Trinity and Hebrew grammar

Okay all, I'm going to present some hebrew grammar here, I'm not a hebrew scholar, but I have had a bit of instruction in it. I'd like to hear your feedback.I am not presenting my opinion here, these right here are the facts:"The Pluralty of Majesty". This is a traditional sticking point between those of the Trinitarian view and those of the Oneness view of God. I'm going to try to explain it a bit. Basically, in English we have plural nouns and singular verbs. A plural noun is indicative of "more than one" of something. However, the Old Testiment Bible was not written in English, but in Hebrew, and Hebrew has completely different rules to follow. In the Hebrew, there are plural nouns and plural verbs. If a plural noun goes with a plural verb, this indicates plurality, aka "more than one". However, if a plural noun goes with a singular verb, this indicates "Majesty, greatness, granduer, awesomeness, intensity" etc. Now understand, this is not an opinion, but a rule of Jewish grammar. Nouns such as "Elohim" (meaning God) are plural nouns, however *EVERY SINGLE TIME*, without exception, in the Old Testament, Elohim is followed by a singular verb. Also of note, is that it is a violation of Jewish Grammar for a "Pluralty of Majesty" (aka Plural noun with a singular verb) to mean plural, as in more than one. If you wish to see an additional reference, look at Job 40:15. "Behemoth" is a plural noun, yet is followed by a singular verb, meaning he is a great beast. Those are the facts. You can look it up in Hebrew textbooks and grammatical laws, etc. Here's where I may present something contraverial: I feel this is one of the mainstays of why Trinitarians believe there is a "Triune" God. They read things such as "let us make man in our image" and "who will go for us" and they presume that since there is the "us" and "our" and "we" there, that God is triune, when in fact the Hebrew merely says that he is "great", and not more than one. What do you think?

You are correct that the verses you mentioned do not prove plurality because of the "plural of majesty" usage, but they certainly do open the door to the concept of plurality.It is interesting that when Elohim is used of the one true God, the singular verb is used. This is contrary to normal Hebrew grammar because in Hebrew grammar the verb must agree with the noun in both gender and number. So we would normally expect to see plural verb with plural noun and this is indeed the case when Elohim is used of false gods. But most of the time when the singular verb is used with Elohim it is used to indicate that there is ONE true God. But there are exceptions. For example Genesis 20:13 reads..."and it came to pass, when God caused me to wander...". The Hebrew word that is translated "caused me to wander" is plural. Literally read it means..."And it came to pass, when they [in reference to God] caused me to wander.". Other examples include Genesis 35:7; 2 Samuel 7:23; Psalm 58:11b.Also, it is interesting to note that the noun Elohim is applied to two persons in the same passage in a few places, notably Psalm 45:6-7 and Hosea 1:7. In Christ,Ron

Hey zapthycat,Thanks for that information. This is an issue I have really been wrestling with. I have asked God to show me which is correct "trinity or "Oneness".I belong to an Apostolic Pentecostal Church who believe in "oneness" and I felt they were wrong and have posted on these boards my reasons. But have still kept on in my search I thought the passage in Daniel 7 were the answer as well as Stephen seeing Jesus at the right hand of God.But God has been gracious enough to set me up in bible study on saturdays with my pastor and our wives and have been going over this very subject.The thing that has made me not so sure of the trinity anymore is the very thing that has seperated the Jews from the pagan religions and that is thier Monotheistic beliefs of But one and only one God.And then in the passage in Isaiah where two of His titles are the Everlasting Father, and Mighty God.So again just when I thought I knew something --God shows me something from a different view and am leaning more to monotheistic views but am still open. As this is a very confusing teaching to me anyway. If you would pray for me that God will show me for certain. God bless,Kevin

hi allThe Jesus Only or Oneness teaching has been identified with Sabellian modalism and was a recurring theme among early pentecostals. The main line groupings rejected it in 1916 in favour of orthodox trinitarian views but it surfaces fairly frequently. Do Oneness folk have a simple explanation for the Father's word of approbation at the Son's baptism and His subsequent receiving of the Holy Spirit?Orthodox Christianity is monotheistic too. We only believe in One God.1. There is One God. 2. Jesus said 'I and my Father are One.' 3. Slander against the Holy Spirit is blasphemy But neither point 2. nor 3. changes the simple fact of point 1. There is still only One God. The alternative to monotheism is not trinitarianism but polytheism.His/YoursRon B

Is the Oneness doctrine a historically Orthodox view? Did any early church fathers believe this? This is a new idea for me, and I would like to hear both sides. JesusisGod2, are you saying that you must be monotheistic, or believe in the trinity? I definately believe in One God, but I also believe in the Trinity.

