Trinity vs Oneness Doctrine?

[youneverletgo]

May 7, 2008 9:55:02 GMT -8 Tyler said:

On the other end of the spectrum I have met Messianic Jews who believe the oneness doctrine and explain that Yeshua is a created Being who assisted in creation. This is also a HUGE error.

That's not what Oneness doctrine is.....what you're talking about here is actually almost directly opposite of what Oneness doctrine is.

You're actually referring to Arianism (the belief that Jesus was a created being who assisted in creation). The Christian church has defined this as heresy.

Oneness doctrine teaches that Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In other words, this belief says that God is one person, and that one person is Jesus. "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit" are titles for different jobs or roles that he took on at different times. The Christian church has also defined this as heresy.

I have also run into both Christians and Messianic Jews who hold to both of these teachings, online.

Has Messianic Judaism declared either of these views as heresy?

[youneverletgo]

May 6, 2008 10:08:45 GMT -8 Prodigal Girl said:

Where the "trinity" doctrine goes wrong is when some variety of it makes it look like Yeshua is different from the G-d of the Universe.

Then whoever is claiming this is not really Trinitarian, and whoever presented that explanation of the trinity is incorrect.

That's not what the doctrine teaches. I'm a Trinitarian, and I firmly uphold that Jesus is the same God as the God of the universe.

The new Testament says that Yeshua has not only been around since Creation and before; (in other words, forever) but that He took an active role in the Creation (in other words, He IS the Creator). He also said that if you search the scriptures (meaning, at the time He was speaking, the Old Testament) you would find Him, see Him in the scriptures.

This is what the Trinity claims as well -- that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal.

This means that we do believe that Jesus has existed forever and will exist forever.

The catholic church as well as other churches, do not teach that Yeshua was there when the Law was given to Moses. I believe that not only was He there, but that it was He that gave the law to Moses; it was He who Moses and his companions saw on the mountain.

That's actually not true.

The Catholic Church and the Protestant churches all uphold that Jesus is eternal.

Sometimes the trinity debate is just a matter of semantics, and other times there is actually erroneous doctrine involved. Where the Old Testament teachings are portrayed as being given by a different G-d from the New Testament, that I believe is in error.

Agreed.

[youneverletgo]

May 16, 2008 23:31:35 GMT -8 Zandurian said:

Some good information and discussion on this subject is in progress at this site
fatherslove.freeforums.org/exposs-f9.html

blessings,
- Byron

here's a series of videos in which Walter Martin (a trinitarian) debates the leaders of the UPCI. (The upci is a Oneness Pentecostal denomination)


video.google.com/videosearch?q=ankerberg+upci&sitesearch=

[youneverletgo]

May 26, 2008 4:14:16 GMT -8 Mark said:

United Pentacostal is not a "cult" because by definition, a cult is centered upon a leader who manipulates or coerces his or her followers into submission. I can applaud the sincerity and dedication to a strict order; but there are a couple of things that I believe or entrapping.

Many Christian apologists make a distinction between a sociological definition of a cult and a theological definition.

See for example this website:
www.apologeticsindex.org/c09.html

Sociologial vs. Theological Definitions

Note the difference between sociological and theological definitions of the term "cult:"

* Sociological definitions of the term ...

...include consideration of such factors as authoritarian leadership patterns, loyalty and commitment mechanisms, lifestyle characteristics, [and] conformity patterns (including the use of various sanctions in connection with those members who deviate).
Source: Ronald Enroth, "What Is a Cult?" in A Guide to Cults and New ReligionsOff-site Link, e.d. Ronald Enroth (Downers Grove, Ill,: InterVarsity 1983), p14
Back To Top

* Theological definitions make note of the reasons why a particular group's beliefs and/or practices are considered unorthodox - that is, in conflict with the body of essential teachings of the movement the group compares itself to.

For example, Christian apologist Robert Bowman defines a cult as

A religious group originating as a heretical sect and maintaining fervent commitment to heresy. Adj.: "cultic" (may be used with reference to tendencies as well as full cult status).
Source: Robert Bowman, A Biblical Guide To Orthodoxy And Heresy.

