Trinity

[Razanir]

I disagree when you say the Word=Son. The word is not a deity and is not limited to Jesus. Jesus is the word of God became.
The Bible is the word of God. Does this mean the the bible is a member of the Godhead? Is the Bible = Jesus?

As for Isa 9:6, the term for God has a broader meaning in the entire Bible. Moses was called god wasn’t he?(Exodous 7:1) Jesus even used this term in the NT(John 10:34), it is also used in Psalms 82:6, etc. Furthermore, In the original text there isn’t even a capital letter.

Everlasting father can be interpreted as “Father of the Age”. This is a messianic title for Jesus, not a deity title for Jesus as trinitarians propose. Jewish Rabbis did not understand it this way, and I don’t think we should.

Four things:

1. How do you argue that the Word is NOT God? John 1:1 seems pretty clear: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
2. The Bible is the little-w word of God, and Jesus is the big-W Word of God.
3. I looked up the verse in question (Ex 7:1), and Moses was specifically said to be “like God.” That’s leagues different than actually being God
4. In Hebrew, they don’t even have capital letters. “el” means little-g god, and “elohim” means big-G God or little-g gods, depending on context

 

[hn160]

Here are some passages:

Matthew 28:19
John 17: 1-5, 24
Genesis 1:1 Elohim - plural ending for God
Genesis 1:26 let Us
Genesis 3:22 like one of Us
Genesis 11:7 come, let Us
Isaiah 6:8 who will go for Us
Isaiah 48:16 Lord God has sent me, and his Spirit

Also look at the Athanasian Creed, we say this every Trinity Sunday.

 

[hn160]

Here are some passages:

Matthew 28:19
John 17: 1-5, 24
Genesis 1:1 Elohim - plural ending for God
Genesis 1:26 let Us
Genesis 3:22 like one of Us
Genesis 11:7 come, let Us
Isaiah 6:8 who will go for Us
Isaiah 48:16 Lord God has sent me, and his Spirit

Also look at the Athanasian Creed, we say this Creed every Trinity Sunday.

 

[PRmerger]

Is there any scripture that could convince me otherwise.

No, I don’t think there is. Scripture without the Tradition of the Catholic Church is not going to give you an understanding of the Trinity.

One needs the lens of the Church to see the Trinity.

Which is why it is very, very dangerous to read the Scriptures without the assistance of the CC.

One comes to quite a few errors, misinterpretations, and, frankly, some bizarre ideas when one interprets the Scriptures in isolation of the Faith which gave you these Scriptures.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I don’t think there is. Scripture without the Tradition of the Catholic Church is not going to give you an understanding of the Trinity.

I agree that the JWs have a very valid argument when they propose, “If you were raised on a desert island and a Bible appeared on the beach, would you be able to gather the concept of a Trinity from its pages?”

The honest answer is: nope. :nope:

I like to tell the JWs: that’s why we don’t open the pages of the Bible and try to extract doctrine from them. We open the pages of the Bible with the lens of the Catholic Church.

THEN we can conclude: God has revealed to us the Trinity.

 

[pablope]

John 10:30 - Jesus also spok about being one in John 17:11, 17:22,11:58
John 14:9 - This doesn’t mean Jesus is God, but rather his agent.
Matthew 28:19 - This doesn’t mean that the Son is God.

Huh…

So you are pitting one passage of Scripture against another? Does the Scripture contradict itself?

Or is it your interpretation that is the contradiction?

 

[pablope]

Quote me just **one **verse where he claimed to be divine.

From Luke 1:

39 At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40 where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

So…why does the baby in Elizabeths’ womb leaped at the presence of Mary?

Have you heard of such phenomenon before?

And in v 43… the mother of my Lord …why does Elizabeth call Mary " the mother of my Lord"…who is Elizabeth referring to as “Lord”?

And why did she call the baby in the womb “Lord”?

 

[YiiNaa]

His actions in the NT indicate his divinity.

In my opinion, that He didn’t shout out that “I’M GOD!” is indication of his love for us and his willingness to come to us on our level, not a indication of lack of divinity.

