The Trinity

8
10:22 AM
I've recently discoverd several online publications (mostly blogs) that talk about the "trinity" and how that word is not found one time in the Bible. As far as I know, this is correct. The word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. However, I would like to make it clear that what the word is referring to is very real and not anti-Biblical.

Scripture clearly portrays subject/object relationships between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For example, the Father and Son love one another, speak to each other (John 17:1-26), and together send the Holy Spirit (John 15:26). Additionally, Jesus proclaims that He and the Father are two distinct witnesses and two distinct judges (John 8:14-18). If Jesus were Himself the Father, His argument would not only have been irrelevant but it would have been fatally flawed; and if such were the case, He could not have been fully God.

It is important to note that when Trinitarians speak of one God they are referring to the nature or essence of God. Moreover, when they speak of persons they are referring to personal self-distinctions within the Godhead. Put another way, we believe in one "What" and three "Who's".

-- Hank Hanegraaff, The Bible Answer Book

Deuteronomy 6:4
"Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is one."

Matthew 28:19
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

About the author

Donec non enim in turpis pulvinar facilisis. Ut felis. Praesent dapibus, neque id cursus faucibus. Aenean fermentum, eget tincidunt.

8 comments:

  1. Greetings Dean

    Nevertheless the fact yet remains that the Scriptures do not speak of GOD as
    one "What" and three "Who's".Matthew 28.19 says no such thing.
    And Deut. 6.4, the Shema is the GOD-given creed which declares that the ONE GOD is ONE Being, ONE Individual, ONE Person.

    Jesus the Messiah, the Son of the ONE GOD,
    affirmed this creed and understanding in Mark 12.28ff.

    Note the scribe's response:
    (Mark 12:32) And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:(Not "none other but them" which would have been the case if GOD were 3 persons!)

    Obviously then, neither Jesus nor the scribe were trinitarian!

    Therefore Dean,
    On the subject of the Trinity,
    I recommend this video:
    The Human Jesus


    Take a couple of hours to watch it; and prayerfully it will aid you to reconsider "The Trinity"

    Yours In Messiah
    Adam Pastor

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ok, I watched the video and I read your entire "60 Questions of the Godhead" on "Adoni Messiah". I have one question:

    John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

    According to the original Greek text, is "The Word" referring to Jesus? Does the original Greek text say that "the Word was God" or does it say something else?

    John 1:14 says, "The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

    ReplyDelete
  3. One other thing: The man in the video claims that the one God created all things and nobody was with Him. Not an exact quote, but he said, "...claiming that the son of God was there when He was creating takes away from the supremecy of the one true God."

    In John chapter 8, Jesus says, "before Abraham was born, I am." Jesus says to John in Revelation 22 that He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End.

    If Jesus wasn't with God in the beginning, when did He come to be? When was He created? His existence clearly didn't start at the virgin birth in Bethlehem... because Jesus claimed to "be" before Abraham. Did God create His son after the fall of man?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Greetings Dean

    Thanks very much for watching the video

    I like the way that Colin Brown of Fuller Seminary (as featured in the video) summarizes the problem:

    "It is a common but patent misreading of the opening of John's Gospel to read it as if it said:
    'In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God and the Son was God' (John 1:1).
    What has happened here is the substitution of Son for Word (Greek logos), and thereby the Son is made a member of the Godhead which existed from the beginning."
    So the confusion comes about because
    Jesus is read into John 1.1-3.
    Yet Jesus is not mentioned in John 1.1-3, whether in the Greek text or the English.

    Now the Greek word for 'God' in the phrase "the word was God" is anarthrous.That is, it is without the definite article,
    so theos is being used adjectivally.

    John is describing the word/logos as God/theos.
    John is not saying that the word/logos
    is THE GOD/HO THEOS.

    All Greek scholars agree with that assertion.

    Rather John is describing the word/logos.
    Now a word/logos is not a person. It is a word, a thought, a plan, a concept.

    So, John 1.1-3 is about the word of GOD through which all things came into being.
    It is GOD's word and not another!!
    It is "God" in the sense
    that it totally represents GOD, represents GOD's mind!Compare:
    (Psa 33:6) By the word of YAHWEH were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
    (Psa 33:9) For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

    BTW, did you know that the majority of all the English translations of the Bible beginning with Tyndale, before the KJV of 1611 translated John 1.1-3 as follows:
    (John 1:1-3) In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it; and without it was not any thing made that was made.