Alan Gomes writes

A cult of Christianity is a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrine system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which (system) denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian Faith as taught in the sixty-six books of the Bible.
Source: Alan Gomes, Unmasking The CultsOff-site Link (Zondervan, 1995). Quoted here.
Back To Top

It should be noted that in addition to aberrant, unorthodox, and/or heretical doctrines, many - but not all - religious cults also have excessive or abusive sociological characteristics (e.g. authoritarian leadership patterns, strict conformity requirements, manipulative controls, etc.)

www.apologeticsindex.org/c09a01.html

2. Key Features of the Preferred Definition

1. "A cult of Christianity..."

1. A cult is a group that deviates doctrinally from a "parent" or "host" religion; that is, cults grow out of and deviate from a previously established religion.

2. Although the focus of this book is on cults of Christianity, non-Christian religions (e.g., world religions) have had cults arise from them as well.

1. Cults of Islam include the Sufis and the Nation of Islam. While these groups claim to be Muslim, they deviate fundamentally from the teaching of Islam, from which they are derived.

2. Cults of Hinduism include Hare Krishna, Self-Realization Fellowship, and Vivekananda.

3. I have deliberately chosen the expression "cult of Christianity" in preference to the term "Christian cult."

1. Phrases such as "Christian cult" or "cultic Christian group" are confusing because they send mixed signals.

For most Christians, the word cult refers to a group that is non-Christian. Therefore, the expression "Christian cult" is an oxymoron.

2. The expression "cult of Christianity" makes a clear distinction between Christianity and cults as well as highlighting the derivative nature of cults.

"...claiming to be Christian..."

1. It is important to make a distinction between groups that claim to be Christian and those that make no such profession.

1. For example, it would not be meaningful to speak of Islam as a cult of Christianity since it makes no claim to be Christian.

Indeed, Muslims are generally anti-Christian. Islam is a world religion that opposes Christianity, but it is not a cult.

2. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, however, do qualify as cults of Christianity because they claim to be Christian -- indeed, to be the only true Christian group on earth.

# Note: A group that admits it is not Christian is not somehow innocuous simply because it is not a cult of Christianity.

1. All belief systems and worldviews that deny the gospel are false, and therefore lead men and women away from the true God of the Bible

2. The point is that not all false belief systems are wrong in the same way: Cults are false in their claim to be true representations of Christianity, while avowedly non-Christian religions are false in their denial of Christianity.

# The distinction between cults of Christianity and openly non-Christian belief systems is not merely academic. On a practical level, one approaches a member of a cult differently from a person who is hostile to the very notion of the Christian faith.

"...who embrace a particular doctrinal system..."

1. A group must hold to a set of religious doctrinal beliefs (e.g., about God, sin, salvation) to qualify as a cult.
2. A group that makes no religious statements whatever -- even if eccentric in other respects -- is not a cult.

For example, imagine a lodge whose members dress up each Thursday evening in moose antlers and lederhosen. The lodge president calls the meeting to order by blowing on an enormous curved horn. After reading the minutes from the previous week, members play a rousing fame of bingo for two hours. The meeting closes with the lodge anthem ("a moose is kind, thrifty, and cheerful to everyone he meet"), and the members return home. Now, if our imaginary lodge makes no statements about God, sin, salvation, the afterlife, etc., then such a group is not even a religion, much less a false religion or cult. [Gomes notes, though, that some lodges are religious, such as the Masons - AWH]

3. In saying that the group embraces a doctrinal "system," this does not mean that the system must be highly complex, sophisticated, or thorough.

1. The complexity of cultic beliefs systems varies from group to group.

2. For example, the Watchtower Society espouses a relatively comprehensive system of doctrine, while the Children of God are less systematic and comprehensive in their belief system. Both groups, however, hold a belief system, and one contrary to the Christian faith.

"...which (system) denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian faith..."

