THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

ELOHIM. This is the Hebrew for "God" in Gen. 1:1 and 2,700 other places in the Old Testament. It is a uni-plural noun meaning 'Gods" and is so translated 239 times (Gen. 3:5; Ex. 22:28; 1 Sam. 4:8;Dan. 2:11; 4:6-9; 5:11, 14.It is the plural of Eloah meaning deity and God. It is used in the plural with the definite of the Supreme God. It is translated "judges" (Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 9) and "angels" (Ps. 8:5). Sometimes Elohim is used in connection with plural verbs and pronouns, as seen in Hebrew text of Gen. 20:13, "the Gods they caused me to wander" and in Gen. 35:7, "there the Gods they appeared unto him." Many times plural pronouns are used of God in referring to the different members of the Godhead, as "us" (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8; John 17:21), "our"(Gen. 1:26; John 14:23), "we" ( John 14:23; 17:11, 22) and "their" (Ps.2:3).

First, second and third personal pronouns are used hundreds of times in Scripture of one, two, and three persons in the Deity. Some of these are used OF men TO and CONCERNING different members of the Deity TO and OF each other. In John 17 alone Jesus uses 162 pronouns in speaking TO and OF His Father. In Ps. 119 there are 610 pronouns used of man TO and OF God. Other chapters in the Bible have many like pronouns and they are all used right and should be understood in the same sense in connection with God as we understand them when they are used of other subjects. When the different members of Deity speak TO and OF each other just like men do, should we accuse them of misrepresenting themselves and of not being able to properly use the human language. We have more right to believe that only one person is referred to when men use first, second, and third personal singular and plural pronouns OF and TO each other, as to believe there is only one person referred to when the members of the Godhead use them OF and TO each other.

When singular pronouns are used of Deity it is one of the three persons of the Trinity speaking of Himself or as representing the whole Godhead, or it is one of the three divine persons speaking to another one concerning a third person of the Trinity, as is clear in John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15; 17:1-25.

In the Old Testament it was the Father who was the prominent speaker (Heb. 1:1-3; Acts 3:21) ; in the gospels the Son was the prominent speaker (John 5:47; 6:33; 8:26, 28, 38; 12:49, 50; 17:8) ; and now it is the Holy Spirit who is the prominent speaker (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13-15; Acts 2:4; 13:2; 15:28; 20:28).

Singular pronouns are sometimes used of the whole Godhead as a unity (Ex. 20:3; Isa. 44:6, 8; 45:5, 21; 46:9; Hos. 13:4) , just like the whole church as the body of Christ as a unity is spoken of as a "man" and "he" (Eph. 2:14, 15; 4:13; 5:25-27; 2 Thess. 2:7, 8).

The one Elohim then is not one person, or one in number, but one in unity. Elohim is not a divided Deity, but three persons in "One God," or one Deity. The word itself does not say there are three, but merely that Deity is in the plural. God is thus referred to in the plural twice as many times as the word "Jesus" is found in both Testaments.
The plural nature of the term elohim antedates jewish monotheism. It was used to describe the pantheon of Canaanite gods which El Elyon and Yahweh were part of.
 
Thread starter #43
The term "the Father" in the New Testament is not once applied to men or to Christ or to the Holy Ghost, but only and always to the first person of the Godhead, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," the term "the Son" in the New Testament is not once applied to men, or to "the Father" or to " the Holy Ghost" but always to the second person of the Godhead, "the Son of the Father" the term "the Holy Ghost" is not once applied to men or to "the Father" or to "the Son" but only and always to the third person of the Godhead, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, the fact that these terms are always spelled with capital letters like all proper names proves that they are proper names in Scripture and that it was the consensus of all Bible scholars that these terms are true and proper names.
 
The term "the Father" in the New Testament is not once applied to men or to Christ or to the Holy Ghost, but only and always to the first person of the Godhead, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," the term "the Son" in the New Testament is not once applied to men, or to "the Father" or to " the Holy Ghost" but always to the second person of the Godhead, "the Son of the Father" the term "the Holy Ghost" is not once applied to men or to "the Father" or to "the Son" but only and always to the third person of the Godhead, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, the fact that these terms are always spelled with capital letters like all proper names proves that they are proper names in Scripture and that it was the consensus of all Bible scholars that these terms are true and proper names.
Why is the Father the first person of the Godhead instead of Jesus or the Holy Spirit? I wonder who got to number them?

If God is the first person of the Godhead and is the God of the Son, how can the Son be the second person of an always and equal Godhead?
 