Quote: The thing that has made me not so sure of the trinity anymore is the very thing that has seperated the Jews from the pagan religions and that is thier Monotheistic beliefs of But one and only one God.Brother, I would remind you that the trinitarian view is a monotheistic view. Trinitarians do not believe in three Gods. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons in one Godhead. They are one in function, purpose, and being, yet three distinct persons at the same time. God cannot fit neatly into all the boxes we try to put Him in. If our minds could fully conceive of God, then He would not be greater than our minds; if our words could fully describe Him, then He would not be greater than our speech. I guess that's why eternity is going to be so blessed because it will be a continual growing revalation to us of the character of our God. In love, I would also strongly recommend you leave the church you are attending and find a place that preaches the historic faith of the Church. I would also encourage you to read Collosians and the first two chapters of Hebrews.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

laholmes wrote:Is the Oneness doctrine a historically Orthodox view? Did any early church fathers believe this? This is a new idea for me, and I would like to hear both sides. JesusisGod2, are you saying that you must be monotheistic, or believe in the trinity? I definately believe in One God, but I also believe in the Trinity. The Churches view of the origin and identity of Christ was probably it's earliest struggle. Sebelius originated the teaching of Modalism (Modern day Oneness Theology) and was immediately labeled, and rightly so, a heretic. The early Church believed two things: Jesus was God; and God was also in Heaven while Jesus was on earth. The problems came when men tried to explain how this was so. Tertullian settled the view of the Trinity by and large for the western Church; therefore, early on anyway, it did not struggle with the Trinity like the eastern Churches did. A man named Arius introduced a teaching that almost swept over the ancient church though. It was the view that Christ was God kind of like the Father. The difference being that the Father was uncreated but the Son was created. The saying he taught the people of Alexandria Egypt was, "There was(the Father) when He (Jesus) was not." This was the cause of the first great council of Nicea. There Athenasius (also from Alexandria) successfully defended the right view that Christ had existed from eternity being totally equal with the Father. Eusebius of Nicomedia, who championed Arianism, befriended Constantine and slowly used that influence to force Arianism upon the Church. That led to a council called "The Blasphemy Of Sirmium" where Jeusus is relegated to being called a similar substance and not the same substance of the Father. It would be a generation later when the Great Capedocians would finally successfully defend the Trinity and reafirm the 1st council of Nicea at the Council of Constantinople in 381.The early historic church never struggled with the fact that there was Jesus AND the Father AND that the two were separate. The question was, how was this so and yet they were one? They came to the conclusion basically that this was a mystery. The Capedocians concluded that the substance of God could not completely be known by men and that God is revealed to man in the Trinity. The next mystery they would deal with was: How could Christ be fully God and fully man at the same time? But that's another discussion.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

Husley, Thank you for that insightful response.Quote:"Sebelius originated the teaching of Modalism (Modern day Oneness Theology)"I am curious about this "Sebelius". Are you sure that is the correct spelling? I looked it up google like "sebelius + modalism" and came up dry. ANy ideas on how to research this?

Todd,In an earlier post I believe Ron had the spelling correct: Sabellian or Sabellius. I'll dig out my notes from my Christian History class to double check.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

