Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed

[JRT]

I grew up a traditional Roman Catholic with a Jesuit education, even a year in seminary. Today 60 years later I find the fourth century doctrines quite incomprehensible and even harmful to my spiritual evolution. Jesus pointed us in a powerful way to the creator whom he called "Father".

 

[atpollard]

Is acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed the acceptance
that Jesus is a human God?

No.

If not then why not?

Quite simply because nowhere in the Nicene Creed does it say that Jesus is a “human God” and there IS NO “Trinity Creed”. There is a Doctrine of the Trinity, which is not a creed, and can be expressed in many different ways, but at its core just claims that the “Father” from the Gospels and “Jesus” and the “Holy Spirit” are all “One God”.

The Nicene Creed actually states (and those that believe it affirm) the following:

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and to life in the world to come. Amen.


The Doctrine of the Trinity is more clearly seen within the Athanasian Creed:

That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their persons
nor dividing their essence.
For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
the person of the Son is another,
and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.

And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

Similarly, the Father is almighty,
the Son is almighty,
the Holy Spirit is almighty.
Yet there are not three almighty beings;
there is but one almighty being.

Thus the Father is God,
the Son is God,
the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there are not three gods;
there is but one God.

Thus the Father is Lord,
the Son is Lord,
the Holy Spirit is Lord.
Yet there are not three lords;
there is but one Lord.

Just as Christian truth compels us
to confess each person individually
as both God and Lord,
so catholic religion forbids us
to say that there are three gods or lords.

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
he was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
there is one Son, not three sons;
there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
nothing is greater or smaller;
in their entirety the three persons
are coeternal and coequal with each other.

So in everything, as was said earlier,
we must worship their trinity in their unity
and their unity in their trinity.

Nowhere in either of these does it claim that Jesus is a human God, so those that affirm these Creeds do not claim that Jesus is a human God.

 

[atpollard]

I do not believe you.

Actually, it does ... C. Both (but the explanation of why was actually worth reading).

 

[atpollard]

Read this:

"God Suffered, God Died"

Some of the deepest waters of Lutheran theology and where it makes some of its greatest contributions are in the realm of Christology. For Lent I have

www.patheos.com

Good article. Not too long and it actually had something to say.

 

[hedrick]

I grew up a traditional Roman Catholic with a Jesuit education, even a year in seminary. Today 60 years later I find the fourth century doctrines quite incomprehensible and even harmful to my spiritual evolution. Jesus pointed us in a powerful way to the creator whom he called "Father".

I have no problem with people who find the 4th Cent approach unhelpful. I feel that way myself much of the time. However if you're going to use 4th Cent technical terms like nature, I think you have to use them in a way that is consistent with their definitions.

I personally think using the Nicene Creed to define Christian is a mistake. I’d use the Apostles’ Creed if you really need a definition. But the Nicene Creed really doesn’t commit you to much in the way of a philosophical approach.

There is really only one technical term in it, “of the same substance.” But this applies to the Logos. In introducing the Logos, surely John didn’t intend it to be either a subordinate God or some kind of demigod. That’s what the creed was trying to reject. The term “of the same substance” was vague enough to be acceptable to people with quite a variety of views, as it was interpreted both as meaning that the Father and the Son are the same thing or two things of the same type. (They seem to have lost the actual 1st Cent meaning, which was a hypostasized attribute or function of God, but the wording seems broad enough to allow that.)

Beyond that the Creed simply says “was made man”, which seems like a reasonable paraphrase of the Word ,made flesh.

The OP seems to have been criticizing Chalcedon, not Nicea, and you may well be as well. And maybe not even Chalcedon but the way it came to be interpreted later.

The NT surely intends to identify Jesus with God in some way. The various writers do it differently. but the idea that when we look at Jesus we see what God is like seems like a pretty minimal claim. If that’s true, it affects our concept of God. He can’t be the unmoved mover, but is also someone who suffers with us.

Classical theology was unwilling to consider that the Father could suffer (it was considered an obvious heresy), so they had to insulate him by saying that the Son is a separate Person. This isn’t where the Trinity actually came from, but it seems to be what caused it to be chosen by the Church as a whole over other alternatives.

But whether you attribute it specifically to the Son or to an undivided God, Jesus’ death surely should be seen as in some way reflecting God. To use the Chalcedonian distinction between person and nature, and say it’s just the human nature that suffered, seems inconsistent with the idea that Jesus shows us God.

 

[Josiah]

huh? most traditional Christisns say that because of the personal union, the statement you just made isn’t meaningful. Natures don’t die. People do.

His human nature IS a person. But the "communication of attributes" does NOT always work both ways thus the death of His human nature (his body) does NOT mean ergo His divine nature also died.



.

 

[harmonicat]

Do you believe in the Trinity?

I didn't come here to discuss the trinity doctrine but my posting privileges are now limited so I will.

Keeping in mind the full 'co-equal' definition of Trinity...
The most difficult thing about the Trinity Doctrine is that even Trinitarians admit there's is no way to adequately explain it yet they condemn people who reject it. It's a concept that's impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain. Yet, Trinitarian's condemn others who reject it often calling them heretics and apostates.

