Is the trinity taught in the bible?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
"Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied."

Jesus replied, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don't know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you?"

Good one Ghost!

Obvious isn't it?

Originally posted by roigam
Sorry young man, you still don't understand.
Jesus was an angel in his prehuman existence.
Nis name was Michael.
When God transfered Jesus' life to Mary's womb,
he was born as a 100% man named Jesus.
He was without sin and gave up his perfect human life for us.
After his death, he ascended to heaven to offer his sacrifice in behalf of mankind.
Since th ...[text shortened]... h one last time.
Then He will not permit these things again.
The legal precedent has been set.

Why are you re-telling me what it is you believe?

I know what you believe roigam. My challenge to you is that you have two separate and distinct saviours, Jesus and Jehovah. One of these is an angel.

If Jesus is not your saviour, please correct me.

Originally posted by josephw
Good one Ghost!

Obvious isn't it?

What is obvious?

(Not a trick question)

Originally posted by divegeester
It's the same post you replied to. I laid out the scripture from Mathew demonstrating that the name of "Jesus" is the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirt. So therefore indicating that the trinitarian explanation of the godhead cannot be right.

I'd say that when I first saw this it was without doubt one of the biggest epiphanies of my entire Christian life.

Edit: sorry, top of page two.

..."Jesus" is the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirt."

My mistake. I misinterpreted your previous posts. It appears you're denying the deity of Jesus after all. Is that correct?

About the quote above. Please provide the verses to support that belief.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]..."Jesus" is the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirt."

My mistake. I misinterpreted your previous posts. It appears you're denying the deity of Jesus after all. Is that correct?

About the quote above. Please provide the verses to support that belief.[/b]

I laid out my rational in my post at the top of page. It's very simple and not denying the deity of Jesus. Try to let go of your dislike for me and just see what I've written.

Here it is again:

Originally posted by josephw
Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost....

My reply:
Excellent post.

"Name" singular.
Same "name" for the father and of the son and of the Holy Ghost
Who's "name"?

Show me in scripture anywhere where the disciples who were given this command by Jesus, actually baptised using those words? Nowhere. Every time without exception they baptised in the "name" of Jesus.

Jesus is the one "name", singular, given amoung men, by which we may be saved. It (JESUS) is the "name" of the father, and of the son and of the holy spirt.
------------------------------------------------

Can you see it? In that command to his disciples Jesus was saying go baptise in MY name, which is exactly what they did. But he actually verbalised himself as - "the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Ghost". It is all him Jesus, all three element of the alleged trinity in the name of Jesus. The fullness of the godhead.

There is no separate "father, son and Holy Ghost.

Originally posted by divegeester
What is obvious?

(Not a trick question)

Did you read the verse the Ghost quoted?

John 14:9
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;

,Originally posted by josephw
Did you read the verse the Ghost quoted?

John 14:9
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;

Yes. I like it too. What is obvious to me is Jesus was saying "I am the father". He said "when you have seen me you have seen the father."

My post above clarifies my position I think....?

Originally posted by divegeester
I laid out my rational in my post at the top of page. It's very simple and not denying the deity of Jesus. Try to let go of your dislike for me and just see what I've written.

Here it is again:

Originally posted by josephw
Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the ...[text shortened]... name of Jesus. The fullness of the godhead.

There is no separate "father, son and Holy Ghost.

Lord have mercy.

I once met a young man that had his name legally changed to Jesus Christ. I saw his drivers license.

I don't dislike you dive, but you're nuts just the same. Very bad exegesis. Go back to square one.

Originally posted by josephw
Lord have mercy.

I once met a young man that had his name legally changed to Jesus Christ. I saw his drivers license.

I don't dislike you dive, but you're nuts just the same. Very bad exegesis. Go back to square one.

"Nuts" how? All I've done is laid out what Jesus commanded and what actually happened.

How do you explain why the disciples never once followed Jesus command to baptise in the name of "father son and holy spirt"?

Originally posted by divegeester
There is no such words in the bible as "triune" or "trinity", why use them and why on earth do you start them with a capital T? They are made up words for a made up doctrine. Neither are they "divine". They are man made.

Hear oh sonship, the Lord your God in one.

There is no such words in the bible as "triune" or "trinity",

That's right.

why use them and why on earth do you start them with a capital T?

I believe that the before the judgment seat of Christ, He will not be agitated about this.
I think God will not be angry with me about saying "the Triune God. Praise Him!"

This bothers you a lot, maybe because you have a Modalistic concept which wants to emphasize one aspect of the revelation of God at the expense of suppressing another aspect.

But I haven't the slightest sense of offense in my Christian conscience for writing about and even praying and praising "the Triune God" or "the triune God".

Perhaps it is just another way of saying what Isaiah 9:6 says concerning this God, that He is "Wonderful". And some English version capitalize it.

Think of "Triune God" or "Trinity" as another way of calling God "Wonderful" .

They are made up words for a made up doctrine. Neither are they "divine". They are man made.

What I said about the Divine "We" of John 14:23 was that both the Father and the Son Who comes with the Father are both Divine.

Do you disagree with this?

Originally posted by sonship
....Do you disagree with this?

I disagree with so much that you say, although I don't for minute doubt that you are a Christian.

As pointed out very clearly recently, unless you are prepared to answer my trinity/filled with the spirit question, then I'm not going to answer any question from you.