Here are several quotes of the early church fathers on the subject of the Trinity.The Letter of Barnabas"And further, my brethren, if the Lord [Jesus] endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,’ understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men" (Letter of Barnabas 5 [A.D. 74] emphasis added).Hermas"The Son of God is older than all his creation, so that he became the Father’s adviser in his creation. Therefore also he is ancient" (The Shepherd 12 [A.D. 80]). Ignatius of Antioch"Jesus Christ . . . was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. . . . Jesus Christ . . . came forth from one Father and is with and has gone to one [Father]. . . . [T]here is one God, who has manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased him that sent him" (Letter to the Magnesians 6–8 [A.D. 110] emphasis added). Justin Martyr"God speaks in the creation of man with the very same design, in the following words: ‘Let us make man after our image and likeness.’ . . . I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that [God] conversed with someone numerically distinct from himself and also a rational being. . . . But this offspring who was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with him" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 62 [A.D. 155]). Polycarp of Smyrna"I praise you for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to you and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 [A.D. 155] emphasis added).Mathetes"[The Father] sent the Word that he might be manifested to the world. . . . This is he who was from the beginning, who appeared as if new, and was found old. . . . This is he who, being from everlasting, is today called the Son" (Letter to Diognetus 11 [A.D. 160] emphasis added). Irenaeus"It was not angels, therefore, who made us nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor anyone else. . . . For God did not stand in need of these in order to accomplish what he had himself determined with himself beforehand should be done, as if he did not possess his own hands. For with him [the Father] were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, he made all things, to whom also he speaks, saying, ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness’ [Gen. 1:26]" (Against Heresies 4:20:1 [A.D. 189] emphasis added).Tertullian"While keeping to this demurrer always, there must, nevertheless, be place for reviewing for the sake of the instruction and protection of various persons. Otherwise it might seem that each perverse opinion is not examined but simply prejudged and condemned. This is especially so in the case of the present heresy [Sabellianism], which considers itself to have the pure truth when it supposes that one cannot believe in the one only God in any way other than by saying that Father, Son, and Spirit are the selfsame person. As if one were not all . . . through the unity of substance" (Against Praxeas 2:3–4 [A.D. 216]). "Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe, now, that I say the Father is other [distinct], and the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. . . . I say this, however, out of necessity, since they contend that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are the selfsame person" (ibid. 9:1). Hippolytus"Thus, after the death of Zephyrinus, supposing that he had obtained [the position] after which he so eagerly pursued, he [Pope Callistus] excommunicated Sabellius, as not entertaining orthodox opinions" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:7 [A.D. 228]). Novatian"[W]ho does not acknowledge that the person of the Son is second after the Father, when he reads that it was said by the Father, consequently to the Son, ‘Let us make man in our image and our likeness’ [Gen. 1:26]? Or when he reads [as having been said] to Christ: ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten you. Ask of me, and I will give you the heathens for your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for your possession’ [Ps. 2:7–8]? Or when also that beloved writer says: ‘The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I shall make your enemies the stool of your feet’ [Ps. 110:1]? Or when, unfolding the prophecies of Isaiah, he finds it written thus: ‘Thus says the Lord to Christ my Lord’? Or when he reads: ‘I came not down from heaven to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me’ [John 6:38]? Or when he finds it written: ‘Because he who sent me is greater than I’ [cf. John 14:24, 28]? Or when he finds it placed side by side with others: ‘Moreover, in your law it is written that the witness of two is true. I bear witness of myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness of me’ [cf. John 8:17–18]?" (Treatise on the Trinity 26 [A.D. 235]). "And I should have enough to do were I to endeavor to gather together all the passages [of the kind in the previous quotation] . . . since the divine Scripture, not so much of the Old as also of the New Testament, everywhere shows him to be born of the Father, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made, who always has obeyed and obeys the Father; that he always has power over all things, but as delivered, as granted, as by the Father himself permitted to him. And what can be so evident proof that this is not the Father, but the Son; as that he is set forth as being obedient to God the Father, unless, if he be believed to be the Father, Christ may be said to be subjected to another God the Father?" (ibid.) Gregory the Wonderworker"But some treat the Holy Trinity in an awful manner, when they confidently assert that there are not three persons, and introduce (the idea of) a person devoid of subsistence. Wherefore we clear ourselves of Sabellius, who says that the Father and the Son are the same [person]. . . . We forswear this, because we believe that three persons—namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are declared to possess the one Godhead: for the one divinity showing itself forth according to nature in the Trinity establishes the oneness of the nature" (A Sectional Confession of Faith 8 [A.D. 262]). "But if they say, ‘How can there be three persons, and how but one divinity?’ we shall make this reply: That there are indeed three persons, inasmuch as there is one person of God the Father, and one of the Lord the Son, and one of the Holy Spirit; and yet that there is but one divinity, inasmuch as . . . there is one substance in the Trinity" (ibid., 14). Methodius"For the kingdom of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is one, even as their substance is one and their dominion one. Whence also, with one and the same adoration, we worship the one deity in three persons, subsisting without beginning, uncreated, without end, and to which there is no successor. For neither will the Father ever cease to be the Father, nor again the Son to be the Son and King, nor the Holy Ghost to be what in substance and personality he is. For nothing of the Trinity will suffer diminution, either in respect of eternity, or of communion, or of sovereignty" (Oration on the Psalms 5 [A.D. 305]).Athanasius"[The Trinity] is a Trinity not merely in name or in a figurative manner of speaking; rather, it is a Trinity in truth and in actual existence. Just as the Father is he that is, so also his Word is one that is and is God over all. And neither is the Holy Spirit nonexistent but actually exists and has true being. Less than these the Catholic Church does not hold, lest she sink to the level of the Jews of the present time, imitators of Caiaphas, or to the level of Sabellius" (Letters to Serapion 1:28 [A.D. 359]). "They [the Father and the Son] are one, not as one thing now divided into two, but really constituting only one, nor as one thing twice named, so that the same becomes at one time the Father and at another his own Son. This latter is what Sabellius held, and he was judged a heretic. On the contrary, they are two, because the Father is Father and is not his own Son, and the Son is Son and not his own Father" (Discourses Against the Arians 3:4 [A.D. 360]). Todd, The site I got these quotes from also contains an excellent history of Sabellianism/Modalism. It's a Catholic site and ,while I'm a protestant in the truest sense of the word, I have to say that the Catholic Church probably has the best doctrine of God that any can find. If they just didn't have all those other doctrines.Here is the site in case you are interested:http://www.catholic.com/library/God_in_Three_Persons.aspIn Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

