Got a question

Ok,so I have been talking to a Muslim for quite some time and right now her biggest question is about the Holy Trinity,she asked if there was any clear place in the Bible that says God,Jesus,and the Holy Spirit are the same.
I gave 1 John 5:7.

She said:
as for 1 John 5:7...it is not like this in most Bibles.
7For there are three that testify: 8the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Footnotes:

1. 1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)
so most say it is a later addition to the Bible.

and Matthew 28:19 also has doubts about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDx1elY9LN4&NR=1&feature=fvwp
????


...Help?

~♥Born_Again♥~ wrote:

Ok,so I have been talking to a Muslim for quite some time and right now her biggest question is about the Holy Trinity,she asked if there was any clear place in the Bible that says God,Jesus,and the Holy Spirit are the same.
I gave 1 John 5:7.

She said:
as for 1 John 5:7...it is not like this in most Bibles.
7For there are three that testify: 8the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Footnotes:

1. 1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)
so most say it is a later addition to the Bible.

and Matthew 28:19 also has doubts about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDx1elY9LN4&NR=1&feature=fvwp
????


...Help?

She doesn't know what she is talking about. All the ones who take it out are doing a disgrace. Yes, not all versions use it but the history of the verse was used even by early Christian apologists such as Tertullian:

Quote :

200 AD Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

As for the video on Matthew those people I wouldn't even begin to mess with. The early church has already defeated their kind in the beginning. Oneness Pentecostals are modern day Modalists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalism


The scripture that affirm the Trinity:

"And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. GO THEREFORE and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’" (Matthew 28:18-20)


Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: - Deuteronomy 6:4

Quote :

The Hebrew word for “God” is “Elohim” which is a plural. The Biblical Hebrew word for “one” in the above passage is “echad” which is a corporate oneness, not merely a numeric count. God is a plural number of persons yet one. The word one as "echad" is continually used in referrence to the one true God throughout the Holy Scriptures.

"I and my Father are one." (John 10:30).

And God [Elohim] said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. - Genesis 1:26

"And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. – Genesis 11:6-7

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. – John 14:26

Those are just a starter. Need more?

The problem with Muslims is that they think the Trinity is polytheistic meaning. They think we serve 3 gods rather than serving 1 God. That will be your difficulty is explaining how God can exist in 3 persons yet be one.

Some analogies you could use though they are somewhat poor is:

Time: Past, Present, Future . Each are separate and distinct in characteristics yet all are time.

Universe: Space, time, matter
Marriage, humans triune (body,spirit,soul)

and etc..

Thanks so much,that helped a lot!

~♥Born_Again♥~ wrote:

Thanks so much,that helped a lot!

No problem. Feel free to ask any other questions if you have any.

I will probably have more soon.Lol.

There isn't, to my knowledge, one place where the Bible spells out the Trinity, but it is hinted at in the OT, and several verses in the NT, in context, taken together, DO spell it out. There is a short list of Scripture passages that equate the facts of the Trinity at the end of this post.

I listed the short definitions of essential terms: Perichoresis is one you might want to know. A short version is that perichoresis describes the essence of the Godhead flowing through all the members of the Trinity, in them, around them, above and below, equalizing them as One God.

Jesus' Baptism for one reference: The Father speaking from Heaven, Jesus on Earth, the Holy Spirit as a dove.

The Trinity

The above URL is from Theopedia, an excellent resource for things like this:

God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit all share the same ESSENCE--the same Godhead. Jesus is not the Father, nor is He the Spirit, nor is the Father the Spirit, etc, but they are all the same God because they share the same ESSENCE.

The facets of the Trinity share the same NATURE.

In the Trinity, there is only one Being, God--in accordance with a monotheistic understanding.

Scripture presents separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the "essence" of the Godhead that unites them.

Homoousios is a Greek term that means "of the same substance". It was used against Arianism to define the relationship of Jesus and God the Father. They were of the same substance, or in other words, were of the same being.

Perichoresis is a Greek term used to describe the triune relationship between each person of the Godhead. It can be defined as co-indwelling, co-inhering, and mutual interpenetration. Charles Hodge explains that this term was used "to express the Scriptural facts that the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son; that where the Father is, there the Son and Spirit are; that what the one does the others do (the Father creates, the Son creates, the Spirit creates), or, as our Lord expresses it, '[whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise]' (John 5:19). So also what the one knows, the others know. '[For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God]' (1 Cor. 2:10, 11)."

