The Trinity

by meadow77 740 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

SwedishChef

Hello Earnest,
You said...
"What does it mean ? What do you think it means ? Does it mean I and the Father are one God ? Or I and the Father are one in nature ? Or I and the Father are one in substance ? Or I and the Father are one in will/purpose ? Or I and the Father are one in mind ? Or...whatever."
I believe to answer this question we, of course, have to take the verse in context.
John 10:25-33 "Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."
By reading this verse in context, we see that this is not talking about "one in will". Jesus really meant that He and His Father were one.
"Does it mean I and the Father are one God?" Yes, I believe so.
Notice that Jesus says "my sheep hear my voice...I give unto them enternal life...neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." Now, His sheep are in His hand, right?
Then Jesus identifies the sheep as being in the Father's hand. "No man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." So, who's hand are the sheep in, the Father's or Christ's? The answer is both. This is completely validated by what Jesus says next, "I and my Father are one." Taking this in context, I can't see how someone comes up with "one in will."
This interpretation is validated even further by the Jews reaction -- they knew what Jesus was saying. "For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." And they attempted to stone Him.
DakotaRed

This word Greek "arche", which is "beginning" in the KJV can be better translated as "source."
Oh my! You mean, there is an error in your KJV? Odd that all your trinitarian scholars and translators chose to translate it as "beginning" instead of "source." Odder still that it is you, who trusts the KJV implicitly and have so many times told us it is without error, that keeps bringing these errors to light, yet, denies any error at John 1:1 when the same translation problems are shown to you. Could it be you are blinded by such a closed mind that you pick and choose, while accusing me and others of that? Although you think you can, you cannot have it both ways.
But, is what you say about the use of arche true? Lets look to some examples;
From Strongs I have on my NIV Library CD, we find;
Strong's Number: 746
Transliterated: arche
Phonetic: ar-khay'
Text: from 756; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank): --beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.
Translated as, beginning 40 times, principality 8 times, corner 2 times, first 2 times, and miscellaneous 6 times.
From Vines Expository New Testament Dictionary, we read;

Topics: BEGIN, BEGINNING, BEGINNER
English Use: Noun
Strong's Number: 746
Transliterated: arche
Text: means "a beginning." The root arch primarily indicated what was of worth. Hence the verb archo meant "to be first," and archon denoted "a ruler." So also arose the idea of "a beginning," the origin, the active cause, whether a person or thing, e.g., Col. 1:18. In Heb. 2:3 the phrase "having at the first been spoken" is, lit., "having received a beginning to be spoken." In 2 Thess. 2:13 ("God chose you from the beginning"), there is a well supported alternative reading, "chose you as first-fruits" (i.e., aparchen, instead of ap' arches). In Heb. 6:1, where the word is rendered "first principles," the original has "let us leave the word of the beginning of Christ," i.e., the doctrine of the elementary principles relating to Christ. In John 8:25, Christ's reply to the question "Who art Thou?," "Even that which I have spoken unto you from the beginning," does not mean that He had told them before; He declares that He is consistently the unchanging expression of His own teaching and testimony from the first, the immutable embodiment of His doctrine. See CORNER, FIRST, MAGISTRATE, POWER, PRINCIPALITY, RULE. Note: In the following passages the KJV faulty translations, "since the world began," etc. are rightly rendered in the RV by "before times eternal" and similar phrases, Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2. The alteration has not been made, however, in Luke 1:70; John 9:32; Acts 3:21; 15:18.
It would seem to me that your decidedly Trinitarian sources do not support your view that it is more properly translated as source. But, even if it were, scriptures such as Hebrews 1:1,2 show that God created THROUGH Jesus, not Jesus acting on his own.
Hebrews 1: 1. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
As even you should be able to see, even if the word should be source, it would not make Jesus God, but would still relegate him as the agent of creation and not the creator himself, much like a contractor building you a home today. You would say you are building your home, but it would be the contractor doing the actual labor.
Next time, maybe you could actually check these sources you say support your view instead of just putting up what someone told you.
Lew W
SwedishChef