Thread starter #45
Funk and Wagnalls Dictionary says, "a name is the appellation by which a person or thing is known." Webster says, "the title by which any person or thing is known or designated or is addressed." The Greek word onoma means, the name or word by which a person or thing is called, and by which he is distinguished from all others." The terms "the Father" and "the Son" and "the Holy Ghost," then can be and are names by which the three persons in the Godhead are known and distinguished from each other. They are not the only names of each, but they are the ones used by Jesus Christ on the occasion of giving the church the baptism formula and the authority to baptize. We need only to show here how the word name in the singular could be used of the three persons and three names, because some argue that if there were three persons it would read in the names of and not "in the name of," but this again demonstrates ignorance of how to use human language or even how to understand it.
 
Thread starter #46
When we send an ambassador to a foreign land, he does business in the name of and not in the names of the United States, and this does not prove there is only one state, for there are 48 separate states in the one United States. The name in the singular in Matt. 28:19 affirms the equality and oneness of the Godhead--a perfect union of three persons in "one God." just like the name of the United States affirms the quality and oneness of the 48 states--a perfect union, as "In the name of Missouri, and of Illinois, and Ohio, This also would affirm the equality and authority of the separate states in the union. It is not necessary to add before each state the phrase in the name, for once it is stated in the beginning it is understood in connection with each state.

So it is in Matt. 28:19: it is not necessary to repeat "in the name" before each person, for once it is stated it is understood as applying to each person. Note other examples of this usage: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth" Matt. 28:18; does not have to read "All power is given unto me in Heaven and all power is given unto in Earth," in order to understand that all power is given in both places. We do not have to repeat "In the beginning God" to understand He also created the Earth at that time Gen. 1:1. "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob." Acts 3:13; does not have to be changed to read the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob in order to understand that He is the God of all three men and of each one in particular.

Matt. 28:19 does not have to be changed to read in the name of the Father and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Ghost to understand that each person has a name and each person is equal in the authority to baptize. Jesus knew how to use language so that He would not have to repeat "in the name" before each separate person in the Godhead. It is just as correct to say it this way as to repeat "in the name" before each name. Acts 3:13 is just as correct and is as easy to understand as Acts 7:32 where "the God of" is repeated before the names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus knew the disciples understood there were three persons in the Godhead, and He also knew everyone else in any age could understand the same and that He was referring to each of the three separate persons alike, if he would be honest and believe the plain Scriptures.

One of the most foolish arguments of some people is that "Father is not a name; so what is the name of the Father? Son is not a name; so what is the name of the Son? Holy Ghost is not a name; son what is the name of the Holy Ghost? This is just as if one would say "Missouri is not a name; what is the name of Missouri? Illinois is not a name ; what is the name of Illinois? Ohio is not a name; what is the name of Ohio? Abraham is not a name; what is the name of Abraham? Isaac is not a name; what is the name of Isaac? Jacob is not a name; what is the of Jacob? If a name is any word whereby any person or thing is know, "the Father and "the Son" and "the Holy Ghost" are names just as much as Missouri, Abraham, or any other. It does not have to be a name that would harmonize with some false doctrine in order to be a name.
 
Last edited:
I think they are names but not just the names of their modes. There is some distinctiveness within the unity.

If not, what was the name of the Father before the Word became the Son? What was the name of the Word before it became the Son?

Names yes, of the personas.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #48
Any two persons such as father and son can call each other by these names and never use any other name to address each other, to themselves, or to others. This is true not only of men, but also of God the Father and God the Son. Not once in addressing the Father did Jesus use any name but "Father" (Matt. 11:25-27; 26:39, 42; Mark 14:36; Luke 11:2; 23:34, 46; John 12:27, 28; 17:1-25), and not once in addressing the Son did the Father use any name but "Son" (Matt. 3:16, 17; 17:5; John 12:28).

Jesus many times uses the name "Father" in referring to God before others. In speaking of the name of the Father, He assumed that the disciples knew full well whom He referred to. They also knew whom He referred to as "the Holy Ghost" for they had heard much about Him as coming to take the place of Jesus (John 14:16, 17, 26; 16:7-15; 20:22; Acts 1:1-8; Matt. 10:1, 20; 12:28-32). John the Baptist taught them about the Holy Ghost even before Jesus appeared (Matt. 3:11; John 1:32-34). They knew the Father was a separate person from the Son and Spirit, for Jesus referred to God as "Father" 181 times, and later the disciples called Him "Father" 78 times, and not once is He confused with, or called "Jesus" or the "the Holy Ghost." They knew the Son was a separate person from the Father and the Holy Ghost, for Jesus distinguished between Himself and the Father 110 times; God the Father Himself did so ten times; demons did 10 times and the disciples themselves later did 85 times; and not once did any of them confuse the Father and Son and Holy Ghost, or call the Son "the Father" or "the Holy Ghost.
 