His actions show that he was an agent of God, not God himself. Read a jewish encylopedia on the law of agency. Jesus even claimed to be an agent(John 17:3,8:28,etc)

Jesus said the shema, so there is no need to bring a trinity into christianity. He never claimed to be God.

 

[YiiNaa]

[BIBLEDRB]John 18:4-8[/BIBLEDRB]

Jesus refers to himself using the Divine Name: the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, “I AM WHO AM”. Can you explain some other reason why the Jews turned away and fell to the ground?

Jesus never said “I AM WHO I AM”. You just mis-quoted him.

The places where Jesus said I AM could vey easily mean I AM THE MESSIAH. When Jesus was before the Sanhedrin, did he mean he was God when he said I AM?

 

[Razanir]

His actions show that he was an agent of God, not God himself. Read a jewish encylopedia on the law of agency. Jesus even claimed to be an agent(John 17:3,8:28,etc)

Jesus said the shema, so there is no need to bring a trinity into christianity. He never claimed to be God.

John 17:1-5: “After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:‘Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.’”

In a wider context, the verse actually reveals him as the Son of God.

 

[Razanir]

Jesus never said “I AM WHO I AM”. You just mis-quoted him.

The places where Jesus said I AM could vey easily mean I AM THE MESSIAH. When Jesus was before the Sanhedrin, did he mean he was God when he said I AM?

Suppose he was referring strictly to a Messianic role. Why would he mix tenses like that? Wouldn’t it make more sense to say “Before you were, I was [already the Messiah]”

By saying HE IS, he is equated himself to God who is the Great I AM.

 

[YiiNaa]

This isn’t a particularly powerful argument, I’m just curious about it. When the Wise Men went and saw Jesus, they bowed down and worshiped him once they got there. I’m curious about your interpretation of that. That’s all. Hope you have a moment to share your thoughts.

They did tht because he was a king. There are different types of worship in the bible. ( eg In the OT David and other kings were worshipped)

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Jesus never said “I AM WHO I AM”. You just mis-quoted him.

The places where Jesus said I AM could vey easily mean I AM THE MESSIAH. When Jesus was before the Sanhedrin, did he mean he was God when he said I AM?

I think you are force-interpreting the text your own way.

Any person who reads the “I AM WHO I AM” in the Old Testament and compares it to John 8:58 can understand very clearly what Jesus is talking about, And the fact that it caused so much scandal is enough to confirm it. They knew what he was quoting.

By saying “I AM,” even if he weren’t referring to the Old Testament (which he obviously was), he is at least stating that he is eternal. Prophets aren’t eternal.

Additionally, when you look at Revelation, Jesus says “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First, and the Last, the Beginning, and the End!” - that is unequivocal.

But in Titus the Apostle Paul also states that we are eagerly awaiting the manifestation of “out great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” How is he not referencing his divinity?

 

[YiiNaa]

I think you are force-interpreting the text your own way.

Any person who reads the “I AM WHO I AM” in the Old Testament and compares it to John 8:58 can understand very clearly what Jesus is talking about, And the fact that it caused so much scandal is enough to confirm it. They knew what he was quoting.

By saying “I AM,” even if he weren’t referring to the Old Testament (which he obviously was), he is at least stating that he is eternal. Prophets aren’t eternal.

Additionally, when you look at Revelation, Jesus says “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First, and the Last, the Beginning, and the End!” - that is unequivocal.

But in Titus the Apostle Paul also states that we are eagerly awaiting the manifestation of “out great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” How is he not referencing his divinity?

In the context of NT, eigo imi doesn’t mean deity. Jesus used this before the Sanhedrin, and I’m sure you if you read that in context you would not come to such conclusions.

For Jesus being eternal, in the Jewish encylopedia the Messiah existed before the word began. Red it for yourself.

God said those words in revelation not Jesus

Did the Apostle Paul say those words? Citation please

 

[YiiNaa]

I’m sorry, that doesn’t work. Right after he said that phrase, in Jn 8:58, the Jews picked up rocks to kill him. Why?? Because he claimed to be the Messiah?? There was no law that forbade that, and definitely no death penalty for that. That would not make sense anyway, you’re eagerly waiting a messiah, and yet, when he claims to have come…you kill him?? No. The only reason they would want to kill him is because he was claiming to be God. Their reaction makes no sense otherwise.