The fact is that the early church *never* preached any trinitarian doctrine. This doctrine was never around until the council of Nicea and the corrupt Catholic church brought it to be in the 300's. The Catholic church brought with it other heresies which we will not get into. Another fact: Trinitarians claim to be monotheistic, but how can you have a triune God? God is either one being, or he is not. I think it a matter of convieniance that trinitarians will back up their claim to be one God by trying to squish 3 Gods into one, and saying that the trinity is one God. Well, is he or isn't he? You cannot have 3 beings, 3 persons, in one being. God is either one, or he isn't. God is either "he" or more than one God, you cannot have a God that is "they". One means one, not three. Another fact: The very beginning of the church was made up exclusively of jews, and it was not until acts 10 came along that any gentiles were in the church that we know of. It took a long time for gentiles to begin outnumbering jews in the churches, the synagoges for many years were the starting place for revivals in cities that Paul visited. Now, get this: Jews are fundamentalist, not like the jews we have today, back then they were very zealous of their law. And the very VERY first, and most important scripture in the Old Testiment, to the jews was this: "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD". Following this scripture it says that you should love the Lord your God with all your heart, these words should be the FIRST thing you say when you wake up, and the LAST thing you say when you go to sleep, these words should be upon your heart continually, and in fact, if you were a Good jew, these words were supposed to be the last words you say before you die. With that kind of intense bombardment, there is no way, *NO WAY* that any jew would be trinitarian, polytheistic, or anything else. When the Bible says "One God", it doesn't mean only monotheism, it truly means that GOD IS ONE. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of all who is above all. We all know that there is one God, but Trinitarians, to get around the issue and try to agree with the bible, try to turn this ONE GOD into 3 beings, or persons. The Fact is that no where in the bible does it even mention the word "persons" and "God" in the same scripture. If this is so foundational to our faith, why does it not even imply it anywhere in the bible? Why didn't the early church believe it? I'm not trying to inflame anyone's belief, or get anyone angry... but I think it's good for us to be shaken up from time to time, so that we can look to God, and the bible, and stop with the "doctrines and teachings of men". Because, lets face it... there isn't a person on this earth that believes in the trinity that wasn't taught it from man... you don't get that word or the concept if you just read the bible for yourself. God bless,J. Wilson

