Featured Trinity

Greetings again steaver,

Despite my decision to disengage, I almost succumbed to answering all of your latest Post but decided that we have covered much of what you stated. I decided to reinforce what I have said before in response to this portion:

Firstly in our fellowship we encourage individual study based on the Bible, and discuss and help each other in this. I am not a JW and my impression they produce mainly clones. I disagree with their understanding of this subject.

I stated in my previous post that I am a specialist in certain areas, and have only a general appreciation of other areas. Soon after reading your Post, I was given access to an article on the subject we have discussed. It was a summary of an extensive written discussion between a Trinitarian and an Australian brother in our fellowship. The original participant and another brother, who used to be in my meeting but now resides in the UK, wrote the summary itself. The participant is a specialist in most aspects of discussing the subject of the One God the Father and comparing this with the Trinity. As we do not produce clones, he may or may not agree with all that I have written in this thread, and various Posts.

One of my responsibilities and interests in our meeting is as the Librarian. I enjoy collecting books and resource material for our meeting and myself. I thought you may be interested in some portions of the following summary, and I have briefly edited some parts. The following is then part of a summary of my brother’s discussion. It does not give the Trinitarian portion. I have a copy of the full original documents of their discussion. You may give some thought to how you would respond to some of this, but I will not be defending this. In other words I am acting the part of a librarian, and giving you a document to consider. This summary uses the term “Unitarian” not in a common usage, but to define a believer in One God, the Father and that Jesus is the Son of God in contrast to a Trinitarian.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Greetings again steaver,

The main reason why I returned to this thread was to give a possible brief explanation of the “I am” portion of John 8:58. I thought it would be polite to acknowledge and respond in part to your four posts before posting this initial consideration of John 8:58.

Yes they reject the Trinity, and they teach that there is One God the Father and that Jesus is the Son of God, but there are major differences between their belief and what I believe. One major item is their insistence on the name Jehovah. I believe God’s name is Yahweh and I have explained how I understand the future meaning of this Name, fulfilled in Jesus. They believe in the pre-existence of Jesus, and use an unusual or wrong interpretation of John 1:1-2 as seen in the NWT. I believe in the pre-existence of the Word, not Jesus. I could go into other detail.

Perhaps “specialist” is the wrong word. I have strong views on all aspects of this subject, but I have not prepared adequate answers on some of these aspects.

The JWs could have a prepared list – I do not know. Trintarians have a number of passages that they regularly use, and perhaps a typical list is Genesis 1:26, Isaiah 9:6, John 1, John 8:58, John 10:30, (1 John 5:7 KJV), Philippians 2 etc. At the bottom of the list is an imaginary note, “Please try to avoid 1 Corinthians 8:6 and John 17:3 where Jesus and the Apostle appear to teach that the One God is the Father, contrary to the Trinity”. I am not sure if 1 John 5:7 KJV is on your list so I have placed this in brackets.

So are you saying that people are instantly instructed on some aspects of the gospel by their born-again experience? The sequence of Acts 8:5,12 is preach the gospel, detailed as the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, then belief, then baptism.

We have a number of former Muslims by religion and Jews by birth and religion who now accept our beliefs and they definitely do not accept the Trinity. They see Jesus as the Son of God as a fulfillment of much of the OT and they have a belief in the One God the Father, which is consistent with OT monotheism.

Concerning the conflict between Arabs and Jews, perhaps the peace between your two examples is a token of what could be achieved, but I do not think you have solved the problems in the Middle East. The spoken and written words of Jesus to his disciples are not to kill, and we are to love our enemies. Baptists appear to reject these words and yet claim to have the Spirit of Christ within. The Baptists have been active on both sides of the American Civil War, WW1 and WW2, not only killing their enemies, but also killing their fellow brethren of the same faith. Why did they reject the words and teaching of Christ? Despite your two examples, has the policy of the Baptists toward war now changed? Christ is the Prince of Peace to those who submit to his teaching.

I would welcome your comments on this next post.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Greetings again Thomas Helwys,

I thought I would briefly revisit your question concerning John 8:58 from Post #117 and my brief response in Post #120 Page 12. I would like to state that the following is a work in progress. It is taking up the various places in John’s Gospel where the phrase “I am” occurs and testing the Trinitarian claim. I am not sure if I have found every relevant occurrence. We need to determine if Jesus and John are connecting all or some of these with Exodus 3:14. Principally we need to determine if the “I am” of John 8:58 is directly connected with Exodus 3:14 or has some other meaning.

John 1:20-23 (KJV): 20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am (S# 1510) not the Christ. 21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am (S# 1510) not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. 22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? 23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
John 3:28 (KJV): Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.
The Apostle John records these words of John the Baptist when the representatives of the Jews questioned him. This was not just an idle inquiry, but part of their role to examine if a prophet spoke with Divine authority. They also felt challenged because here was a new prophet who seemed to be working independently of the Scribes and Pharisees and the Sanhedrin Council. Please note the phrases “I am not the Christ” and “I am not” (Elijah). In my opinion, neither of these are connected with Exodus 3:14, but is possibly the start of a theme that John draws attention to by recording various “I am” passages. In other words it is the question of who a person actually is, and it is usually the authorities who want to determine their status.