1. "Central doctrines" of the Christian faith are those doctrines that make the Christian faith Christian and not something else.

1. The meaning of the expression "Christian faith" is not like a wax nose, which can be twisted to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

2. The Christian faith is a definite system of beliefs with definite content (Jude 3Off-site Link)

3. Certain Christian doctrines constitute the core of the faith.

Central doctrines include the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, the atoning work of Christ on the cross, and salvation by grace through faith. These doctrines so comprise the essence of the Christian faith that to remove any of them is to make the belief system non-Christian.

4. Scripture teaches that the beliefs mentioned above are of central importance (e.g., Matt. 28:19Off-site Link; John 8:24Off-site Link; 1 Cor. 15Off-site Link; Eph. 2:8-10Off-site Link).

5. Because these central doctrines define the character of Christianity, one cannot be saved and deny these.

6. Central doctrines should not be confused with peripheral issues, about which Christians may legitimately disagree.

Peripheral (i.e. non-essential) doctrines include such issues as the timing of the tribulation, the method of baptism, or the structure of church government. For example, one can be wrong about the identity of "the spirits in prison" 1 Peter 3:19Off-site Link) or about the timing of the rapture and still go to heaven, but one cannot deny salvation by grace or the deity of Christ (John 8:24Off-site Link) and be saved.

7. All Christian denominations -- whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant -- agree on the essential core. The relatively minor disagreements between genuinely Christian denomination, then, cannot be used to argue that there is no objectively recognized core of fundamental doctrine which constitutes the Christian faith.

2. Cults deny at least one central doctrine of the Christian faith

1. Denial of even one central doctrine is enough to make the belief system cultic.

2. Cults typically deny more than one central doctrine.

This is hardly surprising since one's interpretation of a particular doctrine affects other doctrines in the system. For example, if a group denies that people need salvation from sin, it is also likely that it redefines Christ's atoning death on the cross accordingly.

3. Some cults explicitly deny central doctrines of the Christian faith.

1. The Jehovah's Witnesses vehemently deny the doctrine of the Trinity (see their widely circulated booklet, Should You Believe in the Trinity? which argues against the doctrine).

2. Victor Paul Wierwille, founder of The Way International, wrote a booklet entitled Jesus Christ is not God.

3. Other cults implicitly deny central doctrines.

4. Some cults give the impression of orthodoxy, but have so redefined terminology that the doctrine is orthodox in name only.

5. For example, Mormons speak of their "Heavenly Father," as do Christians, but their Heavenly Father is really an exalted man, not the God of the Bible.

(end of quoting from site)

Therefore, as far the Christian faith is concerned (I will not speak for Messianic Judaism), Oneness Pentecostalism is theologically a cult of Christianity because it denies the Trinity, and for other reasons. This is how Christian apologists have defined it.

[youneverletgo]

Also, please see this website for another Christian apologist website that argues against Oneness doctrine:

www.eadshome.com/OnenessPentecostalism.htm

There is a PDF or Word file that you can download that goes into even greater detail.


I suggest that anyone who is looking at this issue look at websites from both sides of the debate. As a Trinitarian, I'm biased towards trinitarian websites.

The videos from the John Ankerberg show that has Walter Martin debate the leaders of one of the largest Oneness Pentecostal denominations is good.

here's another site that shows some good articles about the Oneness Pentecostal vs. Trinity debate:
You'll need to scroll down until you find the Oneness Pentecostal entry.

www.apologeticsindex.org/o00.html

www.carm.org/religious-movements/oneness-pentecostal

vintage.aomin.org/CHALC.html

www.gotquestions.org/oneness-Jesus-only.html

www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0082a.html

www.rctr.org/journal/7.htm

and here is a search engine consisting of many Christian apologetic sites:
apologeticssearch.com/apologetics.html?cx=010571642933333852832%3A19sicgy6nra&cof=FORID%3A11&q=Oneness&sa=Search+Apologetics+Websites#1507

[Mark]

A common strategy in Christian denominations is to define ourselves and define our enemies for them conclusively. As a Trinitarian, you really can't say what "Oneness" really means unless you had been part of that and made an educated decision to change from that.

