it because their church tells them it is true. But is it? Paul was inspired to write: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thess 5:21)

Many will use the Scripture 1 John 5:7 which reads: “*For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” *That would seem to prove the Trinity wouldn’t it? But the fact is that most theologians will tell you that this verse was not in the original, but instead was added to the manuscripts as late as the eighth century. The only manuscripts in any form which support those words are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied from the Modern Latin Vulgate; the Rauianus, copied from the *Complutensian *Polyglot at Naples with the words added in the margin by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of the fifteenth century, in Greek, a translation of an accompanying Latin. All older versions omit those words.

So we must agree that God is infinite. No limitations, especially in our space or time domain. He is omnipotent. He may do whatever He pleases.

When God revealed Himself to us, He did so as a triune being. I believe He is One God comprised of three persons. Each person of the Trinity is distinct, but **all have the attributes of God **and we consider them all God. I feel I have already shown that all three are God but I want to try and prove the triune God.

We have to admit there is no direct Biblical support for the Trinity but we must also admit that we know who God is. **The Father is called God. ** Matt 6:26,30 26) “Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?” 30) “Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?” Jesus is called God in Hebrews 1:8 *“But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” * In Acts 5:3-4, the Holy Spirit is called God: “But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?” 4) “Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.”

Now let’s see how they all are together. In the beginning was God, so we know God alone is eternal. I don’t believe that is in doubt. But we can find it in Scripture in Psalm 90:2 where it says “ **Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” **So we then turn to John 1:1-2 and read again: “**In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” ** Now lets look at Hebrews 9:14 “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”

So now we know that God is eternal, Jesus is eternal and the holy Spirit is eternal. But don’t forget, we are told by Scripture that only God is eternal…

If we look at Genesis 1:1, Job 33:4 and Isaiah 40:28 we learn that God is called the Creator. Then we go to John 1:3, Collossians 1:13, 16, and we learn that Jesus is called the Creator, and then in Genesis 1:2, Psalm 104:30, the Spirit is called the Creator.

Now it is beginning to look as if a Trinity is really indicated. ** Each has all the attributes of God and each is considered omnipresent and omniscient. Each can forgive sins and we know that is a power held by God alone because Scripture tells us that. We could go on and on and say that each is completely righteous and sovereign. These attributes are only possessed by God.** And we have found them all in Scripture. I believe that is a perlaceous statement.

Earlier in this post I showed Scripture that showed Jesus saying that “the Father is greater than I,” as well as others that show Jesus to be at a different rank than the Father. This makes it difficult and a most unique thought. But we know that there are situations very similar in real life to our concept of the Trinity as some have pointed out in this thread, comparing the nature of water as, “mist, liquid and ice.” Another used the President as an example. The President is a human being as we all are, of greater rank than I, and by all means should receive my respect, but still no more valuable as a human being as I.

So lets look at Philippians 2:5-8 “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

Jesus has placed Himself in subjection to the Father in terms of rank but is still “the exact representation of the Father.” * “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”*(Col 2:9) This is a different thing than being less than the Father.

This is a very difficult topic for discussion and I hope I have made a little sense out of it, if not, then perhaps I have at least been responsible in getting you to think about it. I believe it does show the basis for our belief in the Trinity and by Scripture.
In Christ, OS

 

[kepha1]

We have to admit there is no direct Biblical support for the Trinity but we must also admit that we know who God is.

I believe it does show the basis for our belief in the Trinity and by Scripture

.

I commend you on your fine scholarly study in proving the Trinity by Scripture. Some of the same citations you use are found here:

The Blessed Trinity

 

[epostle]

Excellent proof, OS, but the fact remains to your own admission: There is no EXPLICIT scripture stating that each of the Divine Persons share the same substance, and it is a basic doctrine for nearly all Christians of every flavor.

The development of Trinitarian theology took place over centuries. The best way to understand why it HAD TO develop is to examine the Church’s response to those who attacked Christ’s divinity, or his humanity. You start with Arianism and the Council of Nicae. Then with Nestorianism and the Council of Ephesis. Followed by the Monophysites and the Council of Chalcedon. By studying the great heresies you might begin to notice that certain Christian groups are merely rehashing the same old heresies, they are just more subtle.

 

[mlchance]

You are asking me to prove a negative.

Contrary to popular opinion, it isn’t impossible to prove a negative. That point aside, you’re the one claiming to not believe things that aren’t in Scripture. By your admission above, your assertion that the power of the keys would not outlive the Apostles is not in Scripture (otherwise you could readily supply the sections of Scripture that specifically state this). Thus, just like I said, you’re arguing from silence, or, IOW, just making stuff up to support your own man-made, extrabiblical traditions.

Old_Scholar:
Why don’t you show the Scripture that says the power of the Keys would outlive the apostles?

The post after I claim to only believe what is specifically spelled out in Scripture and nothing more than, I’ll oblige.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Church_Militant]

kepha1:
I commend you on your fine scholarly study in proving the Trinity by Scripture. Some of the same citations you use are found here:

The Blessed TrinityAnd there’s another very extensive teaching on it here at THE TRINITY.