davidH

Hi Nogo
Just saw what you wrote and thought that I would contribute and answer your post.

The Trinity wasn't made up by the Christians to explain God's son just isn't true.
Let me try and make things clearer for you:

The verse you have put up

You have taken this verse to mean that there is only one God. - True, there is only one God. But your concept of the Trinity too me doesn't seem to be right.

From your post it seems like you believe that the Trinity is our (the Christian) way of believing in 3 separate Gods, and just calling them by the same primary name.

That isn't what the Trinity means. I guess the simplest way of describing the Trinity is the following.

It is like water - it has 3 forms, liquid, solid, gas. Yet it is all water.

God the father, God the Son , God the Holy Spirit. They are all God, but they are not all the same. The same way as steam, ice and liquid are all water but are different from each other.
The word 3 persons of the Trinity can be misleading since it suggests 3 individuals...I guess that Jesus sums it up in the best way when he says

You have said that the OT and NT don't support this. - I will show you that they do.
(First of all, let me clarify. You are right in the fact that Trinity isn't a Biblical word, but we use it to explain this doctrine that is in the Bible.)

Deut 6 v 4 " The Lord our God is one."

This stresses that there is only 1 God, there is no polytheism etc. But it also implies the Unity of God where the Trinity is concerned.

The main reason for the doctrine of the Trinity is due to the fact that God speaks of himself with plural pronouns.

So God speaks of himself with plural pronouns... indicating more than one.

Then we have the distinction of persons within the Godhead.

The Spirit is distinguished from the Lord.

So here we have the clear distinction between the LORD and his Spirit.

The Isaiah, in talking about the Messiah that will come to Israel.

Note; It isn't written, the LORD will come but that the Redeemer will come.
The Bible teaches that Jesus was the Messiah and the Redeemer, for he Redeemed us from our sins.

Then you said there was no evidence for this in the NT.

Like the old the NT states that there is only one God. 1 Cor 8 4-6. etc.

When talking about the Father the NT clearly shows that he is recognised as God.

In the NT Jesus Christ is recognised as God.

Etc.

In the NT the Holy Spirit is also recognised as God.

He also possesses qualaties, as did Jesus that only God is said to possess.

Then to link them all up.

Nogo, I think you will find that this concept is all throughout scripture - not something that the Christians came up with.
Though when you were mentioning the Trinity not being evident in the NT and OT, I think you were prehaps referring to the name Trinity. And that is true, it isn't mentioned as that name, but hopefully you will see through what I have shown, that it is a doctrine that is throughout the Bible.

Jayhawker Soule

Jan looks at the fruit and calls it a bannana. Centuries later, Jenny holds it up and speaks of apples. Another century passes and Nancy declares it lemon. What is it? Well, if your a connect-the-dots Christian apologist, it's clearly a bannapplemon. Not only that, but this was fully known by each of the three women who, in their role as prophetess, revealed precisely that aspect of the fruit required for the moment.

davidH, with all due respect, while your commentary on the Trinity may be wonderful as a statement of faith, it is worthless as a statement of fact. Stringing together disparate verses explains nothing and proves even less. Your trinity is a late Christian construct, annealed in the same flames that destroyed the people, property, and polemics associated with a theological crosscurrent deamed heretical. Given the ugly and pervasive feuds which convulsed the early church, to claim your Trinity as obvious Christian Doctine is right up there with proclaiming the bannapplemon as the biblical forbidden fruit.

At the very least, you should beg JHWH and His Asherah for forgiveness.

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

NOGO

This figure of speech seems to be absent in the OT which means that even as a figure of speech it is a borrowed term. In that case Christians interpreted this term literally.

In his genealogy Luke implies that Jesus is the son of God because he is a descendent of Adam who was a son of God. On the other hand the Gospels imply a special relation between Jesus and Yahweh.

NOGO

David, if you read the same verse in context you will see that you interpretation is tenuous.

Jesus says that scriptures call GODS those "to whom the word of God came"

See post from ReasonableDoubt

Jesus claims to be one with God in the sense that he received God's word and follows it.

Consider this verse
Mt24:36
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

You analogy with the forms of water simply does not hold. Jesus and the Father cannot be the same person since one does not know all that the other knows.

More to follow ...

Jayhawker Soule

Vermes writes: I don't believe that it's so much that "Christians interpreted this term literally" but, rather, that Judaic and hellenist terminology was easily and naturally conflated.

NOGO

I stand corrected. Funny I knew those verses ...
So what do we have.
Sons of God in the Bible are angels, Kings, anointed ones, children of Israel etc...
while in the Greek religions sons of God meant that the person was a God or a demi-God himself.

Now which of the two is Jesus closer to?
The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was the archangel Michael aligning themselves, rightly or wrongly, with the Jewish tradition.

According to Christianity Jesus was God, born of a virgin and impregnated by the holy spirit. This, it seems to me, is much close to Greek culture than Hebrew.

NOGO

You have never heard of the royal "We".
Funny usually it is Christians who throw this one at me.

You are contradicting yourself. If the trinity is like H2O ie there is one compound with three states ice, water, and vapour then refering to H2O in the plural would be ridiculous since there is only one H2O.


A "clear disctinction" ?
"his spirit" suggests to me that it is something that belongs to God.
The trinity, on the other hand, implies three equal members.