It is also very important to understand that there are over 32,000 species of Christainity all out there, declaring that their definition of Trinity, Oneness, Sin and Righteousness, et al infinitum, is the correct understanding (in most cases only teaching what they believe and suppressing any deviant doctrines or teaching the deviant doctrines in such a biased way that they are not truly represented.

Saint Patrick explained the Trinity using a clover leaf: three leaves to one stem. One German theologian (whose name escapes me and I'd probably mis spell it if I remembered) used the evergreen: three points; but when you look at it from the top, it's a perfect circle. I remember my Sunday School teacher using the apple that has a skin, a flesh and a core. Those are all well and good but I remember, as a six year old, thinking to myself, and because of this you think you have a grasp of what God is really like?

I think the concept of the Trinity is more like my computer. I have a monitor, a keyboard and a mouse... and something more whizzing down there that I really don't understand. All three are representations of my computer. In fact, I can go to a number of user manuals for different software of hardware products and each of them will use a monitor or a keyboard or a mouse as an iconic representation of the whole computer. I understand what the monitor does. I can see and experience the direct relationship between it and khow it responds to the other things that are part of the computer. I understand the mouse. I regularly have to tear the thing a part and clean out the dust. The keyboard I am very familiar with, having grown up with them in various styles over the years. So, since I understand the three elements of the computer that are what are exposed to me, should I figure I understand the computer. That's arrogant naivity.

The Bible is not a User's Manual for God. It's purpose is not to tell us all there is to know about Him, just like it is not a resource for explaining oceanic geology or UFOs. It's purpose is to draw us closer to Him in love; but not define Him, particularly since we can't even understand what we've got.

Both Oneness and Trinity doctrines attempt to do exactly that. In so doing, they fall desperately short. In some cases, teaching that God is not singular but in fact three separate beings (not all by any means; but these are the ones most Jewish people are told about) and in other cases denying the Messiah as being Divine. All of them use the same terms and apply their own definitions.

So who is right? To be perfectly honest, I've got better things to do.

[youneverletgo]

Mar 20, 2009 5:19:44 GMT -8 Mark said:

A common strategy in Christian denominations is to define ourselves and define our enemies for them conclusively. As a Trinitarian, you really can't say what "Oneness" really means unless you had been part of that and made an educated decision to change from that.

Actually, a person can have a pretty good idea of what a group of people believes by looking at a group's statement of faith AND their literature AND by talking with them. The Oneness churches do have a statement of faith that cannot be denied.

Here is the official website of the upci (United Pentecostal Church International -- which is the biggest of the Oneness Pentecostal church denominations)

www.upci.org/doctrine.asp#apostles

The above is a link to their doctrine.

I agree that people should be extremely careful when writing things about denominations and groups that they have never been a part of. There are some people who engage in very bad apololgetics out there because they either purposely misrepresent, or they accidentally misrepresent what a group is really saying because of biases they have against a particular group. I have seen this done many times on websites. There needs to be as balanced a perspective as possible.

If a group has an official statement of faith, that is a place to start. You can ask people in that denomination to clarify.

I have read apologetics about Oneness Pentecostals, and I have also debated a group of them online. I will testify to the fact that the Oneness Pentecostals that I talked with DID believe everything that I have said about Oneness Pentecostal beliefs in this thread. They ended up condemning me to hell because of my belief in the Trinity, because I was baptized "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," my baptism was not by immersion, and I don't believe that baptism is necessary for salvation.

I had a long discussion with them regarding the Trinity and salvation.....every Oneness Pentecostal that I have encountered believes in "Jesus Only," and denies the Trinity. Why? Because that is what Oneness Pentecostal doctrine IS. Just as the creeds and such define for me what is and what is not Christian, their doctrine defines for them what is and is not Christian. According to them, I'm outside the bounds of what they consider to be Christian. Denying the Trinity is part of what it means to adhere to Oneness doctrine.

