Steve, you're not listening. You're not acknowledging Scriptures which indicate a relationship among the Persons of the Trinity. You're pointing us to Scriptures which indicate that God is one, and that the Persons of the Trinity all share in that One Divine Nature. You're assuming that those Scriptures somehow negate the other references on the Trinity, or you're ignoring the others altogether.

Steve, why are you here. Really! What are you doing on my forum?

Phil

They say that almost all heresy, historically, has been a result of a lack of balance, of an overemphasis on one attribute, for example, human vs divine nature of Jesus. So, certainly, all of mainstream Christendom, would reject, as heretical, such views of the Trinity as would deny the Three Persons. Of course, there are many, many points of disagreement between traditions and even within traditions, and people of large intelligence and profound goodwill can fruitfully dialogue on those points which would be considered heretical, one to the other. Sometimes such exchanges don't appear to be fruitful. I wonder what the ingredients are that set the fruitful exchanges apart from those which are not fruitful? Very interesting phenomenon, this thing in cyberspace that some refer to as trolling . I suppose the psychological determinants are manifold and multiform for such behavior. In matters of faith, one element that seems to set some types of sharing apart from other types is that some seem to share what seems to come across as being really good news to them, in a light-hearted How can I keep from singing? sort of way. Others seem to share from a deeply seated need to be validated in their worldview and as if through the sheer force of their logic others can be made to see their truth and that by converting others they will somehow be less insecure. I have experienced all of these dynamisms within myself. It's just plain interesting, ain't it?

pax tibi,
jb

Phil,

Is it your forum or a forum for the people?

Steve, when you registered, you agreed to rules for participation on this forum (which, yes, is my forum--"the people" don't pay the bills for this operation: I do.). You might read that over sometime to refresh your memory about how things work, for your posts have clearly fallen into the realm of trolldom. What that means is that you're not dialoguing with the replies that are given you, but are just loading us up with more and more of the same kind of stuff, which we've already replied to.

If you want to participate in a discussion here, that's fine. If not, then go somewhere else to "evangelize" the heretical Trinitarian Christians of this world with your selective quotes from Scripture.

Phil

Steve... one last thought:
You wrote
"No church can save anyone. No religious leader can save anyone. Do you want to put your trust in men who are corrupt and fat, only looking out for themselves(an obvious example in the current news events). These are the men making the rules, making doctrines, these are the ones you are entrusting your soul to? Only the Lord God can save us. Only He can explain his own words. Just like flesh and blood did not reveal to Peter the identity of Christ, so it is the same today."

And yet, is this not exactly what you are trying to do.. to have us put our trust in you - a man - one man -in your interpretation - understanding? You say that only God can explain his words and yet what exactly are you trying to do if not just that?

Just something to think about.
Peace,
Wanda

You say that only God can explain his words and yet what exactly are you trying to do if not just that?

Excellent point, Wanda.

The idea that the Bible is self-explanatory and self-validating just doesn't hold water. Notice what happens when Christians divorce themselves from some authentic Tradition for the sake of more fidelity to the Bible: split after split after split, each new group claiming to have the real, correct, indisputable understanding of the Bible--all of them assuming that the Bible is somehow comprehensible without reference to the communities in which and for which it was written.

As JB noted above, many heresies are not based on completely wrong ideas, but, instead, on excessive emphases. One of these would be gnosticism--the idea that the divinity somehow does not tarnish Itself through real involvement with humanity in expressing Itself. There is much in fundamentalistic approaches to Scripture which seem gnostic to me--especially this emphasis on splitting the Word of God from the words of men. There is not one word of Scripture which does not come to us through human beings. Not one! And as the old scholars noted, the knowledge which the authors impart is conditioned by the mode of the knower.

None of this is to suggest that there isn't a real revelation of God which comes to us through Scripture, nor, less, that we can't know what that is. Through all the books, chapters, stories, and teachings, revelation emerges, finally manifesting clearly in the Person of Jesus Christ. But even here, what we know about Him comes to us through his Church, which is an instrument of mediation, and also, of necessity, interpretation.

Phil

I have been reading this thread but not posting as it didn't seem beneficial. I believe in the Trinity as has been so eloquently described by Phil and Wanda. However, this set of scripture was part of the daily readings today and I wanted to post it. In light of this convo..I'm wondering what the response might have been to this particular set of scripture.
Act 8:15 Who, when they came there, made prayer for them, that the Holy Spirit might be given to them:
Act 8:16 For up to that time he had not come on any of them; only baptism had been given to them in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Bible in Basic English)

Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) (KJV)

Act 8:15 Who, when they were come, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost.
Act 8:16 For he was not as yet come upon any of them: but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Douay-Rheims)

Just a thought.
jk

Wanda,

Thank you for your reply. I don't want anyone to trust what I'm saying to be true. My only desire is for people to not be so comfortabe in what they believe to be true just because it is something they have been taught. I simply ask that people look at the scriptures that were mentioned and then ask God for wisdom. I have no doubt that He will clarify and explain His words. I believe there are a number of points made on the website you looked at that raise some valid questions. It's easy for people to say that is heresy or that is some kind of cult. That scares people off without giving them a chance to go through the scriptures themselves and compare. Not that you are one of those people. I appreciate you at least looking. Then if you still believe in the trinitarian teaching, there is nothing I or anyone else can do about it. Only God can give us ears to hear and a heart to understand. The Lord God bless you.