Nothing in the verses above have anything to do with the trinity.
You are reading what you believe in these verses but it is simply not there.

I will show you the absurdity of it all.

Matthew 3:16-17
After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."

Matthew 4:1
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

These three verses are perhaps your best choice to show the so called trinity of Yahweh.
The Father says "This is My beloved Son"
The Spirit of God descends in the form of a dove.
The Son receiving the Holy Spirit.
... and finally the Holy Spirit leading the Son into the wilderness

Do you see it ???

Why does the Son who is a member of the trinity of God need to be led by the Spirit of God who is another member of the trinity? The Son is also God needs to be led by the Spirit of God !?!?

In Isaiah the word redeemer is a substitute for Yahweh.
Throughout the OT Yahweh is described as the saviour or redeemer.

Is 41:14
"Do not fear, you worm Jacob, you men of Israel; I will help you," declares the LORD, "and your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel.

Redeemer = Holy One

Is 43:15
"I am the LORD, your Holy One, The Creator of Israel, your King."

LORD = Holy One


Where?
In the OT every anointed one of God was approuved by Yahweh. These were men not Gods.
You are reading Christian dogma into these verses but that is not what they say.


So what?


This would be a good one but everybody knows that this was a later addition.

[ August 29, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

NOGO

This issue has been around as long as Christianity itself. I am not going to dig up all the arguements again but here are two verses which have been used for 2000 years.

Mark 10:18
And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

Here Jesus is commenting on his nature as compared to God's. If it was a case of both being H2O but in different form then Jesus would not have cleared stated that his nature was different from God.

John 14:28
... for the Father is greater than I.

Greater in which sense?
Certainly it would be superfluous to state that God is greater than a mere human.

Infinity Lover

There was this brave and humble man... long ago... who didn't care about who you were, but only in your willingness to learn and grow as an individual. He asscribed great value to matters such as love, wisdom, justice, moral values...
...he ultimately was considered a threat to the local authorities, and there was also this manifestation of God, so close to us humans, he perhaps shouldn't have spoken of so openly. He was sentenced to death, and spend his last day surrounded by his followers and admirerers. Though he never put a single word on paper himself, his legacy lives on through the words others wrote about him and his teachings...

...couldn't Jesus be just a lame Socrate- rip off?

davidH

Nobody will ever bye that explanation. Prove to me that this existed in the ancient times - in every text written by an ancient King that I have read he has never referred to himself as "we" or "us".

It is only a simple example, if water is talking about the other 2 states and itself then it will use the word "we". - Correct? Because it is referring to the 3 states.
Anyway it is only an illustration, because we cannot understand how God can be 3 and yet 3 be God - it's not something of our capacitance to grasp.
That's why I used the illustration.

Surely everyone else here can see the clear distinction in these verses - the Spirit is not the same as the LORD.

Yet since the spirit of a human, is that person as much as the body is the person - what is taught in the Bible.
So must the Spirit be God and yet be different from the LORD who is God.


Ok lets use the verses you have provided;

"The Father says "This is My beloved Son"

The LORD says to Jesus - you are my Son.

Ok, you explain to me what this verse means.

In this passage we have all 3 together and yet they are separate.

Since the Bible doesn't give an explaination for that I can only give you my opinion on that. But all I know, is that the Bible -especially the NT makes it very clear that Jesus is the Son of God and that God and his Spirit are distinguished.

Point taken on that.
But after what you have said let us look at Isaiah 59 v 20.

You have shown that the Redeemer = the LORD.
Now why did the LORD (the Redeemer)not say, " I will come to Zion.... ?

That's like the President saying in a press conference "The President will come to New York..

It doesn't make sense does it? It doesn't make sense because he isn't talking about himself, he's talking about someone else being the Redeemer.

Was not this other Redeemer Jesus? I'm sure you see what I am getting at. He wasn't referring to himself and yet to someone else...

The next verse just confirms what I have written.

The LORD clearly isn't talking about himself.
The LORD was the Redeemer when he brought back Israelites from the exile, but this is another Redeemer he is talking about.

Jesus was this Redeemer.

(I am sorry about that verse from John 6 v 27. I have no idea why I posted it up - but your point is taken.)

As I posted before;

You made no comment on these 2. Would you care to do so?

Here are more.

In these verses surely you can see that Jesus himself is saying that he is God.
I and the Father are one. etc.
He also explains about the Holy Spirit - and mentions him as being different from the Father (the LORD).

Now listen again to what John says.

- John is talking about Jesus when he writes about the Word.

Note: the Word was God

Jesus was God. - John plainly states this.

Jesus talks about the LORD being his Father - how do I know he is referring to his Father being the LORD?


Jesus is the Son of God.

You must ask yourself this question, was Jesus saying that he wasn't good? Or was he rather showing the man that if he was to call him good, then he must recognise him as being God.

But this verse doesn't mean what you are implying it to mean.

Jesus said that I and the Father are one. Therefore he is stating that they are both God, but in saying this he is showing that although they are both God, they aren't the same.
That is Jesus confirming the doctrine of the Trinity.

Nogo, I think you will find that the NT and the OT do support the Trinity.

No, because History confirms that he did exist - and that he upset a few people.