Essential to the Trinity is that there is one and only one God. It is essential because it was the conviction of monotheism - that there is one God - that drove the early Christians to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture. More importantly, monotheism is the teaching found in the Bible.

Scripture is clear that there is only one God: 'There is no other God besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other (Isaiah 45:21-22; see also 44:6-8; Exodus 15:11; Deuteronomy 4:35; 6:4-5; 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:2; 1 Kings 8:60).

Fundamental to the Judaism of the OT (and of today) is the shema. It is found in Deuteronomy 6 and part of it says, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one," (Deut 6:4). The understanding of monotheism is at the heart of this passage, and it was at the core of the early Christians understanding of the nature of God.

The doctrine of the Trinity must remain grounded in God's Word. Roger Olson sums it up when he says,

"While it is true that no passage of Scripture spells out the doctrine of the Trinity, it is also true that the whole of Scripture's witness to who God is and who Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are makes no sense at all without the model of the Trinity and that all alternative concepts end up doing violence to some essential aspect of revelation, Christian experience and possibly even reason itself," (The Mosaic of Christian Belief, p. 139).

Passages equating the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit

* Matthew 28:19 - "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"
o This passage suggests that these three Persons share the same name.
* 2 Corinthians 13:14 - "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen."
o Here, again, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equated. Observe that frequently the Father is spoken of as "God" in reference to the Son because of the covenant between the Father and the Son.
* Revelation 1:4-5 - "John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace to you, and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before the throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth."
o The Apostolic Greeting only involves members of the Godhead. The seven spirits who are before the throne is evidently a way of referring to the Holy Spirit who is present wherever the church is present.

Ahhh!!
I tried to understand this,but honestly,it kind of confuses me some of this stuff.I will read it better later,but for now I will post it here.Have fun with it(btw,this is the Muslim speaking):


about 1John5:7-8...that the ones who take it out r doing a disgrace is ur personal opinion...but these r Christian scholars and the Churches that use these Bibles r also ones that believe in the Trinity so they would have been happy to leave it in but they r being honest that the earliest scriptures do not have it.
ur earliest source is 200A.D. that is like something happening around 1840 and saying it was included in a manuscript in 2009. this was exactly the time different Christian groups competing and the time things were being added..as the Pope admitted...get to that later. or r u saying the earliest manuscripts r from 200A.D?

as for the video...it does not interest me what the person making it believes...just the sources that were quoted and can be checked..
the following r respected sources...Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of religious knowledge(protestant), The Jerusalem Bible a scholarly Catholic work, The Bible Commentary 1919 by Dr.Peake, Dr.Stuart G. Hall..former head of ecclesiastical history kings college London, Tom Harpur...ordained anglican priest and professor, Edmund Schlinke..German Lutheran theologian, Eusebius in The Demonstratio Evangelica, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries...
"The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries have long been a trusted resource for Bible study. Written by some of the world's most distinguished evangelical scholars, these twenty volumes offer clear, reliable and relevant explanations of every book in the New Testament." and also the current head of the Catholic Church...u cannot be Catholic if u do not believe in the Trinity!
here is what Pope Benedict XVI said: ""The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." from Introduction to Christianity. so it is not the Modalist who r just saying this.
another point is that it contradicts other verses that say Jesus-peace be upon him- to preach only to the lost sheep of Israel.