Steve, you're alright by me. I'm also a tenacious sort of person when it comes to words and ideas. But words are just things. One can get stuck in them. It reminds me of crossing the street at a cross walk. I wait for the green "Walk" sign to light up and then make my way across. Sometimes I come upon the cross walk with the sign already lighted. When I do so often the red "Don't Walk" will light up when I'm halfway across the street. I know that I should keep walking.

Brad,

Thank you for your encouragement. When you have a chance I would like to get your personal feedback on the topic at hand. If you can, check out www.asitiswritten.org. You will not find anything fancy but let me know if any questions might be raised in your mind.

I simply ask that people look at the scriptures that were mentioned and then ask God for wisdom. I have no doubt that He will clarify and explain His words. . . .Then if you still believe in the trinitarian teaching, there is nothing I or anyone else can do about it. Only God can give us ears to hear and a heart to understand.

In other words . . .

1. If you still believe in the Trinity after reading that web site, you are a lost goose with no reading comprehension or spiritual intelligence.

2. That web site has a better understanding of the meaning of Scripture than does the Christian Church, from which the Scriptures came, which validated such Scriptures, and which is their rightful interpreter (New Testament).

Have I misunderstood?

Phil

P.S. Best line from the web site you refer us to: A MYSTERIOUS GOD IS A GOD NOT FOUND IN THE SCRIPTURES. (their caps) Such an arrogant gnostic declaration has never been made so clearly!

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord. As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts." Is. 55: 8-9.

Phil,

I would say the first step in truly relying solely upon God for the answers is to first be converted, and become as little children. I know, not popular, sounds foolish but it is true. In spiritual matters we know nothing other than what the Lord reveals to us. This is probably the most important step to take and the hardest. Because of our pride in thinking we "know everything" already, it makes it difficult to be converted into a child. Especially when man's way of making oneself "qualified" to preach or teach is to attend bible school or seminary and earn your degree. Man's way, not God's. Phil, please relax a little. You have sounded quite sarcastic recently.

Phil, please relax a little. You have sounded quite sarcastic recently.

Aye, that Phil is a definite pain. He will not always let me have my way. Even though he loves and respects me he will not let me have my way. He questions, challenges, and provokes when he should just see the wisdom of my words. Sometimes I don�t agree with him and leave it at that. Sometimes I make the mistake of calling him wrong knowing that I am right. We both believe in truths, we both believe in right and wrong, good and evil, that not all things are relative. How do we resolve this thing when I am right and he is wrong (or, more likely, the reverse)?

I am not a Catholic. I have no opinion of the Trinity other than that it is a possibility. Nothing in that idea is threatening to me. Nothing in that idea alone demands that I must believe it. Nothing in that idea excludes God or love. And yet if I were to carry the torch of this belief or any other with such fervor as to so discount the beliefs of other peaceful and non-violent people then even if my beliefs were true and correct they would mean nothing. I would have lost the one thing that I strive for most of all � love. Searching for truth, searching for God, searching for the healing in our own lives will go astray no matter our beliefs, no matter the truth, if we lose love.

Thanks for the supportive statement, Brad.

Now Steve, let me see if I really understand, here. Those who disagree with you need to be converted because we're following man's way, not God's, and we're puffed up with pride and think we know everything. Also, my doctorate in Christian spirituality is worthless because is doesn't come from a bible school you approve of. Have I misunderstood?

Relaxed and cool as a cucumber!

Phil

Nothing gets under my skin more than a bible pusher. You can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink...Steve, you lay the ground work and let God do the rest. You keep repeating yourself..there is no need for that. Geeze so what if someone doesnt see your point of view, you gave them something to think about

I'm wondering...what translation does the website asitiswritten use? I've read through some things there and it appears to be KJV. Yet, you'll notice in these samplings of translations I'm listing about 1 John 5:7,8 that KJV is one of the few that says right out "these three are one".