It makes me sad to know a little church history and how badly Trinitarians have behaved over the last 1600 years. Christianity adopted the trinity doctrine through Catholicism and a man named Athanasius, a Catholic Bishop later canonized as a saint.

The Church had a rough start and so did the Trinity doctrine. The Apostles never mentioned it and it's not in the Didache. The idea sort of began with Tertullian. Then over the next 300 years the bishops of Rome voted on it 3, maybe even 4 times, before it finally passed BY A NARROW MARGIN OF VOTES.
_____________________________________________________________________
"There are numerous accounts of Athanasius’ followers beating and murdering non-trinitarian Christians in the lead-up to the Council of Nicea, torturing their victims and parading their dead bodies around." (See Richard Hanson, The Search For The Christian Doctrine Of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988) p. 386.)

The trinitarian Athanasius was by far the more brutal. "Bishop Athanasius, a future saint… had his opponents excommunicated and anathematized, beaten and intimidated, kidnapped, imprisoned, and exiled to distant provinces." (Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God (London: Harcourt, 2000) p. 6.)
______________________________________________________________________________
It wasn't until 451, at the Council of Chalcedon that, with the approval of the Pope, the Nicene/Constantinople Creed was set as authoritative. Debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy, and such earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousands because of a difference of opinion....and that's the way the devil wanted it!
A little history about non trinitarian Arius and Trinitarian Athanasius during the time of Constantine, and the Bishops of Rome and 'Popes' would open your eyes.

The alleged heresy most people were murdered for during the four inquisitions that followed was the rejection of the Trinity. Non-trinitarian persecutions didn't stop with Calvin who conspired with the Catholics to murder Michael Servetus.

Christians persecuting other Christians continued by torture and murder continued up to the 19th century. John MacArthur believes Servetus' burning at the stake was justified. No need to wonder why I can't stand John MacArthur.
So just to explain a few things.

Jesus IS NOT equal to the Father, he said, "the Father is greater."

Jesus isn't all knowing, he said "only the Father knows the day and hour of his return."

Jesus said, "says he can do nothing on his own" proving his subordination to the Father.

NOTE! - Jesus said "blasphemy against him will be forgiven but blasphemy against the holy spirit will not." If they were the same person, blasphemy against one would be blasphemy against the other. That alone destroys the Trinity doctrine!

The bible says God cannot be tempted. That means Jesus being God could not have been tempted anyway. If he is "God in the Flesh" that means his human nature could not sin making him a fraud and ultimately the cross a hoax. Two separate natures in this day and age is called schizophrenia.

There's a contra-distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of God. One that Christians need to familiarize themselves with.

Do you adhere to the Nicene Creed?

I actually do other than a line or two.

 

[Romanos]

I actually do other than a line or two.

Which are the parts in the Nicene Creed that you do not adhere to?

 

[harmonicat]

Which are the parts in the Nicene Creed that you do not adhere to?

I have a different understanding about this...

"...the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not created, of one essence with the Father".

That part doesn't support a co-equal Trinity anyway.

 

[Josiah]

I didn't come here to discuss the trinity doctrine but my posting privileges are now limited so I will.

I'm not sure a discussion of the Trinity belongs in the Ethics and Debate forum, but ....

The most difficult thing about the Trinity Doctrine is that even Trinitarians admit there's is no way to adequately explain it

So?

You reject that the divine might be beyond the ability of puny, fallen, finite, human brains to "adequately explain?"

Christianity adopted the trinity doctrine through Catholicism and a man named Athanasius, a Catholic Bishop later canonized as a saint.

Actually, it was embraced through both East and West.

IMO, just because the Catholics and Orthodox embraced something doesn't ergo make it bad.

It wasn't until 451, at the Council of Chalcedon that the Nicene/Constantinople Creed was set as authoritative.

Yup. It predates that.... but okay. I take it you are opposed to any view that was developed after 451. I'll be curious to see how you apply that here at CH. But do you reject teachings after 325? After 100? Is there a date BEFORE 451 after which you reject any views?

Jesus IS NOT equal to the Father, he said, "the Father is greater."

By His human nature, He is not equal to to the Father. And by authority, neither is His divine nature. But the Son is equal to the Father.

Jesus isn't all knowing, he said "only the Father knows the day and hour of his return."

By His human nature, He isn't all knowing. By His divine nature, He is. The Communication of Attributes is limited.

Jesus said, "says he can do nothing on his own" proving his subordination to the Father.

The authority is not equal. The Army general has more authority than an Army private.... it doesn't mean ergo the private isn't a human, equally human with the general. You are confusing entirely unrelated things.

NOTE! - Jesus said "blasphemy against him will be forgiven but blasphemy against the holy spirit will not." If they were the same person

They aren't.

The bible says God cannot be tempted. That means Jesus being God could not have been tempted anyway. If he is "God in the Flesh" that means his human nature could not sin making him a fraud and ultimately the cross a hoax.

You are confusing being tempted with sinning. They aren't the same thing.

Whether Jesus COULD sin or not is an issue never addressed in Scripture or in theology. But Jesus did not sin; He was "without sin." The Cross is not a "fraud" because there never was a claim that He died for HIS OWN sins (or some ability to sin) but for OUR sins.