John 4:25-26 (KJV): 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am (S# 1510) he.
Here is Jesus confession that He is the Christ, but note this is similar to the language that John the Baptist used. The translators of the KJV have added he in italics to connect Jesus’ answer to say that Jesus is here claiming to be the Christ. They are suggesting by this that Jesus is not claiming to be the “I am” of Exodus 3:14, even though the “I am” of John 4:26 is identical to John 8:58 in the original Greek. In other words the phrase “I am” is a simple expression in this context, but seems a bit awkward in English, requiring the addition of he.

John 6:20 (KJV): But he saith unto them, It is (S# 1510) I; be not afraid.
This is in a different order and I am not familiar enough with Greek to comment except to say that I do not think Jesus is appealing to Exodus 3:14 here. He was comforting them by his words and the familiar tone of his voice.

“I am” occurs in John 6:20, 35, 41, 48, 51, :7:28, 29, 33, 34, 36, 8:12, 16, 18, 23, 24, 28, and each of these describe in one way or another who Jesus is, but it is the last two of these, John 8:24,28 that may be connected to John 8:58, as they are in the same context and spoken at the same time.

John 8:23-28 (KJV): 23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. 25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. 26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. 27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
Now again the KJV translators have added the he in both occurrences, and this gives the impression that they did not believe that Jesus was claiming here a connection with Exodus 3:14. It speaks in the first of his claim to a Divine origin as the Son of God v23, and in the second that he was the Son of Man v28. Rather than having some claim to independent Deity, he rather states his absolute dependence upon God His Father, “I do nothing of myself”.

John 8:58 (KJV): Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Despite the context and usage of the phrase in John 8:28, the translators here with exactly the same original words have translated this as “I am” and not “I am he. They thus leave wide open the suggestion that this connects with Exodus 3:14. In my opinion the same phrase occurring in John 8: v24 and v28 qualifies how we should understand John 8:58, spoken at the same time to the same audience. My conclusion is that when Jesus says “I am” in John 8:58, he is claiming to be the Son of God and the Son of Man.

John 9:9 (KJV): Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.
This is the blind man speaking and again the translators have added the he to give the proper sense in the English. This particular usage here for the blind man again demystifies the expression in the Greek “I am” to show that it is not automatically a reference to what at first may seem to be the obscure words of Exodus 3:14.

In addition to this it is my belief that Exodus 3:14 should be translated with the future tense “I will be”. Therefore I have serious doubts that Exodus 3:14 is in any real way connected with John 8:58, unless it can be shown that “I am” of John 8:58 is a fulfillment of “I will be” of Exodus 3:14. This would not make Jesus God the Son, but the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Greetings again steaver,

I appreciate the sincerity and enthusiasm of your two replies, but we will have to leave the fate of those who did not believe in the Trinity in God’s hands to accept or reject.

I was surprised at this comment on my attempted analysis of the “I am” passages of John’s Gospel. We were taught in our teenage years to use Strong’s Concordance as a help to understand some Bible words. Do you or any of your Baptist mates use Strong’s as a useful resource? I did less than that as I used Strong’s Concordance to identify the word, and then created a list in an electronic version of Englishman’s Concordance. I only used these resources to save time. Apart from these two resources the rest was by considering each usage in its own context and then comparing Scripture with Scripture. I suppose you were disappointed that I did not simply use the well warn syllogism: Exodus 3:14 God the Father says he is the “I am”, John 8:58 Jesus says “I am”, therefore Jesus is God. “We Trintarians have always used this passage this way to justify our belief”.

Daniel prophesied of a persecuting, religious power in Daniel 7, and I believe that this was the Roman Catholic Church. The early Christians had been persecuted by the pagan Romans, and when Constantine came to power there was relief for a short time, but then the Roman Catholic Church started to persecute those that did not accept all their wrong teachings. To me your claim that the majority has believed the Trinity is probably true, but I would rather be numbered amongst the persecuted believing, faithful minority than amongst the erroneous, persecuting majority.
Daniel 7:21 (KJV): I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;

At school I was better at Physics and Mathematics than English and History. I have worked on the technical side of things all my life and greatly admired such men as Sir Isaac Newton. I only discovered recently that he wrote more on religion than on science. In his book on Daniel, Sir Isaac Newton correctly identified the persecuting little horn of the fourth beast as the Roman Catholic Church. I suppose by your estimate Isaac Newton will be rejected if he did not radically change his view in his last few days as he also did not believe in the Trinity. Perhaps I will get a consolation prize and be in the same place as Isaac Newton after the resurrection. I do not want to go to heaven as the Baptists believe but look forward to Christ’s Kingdom upon the earth.