1 John 5
7For there are three that testify: 8the[1] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (NIV)

Show footnotes

5:7,8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)

1 John 5
7 For there are (1) three that testify:
8 [1] the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (NASB)

Show footnotes

A few late mss add ...in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth, the Spirit

1 John 5
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (KJV)

1 John 5
7So there are three witnesses [1] in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are One;
8and there are three witnesses on the earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree [are in unison; their testimony coincides]. (AMP)

1 John 5
7 because three are who are testifying [in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one;
8 and three are who are testifying in the earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.
(Young's Literal Translation)

These translations also acknowledge that in the ones that don't state "these three are one" that the wording IS in later manuscripts. I'm not sure I see the point of wrangling over this. Whether we go by bible only or by bible and man, it seems very clear that there is a Triune Godhead. Trinity. Not that it particularly matters one way or the other to me..I'm firm and sure in my belief, however, this reminds me of the ones who state we can't pray or talk to God unless we call Him JAH...or some such as that.

I'm also reminded of a story in a book I'm reading by the Monks of New Skete. In this little story it tells of two brothers who sat down to debate. The Abbot watched on while they went at it. One completely obliterated the other in the argument and was quite proud of himself afterwards. The loser of the debate simply got up from the table and left the room. The Abbott approached the "winner" and told him that he had won the battle. The "winner" being still puffed up received what he thought was praise with much comfort. However, the Abbott added, "You have indeed won the battle, but you have lost the war." Upon hearing this, the "winner" asked what the patient Abbott meant. The Abbott replied, "You have won the battle of the debate, but you may have very well lost your brother in the process...thereby losing the war."
(Don't mind me...I'm just posting thoughts here)
jk

Phil,

All of us need to be converted into little children. No one is exempt. Yes, we do get puffed up with "knowledge" we gain especially when it is knowledge we have "earned." It doesn't matter to me what school our degrees come from. One school isn't better than any other. I also have a paper from a bible school. What does that prove? That I know scriptures better than someone who didn't attend bible school? I don't think so. Does it mean I'm more special in the eyes of the Lord? I don't think so. Does it mean I know Him better than someone who doesn't have a doctorate in theology. No. I think the Pharisees and scribes are an excellent example of the futility "spiritual" degrees. They were the "religious experts" of the day. They were looked up to by men but not by God. They had Him killed. They were jealous because someone else other than they were getting the attention.

Erato,

Laying the groundwork is my main purpose. Giving something for others to think about is all I can do. I'm not sure if I've repeated myself but if I have, I'm sorry you were offended by it.

JK,

You point to 1 verse that speaks of 3. I don't deny that verse but at the same time how many verses speak of 1?

Steve,
I have to admit, at this point, I am completely confused by this whole thread. Am I to understand that you discount 1 verse because others aren't worded as it is? Surely, that isn't what you mean. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to pound in Trinity anything. I believe it, however, I can't force anyone else to. It just appears that a certain set of scripture is being used and the bible can in no way be viewed that way. The bible is a whole book, all scripture being intervowen to make a complete gift from God in allowing us to know who He is and what He is about.
As my earlier post indicated, the scripture there dealt with the fact that the Holy Spirit had not come upon the people because they had been baptized "only" in the name of Jesus. You had indicated (or at least it was my understanding of it) that by baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit that they were actually baptizing in the name of only one...Jesus. And the scripture I posted concerning that clearly showed that what you had proposed could not be the case. Maybe I understood you wrong?
As Christians we are not to participate in contention concerning our Lord...that is scripturally clear. So, again, I'm not sure I see where the problem lies here. Even on the website, the same scripture could be used to verify the Trinity. The whole premise is that God is ONE...three "persons" in ONE. Otherwise it would be a polytheistic belief..right?
At any rate, I hope you find whatever it is that you're seeking.
God bless you and be with you,
jk

JK,

I said in my previous post I don't deny or ignore the 1 verse you mentioned in 1John 5. All I'm saying is should a doctrine be based upon 1 verse that has the word three in it when there are many verses with the word one? Regarding the Holy Ghost, what about John 20:22 "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:" This raises 2 questions in my mind. Is baptism really required in order to "receive the Holy Ghost?" and This is before Christ's ascension that they received the Holy Ghost. Why tarry in Jerusalem? Jesus said the Father would send the Holy Ghost but He breathed on them and they received the Holy Ghost. I don't see distinction in persons in this interaction. Looking through the scriptures I try to find 1 example of the 3 persons of God being manifested at 1 time. Many people point to the baptism of Christ. There is Jesus, a voice from heaven and a dove. I wouldn't call that 3 persons. Am I incorrect?

