The Trinity Doctrine in the Bible

[101G]

God the fatherr is a wholly unknowable being who at the begining had Jesus literallt IN him and with him in a way thay humans can not understand but he referances as his Only begotten son

thanks for the thought, but JESUS is God, and he JESUS "shared" his Nature in flesh according to Phil 2:6. that's known scripture.

understand in the beginning, God let us KNOW that he is an "ECHAD" of himself, and he showed us this in creating MAN, (male and female), this is what is written in Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

so what is know of God is in his WORD.

The holy spirit is the literal breath of God and the Truth in all its truthfulness- All three are not human as we are - Jesus as the only 100 %holy person Put on human skin to save humanity from death -

Jesus the Spirit took on flesh correct, and how he did that was "being the equal share of himself in flesh".

PICJAG,
101G.

 

[Magenta]

well since you cannot find a verse that say it was the "Fathers" voice, no, ... no, ventriloquist... let the bible
teach you, listen and Learn, just becase a voice come from heaven do not mean it is the "Father's" voice,

Matthew 3:17 "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Who else's Son is Jesus? Do you think it was Joseph speaking from heaven?

2 Peter 1:17
For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this
was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”—

 

[101G]

Who else's Son is Jesus? Do you think it was Joseph speaking from heaven?

2 Peter 1:17
For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this
was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”—

thanks for the reply,

Who else's Son is Jesus? Do you think it was Joseph speaking from heaven?
the point is the voice, not the content of the voice, but who voice was it? see post #75, and #79 again.

PICJAG,
101G.

 

[S3RV4NT]

th human intellect wants to know what it can't comprehend it seems easy to you but in fact, it is your faith that has allowed you to accept what the Holy Spirit and the word of God have opened your understanding to.

So it's kind of an 'Emperor's New Clothes' type of thing?

I can't'see' the Trinity Doctrine in my understanding because ... my Faith isn't great enough?

 

[Magenta]

the point is the voice, not the content of the voice, but who voice was it? see post #75, and #79 again.

well since you cannot find a verse that say it was the "Fathers" voice, no, ... no, ventriloquist... let the bible teach you, listen and Learn, just becase a voice come from heaven do not mean it is the "Father's" voice

2 Peter 1:17 identifies the voice as belonging to "the Majestic Glory."

Do you think Peter had some other in mind besides God?

 

[101G]

2 Peter 1:17 identifies the voice as belonging to "the Majestic Glory."

Do you think Peter had some other in mind besides God?

Magenta, Magenta, I was not going to answer this false assumption, this is exacity with I fighting aganist, listen, 2 Peter 1:17 "For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
2 Peter 1:18 "And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount."

the mount of transfiguration is not the Baptism in the Jordan River..... see it now?

not the same account. so try again.

PICJAG,
101G.

 

[Magenta]

Magenta, Magenta, I was not going to answer this false assumption, this is exacity with I fighting aganist, listen, 2 Peter 1:17 "For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
2 Peter 1:18 "And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount."

the mount of transfiguration is not the Baptism in the Jordan River..... see it now?

not the same account. so try again.

PICJAG,
101G.

You falsely accuse me of falsely assuming to simply ask a straightforward, legitimate question. The baptismal account has the voice coming from heaven, not a cloud, and the posts I was responding to had the voice coming from heaven. However, in both accounts (baptismal and transfiguration), Jesus is called "My Son." Why don't you try answering who else is Jesus the Son of, and please leave off your false accusations.

 

[101G]

You falsely accuse me of falsely assuming to simply ask a straightforward, legitimate question. The baptismal account has the voice coming from heaven, not a cloud, and the posts I was responding to had the voice coming from heaven. However, in both accounts (baptismal and transfiguration), Jesus is called "My Son." Why don't you try answering who else is Jesus the Son of, and please leave off your false accusations.

did I say that? now was the voice from the Mount or the baptism? which one.

PICJAG,
101G.

 

[Magenta]

did I say that? now was the voice from the Mount or the baptism? which one.

PICJAG,
101G.

It was from both, and in both Jesus is called My Son. Who is Jesus the Son of?

Why do you keep refusing to answer this straightforward question???

1 John 4:10
In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

 

[S3RV4NT]

My position is: I don't care to know your god. I care to know the martyrs' God (because they amaze me, not an anonymous SDA who pretends to be a genuine seeker of the truth but seeks to be right.)

No ... I'm not SDA nor am I jewish. I'm what is referred to as a Bible-believing Christian. We are few and far between today. We travel the narrow road ... accepting ugliness and persecution from the world at large, just like our precious Savior Jesus Christ did, for our standing up for the True Words of God ... just as Jesus did ... and just as the martyrs did.

It's not normal to sing and praise the Lord when a bunch of lions attack you, it's normal to shit your pants!

Do you praise your Trinitarian god with that tongue? 'A fire, a world of iniquity.' (James 3:6)

I'm not angry at all. I knew from the very beginning you weren't sincere. I recognize this kind of bait threads from a mile and I also KNOW that you already have your mind set on the issue, hence I am not interested in discussing with you.

God bless you.

Sorry. I only accept blessings from the Trinitarian God.

Well, ........ ok then.

 

[101G]

It was from both, and in both Jesus is called My Son. Who is Jesus the Son of?

Why do you keep refusing to answer this straightforward question???

1 John 4:10
In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

NO it was not,
Good Night.