you can't have a God the Father and God the Son ...then you would have two Gods Jesus said my Father and I are one ..that's one person , one God ...God in Christ, the Father in the Flesh of the Son and we know the Father is the Holy Ghost in different form ..the angel told Mary she will be found with child of who ? the Holy Ghost ..their is your father ...self same spirit ..you would have to have three Bibles for three Gods ...Father is not a name, its a title Acts 2:38 confirms the name and puts a stamp on it ...Jesus said ..Father, I have manifested your name to the people ...that name is Jesus Christ ..the ONLY name under Heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.. the only source for truth is the Bible ..not a seminary dogma or doctrine or denominational creed...it's amazing how many churches tear the book of Acts out of their Bible because of their trinty doctrines /man made philosophy ...if you can't depend on Acts 2:38 you can't depend on John3:16 either ....it lines up perfectly when and only when God reveals it ...Jesus said it's hid from the wise and prudent..only to babes such as will learn. In the old testament God said I will make my name known while they were yet calling him Elohim . Remember what Jesus told Phillip ...if you have seen me you have seen the Father, how long have I been with you and you don't know me !! He said I am God , there is no other I know not one ! that's all singular. The name of the Son is not Son...it's Jesus Christ .There it is ...God in a body. Jesus spoke as the Son , he also spoke as the Father ...he also spoke as the Holy Ghost , God in different forms , there is only one person in the Godhead and that's Jesus Christ. I won't argue the Word but hopefully this will help someone that has a true desire to know who Christ is and doesn't care about church creeds and doctrines. Faith's final resting place is the Word and the Word only. I won't post again as I don't think men should mix philosophy with the word and try to find Bible truth from a forum ...open the Bible and read Isaiah , then the book of John , then Mathew 28:19 and then Acts2:38 and ask the Lord to show you the truth, read it over and over and pray ...when he reveals it to you, you will be hunting a creek to be baptized in God's name just like Paul taught. Remember God said Man's word is a lie but his word is truth ..every word !
 
Does scripture only use Son to describe Jesus' humanity and never his divinity?
Reading Matthew 3:16-17. He is only one God simultaneously in three places, doing three things, in three different ways. God is in the Son, who is getting baptized. God speaks from heaven as Father, addressing His Son. God also alights upon the Son, in the likeness of a dove.

I can see the Oneness but I also see the separation. I'm trying to see the One becoming the Son and still being the One known as Father. The One we know as Father being well pleased with the One known as Son.

Did God only become Father when he also became Son?

Then there is the communication between the Son and Father. The prayers from the Son to his Father. The anointing of the One known as Son being anointed by the One known as Son.

Stephen saw both in Heaven. Of course the One known as Son was human at that point so maybe Stephen saw the human person as well as his Father, the God persona. God being forever incarnate?

I would think that if the One God became human, then Stephen would have only seen that One God in the form of Son/Jesus. If the Oneness of God is Jesus, then won't we only see God as Jesus when we see God?
Is being at the right hand of God just a figure of speech? Such as wrestling all night with God not being physical?

Is the omnipresence of God the answer?
 
Last edited:
How many on here believe Jesus is the only visible manifestation of God we will ever see in the Heaven?
Not really a Trinititarian or Oneness leading question. I've heard many Trinitarians say God has no shape or form other than as Jesus. That God's image and likeness are spiritual. God is Spirit only, other than in Jesus, who is in the form of man.

Will the Oneness be so close that we won't be able to see them both? Then what about us as adopted children? Seeing Jesus as he is and becoming like him.

How close do we become a part of that unity that Jesus has with his Father?
 
I'm enjoying hearing both sides of this debate. Both are being presented fantastically, because both are right. There are three in One. Tri-une God. They do not contradict.
God was on the cross, and God was in heaven. God in heaven forsook completely Himself on the cross. Not two Gods forsaking each other. Only one. But a complete separation. It had to be so, that we would never be forsaken.
 
I'm enjoying hearing both sides of this debate. Both are being presented fantastically, because both are right. There are three in One. Tri-une God. They do not contradict.
God was on the cross, and God was in heaven. God in heaven forsook completely Himself on the cross. Not two Gods forsaking each other. Only one. But a complete separation. It had to be so, that we would never be forsaken.
Interesting to me is that Banjo Picker is Trinitarian but believes like Oneness when it comes to God not being Son until the incarnation. He is not alone in that belief even within Trinitarians.
They do believe that One that became the Son pre-exisited, just that he wasn't known as Son before the Incarnation.

Sometimes during our discussions we see that we are closer to believing each other than we realize. Sometimes we see that we are farther than we once thought on beliefs.
 