For the Jewish name for God...it is יהוה, YHWH. It is singular "In appearance, YHWH is an archaic third person singular imperfect of the verb "to be", meaning, therefore, "He is". This explanation agrees with the meaning of the name given in Exodus 3:14, where God is represented as speaking, and hence as using the first person — "I am". It stems from the Hebrew conception of monotheism that God exists by himself for himself, and is the uncreated Creator who is independent of any concept, force, or entity; therefore "I am that I am". Jews r not allowed to pronounce this name but have other titles for God. One is Elohim "The first Name used for God in scripture is Elohim. In form, the word is a masculine plural of a word that looks feminine in the singular (Eloha). The same word is used to refer to princes, judges, other gods, and other powerful beings. This Name is used in scripture when emphasizing God's might, His creative power, and his attributes of justice and rulership. Variations on this name include El, Eloha, Elohai (my God) and Elohaynu (our God). " There is also Adonai.."In ancient times the term Adonai was not just used for God. It was a common mode of address to kings, slave‑masters, and even by wives to husbands. The "i" at the end signifies "my" and, in fact, Adonai is a plural form so it literally means "my lords." In many verses of scripture and in the liturgy, God is spoken of as JHWH (pronounced Adonai) Eloheynu, which means "the Lord our God."" the adjectives and verbs used with these names are consistantly singular." so it means Adonai and Elohim r for a singular concept of God. There r more Jewish titles for God in the singular so the Jews do not agree with the idea that the title Elohim is any proof that God is a plural person.
In the Quran.. Allah also sometimes refers to himself as We..it is like the royal We...it does not mean a plural person.

if "I and my Father are one" means that Jesus-peace be upon him- and God are the same being...what about?
"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."

How can the Comforter be the Holy Ghost..who was already present when Jesus-peace be upon him- was present if he says that the Comforter can only come after he goes away?:
John 16:7 (King James Version)
Nevertheless I tell you the ****h; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

I am really learning a lot about Christianity from what you say and from all the things i have to look up...but no closer to becoming a Christian. Think it might be fun to study Comparative Religions or something like that

First of all, since your opponent in this discussion is a Muslim, his worldview is skewed. He is not interpreting the Bible soundly--this is evident from his claims.

Point 1: No Scripture contradicts any other Scripture. When apparent contradictions exist, it is the reader's understanding at fault. This applies to both the NT and the OT, at all times.

Point 2: Let clear Scripture interpret difficult Scripture. This ensures that your conclusion doesn't contradict Scripture.

Point 3: Interpret Scripture with a correct understanding of the original culture. This will also help ensure correct results.

Point 4: In an argument such as this, use Logic. If you need help, ask me, and I'll be glad to help you as much as I can.

Point 5: Remember that all you can do is state your position in a well-crafted argument (complete, concise, and valid). You cannot force him to change his mind, even if you are right.

Some facts:

The New Testament was finished by 100 AD. That's within 70 years of Jesus' lifetime, and virtually miraculous by archaeological standards. Plus, we have over 24,000 fragments and copies of the NT. Their only differences are in spelling, grammar, and some numbers. No "mistake" or "contradiction" in the Bible affects Christian Doctrine. Our only full copies are from about 300 years after the NT was finished.

According to all the above, therefore: Matthew 28:19 CANNOT contradict other verses. It is the Muslim's interpretation that is at fault. As Protestants, we do not hold to the authority of the Pope--and appealing to authorities like the Pope does not mean they are right. It merely means he is using a quote that may or may not be correct in order to support his own arguments. My advice? Find several reputable theologians and see what they have to say.

The Trinity is hinted at in the OT, but because of God's Progressive Revelation, was not fully communicated until the NT. The reason for this is: In the OT, the Jews were a fledgling nation, surrounded by polytheistic, hedonistic, idolatrous neighbors. For God to openly declare His Trinitarian structure would have provided needless temptations for the young nation. Instead, verses like THESE hint at the Trinity:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:1-2 (KJV)

The Spirit in this passage is none other than the Holy Spirit, which is made plain in the New Testament. Here we distinctively have two persons of the Trinity: God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:26 (KJV)

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Gen 3:22 (KJV)

In these verses we again see a plural God. The muslim's explanation of the "royal we" is not impossible, but the structure of the language, specifically the word "us" ('anachnuw)[/i) in Hebrew, carries no connotation of the "royal we", as far as I can tell. In short, as far as I know, it is MORE PROBABLE that the "us" is a literal "us", not a royal "us". Contextually, there is no reason WHY it could NOT be a literal "us", implying more than one Person.

[i]And when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of the LORD, Gideon said, Alas, O Lord GOD! for because I have seen an angel of the LORD face to face. 23 And the LORD said unto him, Peace be unto thee; fear not: thou shalt not die. 24 Then Gideon built an altar there unto the LORD, and called it Jehovah shalom: unto this day it is yet in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.
Judges 6:22-24 (KJV)

Here we have but one instance of the Angel of the LORD. This and similar passages are interesting because the Israelites were MONOTHEISTIC. They would not worship ANY OTHER GOD. Therefore, Gideon's actions seem a little strange--if not downright blasphemous. LORD here is YHWH, or Yahweh, the personal name of God, an adjective which means "The Self-Existent One". The title "Angel of the LORD" almost always occurs in special circumstances.