Hiyour quote "Another fact: Trinitarians claim to be monotheistic, but how can you have a triune God?"That little 'une' on the end of triune means 'one', hence I am a monotheist. The Gospel according to John has some profound christology. It begans by declaring that in the 'beginning' the Word already was. (This is a conscious echo of Genesis 1:1) This is the imperfect tense signifying a past-continuous characteristic or action. The same word and tense is then used of the Word which John declares 'was with God'. This is a fascinating construction. Greek has different words for 'with' e.g. meta=together with, para=with/by the side of. But this is 'pros ton theon' which really implies 'towards, with a sense of motion, God'. This speaks not of a sterile time/space positioning but of a living relationship. It almost gives the sense of God and the Word being in increasing intimacy. You will see that God and the Word at this point are distinguishable and are portrayed as being in a 'face to face' relationship. (the phrase is repeated at the end of verse 2) It goes on to use that same imperfect tense form of 'was' to say that the Word was God; this is indivisibility.In John 1:1 you have the following christology1. The Word co-existed with God at the beginning; that is co-equality.2. The Word was distinguishable and in a definable relationship to God; that is unique personhood.3. The Word was indivisible from God; that is monotheism.4. The whole is tri-unity. Distinguishable persons living in a non-divisible one-ness.His/YoursRon B(have changed my logon name to protect the innocent who may also be called 'Ron'.)

This is all very heady and I am but a stupid fisherman, if you get my drift...But in response to: If this is so foundational to our faith, why does it not even imply it anywhere in the bible? Why didn't the early church believe it?As mentioned the book of John,What about John 10 :33 "The Jews answered Him, saying,"For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God."(Side note: call me wacked, but right now it is 5:10 a.m. on the west coast, still dark, I just went outside to collect my thoughts, and all of a sudden here comes 3 large white birds, owl's? I don't know what they were...coincidence?..hmmmm, no, I am not a 'mystic'...just sharing)Because, lets face it... there isn't a person on this earth that believes in the trinity that wasn't taught it from man... you don't get that word or the concept if you just read the bible for yourself. Anyway,to this 'layman' I do see 'trinity' in the bible, I do believe it is 'implied' and not as you stated (trying to 'squish' 3 into one).If God is one (and I believe He is) and He cannot diminish Himself by any means (which would make Him less than Himself)....and if you take all the references in scripture pertaining to "trinity",(The Word became flesh, Created in 'Our' image, etc. etc.)To this feeble mind the only thing I can see is equality (= to)....So while Jesus was on this earth and He prayed to the Father, there had to be a distinction other wise who was He talking to, himself?Boy, I know why this is such a difficult topic, trying to put into words what can only be a mystery....All of the great minds of the world still haven't come up with a 'rational' explantion, at least to our limited understanding.Much more I wanted to say, but the 'fish' are biting, so off to work I go..._/crsschk\\_

I posted this once before but seeing as we have a different bunch of folk around the water cooler..How can the creature search out the Creator?How shall the finite describe the Infinite?How can Man know God?The answer to these questions is more simple than might at first appear. God has chosen to reveal Himself. Mankind does not need to remain in ignorance of God. Finite creatures can know the unknowable. There are many things that man can know about God, because God wants man to know them. If God had remained silent, man would have remained ignorant. God has revealed Himself in nature, although that is now a very imperfect revelation. God has revealed himself through the Holy Scriptures, although even that is a very incomplete revelation. God has fully revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, whom the Scriptures describe as…“being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person.”The ancient Hebrews had been taught for centuries that…“the LORD our God is One God.”To this unchangeable truth Jesus added another…“I and My Father are One.”The Holy Spirit speaking through the apostle John confirms this brighter shining of truth, when He teaches something which unaided man could never have discovered. Introducing Jesus Christ as the Word, who became flesh and lodged among us, He reveals…“In the beginning was the Word,and the Word was with God,and the Word was God.”The Word who was with God and was God, bore eloquent testimony to the deity of the Holy Spirit when He declared that those who defamed the Holy Spirit, were committing blasphemy. And yet none of this changes the first unchangeable truth; “the LORD our God is One God.”Neither do they explain the mystery. God is One God, but Three distinguishable Persons, each of whom is completely God. This unfathomable mystery, the theologians call Trinity. A mystery which can never be explained, only illustrated. The creeds which came later from the councils of the early churches were not attempts to define God but rather attempts to exclude error.The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal, co-substantial, co-eternal. The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the World. The Son sent the Spirit to make that salvation a personal reality to men and women.Man could know none of these things unless God had revealed them. Before this amazing self-revelation of the Eternal, Infinite, Triune God we can only wonder and worship.(Hebrews 1:3; Deuteronomy 6:4; John 10:30; John 1:1)

try Sabellian modalism on your searches.

