The Trinity.

[Elijah John]

Is the Trinity Divine Revelation? Or is the Trinity a theological construct? Designed by humans to help us to understand God and how to relate to Him?

If the Trinity is Divine Revelation, where and how was that doctrine revealed?

[Tcg]

Presumably he wants to reveal himself to all,...

Why presume that when He specifically said the truth was not for all?
Matthew 13:10-13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.

Luke 8:10 He replied, "The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, 'Though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'

The OT version: Isaiah 29:11 And the entire vision will be to you like the words sealed in a scroll. If it is handed to a reader, he will say, "I cannot read it, because it is sealed."

Etc, etc...

The verses you provided don't address marco's statement. He refered to God's desire to reveal himself, not the mysteries of the kingdom.

Paul agrees with marco:

Romans 1:19 - since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

According to this oft quoted verse, God has revealed himself to all.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 2 by Wootah]

It's not so much reading a Bible and trusting whoever translated it. Instead it is a matter of reading the NT Greek texts objectively.

Were this true it would mean that God restricts himself to a few scholars. Presumably he wants to reveal himself to all, and each can make a decision on what path to follow. I wonder if Jesus read Greek.

I will assume you know that many of the day spoke several languages. It appears Christ spoke Hebrew, Aramaic , Greek and Latin. Greek was the "business" language of the time, Latin the Roman legal. Hebrew and Aramaic were known to every Jew of the time to some degree of mastery.

"seek and ye shall find" Maybe, unless you seek God, you may not bump into Him by accident as you live.

[shnarkle]

Presumably he wants to reveal himself to all,...

Why presume that when He specifically said the truth was not for all?
Matthew 13:10-13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.

Luke 8:10 He replied, "The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, 'Though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'

The OT version: Isaiah 29:11 And the entire vision will be to you like the words sealed in a scroll. If it is handed to a reader, he will say, "I cannot read it, because it is sealed."

Etc, etc...

This reminds me of an idea I had a few years ago where it occured to me that these gospel sayings seem to parallel the theory of evolution. In this case, it would be equivalent to presuming that all adaptations are beneficial and conducive to survival.

[shnarkle]

Presumably he wants to reveal himself to all,...

Why presume that when He specifically said the truth was not for all?
Matthew 13:10-13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.

Luke 8:10 He replied, "The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, 'Though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'

The OT version: Isaiah 29:11 And the entire vision will be to you like the words sealed in a scroll. If it is handed to a reader, he will say, "I cannot read it, because it is sealed."

Etc, etc...

The verses you provided don't address marco's statement. He refered to God's desire to reveal himself, not the mysteries of the kingdom.

Paul agrees with marco:

Romans 1:19 - since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

According to this oft quoted verse, God has revealed himself to all.

Paul also points out that many of those who God is revealed to "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" which indicates a level of deception, not necessarily on their part; that leaves them clueless. As Revelation 12:9 points out, "the whole world is deceived".

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 10 by RightReason]

RightReason wrote:

"Yep, and Jesus said I Am – that’s all He needed to say because everyone already was familiar with previous writings you mentioned above describing God this way. They knew exactly what that means. Why don’t you? In fact, it’s what got Jesus killed."

Have you really never heard any of the answers to the 'I Am' trinity 'proof'?

A. How can other people use the term ego eimi ('I am') in the NT and not be punished in any way? See what the ex-blind man has to say at John 9:9. Answer: Because it was a common phrase then just as it is now!

B. The Hebrew term mistranslated "I am" at Ex. 3:14 is ehyeh. In all the writings of Moses (except for this single instance) ehyeh is always translated as "I will be." It is mistranslated as "I am" by most trinitarian translators at 3:14 simply because they want it to be compared to John 8:58 for obvious reasons.

Ex. 3:14: Moffatt’s translation - “I WILL BE�; Byington’s - “I WILL BE�; Rotherham’s - “I WILL BECOME�; Concordant Literal Version - “I-SHALL-COME-TO-BE�; Julia Smith’s - “I SHALL BE�; Leeser’s - “I WILL BE.�

In addition are the following alternate readings in footnotes: American Standard Version - “I WILL BE�; NIV Study Bible - “I WILL BE�; Revised Standard Version - “I WILL BE�; New Revised Standard Version - “I WILL BE�; New English Bible - “I WILL BE�; Revised English Bible - “I WILL BE�; Living Bible - “I WILL BE�; Good News Bible - “I WILL BE�; English Standard Version - "I WILL BE."

These are excruciating admissions from many trinitarian scholars concerning a standard trinitarian 'proof.'