Here, Gideon is being commissioned for battle by God. When he realizes he is seeing an angel, Gideon is filled with fear. Notice Verse 23: "the LORD said", not "the ANGEL of the LORD". From that verse, as well as verse 24, we can conclude that the "Angel of the LORD" carried all the authority and power of God Himself, and even allowed Gideon to build an altar in worship to him. Worship of angels was prohibited by the Law--and Gideon knew this. The Angel knew this, and unlike other angels who warned Believers not to worship them (Revelation 19:22 and 22:10), the Angel of the LORD does not give Gideon a similar warning. This negates any assumption of royal authority, and instead points to the Angel of the LORD being a Pre-Incarnation of Jesus, the Christ--the Second Person of the Trinity.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
John 1:1-4 (KJV)

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 1:14 (KJV)

Ask him what he's going to do about the above two references together. These clearly establish that JESUS was the Word, and that He was WITH God the Father and Spirit, as well as BEING God the Son. These verses demonstrate that God the Son had an active role in Creation.

# 2 Corinthians 13:14 - "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen."

The disciples and part of the early Christians were Jews--again, solidly monotheistic--so why are they praising a monotheistic God in Trinitarian Form? For them, NO CONFLICT BETWEEN MONOTHEISM AND TRINITARIANISM EXISTED.

* Here, again, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equated. Observe that frequently the Father is spoken of as "God" in reference to the Son because of the covenant between the Father and the Son.

# Revelation 1:4-5 - "John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace to you, and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before the throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth."

As for the claim of Matthew 28:19 being written in by Constantine, I'll do some checking--but I don't believe it for a second.
----

See here: http://www.theopedia.com/Yahweh for a short discussion on the name Yahweh.

See here: http://www.theopedia.com/Adonai for a discussion on the name Adonai. It is plural--Adon is the singular, I believe. This MAY or MAY NOT refer to the "royal us", depending on the context of specific Scriptures.

See here: http://www.theopedia.com/Elohim for a discussion on the name Elohim. El is the singular. Again, Elohim is also plural, and is commonly taken as evidence of the Trinity by Trinitarian scholars.

Jesus equated himself from God--and the Jews understood this, which is why they attempted to kill Him on several occasions.

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Matt 3:16-17 (KJV)

Here we have Jesus, God's Spirit, and God speaking from Heaven. All three together, all three equal. Plain and simple.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Matt 16:15-17 (KJV)

Here we have Jesus equating Himself with God AGAIN. Plain and simple. If he tries to make it out as something other than what you see before you, his interpretation is at fault.

41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, 42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. 43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
Matt 27:41-43 (KJV)

Here we have the Jews, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, stating that Christ claimed to be "the Son of God".

61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? 64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
Mark 14:61-64 (KJV)

Yet ANOTHER account of the Sanhedrin condemning Jesus because He said that He was God. The word "Blessed" is the Greek eulogetos, which is only applied to God. Note vs. 62, Jesus' reply, and the Jews' reaction in vv. 63-64.

The phrase "Son of Man" is a title often applied by Jesus to Himself. It is an allusion to Daniel 7:13-14, which reads:

"I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed."

The allusion is clearest in Mark 14:61-62:

But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

The phrase to which Jesus alludes so frequently is, in the original text of Daniel 7:13, bar enash, as opposed to the more usual phrase bar 'adam. Bar enash carries the connotation of a foremost heir to a throne. [1] Therefore, it can be seen as a strong claim to divinity.

http://www.theopedia.com/Son_of_Man

Besides the "I am" statement, Jesus' usage of the "Son of Man" is a claim to divine power. Along with Divine power, this is an effective claim to the Second Person of the Godhead, because the exclusivity of Jesus' titles do not allow Him to merely appropriate the power of God without BEING God.

I do not understand the reference to John 16:7 . . . unless he is claiming that the Trinity could not have existed before Jesus ascended into Heaven. It almost sounds Modalistic in that form . . . .