Watch the video link with Walter Martin debating Oneness Pentecostals. He did not just debate random Oneness Pentecostals....he debated two of the top leaders in Oneness Pentecostalsim.


video.google.com/videosearch?q=Walter+Martin+upci&emb=0&aq=f#q=Ankerberg+upci&emb=0

Video 1
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-751027547059973965&ei=WJjLSbfDOIjiqQKk5tnGBw&q=Ankerberg+upci

Video 2
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=476275095983771949&ei=WJjLSbfDOIjiqQKk5tnGBw&q=Ankerberg+upci

Video 3
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-529299455619031597&ei=WJjLSbfDOIjiqQKk5tnGBw&q=Ankerberg+upci

It is also very important to understand that there are over 32,000 species of Christainity all out there, declaring that their definition of Trinity, Oneness, Sin and Righteousness, et al infinitum, is the correct understanding (in most cases only teaching what they believe and suppressing any deviant doctrines or teaching the deviant doctrines in such a biased way that they are not truly represented.

The read what they say, talk to them, find out what they really believe.

I"m an advocate of actually interacting with people in other groups so that they CAN be fairly represented.

Saint Patrick explained the Trinity using a clover leaf: three leaves to one stem. One German theologian (whose name escapes me and I'd probably mis spell it if I remembered) used the evergreen: three points; but when you look at it from the top, it's a perfect circle. I remember my Sunday School teacher using the apple that has a skin, a flesh and a core. Those are all well and good but I remember, as a six year old, thinking to myself, and because of this you think you have a grasp of what God is really like?

I think the concept of the Trinity is more like my computer. I have a monitor, a keyboard and a mouse... and something more whizzing down there that I really don't understand. All three are representations of my computer. In fact, I can go to a number of user manuals for different software of hardware products and each of them will use a monitor or a keyboard or a mouse as an iconic representation of the whole computer. I understand what the monitor does. I can see and experience the direct relationship between it and khow it responds to the other things that are part of the computer. I understand the mouse. I regularly have to tear the thing a part and clean out the dust. The keyboard I am very familiar with, having grown up with them in various styles over the years. So, since I understand the three elements of the computer that are what are exposed to me, should I figure I understand the computer. That's arrogant naivity.

The Bible is not a User's Manual for God. It's purpose is not to tell us all there is to know about Him, just like it is not a resource for explaining oceanic geology or UFOs. It's purpose is to draw us closer to Him in love; but not define Him, particularly since we can't even understand what we've got.

Both Oneness and Trinity doctrines attempt to do exactly that. In so doing, they fall desperately short. In some cases, teaching that God is not singular but in fact three separate beings (not all by any means; but these are the ones most Jewish people are told about) and in other cases denying the Messiah as being Divine. All of them use the same terms and apply their own definitions.

So who is right? To be perfectly honest, I've got better things to do.

I don't believe that people should go beyond Scripture in describing God. I think it's dangerous to go beyond Scripture when discussing God.

What I can say, though, is that although I can never explain everything about God....what I find in my Bible is this:

1.) there is only one God
2.) the Father is God
3.) Jesus is God
4.) the Holy Spirit is God
5.) the Father is not Jesus, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, Jesus is not the Father, Jesus is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Father, the Holy Spirit is not Jesus -- (Jesus prayed to the Father -- in doing so He was acknowledging the Father as another person, yet at the same time identified with Him as God. Jesus also referred to the Holy Spirit as being another person, yet by the way that Jesus talked about Him, He also identified the Holy Spirit as God, etc.)
6.) Therefore, the only conclusion that I can come to, in view of this evidence, is that the one God is triune, and that is just how He exists. I cannot explain how this is possible. That is simply what Scripture points to. I am not about to suggest how the Trinity works. I just know that while there are three persons, there is only one God.

To go beyond this is to go beyond Scripture.

[youneverletgo]

Oneness doctrine teaches that Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.....

right off of their doctrine statement:

Jesus is the Son of God according to the flesh (Romans 1:3) and the very God Himself according to the Spirit (Matthew 1:23).