.

 

[harmonicat]

I'm not sure a discussion of the Trinity belongs in the Ethics and Debate forum, but ....

The topic was posted almost 3 months ago and hasn't been moved so there must not be an issue. Trinity has been the most debated Christian doctrine. Doctrine is OPINION.

So?
You reject that the divine might be beyond the ability of puny, fallen, finite, human brains to "adequately explain?"

I don't reject that notion at all. That fact only strengthens the case I was making. In any religion, it's unreasonable and illogical to expect adherents to accept a limited description of a 'any deity' that's admittedly inexplicable AND incomprehensible. It's VERY unreasonable for Trinitarians to claim that the rejection of such an ambiguous 'doctrine' curses one into damnation and excludes one from the body of Christ. Those tactics are how people fall for cults!
In a Christian context I certainly do accept that what we know about 'the divine' is limited.

I said, "Christianity adopted the trinity doctrine through Catholicism and a man named Athanasius, a Catholic Bishop later canonized as a saint." Your response...

Actually, it was embraced through both East and West.

IMO, just because the Catholics and Orthodox embraced something doesn't ergo make it bad.

How appropriate a doctrine. Protestants disagree on most everything and Protestants disagree on a host of issues! Many Protestants have been demonizing Rome for centuries. Some accuse Catholicism/Rome of being the beast, harlot, or Babylon the Great.

It wasn't until 451, at the Council of Chalcedon that the Nicene/Constantinople Creed was set as authoritative.

Yup. It predates that.... but okay. I take it you are opposed to any view that was developed after 451. I'll be curious to see how you apply that here at CH. But do you reject teachings after 325? After 100? Is there a date BEFORE 451 after which you reject any views?

I don't reject any history on this issue. I DID say that Tertullian started the trinitarian ball rolling. Many of the early so called 'church fathers' mention some sort of divine unification of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but the doctrine wasn't OFFICIALLY accepted until 451 which is when Jesus officially became God.

A Trinitarian red flag is the fact that the doctrine was DEVELOPED over a period of 400 years, was voted on 3 to 4 times before it finally passed. And when it did pass it did so by a very narrow margin of votes!

By His human nature, He is not equal to to the Father. And by authority, neither is His divine nature. But the Son is equal to the Father.

I've heard that response hundreds of times. That's the way Trinitarians dodge the issue. It's the perfect justification for trinitarian’s to cover up all of their irrational teachings.

Jesus said "only the Father knows" and Trinitarians really can't overcome that statement. You're using a 'precept' of the Trinity doctrine to support the trinity doctrine and that just doesn't work to prove anything in a debate. You have to prove that Jesus not only had 'two natures'. (It's easily proven that Jesus was 100% human.) You have to prove how the 100% God part and how that part was totally separate from and didn't override and nullify the 100% human part!

By His human nature, He isn't all knowing. By His divine nature, He is. The Communication of Attributes is limited.

Trinitarians claim that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man at the same time. Where did his 100% 'divine nature' go when Jesus responded to the disciples question, "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?"

Jesus said - "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Maybe his divine nature forgot? Or maybe he doesn't have a 100% divine nature equal to the Father and Jesus just didn't know in the first place? Why didn't his divine nature come through? Trinitarians shut off his divine nature when these contradiction rise.

I said, "Jesus says he can do nothing on his own" proving his subordination to the Father". Your response...

The authority is not equal. The Army general has more authority than an Army private.... it doesn't mean ergo the private isn't a human, equally human with the general. You are confusing entirely unrelated things.

The general isn't the same person as the private so your analogy is moot.

Definition from Christianity.com - "We believe that the one God eternally exists in three Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and that these three are one God, co-equal and co-eternal, having precisely the same nature and attributes, and worthy of precisely the same worship, confidence, and obedience. "

IF in Trinitarianism YOU SAY Christ' authority isn't equal to the Father's, then by definition you need to explain the contradiction! I said, "blasphemy against him will be forgiven but blasphemy against the holy spirit will not." If they were the same person blasphemy against one would be blasphemy against the other". Your response...

They aren't.

That's all? No more explanation needed? The definition of the Trinity contradicts your understanding which is what makes the Trinity doctrine illogical and completely incoherent!

I got the following illogical, incoherent, and contradictory statement from a Trinitarian website and this IS what Trinity teaches!...

"The fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons means, in other words, that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Jesus is God, but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, but He is not the Son or the Father. They are different Persons, not three different ways of looking at God."

I said, "the bible says God cannot be tempted. That means Jesus being God could not have been tempted anyway. If he is "God in the Flesh" that means his human nature could not sin making him a fraud and ultimately the cross a hoax. Your response...

You are confusing being tempted with sinning. They aren't the same thing.

That has nothing to do with it! What kind of explanation is that? Are you sure you want to continue? One liners don't support a thing and add nothing to the discussion.

Whether Jesus COULD sin or not is an issue never addressed in Scripture or in theology. But Jesus did not sin; He was "without sin." The Cross is not a "fraud" because there never was a claim that He died for HIS OWN sins (or some ability to sin) but for OUR sins.