Modalism, also called Sabellianism, is the unorthodox belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes in contrast to the Trinitarian doctrine where God is one being eternally existing in three persons. According to Modalism, during the incarnation, Jesus was simply God acting in one mode or role, and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was God acting in a different mode. Thus, God does not exist as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time. Rather, He is one person and has merely manifested himself in these three modes at various times. Modalism thus denies the basic distinctiveness and coexistence of the three persons of the Trinity.

Modalism was condemned by Tertullian (c. 213, Tertullian Against Praxeas 1, in Ante Nicene Fathers, vol. 3). Also known as Sabellianism, it was condemned as heresy by Dionysius, bishop of Rome (c. 262).

Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God (i.e., who God is). "Present day groups that hold to forms of this error are the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches. They deny the Trinity, teach that the name of God is Jesus... modalist churches often accuse Trinitarians of teaching three gods. This is not what the Trinity is. The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

http://www.theopedia.com/Modalism

"Although Modalism initially has appeal in its simplicity, it is a dangerous teaching because it misunderstands not only “what” God is, but more importantly, “who” God is and therefore who we are. If the Father, Son, and Spirit are only modes of God (or “masks” as some taught), then the God behind the mask is unknown to us. We are forced to understand the Father, Son and Spirit as illusions and not the true God we desire to know and love. Moreover, if we are God’s children in relation to him as Father, but the Father is an illusion, then our status as his children is also an illusion (Gal 4:6)."

"Modalism also fails to account for greater than 70 passages in Scripture where the Father, Son and Spirit are mentioned together as distinct from one another and as interacting with one another. In Jesus’ baptism (Matt. 3:16-17), the Father speaks and the Spirit descends upon Jesus. In the Garden of Gethsamane (Mark 14:36) and hanging on the cross (Luke 23:46), Jesus himself prays to Father. John’s Gospel is full of reference to the three person’s relations, not only in their speaking to one another (John 17), but in actions such as “sending” (John 14:24-26; 20:21) and “loving” (John 3:35; 14:32; 15:9). The epistles also show the three persons as distinct. Galatians 1:1 teaches the Father raised the Son; 1 John 2:1 teaches the Christ is an advocate between humanity and the Father; 1 Peter 1:2 teaches different roles for each Person of God in the salvation of man; the relationship between the Father and the Son is given as the modal for the fellowship between believers (1 John 1:3)."

http://www.basictheology.com/definitions/Modalism/

"The doctrine of God has always been of primary importance to Christianity. A correct view of God is pivotal to every other doctrine that the church holds dear. The most significant developments in articulating the doctrine of the Triune God took place in the 4th century, A.D. with a group of men known as the Theologians. Though the earliest church fathers had affirmed the doctrine of the apostles, they were focused on their pastoral duties to a persecuted church and thus were unable to compose doctrinal treatises. With the relaxing of the persecution of the church during the rise of Constantine to power in the Roman empire, the stage was set for wide-ranging ecumenical dialogue. The resultant councils and creeds did not discover or create Trinitarian doctrine. The Theologians, responding to serious heresies such as Arianism, articulated in the creeds the truths that the orthodox church had believed since the time of the apostles.1"

1. Bingham, Jeffrey, “HT200 Class Notes,” Dallas Theological Seminary , ( 2004).

http://www.basictheology.com/articles/Trinity_Development/

Feel free to use this entire post, word-for-word if you like. Just be sure to include the original sources. Just remember that I cannot anticipate every objection he may have--which is why I offered to help you in the first place.

Thanks!

Quote :

You cannot force him to change his mind, even if you are right

Even though it sounded like she thought I was forcing her,I'm not.
This is just a discussion.I pray she will find the true God someday though.

Quote :

I do not understand the reference to John 16:7 . . . unless he is claiming that the Trinity could not have existed before Jesus ascended into Heaven. It almost sounds Modalistic in that form . . . .

She did ask me if I thought the Trinity/Jesus always existed...


About the Modalisism and the Trinitarian beliefs,that really got me thinking.
I guess I kind of believed in modalisim...?
I thought that Jesus,God,and the Holy Spirit are the same,but God in 3 manifestations.
That's modalism then,right?

This really makes me think.
I need to study more.
And be prepared,I may have many questions!! =P

~♥Born_Again♥~ wrote:

Thanks!

