I recently posted a video on YouTube, “Where’s Your Proof,” showing that most denominational practices actually have no biblical authority whatsoever. In response to that video, on viewer made the following comment:
“I tried to prove the Trinity from scripture but then I couldn’t find any verses to support it :(”
I invited the commenter to engage in a discussion of this important topic, here on Bible Q-n-A, with the following comment:
“I’de be happy to discuss that with you over at bibleqna.com. I’ll post this video there and you can make your comment requesting proof for the Godhead and I’ll give you passages like Matt. 3:16, 17; 28:19; 2 Jn. 9 and such like. We could have a good discussion on it. Let me know if you want to do that and I’ll start the discussion chain.”
Well, Rob accepted my offer so I am making this post for the starting point of our discussion.
To begin with, I would like to hear how he addresses the verses I mentioned above. There are only a few choices a person can make in explaining these passages. 1) There are three persons in the Godhead (Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:20; Col. 2:9). 2) Only one of the persons in these verses referred to is actually God and the other two are not. 3) All three are actually the same person merely appearing to be three distinct persons.
Rob, please let us know which of these is actually your position on the Godhead.
Thanks,
Norm
Re: Mike
“We refuse to believe in the existence of hell because we can’t get our mind around a venegful God.”
1. I accept the existence of hell so far as the bible defines it. I reject the Dantesque inferno that was created by the Catholic church.
“We refuse to believe that baptism is necessary unto salvation, because it goes against our sense of justice.”
2. I believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation. From what I’ve heard, I agree completely with the Church of Christ understanding.
“We refuse to believe in the Godhead, because we are unable to grasp the concept of three distinct (not separate, but distinct) persons within ONE God!”
3. I reject the Trinity because the bible does not teach it. It is the product of Greek philosophy and was integrated into Christianity by the use of force.
“Just because we can’t understand it, or it goes against how WE believe justice should be given, does not make it untrue.”
4. Agreed.
Re: Kyle
“Christ had to be perfect in order to atone sins , thus perfection making Him God.”
1. The bible says that Jesus was blameless and without sin. It also says he was perfected:
“It was fitting that God, for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many children to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” – Hebrews 2:10 (NRSV)
2. The bible says Jesus had to be a man, not a god, to reconcile us with God:
“Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people.” – Hebrews 2:17 (NRSV)
“I am curious as to your explanation of 1 John 5:7 , and John 1:1 – 14.”
3. 1 John 5:7 is universally recognized to be a Trinitarian corruption of scripture.
4. There is not a single scholar anywhere in the world who argues that it is authentic.
Consider: If the doctrine was so clearly taught in scripture why did Trinitarians need to corrupt the bible just to find support for it?
5. The prologue to the gospel of John speaks about the word of God.
6. Jesus is the embodiment of God’s word so it is rightly stated that “the word was made flesh”.
“The scritpure which we know is perfect (2 Tim. 3:16) tells us of the deity of Jesus Christ.”
7. It seems to me like people interpret the bible through the lens of a few verses that are wrested to support the Trinity.
8. The overwhelming testimony of scripture is that Jesus is a man chosen by God to be his Anointed One.
Consider: Have you ever tried to prove the Trinity from the book of Acts or Luke or Mark or Matthew?
“I find it hard to accept that Jesus could not have been God , and yet was able to pay for sins which required perfection.”
9. I am somewhat surprised by that because the bible teaches the opposite.
10. Jesus absolutely had to be a human being in order to make the payment for sins:
“Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,” – Hebrews 2:14 (NRSV)
Consider: If God is immortal and therefore cannot die what makes people think that he had to be God to die for us?
Thank for the questions Kyle,
Rob
Robert,
One of my favorite radio talk shows has a segment called “The Duck Of The Day.” I think I will put your last post in that category. You did a great job of writing a lengthy post that completely “ducked” my question. Well, in the grand old tradition of pressing for a direct answer, I’m going to ask it again. And, I’ll try to make it a little easier for you to give a clear, concise, direct answer.
If Jesus is not divine, then what do you believe him to be?
Now, you said that “Defining who Jesus is can be a monumental task.” It wasn’t a “monumental task” for you to deny that he is God. Why should it be a monumental task for you to say, “He is not God but, rather, he is ________.” I think you should be able to do that for us.
It seems that you are attempting to discount the Gospel record of who and what Jesus is by trying to limit the discussion to the sermons recorded in Acts. However, the historical record of the Gospels reveals what the people on Pentecost had already been hearing about Jesus. Whatever prior knowledge Peter’s audience may have had must be taken into account. Therefore, we have the Gospel record. That is not to say that I agree with your assessment of the sermons in Acts, that they included nothing of Christ’s deity. I am simply pointing out the fallacy of neglecting the recorded evidence of the audiences’ prior knowledge, especially the one on Pentecost. The same Jews that were present in Jerusalem on Pentecost would have been present for the feast of Passover, just fifty days prior, and, therefore, would have been present for the crucifixion. There is no way that their having prior knowledge can be denied (cf. Acts 2:22).