Looking at the Trinity from a philisophical view, it is the only answer that makes sense when it comes to metaphysics (the problem of Being and existence).If we beleive what the Bible tells us concerning our personal beginning (creation account) then we need a personal-infinite God, and we need a personal unity and diversity in God.The Trinity is the answer to the personal unity and diversity in God. In the Trinity we have three "Persons" , one God, in existence with each other, loving each other and communicating with each other before the world was made. If this wasn't the case then we would have God needing His creation in order to love and communicate. God would have needed the universe as much as it needed Him. But this is not the case, God didn't need to create because the Persons of the Trinity loved and communictaed with each other before anything was created.This doctrine wasn't just invented in order to answer the question of existence. The church forefathers saw that this doctrine is set forth in the Bible and the Nicene Creed simply gives the answer to this question that Plato and Aristotle has been trying to answer long before. They didn't invent that doctrine to meet the need, the Trinity was already there and it met the need. They understood that the Trinity explains what the Greek philosophers had been arguing about for so long.Again, the Trinity isn't the best answer, it is the only answer to unity and diversity in existence.You can read more about this in Francis Shaeffer's book He Is There and He Is Not Silent.In Christ,Ron

Zapthy wrote: The fact is that the early church *never* preached any trinitarian doctrine.Reply: I looked through some of my word study books and checked out the first chapter of the Gospel of John (not only was John a first generation Christian; he was also an apostle). Wuest Word Studies in the Greek New Testament translates The first few verses of John this way,"In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His(referring to Jesus) essence absolute deity. This Word was in the beginning in fellowship with God the Father."I would also refer you to my earlier post where I quoted Ignatius and Polycarp. Both were first generation Christians. Ignatius is also believed to have been a disciple of John the apostle.Zapthy wrote: This doctrine was never around until the council of Nicea and the corrupt Catholic church brought it to be in the 300's. The Catholic church brought with it other heresies which we will not get into. Reply: The Catholic Church as we would understand the Church did not even exist in the 300's. The term Catholic was used very early in the Church to refer to the Church Universal. If one were in say Antioch and just said, "the Church," people would assume that he/she was talking about the Church in Antioch. However, if he/she said the Church Catholic, or the Catholic Church they would be understood as talking about the whole body of Christ worldwide.It wasn't until midway through the 400's that the Catholic Church began to really take on the appearance that we would recognize. Bishops over cities had been called popes for a long time at that point. Pope, I believe, is latin for father. It wasn't until Leo the Great called himself the supreme Pope or Pope of Popes that the authority of Rome began to assert its self. He claimed to have the spirit of Peter living in him and even signed his name as St. Peter. The Eastern Orhtodox Church scoffed at Leo and never gave their allegiance to Rome. Most of the Western Church didn't even consider him the authority but they were consumed by the expansion of Islam.Of all the reasons that the Eastern Church had for not alligning with Rome, you will never once see a complaint about the belief in a Trinitarian God. Why? Because the whole Church had always believed that.It would be over a thousand years later before the Catholic Church had become so apostate that God raised up the Protestan Reformation.I will only repeat what others have said about Nicea. Anyone studying Church history can see that the council did not invent the concept of the Trinity. It only settled an argument about the Trinity that had been taking place for a LONG time.Zapthy wrote: If this is so foundational to our faith, why does it not even imply it anywhere in the bible? Reply: John 1:1-2 (quoted at the top of the page)John 3:35 "The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand." (testimony of John the Baptist, a very orthodox Jew describing two of the persons of the Godhead)John 7:16b "My doctrine is not Mine(Jesus), but His who sent Me."(Jesus is implying that He did not send Himself)John 14:12 "Most assuredly I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father."John 14:23b "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him."I'd have to say the the Trinity is implied thoroughly.Zapthy wrote: And the very VERY first, and most important scripture in the Old Testiment, to the jews was this: "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD".Reply: You misquoted this verse. Deut. 6:4 should read, "Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!" (exclamation in the original)Reply: This in no way refutes the doctrine of the Trinity. The context of the whole of this passage was given to prepare the Hebrews who were about to inherit the Promised Land to serve only God and no others. This is in no way saying that there are other living gods, scripture clearly spells out that there is only one true God.Zapthy, I am in total agreement with you that there is only one God. But you are making a classic error in interpreting the scripture. You have taken one text and turned it into a pre-text to the exclusion of the rest of the teaching of scripture. When looking at the existence of God in the light of ALL scripture, I can only conclude that God is eternally existent as one God in three persons.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