    Thus bringing out the intent of John's words.
    For more details of this please see:
    Concerning John 1:1


    So finally in John 1.14, the word of GOD was made flesh resulting in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, 'The logos of the prologue becomes Jesus; Jesus was the logos become flesh, not the logos as such.'On to your second query ...

    The ONE GOD created all things alone:

    (Isa 44:24) Thus saith YAHWEH, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am YAHWEH that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;Even Jesus attributes the Creation to GOD his Father:
    (Mark 10:6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.(Mark 13:19) For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

    Jesus came into existence in the womb of his mother: the moment he was conceived by the power of the ONE GOD, the Father.
    [Luke 1.35]

    genesis means beginning hence:
    (Mat 1:18) Now the birth [genesis] of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

    To quote:

    "Matthew and Luke press [the question of Jesus’ identity] back to Jesus’ conception. In the commentary I shall stress that Matthew and Luke show no knowledge of preexistence; seemingly for them the conception was the becoming (begetting) of God’s Son"
    (Raymond Brown, Birth of the Messiah, p. 31).

    "The fact that Matthew can speak of Jesus as ‘begotten’ (passive of gennan) suggests that for him the conception through the agency of the holy spirit is the becoming of God’s Son. ... There is no suggestion of an incarnation whereby a figure who was previously with God takes on flesh." (Brown, pp. 140-141)

    Commenting on Luke 1:35, Raymond Brown quotes Lyonnet:
    "this has embarrassed many orthodox theologians since in preexistence Christology a conception by the holy spirit in Mary’s womb does not bring about the existence of God’s son. Luke is seemingly unaware of such a Christology; conception is causally related to divine Sonship for him
    ... And so I cannot follow those theologians who try to avoid the causal connotation in the ‘therefore’ which begins this line, by arguing that for Luke the conception of the child does not bring the Son of God into being." (Brown, p. 291)


    Quoting some other writers Greetings Dean

    Thanks very much for watching the video

    I like the way that Colin Brown of Fuller Seminary (as featured in the video) summarizes the problem:

    "It is a common but patent misreading of the opening of John's Gospel to read it as if it said:
    'In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God and the Son was God' (John 1:1).
    What has happened here is the substitution of Son for Word (Greek logos), and thereby the Son is made a member of the Godhead which existed from the beginning."
    So the confusion comes about because
    Jesus is read into John 1.1-3.
    Yet Jesus is not mentioned in John 1.1-3, whether in the Greek text or the English.

    Now the Greek word for 'God' in the phrase "the word was God" is anarthrous.That is, it is without the definite article,
    so it is being used adjectivally.

    John is describing the word/logos as God/theos.
    John is not saying that the word/logos
    is THE GOD/HO THEOS.

    All Greek scholars agree with that assertion.

    Rather John is describing the word/logos.
    Now a word/logos is not a person. It is a word, a thought, a plan, a concept.

    So, John 1.1-3 is about the word of GOD through which all things came into being. It is GOD's word and not another!!
    Compare:
    (Psa 33:6) By the word of YAHWEH were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
    (Psa 33:9) For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

    BTW, did you know that the majority of all the English translations of the Bible beginning with Tyndale, before the KJV of 1611 translated John 1.1-3 as follows:
    (John 1:1-3) In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it; and without it was not any thing made that was made.

    Thus bringing out the intent of John's words.
    For more details of this please see:
    Concerning John 1:1


    So finally in John 1.14, the word of GOD was made flesh resulting in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, 'The logos of the prologue becomes Jesus; Jesus was the logos become flesh, not the logos as such.'On to your second query ...

    The ONE GOD created all things alone:

    (Isa 44:24) Thus saith YAHWEH, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am YAHWEH that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;Even Jesus attributes the Creation to GOD his Father:
    (Mark 10:6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.(Mark 13:19) For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

    Jesus came into existence in the womb of his mother: the moment he was conceived by the power of the ONE GOD, the Father.
    [Luke 1.35]

    genesis means beginning hence:
    (Mat 1:18) Now the birth [genesis] of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

    To quote:

    "Matthew and Luke press [the question of Jesus’ identity] back to Jesus’ conception. In the commentary I shall stress that Matthew and Luke show no knowledge of preexistence; seemingly for them the conception was the becoming (begetting) of God’s Son"
    (Raymond Brown, Birth of the Messiah, p. 31).