In Acts 2:34, Peter quotes from Ps. 110:1. Jesus had used this same passage to teach his duel nature, deity in flesh (cf. Col. 2:9), when he asked the Jewish leaders who’s Son was the Messiah (Matt. 22:41-45). The whole point of the question there was to reveal the error of rejecting the deity of Christ. How could he be the Son of David and also be called “Lord” by David. There is only one way, he is both God (David’s Lord) and man (David’s Son). So, you are incorrect in your statement that Peter did not teach the deity of Christ in his sermon on Pentecost.
Next, you said
However, you are incorrect in this. Acts 17 is an inspired sermon, is it not? And, in that sermon for Gentiles, Paul makes reference to the Divine Nature or Godhead (KJV). The text says that we are God’s offspring (tou theou). Therefore, we should not think that the “Divine Nature” (theion) is like gold or silver or stone, etc. (Acts 17:29). The Greek word theion is defined by Louw and Nida (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains) as “pertaining to having the nature of God.” A derivative of this same word is used specifically for Christ in Col. 2:9. All the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily. The word there is theotetos. Again, Louw and Nida define it as, “the nature or state of being God – ‘deity, divine nature, divine being.’” So the literal definition of the word would have the text read something like, “in him the whole content of being God dwells bodily.” Truly, he is Immanuel – God with us!
I don’t call myself a “trinitarian,” I call myself a Christian because I have submitted my will to my Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13). And as a Christian, yes, I would tell you that you must accept the truth that Jesus is deity in order to have everlasting life. Jesus himself taught such a necessity. In John 8:24 Jesus said that unless we believe he is the I AM we will die in our sins. The word he is not in the Greek and, in the context, Jesus makes a strong point of the fact that he is the I AM (cf. Jn. 8:58; Ex. 3:14).
As you go through and outline the various sermons in Acts, you again fail to acknowledge any prior knowledge on the part of these audiences. However, Peter appeals to this prior knowledge as the basis for his message in Acts 3 (cf. Acts 3:13, 18, 20, 24-25). It is very clear that Peter is preaching to those who have already heard Christ preached and who had prior knowledge to reflect upon. We both believe that water baptism for the remission of sins is necessary for salvation, however, where does Peter preach it in this sermon? Simply pointing out that a particular doctrine is not taught in a particular sermon doesn’t mean that the audience was never taught that doctrinal point. So, again, your appeal to the various sermons as excluding the deity of Christ is incorrect or, at best, suppositional.
Let me leave you with another question and I will eagerly await your reply. Who purchased the church with his own blood? In Acts 20:28 it is “the church of God” which “he” (i.e. God) purchased with “his” (i.e. God’s) own blood. Did the Father have physical blood with which to purchase the church? (cf. Jn. 4:24; Lk. 24:39). So, whose blood purchased the church?
Robert, I greatly appreciate your interest in discussing this issue and I pray it will be beneficial for all who take part and follow along. I pray we will all seek to serve God in harmony with his word without the hindrance of man-made doctrines
[Is he God? (I know you will say no to this one but I would still like to have you make that direct statement to the question).]
A) Jesus has the title θεός applied to him in one passage for certain:
Thomas answered and said to him, “My lord and my θεός!” – John 20:28
B) He is called θεός because human representatives of God can carry that title:
If he called them θεοὺς to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken) – John 10:35
[2. Is he an angel of God? (yes or no).]
A) Jesus is an ἄγγελος in sense that he is a messenger or envoy of God.
B) This is the same way in which other men are called ἄγγελος in the bible:
This is he of whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send my ἄγγελος before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.’ – Matthew 11:10
C) Jesus is not an ἄγγελος in the sense that he is a part of the host of heavenly spirit creatures:
For to what ἄγγελος did God ever say, “You are my son, today I have become your father”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? – Hebrews 1:5
[3. Is he just a man? (yes or no).]