It took shedding of blood for the remission of the sins of the world (Hebrews 9:22), but God the Father was a Spirit and had no blood to shed. Thus He prepared a body of flesh and blood (Hebrews 10:5)and came to earth as a man in order to save us, for in Isaiah 43:11 He said, "Beside me there is no Saviour." When He came in flesh the angels sang, "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:11).

They teach that the Father is Jesus.

They also split Jesus' human nature from His divine nature by saying that Jesus is the human part of Himself, and that the Father is Jesus' divine nature.

This is where the issue between Oneness Pentecostal theology and Trinitarian theology is. Trinitarians believe that the Father and Jesus are two different persons, though they are the same God. Jesus prayed to the Father. Oneness Pentecostals would argue that the human nature of Jesus was praying to Jesus' divine nature, which they call the Father. This is the issue here.

Both Trinitarians and Oneness Pentecostals agree that there is only one God, that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God.

The problem occurs with how this is resolved. Trinitarians see Jesus praying to the Father, who is another person -- and that Jesus is both fully God and fully man. We do not believe that it was the Father who became human and died on the cross for us. We believe that that was Jesus.

Oneness Pentecostals believe that Jesus is the only person in the Godhead, and so the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are just names for roles that Jesus takes on throughout time. The Father is the divine nature of Jesus. The Father came to earth and died on the cross.

[Sanil]

Mar 26, 2009 7:12:54 GMT -8 youneverletgo said:

I don't believe that people should go beyond Scripture in describing God. I think it's dangerous to go beyond Scripture when discussing God.

What I can say, though, is that although I can never explain everything about God....what I find in my Bible is this:

1.) there is only one God
2.) the Father is God
3.) Jesus is God
4.) the Holy Spirit is God
5.) the Father is not Jesus, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, Jesus is not the Father, Jesus is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Father, the Holy Spirit is not Jesus -- (Jesus prayed to the Father -- in doing so He was acknowledging the Father as another person, yet at the same time identified with Him as God. Jesus also referred to the Holy Spirit as being another person, yet by the way that Jesus talked about Him, He also identified the Holy Spirit as God, etc.)
6.) Therefore, the only conclusion that I can come to, in view of this evidence, is that the one God is triune, and that is just how He exists. I cannot explain how this is possible. That is simply what Scripture points to. I am not about to suggest how the Trinity works. I just know that while there are three persons, there is only one God.

To go beyond this is to go beyond Scripture.

(Bolding mine.) I think the biggest issue with any doctrine on God that lines up with the Bible is its exclusivity. To say that God is triune seems (to me, tell me if I misunderstand still) to say that there are exactly three parts (persons) of God, and this is a complete and unchangeable view. This comes from the fact that three were mentioned. But what about before they were mentioned? There is not a Trinitarian perspective in the Hebrew Bible, the Son is not mentioned and I don't think you can really argue conclusively that mentions of the Spirit are anything different from all the other names for God (though I know some who would). So if you take these as three persons who were always a part of God, there was clearly information about God that was not made known in the Hebrew Bible. The point that I think (again, correct me if I'm wrong) Mark was trying to make is that we have a very limited picture. To say ANYTHING as a conclusive, complete view of God is to add to Scripture, because our view is simply not complete. We're only human.

I'm never sure how clear I'm being. This article goes into the issue a little more thoroughly...I don't agree with it on everything, and I think it might come on a little strong in some parts. But I think he makes the point about adding to Scripture better than I do (if possibly a little too harshly, but maybe that's just me reading it that way).

jerusalemcouncil.org/articles/apologetics/trinitarianism/

[youneverletgo]

Mar 26, 2009 8:11:55 GMT -8 Sanil said:

(Bolding mine.) I think the biggest issue with any doctrine on God that lines up with the Bible is its exclusivity. To say that God is triune seems (to me, tell me if I misunderstand still) to say that there are exactly three parts (persons) of God, and this is a complete and unchangeable view. This comes from the fact that three were mentioned. But what about before they were mentioned?