Quote :

You cannot force him to change his mind, even if you are right

Even though it sounded like she thought I was forcing her,I'm not.
This is just a discussion.I pray she will find the true God someday though.

Quote :

I do not understand the reference to John 16:7 . . . unless he is claiming that the Trinity could not have existed before Jesus ascended into Heaven. It almost sounds Modalistic in that form . . . .

She did ask me if I thought the Trinity/Jesus always existed...


About the Modalisism and the Trinitarian beliefs,that really got me thinking.
I guess I kind of believed in modalisim...?
I thought that Jesus,God,and the Holy Spirit are the same,but God in 3 manifestations.
That's modalism then,right?

This really makes me think.
I need to study more.
And be prepared,I may have many questions!! =P

Yes. Modalism teaches that each of the persons: the Father, the Logos, and the Spirit are just different modes of God, meaning all is God but just God appearing a different way at a different time.

Trinity holds that the three are each distinct persons yet one God. Modalism holds that the trinity is three different forms of God, not three distinct persons.

The Trinity has always existed. The Logos is Jesus Christ, He became God incarnate.



about 1John5:7-8...that the ones who take it out r doing a disgrace is ur personal opinion...but these r Christian scholars and the Churches that use these Bibles r also ones that believe in the Trinity so they would have been happy to leave it in but they r being honest that the earliest scriptures do not have it.
ur earliest source is 200A.D. that is like something happening around 1840 and saying it was included in a manuscript in 2009. this was exactly the time different Christian groups competing and the time things were being added..as the Pope admitted...get to that later. or r u saying the earliest manuscripts r from 200A.D?

The earliest documents are not there to show the time from which it came. The resources show that even the earliest of the Christian churches directly after the Apostolic church held to the belief in the Trinity. The Bible teaches the Trinity itself. The earliest scripts do contain the trinity and the verses with in. It is intellectual dishonesty to say otherwise.

The Trinity is mentioned many times. The problem is your appear to be saying since the word "trinit" doesn't explicitly appear in the scriptures that it is not true. That is a fallacious arguement that fails on its own accord. Many things aren't said in scripture yet it is true.

Just two other quotes:

Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.
"O Lord God almighty...I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).

Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).

Quote :

For the Jewish name for God...it is יהוה, YHWH. It is singular "In appearance, YHWH is an archaic third person singular imperfect of the verb "to be", meaning, therefore, "He is". This explanation agrees with the meaning of the name given in Exodus 3:14, where God is represented as speaking, and hence as using the first person — "I am". It stems from the Hebrew conception of monotheism that God exists by himself for himself, and is the uncreated Creator who is independent of any concept, force, or entity; therefore "I am that I am". Jews r not allowed to pronounce this name but have other titles for God. One is Elohim "The first Name used for God in scripture is Elohim. In form, the word is a masculine plural of a word that looks feminine in the singular (Eloha). The same word is used to refer to princes, judges, other gods, and other powerful beings. This Name is used in scripture when emphasizing God's might, His creative power, and his attributes of justice and rulership. Variations on this name include El, Eloha, Elohai (my God) and Elohaynu (our God). " There is also Adonai.."In ancient times the term Adonai was not just used for God. It was a common mode of address to kings, slave‑masters, and even by wives to husbands. The "i" at the end signifies "my" and, in fact, Adonai is a plural form so it literally means "my lords." In many verses of scripture and in the liturgy, God is spoken of as JHWH (pronounced Adonai) Eloheynu, which means "the Lord our God."" the adjectives and verbs used with these names are consistantly singular." so it means Adonai and Elohim r for a singular concept of God. There r more Jewish titles for God in the singular so the Jews do not agree with the idea that the title Elohim is any proof that God is a plural person.

Where did you get that information from?

“The name Elohim is unique to Hebraic thinking – it occurs only in Hebrew and in no other ancient Semitic language." http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Elohim/elohim.html


As for Adonai: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Adonai/adonai.html

Quote :

How can the Comforter be the Holy Ghost..who was already present when Jesus-peace be upon him- was present if he says that the Comforter can only come after he goes away?:
John 16:7 (King James Version)
Nevertheless I tell you the ****h; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

The Holy Spirit was not present with Christ's disciples. The Holy Spirit was fully in Christ. The disciples had not received the Holy Spirit and could not until Christ left the earth. After Christ' left the disciple's were able to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

A couple of clarifications/revisions:

1. Her arguments may be sound, even if she is a Muslim, because religious preferences do not necessarily affect logic. That said, not all of her arguments are logical.