A) Jesus is most emphatically a man, a human being in every single way possible:
i. The Old Testament Identifies Jesus as a Man
Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet from your brethren as he raised me up. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. – Acts 3:22 (quoting Deuteronomy 18:15)
ii. Jesus Identifies Himself as a Man
but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did. – John 8:40
iii. Jesus’ Disciples Identify Him as a Man
“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know – Acts 2:22
iv. The New Testament Identifies Jesus as a Man
the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh – Romans 1:3
v. The Resurrected Jesus is Identified as a Man
because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead.” – Acts 17:31
B) Jesus has to be fully man completely and totally a human being in order to reconcile us to God:
i. Jesus Had the Same Human Nature as All Men
Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, – Hebrews 2:14
ii. Jesus Was in Every Way a Like Other Men
Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. – Hebrews 2:17
iii. Jesus Had to be a Man to Be Tempted
For because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted. – Hebrews 2:18
iv. The Mediator Between Mankind and God is a Man:
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, – 1 Timothy 2:5
D) If by “just a man” you mean in contrast to being part zebra / part man or part kangaroo / part man or part YHWH / part man than yes.
[4. If he is not God, an angel, or just a man then please give a clear concise statement as to what you believe him to be. For example, “I believe Jesus to be ____.”]
A) I believe Jesus to be a man accredited by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him.
[Now, you said that “Defining who Jesus is can be a monumental task.”]
A) I mean only in regard to the particulars like exactly how the virgin birth was orchestrated.
B) The New Testament does not elaborate on other certain points like what Jesus did between 12 and 30.
C) In reference to these speculative tasks it can be hard to come up with a concrete answer.
D) My entire point was that the essential and fundamental aspects of Jesus’ identity and work is plainly attested to over and over again.
E) What is not a monumental task is defining who Jesus is based on the absolutely clear and unambiguous statements from him and his disciples.
[It seems that you are attempting to discount the Gospel record of who and what Jesus is by trying to limit the discussion to the sermons recorded in Acts.]
A) The purpose of the sermon on the day of Pentecost was to give people the fundamental message of who Jesus was and what he did.
B) You wanted me to present my opinion of the absolute fundamental and defining characteristics of Jesus.
C) Since that is exactly what the disciples were doing in their sermons I will let them guide my answer to you.
D) There can be absolutely no criticism leveled against an approach that mimics exactly the actions of the disciples under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
E) On the day of Pentecost the Jews heard exactly what they needed to hear about Jesus of Nazareth.
F) They preached the absolute essentials of who Jesus was and it had nothing to do with him being a divine God-Man.
[Whatever prior knowledge Peter’s audience may have had must be taken into account.]
A) Like what? What are you suggesting? That the Jewish and pagan crowds already believed he was God? What are you saying?
B) Anyways, what they had knowledge of is already stated by the disciples:
“a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know”
C) It is abundantly clear that what they already had knowledge of the miraculous works which were done through him by God.
D) People often accepted Jesus as a prophet and servant of God yet never as the second person of the Trinity. For instance:
This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him.” – John 3:2
[deity in flesh (cf. Col. 2:9)]
A) Colossians 2:9 says nothing about Jesus being a “deity in the flesh”.
B) It says the exact opposite:
For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, – Colossians 2:9
C) Notice that it doesn’t say Jesus was the fullness of deity it says that the fullness of deity dwelt inside his body.
D) This passage makes it clear that the fullness of God lived and operated in the man Jesus Christ not that he was somehow a God-Man.
[How could he be the Son of David and also be called “Lord” by David. There is only one way, he is both God (David’s Lord) and man (David’s Son).]
A) What verse are you getting that idea from?
[Paul makes reference to the Divine Nature or Godhead (KJV)]
A) That the word θεῖον occurs not one would dispute.
B) If your assertion is that θεῖον means Godhead and Godhead means Trinity than I would disagree.
C) If however by godhead you only mean ‘deity’ or ‘divine’ nature than I am with you.
D) At some point the word Godhead came to be synonymous with 3-in-1 God so I’m somewhat leery of using it.
[Immanuel – God with us!]
A) I already addressed the argument that supposes that someone is God if their name refers to God.
[Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ]
A) I think I already addressed this verse also.
[In John 8:24 Jesus said that unless we believe he is the I AM we will die in our sins.]
A) Out of twenty Trinitarian translations that I just looked at only one of them even tried to make this verse deify Jesus.
B) According to you this is some clear statement of divinity yet when he tells them “I am he” they ask “Who are you?” (vs. 24).
[However, Peter appeals to this prior knowledge as the basis for his message in Acts 3 (cf. Acts 3:13, 18, 20, 24-25)]
A) Only Acts 3:13 says that they knew anything about Jesus before hand and it was the fact that he was crucified.
B) It wasn’t a secret that Jesus was killed and his death would only prove to people that he wasn’t God because God cannot die.
C) Again, what are you trying to suggest?
[We both believe that water baptism for the remission of sins is necessary for salvation, however, where does Peter preach it in this sermon?]
A) The sermon in Acts 3 isn’t about the significance of baptism, it is about the identity of Jesus.