Where did the "dying for his own sins" come from? The Trinity doctrine makes the cross a hoax because IF Jesus was God in human form that nature would override his human nature and JESUS COULD NOT have been tempted or sinned anyway.

"Jesus could have sinned from his humanity but not his divinity" makes no sense to me. I also know that you can't prove any of this through scripture but anyone is welcome to try.

 

[Josiah]

I don't reject that notion at all.

Good. Then there goes your foundational point that the Trinity must be wrong because to you it doesn't "adequately explain" stuff. Traditional Christian doctrine is full of "mystery." Indeed, Christians didn't speak of "doctrine" or "theology" for some 1500 years, we spoke of "the holy mysteries."

Frankly, it's entirely irrelevant whether you think some Christian teaching "adequately explains" stuff to you or not.

I said, "Christianity adopted the trinity doctrine through Catholicism and a man named Athanasius, a Catholic Bishop later canonized as a saint."

And you are wrong. The Eastern churches were AT LEAST involved as those of t he West.

And it's an irrelevant point. As I posted, "SO WHAT"? Why is something wrong simply because it was held prior to 1521?

the doctrine wasn't OFFICIALLY accepted until 451

Even if true, again SO WHAT? Do you reject any and all teachings made official after the year 450? Why the year 450? Are you consistent or do you simply choose which teachings you reject because they were made official after 450 and which ones you accept?

Jesus said "only the Father knows" and Trinitarians really can't overcome that statement.

No need to cover up anything. The HUMAN Jesus doesn't know. The Communication of Attributes is not complete, it is limited. The HUMAN Jesus probably also doesn't know my password to CH, does that mean ERGO the Second Person is not equally God with the First Person? Of course not. It only confirms what historic Christianity says: The communication of attributes (between the Two Natures of Christ) is limited.

You're using a 'precept' of the Trinity doctrine to support the trinity doctrine and that just doesn't work to prove anything in a debate. You have to prove that Jesus not only had 'two natures'. (It's easily proven that Jesus was 100% human.) You have to prove how the 100% God part and how that part was totally separate from and didn't override and nullify the 100% human part!

So, you not only reject the Trinity but also the two natures of Christ..... wow.

Well, you rejecting SO many Scriptures and SO much of Christianity is significant. But if you want to deny the humanity and/or divinity of Jesus, that means a separate thread. That's a different gross heresy.


No, I'm not using the Trinity to "prove" anything. I'm simply noting that a DIFFERENT DOCTRINE means that the human nature of Jesus may not know the code for launching nuclear war... His DIVINE nature would, not but necessarily his HUMAN nature. Does the First Person AND Second Person AND Third Person of the Trinity know the launch codes for nuclear war? Yes. They are equally God. Does the human nature of Jesus (or me or you) know? Maybe not; the reality that I don't means nothing about whether the Second Person does.

But again, your point is entirely irrelevant. I know things my wife doesn't.... that doesn't make her less human than me. Your apologetic is absurd (and irrelevant).

Where did his 100% 'divine nature' go when Jesus responded to the disciples question, "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?"

Again, a DIFFERENT DOCTRINE, the Two Natures of Christ, does not, has not, and never will teach that the TWO natures of Christ are blended into one (see the HERESY of Monophysitism) or that the "Communication of Attributes" (how the two natures inter-relate) is in any sense absolute, rather Christianity has held such is LIMITED. You simply are twisting a doctrine (you reject) to say something it specifically rejects as your apologetic, then using your wrong concept of that doctrine to support your rejection of the Trinity.

Maybe his divine nature forgot?

Nope. Just didn't reveal it to His human nature. Ain't complicated.

And it has NOTHING to do with the Second Person thus not being God. AT MOST, it might suggest that perhaps the divine nature in Jesus did not reveal this to the human nature of Jesus. AT MOST.

I know my password to this site. My wife does not. For one reason: I've never told her. Now, does that prove ergo my wife is not human, as human as I am?

Definition from Christianity.com - "We believe that the one God eternally exists in three Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and that these three are one God, co-equal and co-eternal, having precisely the same nature and attributes, and worthy of precisely the same worship, confidence, and obedience. "

IF in Trinitarianism YOU SAY Christ' authority isn't equal to the Father's, then by definition you need to explain the contradiction!

Authority has nothing to do with nature. Again, an Army General has more authority than an Army Private.... but it's absurd to argue that proves the private is thus not a HUMAN, equally HUMAN with the General, with all the attributes of being a HUMAN. He just has less authority. Authority has nothing to do with nature. President Trump has more authority than you, doesn't mandate ERGO Trump is more of a human being than you. If you have little children, you have more authority than they.... it doesn't make your children not humans (but maybe bunny rabbits).

If they were the same person

They aren't.

Jesus does not have one nature, He has two. Look up the heresies of docetism, socianism/Arianism and Monophysitism - all gross heresies and horrible misunderstandings, long ago rejected.

I said, "the bible says God cannot be tempted. That means Jesus being God could not have been tempted anyway. If he is "God in the Flesh" that means his human nature could not sin making him a fraud and ultimately the cross a hoax.

You are confusing being tempted with sinning. They aren't the same thing.