Originally posted by divegeester
I disagree with so much that you say, although I don't for minute doubt that you are a Christian.

As pointed out very clearly recently, unless you are prepared to answer my trinity/filled with the spirit question, then I'm not going to answer any question from you.

Just one question. What is 6 x 8 ?

Originally posted by josephw
Good one Ghost!

Obvious isn't it?

So to see Jesus as a human is also seeing god in heaven? Please explain....

Cardinal John O’Connor stated about the Trinity: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.”

Some things that are profound mysteries also can be experienced and enjoyed.
When I saw my first child BORN I thought "What a profound mystery. This is like a miracle."

People can experience what to explain fully is profoundly mysterious.
So it is with the Triune God.

The Encyclopædia Britannica states: “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.”

The word "trinity" is nowhere in the Bible.
What IS in the Bible is that -

The Father is God - ie. " ... the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph. 1:3)

The Son is God - ie " But of the Son, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever." (Heb. 1:8)

The Holy Spirit is God - ie. " ... why has Satan filled your heart to deceive the Holy Spirit ... ? ... You have not lied to men but to God." (See Acts 5:3,4)

The impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention.

The three passages above, Eph. 1:3; Heb. 1:8; and Acts 5:3,4 were written in the Greek New Testament hundreds of years before the 4th Century AD.

In a sense, this is true . . . The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Volume 14, page 299.

The facts of Scripture that God was Father, Son, Holy Spirit was there in the Greek New Testament. The first usage of the extrabiblical term "Trinity" that appears to historians was written by Theophilus of Antioch (A.D. 115-188).

Theophilus to Antolycus Book II, 15 [in a commentary on Genesis 1:1-13]

"In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries are types of the Trinity, of God and His Word, and His Wisdom."

That is the earliest occurence I think we know about the use of the word "trinity".

“The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325 [C.E.].

The Scriptural fact that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God was written before 325 C.E. in the books of Ephesians, Hebrews, and Acts.

Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father.’

It doesn't matter who presided, what a character he was, or what creed was developed.

The New Testament teaches God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Ephesians, Hebrews, and Acts were inspired and penned down before Constantine was born.

Whether Constantine was a scoundrel or a political opportunist only interested in peace in his kingdom or an astute theologian makes no difference to the fact that the New Testament revealed the Father - Son - Holy Spirit were called God.

. . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”—Encyclopædia Britannica (1970), Volume 6, page 386.

Scripture transcends creeds.
Creeds can be helpful.
Creeds are not necessarily wrong.
But creeds can only be some guidelines and actually be incomplete.

In Romans 8 Paul uses interchangeably these titles to describe the indwelling life of God dispensed into the Christians.

the Spirit of God ( 8:9a)

the Spirit of Christ (8:9b)

Christ (8:10)

the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead (8:11)

Paul is speaking of the experiencial enjoyment of the Christians. He is not outlining a systematic creed. But he is moving seamlessly from one title to another indicating that the One God Who has come to indwell the Christians is -

The Spirit of God who is the Spirit of Christ who is Christ who is the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead.

This is "shop talk" of the Apostle Paul and the Christians in Rome. Constantine is not even a twinkle in his mamma's eye at this point. He hadn't been born, neither any of the bishops of church leaders who were at Nicea.

None of them yet existed. And the Apostle Paul says in practically one breath -

"Within you Christians is the Spirit of God Who is Christ and is also the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead."

That some brothers under attack latter came along and coined the word "Trinity" is understandable. And of itself it is not wrong to use the term. As Paul stressed the experience of the three-one God in Romans 8 so should Christians emphasize the experience of the Trinity.

Abuses of the word "Trinity" do not make the basically wrong in and of itself.
Abuses of the phrase "Heaven" neither make heaven wrong to believe in.

The term "Afterlife" also is extrabiblical. And I don't use it.
The term "Substitution" is extrabiblical. And I would and DO use it. It is useful.
The term "Triune God" is extrabiblical. But I use it as many saints down through the centuries.

There is far, far more biblical support for the Father - Son - Holy Spirit being God to the church than there is for Charles Russell's heretical dream that Jesus was Micheal the archangel.

The New Bible Dictionary: “The term ‘Trinity’ is not itself found in the Bible.

But that God is Father and Son and Holy Spirit IS in the Bible.

It was first used by Tertullian at the close of the 2nd century, but received wide currency [common use in intellectual discussion] and formal elucidation [clarification] only in the 4th and 5th centuries” (1996, “Trinity”.

My source "The Testimony of Church History Regarding the Mystery of the Triune God" by the late Bill Freeman, informs me that the term was first noticed being used by Theophilus of Antioch.

When was the first writing showing Jesus was Michael the angel ?

Also: “the formal doctrine of the Trinity was the result of several inadequate attempts to explain who and what the Christian God really is

In Paul's "shop talk" to the Christians in Rome, he is less concerned with systematic theology than with them REALIZING that within them who are regenerated is God -
"The Spirit of God" Who is also "The Spirit of Christ" Who is also "Christ [Himself]" Who is also "The Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead".

That is the indwelling of the mysterious Triune God.

Originally posted by sonship
Just one question. What is 6 x 8 ?

Childish away.
You're the one with cultist beliefs you are too embarrassed to admit to.