Plus, He’s using I AM as a name, not a describer. He says “Before Abraham was, I AM.” He’s saying He existed before Abraham and then uses the Divine name for himself. I don’t see how he could get much plainer, and the Jews then didn’t either.

There’s so many other verses to go to, but the clearest one for me is in Revelation. I think you would agree that if Jesus was not God, he shouldn’t be worshipped or given the same glory and praise as the Father correct? That would be idolatry. If he’s just a creature, he could be honored but in NO way worshipped. Well, lets go to Revelation 5, where Johns describing the worship that’s going on in Heaven:

It’s pretty clear the one on the throne is God. But now, here comes the interesting part, right after this scene in Revelation 4 we see:
We know the Lamb is Jesus. John tells us that in his own gospel in John 1:29 when John the Baptist says of Jesus, “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world!” So this is Jesus, just being clear. Anyways

The Lamb, Jesus, is receiving the exact same worship and blessing as he who is on the throne. That would be absolutely unthinkable if he wasn’t God. We actually see something like that a little later in this same book when John starts to worship the angel who is showing him this stuff, and the angel rebukes him and tells him to not do that, but worship God alone.(Rev 22:8) The question is, why didn’t we see that when all of heaven and earth was worshipping the Lamb? The only answer could be because the Lamb also was God.

According to the Jewish encylopedia the Messiah existed before the word began. The is no reason to take this to believe that Jesus is deity.

King David was worshipped alongside God, and I dont think that the argument from revelation is a very strong one.

 

[YiiNaa]

I agree that the JWs have a very valid argument when they propose, “If you were raised on a desert island and a Bible appeared on the beach, would you be able to gather the concept of a Trinity from its pages?”

The honest answer is: nope. :nope:

I like to tell the JWs: that’s why we don’t open the pages of the Bible and try to extract doctrine from them. We open the pages of the Bible with the lens of the Catholic Church.

THEN we can conclude: God has revealed to us the Trinity.

If Jesus said the Shema, what is the need for a new doctrine on the nature of God? We should accept Jewish doctrine instead of adding our own because Yeshua was Jewish

 

[YiiNaa]

Four things:

1. How do you argue that the Word is NOT God? John 1:1 seems pretty clear: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
2. The Bible is the little-w word of God, and Jesus is the big-W Word of God.
3. I looked up the verse in question (Ex 7:1), and Moses was specifically said to be “like God.” That’s leagues different than actually being God
4. In Hebrew, they don’t even have capital letters. “el” means little-g god, and “elohim” means big-G God or little-g gods, depending on context

1.In the greek text there is no capital little on the word.
2.There is no distinction from big G Elohim and Small G Elohim. From my understanding it does not mean many gods but a reference to a single god
3.I didn’t say the word is not God. I meant Jesus is what the word became, Jesus is not word as trinitarians make it out to be.

 

[Bballer32]

If Jesus said the Shema, what is the need for a new doctrine on the nature of God? We should accept Jewish doctrine instead of adding our own because Yeshua was Jewish

So what about Genesis 1:26?

“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…”

what do you have to say about this?

 

[simspt]

If Jesus said the Shema, what is the need for a new doctrine on the nature of God? We should accept Jewish doctrine instead of adding our own because Yeshua was Jewish

The Paschal Mystery resulted in need for a new doctrine on the nature of God.

1.No creature can redeem another creature.
2.According to Arius, Jesus Christ is a creature.
3.Therefore, according to Arius, Jesus Christ cannot redeem humanity.

or

1.Only God can save.
2.Jesus Christ saves.
3.Therefore Jesus Christ is God.

In Christ

 

[YiiNaa]

So what about Genesis 1:26?

“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…”

what do you have to say about this?

Trinitarian scholars don’t even use this to support the trinity. Understand the plurality here requires some understanding of the ancient hebrew language and ancient hebrew literature. Hebraic plurals are different from the ones we have in English.

I understand this verse as God and his angels. There are many interpretations to look into, but I’m open minded on this verse