Whether Jesus COULD sin or not is an issue never addressed in Scripture or in theology. But Jesus did not sin; He was "without sin."

The Cross is not a "fraud" because there never was a claim that He died for HIS OWN sins (or some ability to sin) but for OUR sins.

IF Jesus was God in human form that nature

Your "if" is wrong. The Second Person is INCARNATE in Jesus, who is equally human. "In human FORM" is heresy. Your insistence to use heresy to support heresy is noted.

I reject the heresies of Docetism and Monophysitism.

his human nature and JESUS COULD NOT have been tempted or sinned anyway.

The HUMAN nature of Jesus could (and was) tempted. So what? What does that have to do with sin? Jesus did not sin. WHY He did not is a point historic Christians do not answer; some think it's a function of the Communication of Attributes (the most common theory) but we just don't know. His human nature had no sin, "without sin" the Bible says.

The reality that Jesus had no sin does not make the Cross some hoax. NO ONE claims that Jesus died for HIS sins (He had none), the point of Christianity is that He died for OUR sins. There is a difference. Yes, the Cross would be unnecessary if NO ONE had sin but it's not a hoax because JESUS had none; again, He died for OUR sins not HIS sins; it is a VICARIOUS atonement.





.

 

[harmonicat]

I don't reject that notion at all.

Good. Then there goes your foundational point that the Trinity must be wrong because to you it doesn't "adequately explain" stuff.

The Trinity is wrong because there's no Trinitarian formula in the bible, Jesus is never called God the Son, and the holy spirit is almost always referred to as the power of God. I didn't say or imply that the reason Trinity MUST be wrong is because it cannot be adequately understood or explained. You're being presumptuous.

I did say Trinitarians ADMIT and AGREE (among themselves) that the Trinity cannot be adequately explained or understood.

Traditional Christian doctrine is full of "mystery." Indeed, Christians didn't speak of "doctrine" or "theology" for some 1500 years, we spoke of "the holy mysteries."

Frankly, it's entirely irrelevant whether you think some Christian teaching "adequately explains" stuff to you or not.

A mystery? There really is no real mystery. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are very easy to understand from the bible. The Trinity doctrine that turns a 'mystery' into an essential prerequisite to salvation.

It's not irrelevant that TRINITY is inexplicable and incomprehensible. We haven't even confronted the issue yet anyway.

I said, "Christianity adopted the trinity doctrine through Catholicism and a man named Athanasius, a Catholic Bishop later canonized as a saint."

And you are wrong. The Eastern churches were AT LEAST involved as those of t he West.

You already said that. History disagrees with you and sorry bro but I'm not wrong. Trinity came from the bishops of Rome. There really is no denying it and I'm not going to push it and embarrass you unless you push it.

And it's an irrelevant point. As I posted, "SO WHAT"? Why is something wrong simply because it was held prior to 1521?

Nothing is irrelevant - too many - 'so what's'. I never said anything about that. You're too much into your own head.

I said -"the doctrine wasn't OFFICIALLY accepted until 451". Your response -

Even if true, again SO WHAT? Do you reject any and all teachings made official after the year 450? Why the year 450? Are you consistent or do you simply choose which teachings you reject because they were made official after 450 and which ones you accept?

I don't get where you're coming from. You're making this all about ME and what you PRESUME I believe.

The HUMAN Jesus doesn't know.

What happened to the divine Jesus? Where did he go?

The Communication of Attributes is not complete, it is limited. The HUMAN Jesus probably also doesn't know my password to CH, does that mean ERGO the Second Person is not equally God with the First Person? Of course not. It only confirms what historic Christianity says: The communication of attributes (between the Two Natures of Christ) is limited.

That really sums it up.

So, you not only reject the Trinity but also the two natures of Christ..... wow.

You're making this about ME! I never denied two natures - just the one that Trinitarians claim is fully God. I reject the Trinity and how it is taught and understood by Trinitarians.

I never said Jesus wasn't divine.

I'm saying that's my understanding of the scriptures. Jesus ADMITS the Father is greater and I accept that as him NOT being 100% God. So like I said, "You have to prove how the 100% God part.

I can quote scriptures - many from Jesus Himself - that not only prove his humanity but prove he is NOT equal to God!
Quite honestly Josiah, you're not confronting the doctrine of Trinity whatsoever. All you're really doing is making this about me.

Well, you rejecting SO many Scriptures and SO much of Christianity is significant. But if you want to deny the humanity and/or divinity of Jesus, that means a separate thread. That's a different gross heresy.

You haven't even brought on the scriptures yet and you are making this all about me. The discussion is about the Trinity.

We all have some heresy in our beliefs. Nobody has everything right. What trinitarians have done is misinterpret and added their trinitarian slant to a host of scriptures and turned Trinity a divisive, destructive, damnable heresy.

Trinity saves nor condemns anyone.

A person doesn't have accept the doctrine of Trinity when they accept Christ. It makes no sense that someone would be born again and some time later loses his salvation because he realizes the Trinity is false. That throws a wrench in OSAS.