I am an introverted rebel. When I peal rubber and flaunt authority I do so with words and ideas and less with actions. What am I rebelling against? The answer is not as James Dean said, �what have ya got?� That�s not true rebellion. That�s anarchy. That�s just being contrary as in the Monty Python �Argument Clinic� sketch. I accept very few forms and notions of anything that comes before me without questioning it first. If I pursue my faith it is likely to never be in a church � but neither am I dead set against it. What little I see and feel of the Spirit I know that for me I want no �middle man,� so to speak (other than Christ I suppose). But if there is influence from the divine it is everywhere. I don�t own it either with my forms or ideas or words, and that is certainly going to be somewhat contrary to both �sides� here (but not much).

Words by their very nature are imperfect symbols for thoughts, ideas and feelings. To hold onto them too tightly squeezes the life out of them � in my humble opinion. If I�ve learned anything it is that words are a guide post to direct one�s faith but that ultimately everything comes down between you and God. That is the point. That is why there are words in the first place. Should we worship words?

When one is asking someone else to question their point of view it is only reasonable to ask that they do the same. We are not strong, in my opinion, because of the words we believe. We are not made whole and healed because of ideas. We use ideas to light faith which then tells us we are whole and puts us in touch with that which heals us. We can and should be willing to give up all our ideas lest we get stuck in them. We are not good because we believe in an idea. We are good whether we know it or not. We begin to know it because words help point us to this knowledge. But, frankly, the words aren�t an exact code. They�re not a computer program. Not any old words will due of course. Words have meaning. Words can go astray. But I think the ultimate connection is made when words are abandoned altogether. 3 or 1? Every moment spent on defending this notion as if one�s salvation, goodness or righteousness depended on it is severely missing the point.

It�s strange how words, the Bible for instance, can point to the same thing no matter what language it�s translated into. Scholars spend years pulling out their hair looking for the real, exact words that best describe what was originally written in some ancient language that is difficult to translate correctly. How amazing that we, so far removed apparently from the original words, can still grasp their meaning so well. I was just reading a little of Phil�s �The Meaning of the Resurrection� and, not being extremely familiar with the Bible, was struck that most of the words weren�t about the exact history or techniques of faith but about the transformative experience. Words seemed to mean very little to those who wrote the Bible, at least in the sense of absolute literalism. I don�t wish to put �words� into Phil�s mouth because I may have misinterpreted his own words. But from his words I know that Phil cares deeply about something. That �something� is, for me, quite beyond words.

Good morning Steve, Brad
Steve, I'm wondering if perhaps there's a miscommunication as to the Trinity doctrine to you. I noticed that you stated looking for verses where all 3 were manifested at the same time, but in going back over the posts, I don't think anyone has stated that it was 3 manifested at the same time. I'm just musing a bit about this because I've noticed in my own dealings with people that sometimes entire debates arise because the verbage is not taken in the same context between two people or two sets of people. The way I look at it...and now this is just how I've absorbed it over the years because the Trinity is indeed one of the mysteries of our faith....God cannot be looked upon by man because of our imperfection. All through the OT, He sent messengers and spoke to people but as we know from Moses, mankind couldn't actually look upon Him. In order for us to "see" God, He came in human form as Jesus. This does not detract from Him as God, but rather places Him in a situation (manifestation) whereby we as humans can indeed see what our God is all about and so that He (being perfect) could be the one and only sacrifice needed from that point on (new covenant). However, Jesus could not remain here on earth. He had to ascend to the Father because in order for us to be able to truly know the Father within ourselves, the Holy Spirit needs to be within us. Now, we have the situation (manifestation) where the Holy Spirit resides in us and through Him we are able to receive teachings directly from God...."hear" God directly...and "know" God in a way that is not possible without Him (Holy Spirit). This is only possible because the Holy Spirit IS a part of the Triune Godhead. I'm not sure that makes any sense to you, and truly it IS difficult to explain with words.
Brad...you are SO right. I just had to nod all the way through your post. When we worship the words rather than the Being, it does indeed lead to an empty relationship with God. I was just reading last night about "techniques" in prayer. A monk was stating that if we concentrate too much on the "technique" then we've missed the whole point. It isn't technique that is the key...it is the desire to go deeper into our relationship with the Lord.
As I said earlier, though, I'm not trying to cram Trinity down anyone's throat. It just seems like maybe the whole thing is in a big part, sheer miscommunication.
God Bless,
jk

Looking through the scriptures I try to find 1 example of the 3 persons of God being manifested at 1 time. Many people point to the baptism of Christ. There is Jesus, a voice from heaven and a dove. I wouldn't call that 3 persons. Am I incorrect?

This has become pretty pointless. If you were actually looking for a discussion, I'd let it go on. But you're marshaling more non-sequitors than we can keep up with, and talking around every response given to you. In short, you're here to grind an axe, and that's just not permitted.

Thread closed! There are better uses for bandwidth. If anyone actually wants to talk about the Trinity, however, go ahead and start another thread.

Phil