The Bible and the Trinity: What did Jesus have to say about the Trinity?

[Blake]

@raindog

So this thread simply asks if Jesus’s words support the Trinity.

Is that so hard?

Apparently it is. You are unable to engage with anyone on the subject.

Considering Trinitarians see Jesus as God, his words were worthy of special consideration.

As though JWs don’t consider Jesus’ words worthy of special consideration because they are not Trinitarians. :dubious::

But the kind of shrill ,off point arguments made by simster and blake make it unproductive.

Posts that reply specifically to issues raised in the OP, debunk the claim made in the OP, and provide information requested in the OP are clearly “shrill” and “of topic”.

:rolleyes:

[raindog]

tomndebb, I’m not making an implicit case that a person shouldn’t be a Trinitarian because the source of the Doctrine is largely non-biblical.

We’ve talked in the past and it’s seems your view is that (iirc) that the Bible is but one source from which a person can be a Christian, or Trinitarian.

It seems to me that taking a position that the bible should be the only authority would indeed be witnessing. It’s not my business on a MB to tell you where you should get your religion.

I can tell you it’s not in the bible, however.

[BrainGlutton]

“I and the Father are one.”

– John 10:30

[Blake]

@BrainGlutton

“I and the Father are one.”

– John 10:30

Similarly

"Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

[raindog]

@BrainGlutton

“I and the Father are one.”

– John 10:30

Thank you, BrainGlutton

Once again, I would ask, does a belief in the Trinity precede these texts, or does it proceed from these texts?

Here is those verses from 25-38:

John 10:25-38: *25-30 “I have told you,” replied Jesus, “and you do not believe it. What I have done in my Father’s name is sufficient to prove my claim, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep recognise my voice and I know who they are. They follow me and I give them eternal life. They will never die and no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all. And no one can tear anything out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are One.”

31-32 Again the Jews reached for stones to stone him to death, but Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good things from the Father—for which of these do you intend to stone me?”

33 “We’re not going to stone you for any good things,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy: because you, who are only a man, are making yourself out to be God.”
34-38 “Is it not written in your own Law,” replied Jesus, “‘I have said you are gods’? And if he called these men ‘gods’ to whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), can you say to the one whom the Father has consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I fail to do what my Father does, then do not believe me. But if I do, even though you have no faith in me personally, then believe in the things that I do. Then you may come to know and realise that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”*

If you and I were “of like mind”, or [like parents often say] “speaking in one voice”----or the many similar things that people say that show unity of purpose and a strong bond-----would you infer we were Siamese twins?

Of course not.

Take a look at **John 17:20-21 **which uses very similar language:

John 17:20-21 20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

In the verses that precede John 10:30 Jesus shows that things were given to him, clearly indicating he was God’s Son, not God. Challenged by the Jews, he clarifies that he’s calling himself the Son of God. He is highlighting in these exchanges the close bond and unshakeable, close unity of purpose he shared with his Father.

That’s underscored in John 17:20-21 where he uses almost the exact same language to show the unity of purpose and close bond he has with God, but with the humans also.

How is it possible that **John 10:30 **is an argument for the Trinity, where the exact same language at John 17:20-21 is not?

[Chronos]

Am I the only one who sees no contradiction at all in the “let this cup pass” speech? Jesus would prefer not to die, but he’s still willing to die. What’s so odd about that? There are plenty of things I’m willing to do but would prefer not to. I would prefer to get all of my material possessions for free, but I’m willing to pay for them. I would prefer to live in a mansion, but I’m willing to live in an apartment. So?

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Chronos

Am I the only one who sees no contradiction at all in the “let this cup pass” speech?

No, you’re not. Jesus knew that what he was about to face would be excruciating (literally), and he didn’t want to undergo it, but he was willing to.

[raindog]

@Chronos

Am I the only one who sees no contradiction at all in the “let this cup pass” speech? Jesus would prefer not to die, but he’s still willing to die. What’s so odd about that? There are plenty of things I’m willing to do but would prefer not to. I would prefer to get all of my material possessions for free, but I’m willing to pay for them. I would prefer to live in a mansion, but I’m willing to live in an apartment. So?

There is no contradiction in the example you gave.

The dichotomy is that he shows the potential for a will different than his father (without regard to his ultimate behavior), and the capacity to do as he wished, even it is was contrary to his father.

The exchange clearly demonstrates 2 different people; one under duress, appealing to the other for strength and guidance.