. I talked to a couple of my Theology professors, and for one, she is right when she says that the "us" in Genesis and the OT referring to God probably refer to the "Royal We".

2. She is completely wrong, however, when she implies that Matthew 28:19 was written in by Constantine. It is a solidly grounded text, with no theological or scholarly complications whatsoever. This is based on a reliable authority.

3. She MAY be committing the "Appeal to Unreliable Authority" fallacy when she appealed to the Pope in asserting a later date of Matt. 28:19. If the Pope is a theologian who has studied Greek and studied the history of Matthew 28:19, then he MAY be a reliable authority. If theologians under him have done so, and they accurately record the correct results of their research, then he may be a reliable authority. IF however, the Pope is simply a religious leader, not a theologian, then his statements may be doubted. In addition, if that quote was out of context, it may be doubted.

4. I realize you weren't forcing her--I just wanted to make sure you knew that all you can do is present your case convincingly.

5. The OT is primarily witness to the ONENESS of God--a hallmark of Judaism and Islam. The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught explicitly in Scripture, however it is a profoundly appropriate interpretation of the biblical witness to God in the light of the ministry, death, and resurrection-exaltation of Jesus: the Christ Event. It was NT writers, exploring the implications of God in the Son, who first provided the basis for interpreting the OT's monotheism INCLUSIVELY--that is, as involving more persons than one. Initially, this recognition took Christ-centered shape: Jesus is Lord, just as the Father. Soon, the deity of the Holy Spirit was recognized, especially from Jesus' Deity. Once this step was taken, the Church naturally looked for the trinity in the OT as well, since they affirmed the unity of both the Old and New Testaments.

Some of the strongest HINTS of the trinity in the OT are as follows:

a. The enigmatic plurals in God's own speech: Gn. 1:26, 3:22, 11:7, Is. 6:8

b. Occasions where two separate figures appear to be addressed as "God" or "the Lord": (Ps. 45:6-7, 110:1)

c. The 'divine' angelic trio who come to Abraham in Gn. 18:1-22

d. The 'word' of God active in Creation (Gn. 1:3, Ps. 33:6) and Redemption (Is. 55:11)

e. The creative 'wisdom' figure of Pr. 8:22-31.

f. The Spirit of God, regularly portrayed as bringing God's revelation, wisdom, and empowerment to His people.

It is unlikely that any of these were understood by OT authors or their contemporary readers to denote eternal personal distinctions within Israel's one God. The Israelites would have taken D as poetic reference to God's command, and E as literary personification of God's own wisdom. B and C would be taken as the common phenomenon of divine agency (an exalted creature indwelt by and representing God). The Spirit, F, was considered an analogy of God's own life and vitality (modeled after the human spirit). The deliberate plurals, A, would be perceived as plurals of divine council. ONLY developments reflected in the NT make it appropriate to read a deeper, Trinitarian sense into these passages.

~The New Bible Dictionary.

6. You will have to do some combining: taking clear NT references (especially John 1), and referencing OT hints to the Trinity. The problem is convincing her that Christians only worship one God, not three Gods (a common misunderstanding between Muslims and Christians).

Some NT references are as follows:

John chapter 1.

Matthew 28:19 (a completely reliable text by scholarly theological standards. Whoever is insinuating that this verse was written by Constantine is using EISEGESIS (reading one's own preferred meaning into the text of Scripture) instead of EXEGESIS (discovering the actual meaning of Scripture).

John 5:19-20

1 Corinthians 8:6, 11:3

2 Corinthians 13:4

1 Peter 1:2

I can give you quotes from the early church fathers demonstrating their understanding of the Trinity, if you wish.

I hope this clears things up. If you have any questions, please ask.

*Incidentally, The New Bible Dictionary is quite reliable and reputable, if you need to pick a one-volume dictionary.

Thanks again.
I just wonder how I should put this all together to reply to her...
And I will have to tell her I can't get back to her for a bit anyway,quite a few things went on today that's going to keep me busy.

EDIT:
I didn't see Zealfire's post,I don't know why.
This is kind of getting my confused about how I should reply to her...
I don't know...