"Oh my! You mean, there is an error in your KJV?"
I never said the KJV is perfect, I said it's the best one out there. Sure, on a few occasions a better word choice could have been used.
In light of Scripture, most theologists agree that Christ is the "source" or "beginner" of God's creation.
You said "Hebrews 1:1,2 show that God created THROUGH Jesus, not Jesus acting on his own."
This is true, but this explains the relationship within the Godhead. The Word is the manifestation of the will of the Father.
Colossians 1:16,17 "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: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."
John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
Jesus is the creator, and there was nothing that he didn't make. Try reading the Genesis account - one God made EVERTHING.
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Isaiah 45:18 "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else."
Isaiah 44:24, "Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"
I think the Bible is pretty clear that the is ONE Creator. The Bible identifies Him as Jesus. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Anyone can see, Dekota, that if ONE person ALONE made something, than it did not take two, as you are saying.
If I am so easily decieved, then how do you explain these verses?
How about these:
Isaiah 45:23 "I [Jehovah] have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear."
Philippians 2:10,11 "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
See a similarity?
Zechariah 12:10 "And I [Jehovah] will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."
Revelation 1:7,8 "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."
Tell me, Dakota, how is it that in Zechariah 2:10 Jehovah himself says "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced"?
Revelation 1:7,8 perfectly reflects this passage in Zechariah.
SwedishChef

Can you explain any of the Old/New Testament comparisons that I made in the other post?
Earnest

Hi SwedishChef,
Thank you for your reply to the question as to what Jesus meant when he said "I and the Father are one". You answered :
"Does it mean I and the Father are one God?" Yes, I believe so.
This, of course, raises a number of questions. I understand that you believe that Jesus is God. And that his Father is God. And that the Holy Spirit is God. And that the three are one God, i.e. the trinity. Do I understand you correctly that Jesus and the Father are one God both with and without the Holy Spirit...that the two are one God and the three are one God ? If that is so then would it also be true that the Father and the Holy Spirit are one God both with and without the Son ? And that the Son and Holy Spirit are one God both with and without the Father ?
Please be assured these are not trick questions. I am asking them in this way to reason what it must mean to say "I and the Father are one God". I do have some further questions about this but would first wish to understand your thinking on the above.
Earnest
SwedishChef

Earnest,
The Father and Son are one, but God would not be God without the Holy 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." The three make one God.
My personal interpretation of the Trinity:
The Father is the mind/will. Jesus is the manifestation of the will of the Father. "Word was with God...and Was God" John 1:1, Jesus is "the image of the invisible God" Col 1:15, "God was manifest in the flesh", I Tim 3:16, He does "the will of the Father which hath sent me." John 5:30.
The Holy Ghost is the very Spirit of God, the very power of Him.
Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
Job 33:4 "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life."
I've already gone over how Jesus identified Himself with the Holy Ghost in John chapter 14.
How can this be? God has manifested Himself in three forms, each presented to us as having personalities, and yet they are one God.
DakotaRed

Anyone can see, Dekota, that if ONE person ALONE made something, than it did not take two, as you are saying.

Swedie babe, try actually researching for yourself and actually reading replies. Your Isaiah references have been addressed ad nauseum. Choose to ignore them if you wish, but don't keep repeating they are not being addressed.
If, as you suggest, it was ONE person ALONE, please answer the following;
Genesis 1:26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Surely, this shows more than ONE person ALONE involved. Some wish to say this supports the trinity, showing more than ONE ALONE too. However, that is not the case. This scripture in no stretch of the imagination can prove positively that God is three persons, just because this verse uses the word "us." The word "us," does not limit the ones in the conversation that God is speaking with, to "3" persons, now does it? It could just as well be understood to refer to 143 persons, as in the President of the Acme Bridge Building company tells his co-workers: "Let "us" (the company of 143 persons) build this bridge."
Look to Job 38 1:8 where God was asking Job where was he when he founded the earth. It goes on to say that the "morning stars sang for joy and the all the sons of God rejoiced." Does this show that God was ONE ALONE at the time?
Your confusion is understandable because you refuse to look and check the context of the Isaiah verses you continually quote. When God said that He alone created, he was addressing the false gods of the pagans surrounding Israel that many were turning too. Try reading the whole account instead of just a few verses, but do it in context.
Again, I notice your usual lack of debate etiquette. When your point is effectively refuted, you swiftly change the subject, turning a blind eye to said refutation. Within 10 posts, you will once again make claim that none of your points have been refuted. Poor skills, Swedie, poor skills.
Numerous times, you have been shown scholarly evidence that 1 John 5:7 was a added scripture, yet you continue to throw it out as proof. Numerous times, you have been shown the Isaiah accounts are addressing the false pagan gods, yet you continue to throw them up. John 1:1 has also been shown to be a poor translation, yet you cry the KJV is infallable, but when shown Revelation 3:14 clearly states Jesus is the "beginning" of all creation, you turn a blind eye and cry that it is a poor translation and should be something else. Yet, you show absolutely no support for that claim, just whine and cry on.
You are rude, arrogant and have no concept of civil discussion, all the earmarks of a Born Again Fundamentalist that is desparately trying to convince themselves that they have it right. You fail to show any love that Jesus taught and mentioned throughout. You belittle and slur every single poster that diagrees with you, yet you never refute anything we mention, but continually whine and cry we don't refute your points, although they have been ad nauseum.
Back on page 2 or 3 of this fiasco, I put up 65 scriptural points against the trinity. In 33 pages of whining and crying and bellyaching, you have yet to address them. Care to address my points, Swedie? Or, hasn't your Pastor got back to you yet on them? Can't find a web site that addresses them either? Why not try looking them up in your own Bible and address them on your own, or, are you incapable of that?
If you care to read refutations of every single point you brought up, go back and dig through the 33 pages of replies where they were posted and you chose to ignore. But, whatever you choose to do with them, stop stating they were not addressed. They most definitely were.
If you choose to ignore them, that falls on your head, not mine. But try actually researching things for yourself with an open mind instead of depending on copy and paste statements form those who also don't how to address scriptural refutations.
Above all else, learn the love Jesus spoke of and taught. You may come across as less of an ignorant fool if you do.
Lew W
Earnest