This has already been a very fruitful discussion for me. Here's my problem at this point. While I read these posts, it seems pretty clear that one side (those in support of the trinity) are more educated in church history and theology, etc. while the other side (Oneness) is less so. At least this is my perception so far. THis could be a mistake, however. And who knows how many fall into the "unsure" category like me. Either way, we have to admit that while those in support of "Oneness" doctrines on this site may be less educated, there are plenty of men out there who are seasoned men of God who have studied and lived the Bible for decades and still believe in "Oneness" theology. Someone in another forum mentioned that T.D. Jakes believes in the "Oneness" doctrine and I know of other well known men of God as well. Just that realization alone makes all of this inconclusive for me. I must hear their viewpoints. How do they understand these verses? THey must have a way of understanding all those verses in John and Daniel, etc. that fit into their understanding. Some may not think that these men are truly "men of God". Ok, even if that is the case, they have read their Bible and have come to an understanding of these things. Based strictly on statistics alone, the trinitarians have a huge advantage in argumentation as their doctrine has held seniority in the Church over the years while Oneness has been more obscure. That means more has been written and thought out concerning the trinity.I must, out of love and humility, reserve my acceptance of my own understanding on this matter until I have heard people who believe in "Oneness" explain their understanding on these verses. And while this may not be possible in this forum, that obviously doesn't mean it's impossible.

It is true that you can nitpick certain scriptures out of the bible, twist them around, and use them to "prove" a trinity that the essence of the bible certainly declares is false. You can even try to call trinitarianism a "monotheistic" belief, although it is not, by saying that somehow, three beings are one God. This defies logic and common sense. If we are God's creation, why would he make something so difficult or impossible to understand as a trinity? Answer: he wouldn't. Like I said, you can take scriptures out of context and pull them into this discussion, but if you understood the oneness theology, and thus the bible, then you would understand perfectly that the very scriptures you present back up the oneness doctrine completely... the bible is infallable and we refuse to deny anything in it. Fact is, no matter what scriptures I pull out and present to you, you will not believe it. The bible says "GOD IS ONE", both in essence and in those exact words, but you will not believe. I could, if I had the inclination and time pull out scripture after scripture, take hours to explain everything that has been presented here, and back you into a corner to which you would just refuse to post on this subject any more. But you will not believe. Therefore, this little "tit for tat" scripture stuff is not effectual, and in the end we must simply agree to disagree. But finally, I will state these facts:No where in the bible does it explicitly say that God is 3 persons. Note this. You can argue what different scriptures mean but no one will change their opinion. No where was anyone in the bible baptised in the name of the father, son, holy ghost. No where does the bible even mention that God is more than one person. Finally, if nothing else convinced me, this would...I have personally seen people, after being baptised "In the name of Jesus Christ", receive the holy ghost with evidence of speaking in tongues as they came out of the water. I have never seen such with those baptised in any other way. I obviously haven't been to every baptism... maybe someone else has. But I haven't ever seen this. Moreover...I know of a true story, this happened at a Prison in Texas. A man on death row, condemned to die, was being ministered to by a prison ministry team. He received the gospel and said that he wanted to be baptised, so they asked the warden for permission to take him out and have him baptised. Negative. So they brought to the prison a kiddy pool to baptise him in. He was led out under heavy guard, with chains around his wrists and ankles, and around his neck. He was baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.... and when he came out of the water, the chains were no longer on him. They were laying at the bottom of the pool. (I believe, I cannot recall that he began speaking in tongues as he received the holy ghost too, but i don't remember for sure...) Upon seeing this, the guards guarding him beleived and said they want to be baptised. I don't know of anytime that happened to someone that was baptised in any other way. Argue what you will... but I believe that "There is none under name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved" Acts 4:12. God is good.-Jarrod