Thread starter #54
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 ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you, meaning Peter had the right answer (v 38).

in the name of Jesus Christ meaning, Being baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ to a Jew meant giving up Judaism and all fellowship of his nation with all his political rights and privileges Matt. 28:19.

for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, meaning Gr. eis. Because of remission of sins . When one repents, which always required in Scripture before baptism, he is immediately forgiven (1 John 1:9; Rom. 10:9, 10). Then and then only, is one a fit candidate for water baptism which is an outward symbol of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 3:21). It testifies to the world that one has already repented and been forgiven by faith in Christ (Eph. 2:8, 9; Rom. 1:16; 3:24, 25; 5:1).
 
Thread starter #55
Jesus spoke of the Spirit twenty-four times as being a separate person from Himself and the Father. Bible writers speak of the Spirit as being a separate person from the Father and the Son about 170 times. Not once is the Spirit called "the Father" or "the Son." and not once is confused with them as being the same person. Thus "the Father" is a name designating Him to be a separate person from "the Son" and "the Spirit"; "the Son" is a designating Him to be a separate from "the Father" and "the Spirit"; and "the Holy Ghost" is a name designating Him to be a separate person from "the Father " and "the Son."

"In the name of" is a phrase denoting "by the authority of." Webster says, in the name of, is given as an invocation, adjuration, originally of divine or holy persons or things; as "In the name of God, Amen"; in the name of common sense, consider. In behalf of, by the authority of; as in the name of the law." This latter is in the sense in which Jesus and many Bible writers used it.
 
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 ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you, meaning Peter had the right answer (v 38).

in the name of Jesus Christ meaning, Being baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ to a Jew meant giving up Judaism and all fellowship of his nation with all his political rights and privileges Matt. 28:19.

for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, meaning Gr. eis. Because of remission of sins . When one repents, which always required in Scripture before baptism, he is immediately forgiven (1 John 1:9; Rom. 10:9, 10). Then and then only, is one a fit candidate for water baptism which is an outward symbol of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 3:21). It testifies to the world that one has already repented and been forgiven by faith in Christ (Eph. 2:8, 9; Rom. 1:16; 3:24, 25; 5:1).
"Repent and be baptized"
What is this "repentance?"
 
Jesus spoke of the Spirit twenty-four times as being a separate person from Himself and the Father. Bible writers speak of the Spirit as being a separate person from the Father and the Son about 170 times. Not once is the Spirit called "the Father" or "the Son." and not once is confused with them as being the same person. Thus "the Father" is a name designating Him to be a separate person from "the Son" and "the Spirit"; "the Son" is a designating Him to be a separate from "the Father" and "the Spirit"; and "the Holy Ghost" is a name designating Him to be a separate person from "the Father " and "the Son."

"In the name of" is a phrase denoting "by the authority of." Webster says, in the name of, is given as an invocation, adjuration, originally of divine or holy persons or things; as "In the name of God, Amen"; in the name of common sense, consider. In behalf of, by the authority of; as in the name of the law." This latter is in the sense in which Jesus and many Bible writers used it.
What role did the Holy Spirit have in the incarnation? Meaning the Holy Spirit visited Mary.
Then later the Son was anointed by the Father with the Spirit. Does this mean the Spirit incarnated as well as the Son?

I'm thinking no. Jesus being both man and divine, still received the anointing of the Holy Spirit. I would also assume that Jesus being man, also had his own human spirit/soul. He was fully man.

Therefore the man, Jesus, received the anointing of the Holy Spirit. I've even read that the "name" Jesus Christ means; The Anointed One.
 
Thread starter #59
What role did the Holy Spirit have in the incarnation? Meaning the Holy Spirit visited Mary.
Then later the Son was anointed by the Father with the Spirit. Does this mean the Spirit incarnated as well as the Son?

I'm thinking no. Jesus being both man and divine, still received the anointing of the Holy Spirit. I would also assume that Jesus being man, also had his own human spirit/soul. He was fully man.

Therefore the man, Jesus, received the anointing of the Holy Spirit. I've even read that the "name" Jesus Christ means; The Anointed One.
The Holy Ghost and Jesus are to separate persons look at Acts 8:14,15, 16.
 
What did you do to get SAVED?
I repented like the Jews did. I gave up Judaism. I wasn't very good at keeping the Law anyway so I repented from believing I could save myself by keeping the Law.

My repentance was that change of mind. I put my trust in Jesus who removed the yoke of slavery that was around my neck.

I then believed Jesus died for my sins by substitution. He took my place.

Exactly like the Jews must do as well. Be baptized in the Name of Jesus.
 
Top