[raindog]

John 10:30 “…I and the Father are One”

A few verses later…

John 17:21 “that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us,…”

How is that one verse is an argument for the Trinity, and one is not?

And why is the Holy Spirit----the Shemp of this trio-------most always not mentioned?

[simster]

@raindog

But the kind of shrill ,off point arguments made by simster and blake make it unproductive.

raindog: Your honor, I object!
tomndebb: Why?
raindog: Because it’s devastating to my case!
tomndebb: Overruled.
raindog: Good call!

@raindog

tomndebb, I’m not making an implicit case that a person shouldn’t be a Trinitarian because the source of the Doctrine is largely non-biblical.

We’ve talked in the past and it’s seems your view is that (iirc) that the Bible is but one source from which a person can be a Christian, or Trinitarian.

It seems to me that taking a position that the bible should be the only authority would indeed be witnessing. It’s not my business on a MB to tell you where you should get your religion.

I can tell you it’s not in the bible, however.

So, one should not get their religious views solely from the bible? hmmmm

[John_Mace]

@raindog

There is no contradiction in the example you gave.

The dichotomy is that he shows the potential for a will different than his father (without regard to his ultimate behavior), and the capacity to do as he wished, even it is was contrary to his father.

The exchange clearly demonstrates 2 different people; one under duress, appealing to the other for strength and guidance.

That’s the human part of Jesus speaking. Think of Spock.

[raindog]

@John_Mace

That’s the human part of Jesus speaking.

I was raised Catholic and so I’m really familiar with this statement. (and I certainly mean no disrespect)

But that notion isn’t supported anywhere in the bible!

If there’s interest, I’m willing to start a companion thread that focuses on the NT, aside from the words of Jesus.

If you can show me anything Jesus said that supports this I’d love to see it.

[simster]

@raindog

If you can show me anything Jesus said that supports this I’d love to see it.

You realize of course - that no one can show you anything Jesus said, right?

All we have is second/third/fourth hand reports of what he said - written down decades after the fact - and even then, those are things “attributed” to Jesus. There are no works that are strictly “JESUS WROTE THIS”.

Secondly - if “The Word” was Jesus (a god or God, your choice) - and he directed the book to be written - then ALL of it is his words.

You continue to want to narrow the conversation to avoid debate by very carefully picking what you are fighting “Jesus didn’t say Trinity” “Paul Didn’t say Trinity” - well - you can have that- doesn’t mean ( as was already pointed out) that the scriptures on whole don’t make the case.

Worst off - what you are trying to do is prove that your narrow sect is the only one that gets this part ‘right’ - which is - witnessing - not debating - and its not discussing it either.

[John_Mace]

@simster

Worst off - what you are trying to do is prove that your narrow sect …

OK, am I the only one that doesn’t understand what sect the OP belongs to?

[simster]

@John_Mace

OK, am I the only one that doesn’t understand what sect the OP belongs to?

He is a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (said so earlier in the thread and elsewhere on the boards) - and apparently decided to take on the cause that ruben4ruben failed to do here- including making it a 4 part ‘series’ and attempting to limit the discussion to only the very narrow/specific point which the OP wants to talk about.

If its a coincidence that he is not taking up that other poster’s cause - then it must be a new attempt a ministry technique by them (but doubtful).

[Chronos]

I’m guessing Jehovah’s Witness, since they’re probably the largest sect which denies the divinity of Jesus.

[Troppus]

Could someone explain why the trinity/not trinity is so important? What has the non-trinity side have to gain by winning this argument?

[simster]

@Troppus

Could someone explain why the trinity/not trinity is so important? What has the non-trinity side have to gain by winning this argument?

In the case of the JW - its a ‘proof’ that they are the only ‘true’ christian group. As raindog has already aluded to - all of “christendom” has fallen for this ‘pagan’ belief thts not supported by “the bible” - of course - this sect’s version of the bible varies from more scholarly translations in key scriptures that make these ‘trinitarian’ concepts more obvious.

Much like the cross and other ‘odd’ or ‘non-mainstream’ beliefs the sect holds.

(not germain to this OP of this thread, tho).

[Troppus]

Thanks, simster.

[raindog]

@Troppus

Could someone explain why the trinity/not trinity is so important? What has the non-trinity side have to gain by winning this argument?

That’s a puzzling question.

Why would you think this any more or less important than any other topic discussed in GD?