No, I'm not using the Trinity to "prove" anything. I'm simply noting that a DIFFERENT DOCTRINE means that the human nature of Jesus may not know the code for launching nuclear war... His DIVINE nature would, not but necessarily his HUMAN nature. Does the First Person AND Second Person AND Third Person of the Trinity know the launch codes for nuclear war? Yes. They are equally God. Does the human nature of Jesus (or me or you) know? Maybe not; the reality that I don't means nothing about whether the Second Person does.

Seriously - OK OK!

But again, your point is entirely irrelevant. I know things my wife doesn't.... that doesn't make her less human than me. Your apologetic is absurd (and irrelevant).

You're making this about ME! And you're comparison's are just so irrelevant and yes - absurd.

You simply are twisting a doctrine (you reject) to say something it specifically rejects as your apologetic, then using your wrong concept of that doctrine to support your rejection of the Trinity.

We haven't even confronted the doctrine yet. It's been about me. Why are you accusing me of twisting a doctrine!! I don't get it.

I said - "Maybe his divine nature forgot"?

Nope. Just didn't reveal it to His human nature. Ain't complicated.

That explains it. Who made that up? Jesus' other natures of Father and holy spirit didn't reveal it to his human nature - that makes sense to a Trinitarian I suppose. And it isn't complicated at all until you try to back it up with God's Word!

And it has NOTHING to do with the Second Person thus not being God. AT MOST, it might suggest that perhaps the divine nature in Jesus did not reveal this to the human nature of Jesus. AT MOST.

All I can say is OK OK!

I know my password to this site. My wife does not. For one reason: I've never told her. Now, does that prove ergo my wife is not human, as human as I am?

Yes that certainly proves your point....and your analogies make me wonder.

Authority has nothing to do with nature.

It doesn't? Note my next reply.

Again, an Army General has more authority than an Army Private.... but it's absurd to argue that proves the private is thus not a HUMAN, equally HUMAN with the General, with all the attributes of being a HUMAN. He just has less authority.

Authority has nothing to do with nature. President Trump has more authority than you, doesn't mandate ERGO Trump is more of a human being than you. If you have little children, you have more authority than they.... it doesn't make your children not humans (but maybe bunny rabbits).

Your comparisons are too much.

Here we go with the general and the private. AGAIN.

Jesus does not have one nature, He has two. Look up the heresies of docetism, socianism/Arianism and Monophysitism - all gross heresies and horrible misunderstandings, long ago rejected.

According to Trinitarianism he should have THREE natures! Himself - Father - and whoever Trinitarians claim the person of the holy spirit is.

You are confusing being tempted with sinning. They aren't the same thing.

You said that last time.

Whether Jesus COULD sin or not is an issue never addressed in Scripture or in theology. But Jesus did not sin; He was "without sin."

Of course it's addressed in scripture and theology! R.C. Sproul said, "I THINK IT IS WRONG TO BELIEVE THAT CHRIST’S DIVINE NATURE MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIS HUMAN NATURE TO SIN. —R.C. SPROUL

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Hebrew 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

The Cross is not a "fraud" because there never was a claim that He died for HIS OWN sins (or some ability to sin) but for OUR sins.

You already said that too. Where does this "Jesus died for his own sins' come from? Since when did this have anything to do with the sins of Jesus? I don't get it.

Your "if" is wrong. The Second Person is INCARNATE in Jesus, who is equally human. "In human FORM" is heresy. Your insistence to use heresy to support heresy is noted.

Again you are making this about me.

I reject the heresies of Docetism and Monophysitism.

I could care less about them.

The HUMAN nature of Jesus could (and was) tempted. So what? What does that have to do with sin? Jesus did not sin. WHY He did not is a point historic Christians do not answer; some think it's a function of the Communication of Attributes (the most common theory) but we just don't know. His human nature had no sin, "without sin" the Bible says.

The reality that Jesus had no sin does not make the Cross some hoax. NO ONE claims that Jesus died for HIS sins (He had none), the point of Christianity is that He died for OUR sins. There is a difference. Yes, the Cross would be unnecessary if NO ONE had sin but it's not a hoax because JESUS had none; again, He died for OUR sins not HIS sins; it is a VICARIOUS atonement.

Another 'so what - and you're on repeat. Until next time....(if there is one)

 

[Josiah]

Jesus is never called God the Son

He is referred to as God. He is referred to as the Son. He also is referred to as man.

It's not irrelevant that TRINITY is inexplicable and incomprehensible.

It IS irrelevant whether this teaching explains everything to YOU. Whether you understand something has zero relevance as to whether it's true.

Sorry, but God is not required to be fully comprehended by you or anyone else.

Sorry, but there are MYSTERIES of God, things of the divine beyond my puny, fallen, human, non-divine brain. Maybe even yours. If you insist on the rubric that everything is false unless YOU find that it "adequately explains everything" to YOU then we're probably done.

I said, "Christianity adopted the trinity doctrine through Catholicism and a man named Athanasius, a Catholic Bishop later canonized as a saint."

And you are wrong.