B) Anyways as soon as they finished preaching they were arrested so I don’t think they baptized anyone that day.
[Who purchased the church with his own blood? In Acts 20:28 it is “the church of God” which “he” (i.e. God) purchased with “his” (i.e. God’s) own blood.]
A) I am 99.99% certain that you are aware of the textual and translational variations for this verse.
B) You criticize me for accurately identifying the ambiguity inherent in these passages and than proceed to cite more ambiguous passages.
C) So, I’m not going to do anything but let Trinitarian scholars speak for themselves:
“Church of the Lord”: AMP?, ASV, LO, WWE,
- Footnote: E-R-V, ESV, GNT, HCSB, ISV, NET, NIV, NRSV, TNIV, NCV,
“Church of God”: CENT, CEV, DARBY, EMP, E-R-V, ESV, GNT, HCSB, ISV, KJV, LITV, NAB, NET, NIV, NJB, NKJV, NLT, NCV, NRSV, RSV, TCNT, TNIV,
- Footnote: AMP, ASV, WEB,
“Church of the Lord and God”: AMP?, WEB,
- Footnote: HCSB, NET, NKJV,
“blood of his own”: CENT, CEV, CJB, DARBY, EMP, GNT, NCV, NET, NJB, NRSV, RSV,
- Footnote: E-R-V, ESV, NAB, NLT,
“his own blood”: AMP, ASV, ESV, E-R-V, HCSB, ISV, KJV, LITV, LO, NAB, NIV, NLT, TCNT, TNIV, WEB, WWE,
- Footnote: CEV, GNT, NET, NRSV,
[Robert, I greatly appreciate your interest in discussing this issue and I pray it will be beneficial for all who take part and follow along. I pray we will all seek to serve God in harmony with his word without the hindrance of man-made doctrines]
I am glad that you find this discussion interesting. I can certainly say amen to you closing statement.
- Rob
Robert,
Just a suggestion, but you should check out the book “The Wallace-Vaughn Debate” between G.K. Wallace (church of Christ) and Ray Vaughn (United Pentacostal Holiness) on the doctrine of the Godhead. It has lots of good info on this subject, and may help you to learn more about what the Bible says about the Godhead.
As for your doctrine, it sounds very similar to the Gnostic doctrine. John warned against this kind of doctrine in II John 7, “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” And also, in I John 4:2-3, “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. ”
My question is, if Christ was just a man then what was He before He “came in the flesh”?
I wanted to say more, but I cannot remember the verses I wanted to use at this time.
Re: Jeff
[Just a suggestion, but you should check out the book “The Wallace-Vaughn Debate” between G.K. Wallace (church of Christ) and Ray Vaughn (United Pentacostal Holiness) on the doctrine of the Godhead.]
A) Jeff, I am not a believer in the Oneness doctrine but I appreciate the suggestion.
[As for your doctrine, it sounds very similar to the Gnostic doctrine. John warned against this kind of doctrine in II John 7, “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”]
B) I’m not sure if you realize this but my entire point is that Jesus came in the flesh.
C) I deny that Jesus of Nazareth was the Almighty God not that he was a human being.
[My question is, if Christ was just a man then what was He before He “came in the flesh”?]
D) Jesus existed eternally in the plan and purpose of God even before he was created in the womb of Mary:
This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord – Ephesians 3:11 (NASB)
E) However, before the “flesh” was begotten by the holy Spirit the man Jesus Christ did not literally exist.
Q: Jeff do you think that the man Jesus of Nazareth was walking around in heaven before he “came in flesh”?
God bless,
Rob
Q: Jeff do you think that the man Jesus of Nazareth was walking around in heaven before he “came in flesh”?
Yes, I think that, save for the time He was in the flesh and the times He was sent as God’s messenger, Jesus was in heaven with the Father. I believe that He is currently there on His throne reigning at the right hand of God (Hebrews 1:3).
In Genesis 1:26 God said, “let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness”. To whom was God speaking if not the Son? Man hadn’t been created yet so He couldn’t have been talking to man. Also, the word translated God in that verse is Elohim which is a plural term.
E) However, before the “flesh” was begotten by the holy Spirit the man Jesus Christ did not literally exist.
So, you’re saying that the Holy Spirit is God? Then you must also admit that there is at least two persons in the Godhead.
As for II John 7, the whole point of John’s argument was to show that Jesus was God in the flesh. Like you, the Gnostics believed that Jesus was just a man. They believed that He wasn’t deity until the Holy Spirit desended on Him at His baptism. They then say that He lost His deity shortly before His crucifixion. Anyways, John was attempting to show that this doctrine was false with his comments in I and II John.
It was also John that said in John 1:1-2, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God”. The Word in these verses is Christ.