PICJAG,
101G.

 

[Magenta]

NO it was not,
Good Night.

PICJAG,
101G.

No it was not what?

Are you saying Jesus is not the Son of God?

Who else would call Jesus their Son?

Speaking from heaven, or a cloud???

You have not answered this question yet. Shame.

 

[GaryA]

I would also mention as others have that we need not be afraid of the word "catholic". It simply means "universal" and was a way early christian writers differentiated between the Christian church and the gnostic and heretical church.

And, the Catholic Church was the pagan church...

The Catholic Church and the true Christian Church(es) have never been one-and-the-same.

The true Christian Church(es) have never been 'universal'.

The Catholic Church was the enemy of the true Christian Church(es) throughout the Dark Ages.

I am not afraid of the word 'catholic' by any means --- but, I also know that the word is especially "dangerous" in the modern day - as it is the focal point - and the pivot point - for/of the "slippery-slope" Ecumenical Movement that is taking place today - for the purpose of forming a One World New Age religion that denies the Creator.

 

[S3RV4NT]

And, the Catholic Church was the pagan church...

The Catholic Church and the true Christian Church(es) have never been one-and-the-same.

The true Christian Church(es) have never been 'universal'.

The Catholic Church was the enemy of the true Christian Church(es) throughout the Dark Ages.

I am not afraid of the word 'catholic' by any means --- but, I also know that the word is especially "dangerous" in the modern day - as it is the focal point - and the pivot point - for/of the "slippery-slope" Ecumenical Movement that is taking place today - for the purpose of forming a One World New Age religion that denies the Creator.

And ... The Roman Catholic Church is the body responsible for the horrific deaths of countless of those poor, faithful Martyrs mentioned previously.

The same body that 'devised' none other than ... the Trinity doctrine.

It's likely many of them died for their refusal to embrace it.

Hmmmm ......

 

[CS1]

that was not the voice at the Lord Jesus baptism, so try again.

PICJAG,
101G.

Look if you are looking to troll please know it will be accepted very long. You were provided scripture the context is clearly seen and said in more than one Gospel. You and I are done.

 

[CS1]

well since you cannot find a verse that say it was the "Fathers" voice, no, ... no, ventriloquist... let the bible teach you, listen and Learn, just becase a voice come from heaven do not mean it is the "Father's" voice, example, Genesis 22:10 "And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son."
Genesis 22:11 "And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I."
Genesis 22:12 "And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me."

WAIT A MINUTE, "withheld thy son, thine only son from me." WITHELD FROM THE angel? NO, FROM GOD, BUT WHO WAS speaking FROM HEAVEN FOR GOD?

see, if the bible never tells you it was, THEN, DON'T ASSUME, meaning neither ADD or TAKE AWAY, from his WORD. that a violation. see you, as many automatic assume that it was the Father's voice by what was said. but the bible never said it was the Father's voice, not here at the Baptism of the Lord Jesus.

see, never assume anything, let the bible tell you just as in Genesis 22, the bible clearly tell us who spoke FROM HEAVEN. the angel. so let that be a lession to learn... ok.

this is how false doctrine is propagated, by saying what the bible did not say.

PICJAG,
101G.

Wrong !!! You do not take the context of another verse to remove the current context where the passage and text are given.

Jesus went to be water baptized which was Certified and witnesessed by John the Baptist as the word says.

A voice from heaven spoke and said "this is my Son in whom I AM well pleased".

The voice that spoke was at the event that just happens and was in context to the Baptism of Jesus. The same similar event happened on what is known as the Mount. Of transfiguration,

as Peter was telling Jesus let me build three tents for Moses, Elijah, and Jesus. A Voice again said, "this IS my SON Listen to Him".

I am not going to engage in foolishness with you or allegorizing of the Baptism of Jesus where The Father spoke, Jesus was there and the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus in the form of a dove.

 

[CS1]

So it's kind of an 'Emperor's New Clothes' type of thing?

I can't'see' the Trinity Doctrine in my understanding because ... my Faith isn't great enough?

NO, that is a strawman created by your bias. I did not say that you assume that. YOu can have all the faith you want your flesh is limited and so is your human mind. As I said NO ONE can including me. But you did not want to see that so you created a false narrative and dismiss the truth of the comment and the word of God.

 

[CherieR]

I believe that Jesus is God. For me personally, the Oneness view makes more sense. I do not advocate for in the name of Jesus only baptism but rather baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[CS1]

I believe that Jesus is God. For me personally, the Oneness view makes more sense. I do not advocate for in the name of Jesus only baptism but rather baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

that is the issue the human mind tries to make sense of the Divine Nature of God when we can not fully understand.

Oneness says only Jesus and three manifestations of Him. Yet they tell you that Jesu was talking to Himself of the Cross and the voice spoke at His baptism was that of Jesus, really? And that makes more sense? it is better for all when we admit we do not know the full understanding OF GOD. The word of God gives us a limited revelation, enough for righteous living and appropriate worship.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

I don't know that it can be any clearer than "baptizing in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
This statement is powerfully clear. Being washed and immersed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Think about the words and what they really mean. That If you do something in a person's name you are doing it with their authority, in their stead if you will. In the old days a person with authority given by, say a king would use the king's seal to make it official, what ever was done in his name. So when you are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, their name is the seal on your baptism. Their name is your salvation.