There was no Bishop of Rome especially involved.... indeed, the Council of Nicea wasn't even attended by the Bishop of Rome. That Council and the others related to the Trinity were in fact all EASTERN councils, attended mostly by GREEK Bishops.... the Eastern Orthodox Church considers the Trinity a "Holy Mystery" that IT especially proclaimed. A hatred of all things Roman just doesn't apply to this discussion. Take your anti-Rome stuff elsewhere; it has nothing to do with this discussion.

And you are WRONG: Saint Athanasius was NEVER a Bishop of Rome or a Pope in the Roman Catholic Church. Nor was he Catholic. He was a Bishop of ALEXANDRIA (hundreds of miles away from Rome), he was EGYPTIAN, he was GREEK, he was EASTERN. There's no evidence he ever sat foot in Rome. And you are wrong that he invented the Trinity, he DEFENDED it against the heresies you are presenting, but he invented nothing.

What happened to the divine Jesus? Where did he go?

The Divine Nature of Jesus never has gone anywhere. But that Nature is not obligated to communicate all natures and information to the HUMAN Nature. It's silly to conclude that because Jesus (who is ALSO a human) doesn't know something MUST be because the Son is not equal in nature to the Father and Spirit. There's a MUCH better explanation: The Divine Nature never revealed that to the Human nature. Simple. The Divine nature didn't forget, the Human nature never knew simply because the Divine nature never revealed it. Simple. You may know something your wife does not; that doesn't prove that ERGO your wife is not fully human, it has NOTHING to do with one of you being a human and the other a bunny rabbit, it has to do with what is disclosed from one to the other.


Study the HERESIES of monophysitism, socianism and docetism. You are imposing those ancient, horrible HERESIES as arguments. I'm not going to accept these horrible heresies as you attempt to use them to deny the Trinity and the Two Natures of Christ.

Jesus ADMITS the Father is greater and I accept that as him NOT being 100% God.

The Father IS greater than the human nature of Christ. His statement doesn't deny the Two Natures of Christ, it supports it.

JESUS is not 100% God in the sense that He ergo is not man. I reject the HERESY of monophysitism that you promote. He is GOD and He is MAN. It's not either/or, it's both/and. He has TWO (not one), TWO natures - BOTH Divine AND Human. Neither eliminated by the other. Does the Divine Nature of Jesus know my password to CH? Yes. Does the Human Nature? Not unless the Divine Nature has disclosed that.

No. There is NOTHING in the Bible that says Jesus is part God or part man. Since He's not PART, He's ENTIRELY. Fully God, Fully man.

I can quote scriptures - many from Jesus Himself - that prove his humanity

That's because Jesus IS human. Thus you are wrong to deny it.

I reject your HERESY of Monophysitism. As well as your endorsement of Arianism.

prove he is NOT equal to God

Good luck!

You can find Scriptures that show His HUMAN nature is not God (Duh).... but that doesn't have a thing to do with the Trinity and doesn't support your denial of the divinity of JEsus.

And you can find a verse that indicates He is subject to the Father but that has to do with AUTHORITY, not NATURE. You entirely confuse the two. Trump has more authority than you, he ergo is NOT more human than you;. Authority has nothing - absolutely nothing whatsoever - to do with nature. His divine NATURE is equal to the Father but is subject to him. Just as it seems the Holy Spirit is subject to the human nature of Jesus (Jesus sends the Holy Spirit).

Monophysitiam is a heresy. So are Arianism, docetism and socianism. You imposing these heresies and misunderstandings does nothing to deny the Trinity or Two Natures of Christ.

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Hebrew 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Nothing there that denies the Trinity or the Two Natures of Christ.

The human nature of Jesus CAN be tempted. So what? How does that deny the Trinity or the Two natures of Christ? It SUPPORTS the two natures of Christ, it SUPPORTS that He is also a human.

But he did NOT sin. He had NO sin. As I noted, there is no teaching as the WHY that is the case, but that is the case. I sincerely have no clue what your point is about Jesus being tempted (all humans are), I can see where that causes a problem for your heresy of Monophysitism but it certainly creates no problem for the Trinity or the Two Natures of Christ.




.





.

 

[harmonicat]

The Roman Church is largely responsible for pushing Trinity throughout the Roman Empire.

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church Councils (Western and Eastern churches) brought the Trinity doctrine into Christianity.

This occurred before there was a final split between the two over authority. Even those who voted the idea into Roman Catholic dogma declared it was a mystery that had to be accepted by faith.

Rome, the seat of emperors for the Roman Empire and the power base of political popes, was heavily influenced by the philosophy and paganism of the former Grecian Empire, which took in much more territory than the Roman Empire ever achieved.

Church history shows that trinity was a gradual a gradual assimilation of Pagan ideas into Christianity, brought about mostly by the Roman or Western Church, which became a political/religious extension of the Roman Empire.

Pagan Roots of the Trinity Doctrine

 

[harmonicat]

It IS irrelevant whether this teaching explains everything to YOU. Whether you understand something has zero relevance as to whether it's true.

You're not a good debater. This isn't about me! I don't think you've quoted even one verse to support ANYTHING you claim! I can't say I've ever had a Trinity discussion like this.

Sorry, but God is not required to be fully comprehended by you or anyone else.

If you want to prove your point YOU are required to go to the scriptures. I comprehend God. It's Trinity that's messed up. I understand Him the way His representative Jesus Christ - and his followers- depicted Him in the bible... which we haven't even been to yet! Stop making this about me.