And among the most important of the early translations of the Hebrew Bible are the Greek versions of the Jewish Aquila and Theodotion in the second century A.D. [100’s]

According to Jesus' Words Only it appears that they both have translated the Hebrew ehyeh asher ehyeh of Exodus 3:14a and the ehyeh of 3:14b into Greek as "esomai hos esomai" and "esomai" respectively, which in turn translate into English as "I will be who I will be" and "I will be." -
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/books/je ... i-am.html

For more see:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... rt-1.html

Initeresting ideas, but Christ's words "I am" are right in line with a trinitarian, and perhaps even those who don't believe in the trinity. The reason being that Paul points out that God is the source while Christ is the means. He points this out in 1 Cor. 8:6. For Christ to reaffirm this by saying "I am" is in no way a contradiction to what Moses hears from the burning bush in that what God will be, Christ is.

John's introductin is also right in line with it when he points out that "the word", not to be confused with God; was in the beginning. in other words, there is only Christ. The difference between God and Christ is the difference between becoming and being. The French translate it as "The Eternal" which is an attribute of God, not God himself; that title belongs to Christ, and Christ alone.

[shnarkle]

Acts 2:38 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.�

Acts 8:12 “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.�

Acts 8:16 “For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.�

Acts 10:48 “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.�

Acts 19:5 “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.�


Only the last sentence in Matthew’s gospel says anything about at Trinity.

“Into Christ. The Bible tells us that Christians were baptized into Christ (no. 6). They belong to Christ. The Acts of the Apostles (2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) tells us of baptizing “in the name (person) of Jesus.� -- a better translation would be “into the name (person) of Jesus.� Only in the 4th Century did the formula “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit� become customary.� — (Bible Catechism, Rev. John C Kersten, S.V.D., Catholic Book Publishing Co., N.Y., N.Y.; l973, p. 164)

“With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,� — (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius, Book III, ch 6, 132 (a), p. 152)

“The Demonstratio Evangelica� by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: “With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.� That “Name� is Jesus.

The diverging articulations of the baptismal formula are synonymous in that Christ's authority comes from the Father. "in the name" means in his authority, or under his authority. Go and batpize by my authority. The authority of Christ is a clear theme in the gospel narratives, and "in the name" is an expression that is still used today. e.g. "Stop in the name of the law". The law has no name, it means to stop by the authority vested in me as a law enforcement officer.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

No where in Scripture does Scripture say Scripture alone is our authority.

Right, Christ points out that he will send the spirit to remind his disciples of everything he said.

[/quote] We were told to listen to His Church, who will help guide us in interpreting Scripture.[/quote]


Here again, I would have to reiterate that Christ is talking to his church when he says that the spirit will be the one to remind them of everything he said.

Why do so many have a problem with this?

The authority of a schizmatic church in open defiant rebellion against God's commandments? Perhaps because it doesn't square with what Christ taught.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 8 by RightReason]

Jesus identifies Himself with the Father. Jesus is in the Father, and the Father is in Jesus (John 10:38). Jesus is one with the Father (John 10:30). They are not divided in essence.

I think you might be slightly off on this point. The Father and the Son are essentially distinguishable. It is a contradiction in terms to say that Jesus identifies with the father and then to say that they are essentially the same. One cannot be identified with another without being distinguishable one from another.

Identification requires that which is doing the identifying as well as what they are identified with. Notice that you can't have one without the other, and one can't be the other without rendering identification pointless. As closely related as identification is to identity, identification is not identity.

Again, Paul makes it clear just exactly how to distinguish them from each other by pointing out that the father is the origin of all while Christ is the means of all existence (1 Cor.8:6). The origin can never be anything, or even exist in the first place without negating the meaning of origin. Paul has effectively denied the possibility of an infinite regression.

Here again it is important to note the distinction between origin and beginning. There is no beginning to God, but as the origin of existence, God cannot exist, hence the authors provide the name "I will be". What will be is not what is, and there is all the difference in the world between the two. They are only essentially the same in that neither has a beginning or an end, but we can say the same thing about existence and non-existence, or transcendence and immanence. You can't have one without the other, but it doesn't then follow that one is the other.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 8 by RightReason]

"There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him," (John 1:9-10).

Here we see Jesus being called the true light. Does this mean that the Father is not the true light? If not, then we have both the Son and the Father being the true light.

Christ also then proceeds to declare to his disciples, "You are the light of the world"(Matthew 5:14).


Christ doesn't just come to point out who he is, but to point out who we are as well. The exact same relationship that the authors of the gospels describe between the Father and the Son are then communicated to his disciples as well. We see this in his prayer that just as the father is in him and he in the father, so too may his disciples be in him and he in them. So when you have seen the disciple you have seen Christ.

[ttruscott]

According to this oft quoted verse, God has revealed himself to all.

The revelation GOD gave to everyone was "His eternal power and divine nature," which we know from the next verse. And we know from the rest of the chapter that this knowledge condemned them as having no excuse while sinners repressed this knowledge because they loved sin more than the truth.

What HE does not reveal to EVERYONE is the mystery of salvation as per the verses I quoted. Rom 1:19 is about those under HIS wrath which is not applicable to the believers who chose to sin who are never condemned, Jn 3:18 and who hear the full truth from the Christ or from the Holy spirit.