    "The fact that Matthew can speak of Jesus as ‘begotten’ (passive of gennan) suggests that for him the conception through the agency of the holy spirit is the becoming of God’s Son. ... There is no suggestion of an incarnation whereby a figure who was previously with God takes on flesh." (pp. 140-141)

    Commenting on Luke 1:35, Raymond Brown quotes Lyonnet:
    "this has embarrassed many orthodox theologians since in preexistence Christology a conception by the holy spirit in Mary’s womb does not bring about the existence of God’s son. Luke is seemingly unaware of such a Christology; conception is causally related to divine Sonship for him
    ... And so I cannot follow those theologians who try to avoid the causal connotation in the ‘therefore’ which begins this line, by arguing that for Luke the conception of the child does not bring the Son of God into being." (p. 291)


    Here are some quotes from other writers concerning Luke 1.35:

    "For Luke the importance of this tradition was that it demonstrated that Jesus was the Son of God from the moment of his birth ... Jesus is born according to the creative activity of God; his sonship, saviorhood, and lordship are determined from this moment."
    (Barker, Lane and Michaels; The New Testament Speaks, p. 286)

    "Like Matthew, Luke refers the origination of the historic person who is the subject of this prophecy to the immediate act of God"
    (James Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, p. 67)

    All the above quotes are taken from:

    Gabriel and Luke Were Not Trinitarians!Please read the above article for more info.

    Simply put: Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1.35 bar any suggestion that somehow Jesus of Nazareth preexisted his own conception. Matthew and Luke simply have no such concept of a literal pre-existence! And this also ties in with John 1.14 as the moment, GOD's word became flesh, resulting in Jesus of Nazareth.So quite the opposite Dean.
    The Gospels, Gabriel's words, clearly state that Jesus indeed began his existence at his virginal conception in Bethlehem.Again, please read: Gabriel and Luke Were Not Trinitarians!

    It also deals with the proper understanding of John 8.58, with regards to Jesus being somehow
    "Before Abraham".

    Clue: GOD foreordained His Son before the foundation of the world, however His Son did not come into existence until these last times:
    (1 Pet 1:20) Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

    Compare Rev 13.8, Jere 1.5.concerning Luke 1.35:

    "For Luke the importance of this tradition was that it demonstrated that Jesus was the Son of God from the moment of his birth ... Jesus is born according to the creative activity of God; his sonship, saviorhood, and lordship are determined from this moment."
    (Barker, Lane and Michaels; The New Testament Speaks, p. 286)

    "Like Matthew, Luke refers the origination of the historic person who is the subject of this prophecy to the immediate act of God"
    (James Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, p. 67)

    The above quotes are taken from:

    Gabriel and Luke Were Not Trinitarians!Please read the above article for more info.

    Simply put: Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1.35 bar any suggestion that somehow Jesus of Nazareth preexisted his own conception. Matthew and Luke simply have no such concept of a literal pre-existence! And this also ties in with John 1.14 as the moment, GOD's word became flesh, resulting in Jesus of Nazareth.So quite the opposite Dean.
    The Gospels, Gabriel's words, clearly state that Jesus indeed began his existence at his virginal conception in Bethlehem.Again, please read:

    Gabriel and Luke Were Not Trinitarians!

    It also deals with the proper understanding of
    John 8.58, with regards to Jesus being somehow
    "Before Abraham".

    Clue: GOD foreordained His Son before the foundation of the world, however His Son did not come into existence until these last times:
    (1 Pet 1:20) Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

    Compare Rev 13.8, Jere 1.5.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is my final statement, and from here, we will have to "agree to disagree". I will simply share this passage:

    Colossians 1:12-22 (KJV)
    12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

    13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

    14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

    15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

    16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

    17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

    18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

    19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

    20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

    21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

    22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight

    ReplyDelete
  6. Fair enough Dean

    Sorry about my last post.
    I am not sure how I managed to repeat the same stuff in one post. :-(

    Thanks again for watching the video

    Yours In Messiah
    Adam

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dean, I think my favorite point that you made in your comments was that if Christ & the Holy Spirit were not present/pre-existing at the time of Creation, that they would have had to be created. And since the Scriptures CLEARLY teach that they ARE God, they are NOT created beings. That made it very clear to me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Great thoughts here Dean! My thoughts are this:

    If Jesus told us to "go and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the NAME OF THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT," doesn't that make them of equal status/power/ability?

    He wouldn't tell us to baptize them in the name of someone or something that is now Him, or God.

    Pastor Adam,
    I don't think it's supposed to be that hard.

    Good thoughts, Dean.

    ReplyDelete