Would it be possible that there are more than just the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who are God? Yes....but I do not see any evidence for that in Scripture. In my opinion, if there were more persons, Jesus would have talked about them too. The only persons that I can see Jesus talking about as God are the Father, Himself, and the Holy Spirit.

In my view, to say that there are more persons is actually to go beyond Scripture.

The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are each specifically identified as God in Scripture. To add any more persons on would go further than Scripture seems to go.

This is my viewpoint on this. So, for me, saying that God is triune is consistent with what is found in Scripture. There are only three that are identified as God. I'm not saying there can't be more...but what I am saying is that this is as far as the evidence that we have in Scripture goes.

I think there is evidence in the Old Testament for there to be more than one person who is God by such passages as:

GE 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

GE 1:27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

GE 3:21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

ISA 6:8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?"
And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"

To me, these passages indicate a plural unity -- meaning there is only one God, but there are at least two persons who are God, and the persons can talk to each other.

I think there is quite a bit of evidence in the Old Testament for the Messiah's deity.

Here is more evidence:
ZEC 12:10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

This verse seems to indicate that there are again at least two persons who are God, one of them being the Messiah.

(The verses in this post are being quoted from the NIV. The NASB pretty much says the same thing, but I would have to go to the Biblegateway website and then copy and paste them here. I have the NIV as a computer program, so it's easier for me to copy from right now. I have to go to class soon).

There are other passages, but these should suffice to show that the concept of the Trinity could exist in the Old Testament.

Also, there is one passage that I know of from the Old Testament that points to the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

ISA 63:10 Yet they rebelled
and grieved his Holy Spirit.
So he turned and became their enemy
and he himself fought against them.

this reminds me of a passage from the New Testament:
EPH 4:29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.


This is part of an argument for the personhood of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit can be grieved, then it means that He can experience emotion.

Also, every single word that Jesus uses to describe what the Holy Spirit does (or will do) are things that only God does in the Old Testament.

I think there is evidence in the Old Testament for the trinity, but it is certainly not as clear as in the New Testament.

There is not a Trinitarian perspective in the Hebrew Bible, the Son is not mentioned and I don't think you can really argue conclusively that mentions of the Spirit are anything different from all the other names for God (though I know some who would). So if you take these as three persons who were always a part of God, there was clearly information about God that was not made known in the Hebrew Bible. The point that I think (again, correct me if I'm wrong) Mark was trying to make is that we have a very limited picture. To say ANYTHING as a conclusive, complete view of God is to add to Scripture, because our view is simply not complete. We're only human.

All right. I do understand what you are saying here, I think. And I don't think that most Trinitarians would claim to have a complete view of God. All we can say here is what we see in Scripture.

[veggirl]

I love the oneness of the Lord.
Yeshua is GOD. How wonderful is that., That God came down from heaven to save his people., Hes called many things, but he is ONE Adoni. forever and ever...
I love him so much.,

Peace&love.
Bri'gette.

[youneverletgo]

Mar 27, 2009 9:18:19 GMT -8 veggirl said:

I love the oneness of the Lord.
Yeshua is GOD. How wonderful is that., That God came down from heaven to save his people., Hes called many things, but he is ONE Adoni. forever and ever...
I love him so much.,

Peace&love.
Bri'gette.

And Trinitarians agree that Jesus is God.

The thing that Trinitarians have an issue with in regard to Oneness doctrine is their denial that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are persons.

Oneness Pentecostals claim that Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit....and that these are simply names that Jesus has taken on throughout time. Example: Jesus was called Father in the Old Testament, while Jesus was human His divine nature was called the Father while His human nature was called the Son, and they believe that Jesus is now the Holy Spirit.

By contrast, Trinitarians believe that the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are each persons, and these persons exist simultaneously....but there is still one God.

[Mark]

There is a thread that argues the legitimacy of Trinity and you will find that Pioneer has been quite vocal in this. Please read through the entire discussion before posting as I think most arguments for both sides have already been made.