In article , basicallyblues says...
>
>>No not at all. Almighty God does not have a God. period.
>
>>Yes He does.
>
>Maybe your God does (2 Cor. 4:4...okay maybe that was harsh of me) but
>the God of the Bible- the "only true God" as *Jesus himself called him*
>(John 17:3) YHWH does not have a God.
>
>>There is nothing 'unbiblical' about it. Or is your bible missing Mt
>>28:19? Or
>>what _did_ you think "Father, Son and Holy SPirit" are if not the
>>Trinity?
>
>Why, because the three are mentioned together. So I guess Abraham,
>Isaac and Jacob are a trinity too?

I guess you didn't notice that I capitalize THE. Or you failed to notice why.

>I'm surprised you cited this verse.

You should not be. For there is a long and venerable tradition of
using this verse, it dates back at least to St. Basil the Great.

>Few trinitarians ever try this one because it obviously does not speak
>of a trinity.

No, many trinitarians _do_ use this one, because if you look carefully
at the Greek, yes, it _does_ speak of the Trinity. That is why I
capitalized the THE. There is ONE name, that of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
That IS 1st century language for the Trinity.

>In other verses those three are listed..... as follows in The New
>Jerusalem Bible. Second Corinthians 13:13 (14) puts the three together
>in this way: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and
>the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." First Corinthians
>12:4-6 says: "There are many different gifts, but it is always the
>same Spirit; there are many different ways of serving, but it is always
>the same Lord. There are many different forms of activity, but in
>everybody it is the same God who is at work in them all." And Matthew
>28:19 reads: "Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise
>them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
>Spirit."

>Do those verses say that God, Christ, and the holy spirit constitute a
>Trinitarian Godhead, that the three are equal in substance, power, and
>eternity?

They are all references to the Trinity.

>No, they do not, no more than listing three people, such as
>Tom, Dick, and Harry, means that they are three in one.

But how can you claim that all these verses are merely equivalent to
list of three? They are not.


>This type of reference, admits McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of
>Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, "proves only
>that there are the three subjects named, . . . but it does not prove,
>by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to the divine nature,
>and possess equal divine honor."

Didn't I say they were _references_? I did not say that any single onw
of those verses _proved_ Trinity. But there is a pattern. And the
pattern _does_ prove Trinity.

>Although a supporter of the Trinity, that source says of 2 Corinthians
>13:13 (14): "We could not justly infer that they possessed equal
>authority, or the same nature." And of Matthew 28:18-20 it says:
>"This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively
>either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their
>equality or divinity."

You miss the point. YOU claimed that Trinity was a third century
invention. I showed you a 1st century reference to Tirnity, namely, Mt
28:19. I never claimed that this one verse proved Trinity, just that
it _is_ a reference to Trinity. There is a difference, you know.

>When Jesus was baptized, God, Jesus, and the holy spirit were also
>mentioned in the same context. Jesus "saw descending like a dove
>God's spirit coming upon him." (Matthew 3:16) This, however, does
>not say that the three are one.

Yet they _are_ one. And when you understand this, you will realize that it was
precisely in this scene that:
   When Thou wast baptized in the Jordan O Christ God,
   Worship of the Trinity was made manifest.
   For the voice of the Father bare witness to Thee,
   And the Spirit in the form of a dove confirmed the word.
   Thou hast appeared, O Lord, glory to Thee.
   
>Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mentioned
>together numerous times, but that does not make them one.

But compare the grammar and context with Mt 28:19: they are NOT the same.

>Peter, James,
>and John are named together, but that does not make them one either.

The same principle applies here.

>Furthermore, God's spirit descended upon Jesus at his baptism,
>showing that Jesus was not anointed by spirit until that time.

That is true. He was not _anointed_ with the Spirit until that time. But what is
yoru point?

>This
>being so, how could he be part of a Trinity where he had always been
>one with the holy spirit?

Easily.


-- 
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/18/05 4:59:35 PM ---