SwedishChef:
The Father and Son are one, but God would not be God without the Holy 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." The three make one God.
I understand that you believe the three are one God (although I do think you will find that verse is spurious but let us ignore that for the sake of understanding). And you explain that "God has manifested Himself in three forms, each presented to us as having personalities, and yet they are one God". But if that is so, and John 10:30 says that the Father and Son are one God...I do not understand why God needs to have three forms. John 10:30 seems to say that two forms is sufficient to be one God. Perhaps God is God whether he has two forms or three forms or forty-two forms. Or does Jesus mean that the three are one but he is just saying that two are one because the disciples wouldn't understand ?
I have another question about this scripture which is related and certainly has to do with God manifesting himself. I understand you believe that Jesus was both fully human and fully God while on earth. It is not quite clear to me whether the Jesus that is fully God was in heaven when the Jesus that was fully human was on earth or whether the "my God" that the Jesus that was fully human addressed included the Jesus that was fully God. But what puzzles me about this scripture is that it is apparently the Jesus that is fully human that is speaking when he says "I and the Father are one [God]". Does this mean that God is not only spirit but also partly human ? Then would it not also mean that God actually consists of the Father, the Holy Spirit and the two natures of the Son...which is a bit more than a trinity ?
Or maybe this scripture at John 10:30 does not mean the Father and Son are one God. Maybe it means that they share the same nature or substance. Of course there is still the problem that it is the fully human Jesus that is speaking but it is not quite as perplexing as presuming it to mean the fully human Jesus is one God with the Father.
I would certainly appreciate the answers to these questions as it seems to me the meaning of this verse cannot be that "I and the Father are one God". Now if you are more inclined to understand them as sharing the same nature then I have some more questions. On the other hand, if you still think it can mean they are "one God" then your answers to these questions will doubtless provide food for thought.
Earnest
SwedishChef

Earnest,
"John 10:30 seems to say that two forms is sufficient to be one God."
The Holy Spirit is not being addressed in John chapter 10, Jesus was talking about Himself and the Father. Just because the Spirit is not mentioned doesn't mean He has no role.

I have a body and a mind, and these are one. That's a true statment, but does that mean I don't have a soul just because I didn't mention it? Would I be human if I had a body, mind, but no soul? No, I need all of these to be human. From passages I quoted in the past, the Holy Spirit is certainly a part of God.

"Does this mean that God is not only spirit but also partly human?"

The entire concept of Jesus being man and God at the same time is a mystery which we cannot fully comprehend, and yet it is what the Bible teaches.
"1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

Philippians 2:5-11 "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
SwedishChef

Dakota,
"John 1:1 has also been shown to be a poor translation,"
This is proof that you are the one turning a blind eye. Dakota, is that why almost every single translation says "the Word was God"?
Or is that why A.T. Robertson (world reknown Greek Scholar) said it was a proper translation? I don't see where you've shown it to be a poor translation.
The Bible says to show yourself friendly, and calling people ignorant whiny fools is not a way to do that. When was the last time I called you an ingorant fool Dakota?
"Again, I notice your usual lack of debate etiquette. When your point is effectively refuted, you swiftly change the subject, turning a blind eye to said refutation. Within 10 posts, you will once again make claim that none of your points have been refuted. Poor skills, Swedie, poor skills."
Contrary to what you would like to believe, I am not turning a "blind eye" to your refutations. But am I supposed to argue with you that its a misinterpretation? That the verse is out of context? How much good do you think that would do? You will say that your interpretation is right, and I will say mine is.
The truth is I don't buy into your refutations; because to me, they are a clear misinterpretation of scripture. I regard them as such. I am not afraid to admit I'm wrong, and I have done so before, but you have given me no reason to do so.

The Trinity

Share this