The following is from a web-site detailing some of Sir Isaac Newton’s beliefs:

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Greetings again steaver,

I have on my desk a small book where the author seeks to expound the OT and NT subject of the manifestation of the invisible eternal God in human nature. The book is a summary of what he had delivered in two lectures at New York. The author was invited by two Trinitarian Jews to address a meeting of mainly Jews who were proving stubborn in accepting the teaching of these two new converts to Trinitarianism. Instead of supporting these two, the author spoke on the consistency of the OT and NT teaching on this subject, showing that there is One God the Father, and that Jesus is the Son of God. The two Trinitarians who had arranged the first meeting rejected the author, but he invited the audience to a second address.

Before giving the second address the author was given a letter by one of the prominent Jews who had been in the audience. From this letter it is evident that most Trinitarian Jews would have to forsake the general perspective of how a normal Jew would consider this subject from the OT. I will quote only a few portions:

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Greetings again steaver,

I appreciate your thorough responses. We have stated our differences without much resolution. The following is a response to only a few items. Some of these are not really the subject of the thread, but I am interested in making a comment on these.

I am still surprised at this type of comment. It seems in part contrary to:
Romans 10:17 (KJV): So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

I feel happy about this now, as I was a bit worried that you completely disclaimed most of my comments because I used Strong’s and a little bit of examination of a few Hebrew words. At least you can check some of this. I did not want to appear scholarly, when I have limited understanding of Greek and Hebrew. But principally I attempted to expound the subject from the Scripture as found in the KJV, and even here you seemed to simply reject on the basis of your knowledge, based upon normal Trinitarian tradition, and your claim to your born again experience and having the Spirit of Christ within.

Is this view of Daniel 7:21 your personal opinion or the accepted position of most Baptists? My impression in the past is that there are a wide range of views of the Second Coming and the Kingdom amongst the Baptists. Many in the past have rejected the future conversion of the Jews, and some rejected that they would return to their land, and others say that now that they have partially returned it has no real significance whatsoever. I have heard a few people suggest that many prophecies, say much of the Book of Revelation will be fulfilled in this period of the Great Tribulation. I think some of this has been made popular as a result of Hal Lindsay’s various books. My other thought is that you may claim that your belief on Daniel 7:21 is also a byproduct of being born of God. Do five different born again Baptists have five different views on the Kingdom, and is the Spirit of Christ lacking in this regard?

I have respect for many early Biblical students who were willing to read the Bible and allow the Bible to speak, rather than blindly accepting what was prevalent at the time. I do not know the full range of Sir Isaac Newton’s beliefs, but I see him as representative of this type of inquiring mind. From a brief examination of the Waldenses, they gradually changed their beliefs as a result of their reading and understanding of the Word of God. Also the Swiss Brethren, who were commonly called the Anabaptists, came to an understanding of Adult Baptism instead of Infant Sprinkling as a result of reading the Word of God. Again I do not know the full range of the beliefs of these two groups, but I commend and respect their willingness to allow the Word of God to teach. Again from the rest of your comments, I feel that possibly Bible Study has been replaced to some extent by the conviction that you are Spirit-guided in all your beliefs.

If you separate the Jews from the Muslims, how many Jews do you believe now worship the Trinity? I believe that most Jews will remain blind to the fact that Jesus is the Messiah until Jesus returns and converts a significant remnant.
Romans 11:25-28 (KJV): 25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. 28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Greetings again steaver,

Yes, but the sequence to my understanding is that the gospel of the Kingdom and name are first preached, then belief of this gospel, then baptism by immersion. You seem to suggest that major elements of the gospel can be lacking, eg the Trinity and a correct understanding of the kingdom before another experience happens, where a person is born again. I believe the born of water and spirit is part of the process that I have alluded to, eg Acts 3, 8:5,12.

I believe the antichrist system started to develop in the times of the Apostles, for example 2 Thess 2, 2 Tim 4, 1 John and anticipated in Acts 20. John specifically uses the term antichrist and speaks of the separation of some from the early believers. The amalgamation of Jewish and Greek philosophies and Jewish ritual developed into the RCC, and this became the antichrist system. Jesus will specifically be confronted at his return by an antichrist, but I believe this is the Papacy. My belief that some of the Baptists may unite in this opposition to Christ at his return.

If I was to disagree with your conclusion on Daniel 7:21 together with those you consider your preachers and teaches would that prove to you that you and they have the Spirit and I do not have the Spirit of Christ? For my part I am encouraged to test the spirits to see if they are of God, and this plus other teachings cause me to question many of your claims.

As you may have noticed previously, I have avoided this question. The reason is because the Holy Spirit gifts were given to the 1st Century believers, but I do not see any of these Gifts available today. You most probably view this differently from what you have previously stated. I believe the true application of having the Spirit of Christ is having a mind and heart that has responded to the gospel and allowing that power of the gospel within to motivate unto godliness.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Greetings again steaver,

 

This subject is one in which it should be acknowledged that "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, but there are verses which imply it. Non-trinitarianism was found in the early churches, and the trinitarian view was not firmly established until Constantine forced its acceptance, and even then there was dissent.

However, I think, as I and others have shown, that there is Biblical evidence for the Trinitarian position.