Sorry, but there are MYSTERIES of God, things of the divine beyond my puny, fallen, human, non-divine brain. Maybe even yours. If you insist on the rubric that everything is false unless YOU find that it "adequately explains everything" to YOU then we're probably done.

I understand the Trinity well, I simply reject the heresy. It has been being adequately explained as a 'mystery' that cannot fully be explained or understood. That's what makes trinity illogical. Then the kicker is those of us who know better than to believe such nonsense are condemned by those who do.

And you are wrong.

There was no Bishop of Rome especially involved.... indeed, the Council of Nicea wasn't even attended by the Bishop of Rome. That Council and the others related to the Trinity were in fact all EASTERN councils, attended mostly by GREEK Bishops.... the Eastern Orthodox Church considers the Trinity a "Holy Mystery" that IT especially proclaimed. A hatred of all things Roman just doesn't apply to this discussion. Take your anti-Rome stuff elsewhere; it has nothing to do with this discussion.

It's all within the Roman Empire. Under Constantine Christianity - basically Catholicism - became the state religion of the empire. All roads lead to Rome.

I don't hate Rome. I have a lot of Catholics in my family and still go to a Catholic Church once in a while. I know a bit of their history and won't deny it. They use to murder people like me for heresy and blasphemy.

And you are WRONG: Saint Athanasius was NEVER a Bishop of Rome or a Pope in the Roman Catholic Church.

Nor was he Catholic. He was a Bishop of ALEXANDRIA

He wasn't? "Athanasius of Alexandria was an Egyptian theologian and ecclesiastical statesman. Also known as St. Athanasius, St. Athanasius the Apostolic, and Athanasius the Confessor, he was the 20th bishop of Alexandria." ..... Athanasius served for over 45 years as ‘Bishop of Alexandria.

He was a crusader of the Catholic belief about Incarnation and champion of Christ’s Divinity, thus was called the ‘Father of Orthodoxy.’ All through his life, he defended one true belief of church - ‘The divinity of Jesus Christ.’ In the Catholic Church, he is considered as one of the four great ‘Eastern Doctors of the Church.

Athanasius

And you are wrong that he invented the Trinity, he DEFENDED it against the heresies you are presenting, but he invented nothing.

I never said he invented it.

The Divine Nature of Jesus never has gone anywhere. But that Nature is not obligated to communicate all natures and information to the HUMAN Nature. It's silly to conclude that because Jesus (who is ALSO a human) doesn't know something MUST be because the Son is not equal in nature to the Father and Spirit. There's a MUCH better explanation: The Divine Nature never revealed that to the Human nature. Simple. The Divine nature didn't forget, the Human nature never knew simply because the Divine nature never revealed it. Simple. You may know something your wife does not; that doesn't prove that ERGO your wife is not fully human, it has NOTHING to do with one of you being a human and the other a bunny rabbit, it has to do with what is disclosed from one to the other.

Josiah 1:1 "The divine nature never revealed it to the human nature"! Impressive. All I ask is for you to back that up by scripture. If there is a Trinitarian formula in the bible, then surely you can back this 'mystery doctrine' up with the Word of God!

Study the HERESIES of monophysitism, socianism and docetism. You are imposing those ancient, horrible HERESIES as arguments. I'm not going to accept these horrible heresies as you attempt to use them to deny the Trinity and the Two Natures of Christ.

No thanks. I'm know what they are. It's NOT about me big guy! It's up to you to PROVE these two natures IN THE BIBLE! Otherwise, the two nature thing is already debunked for a lack of evidence!

JESUS is not 100% God in the sense that He ergo is not man. I reject the HERESY of monophysitism that you promote. He is GOD and He is MAN. It's not either/or, it's both/and. He has TWO (not one), TWO natures - BOTH Divine AND Human. Neither eliminated by the other. Does the Divine Nature of Jesus know my password to CH? Yes. Does the Human Nature? Not unless the Divine Nature has disclosed that.

How does the Father being greater support two natures? When Jesus said "only the Father knows the day or hour of his return", it not only implies Jesus doesn't know - but also that the holy spirit doesn't know. ONLY - the Father knows implies God's nature isn't the same as Jesus'.

The Father IS greater than the human nature of Christ. His statement doesn't deny the Two Natures of Christ, it supports it.

I keep asking you to PROVE IT! All you're doing is telling me you agree with Trinity. Use scripture and the discussion will become productive.

No. There is NOTHING in the Bible that says Jesus is part God or part man. Since He's not PART, He's ENTIRELY. Fully God, Fully man.

PROVE IT! The fact that Jesus said the Father is greater proves he is not fully God. The biggest cop out will always be the two natures. But for some reason the 100% God nature never seems to shine through by Jesus' own words.

That's because Jesus IS human. Thus you are wrong to deny it.

It's not about me big guy.

I reject your HERESY of Monophysitism. As well as your endorsement of Arianism. Good luck!

It's not about me big guy. Prove what you preach! I don't need any luck or a Trinity to partake in the body of Christ.

And you can find a verse that indicates He is subject to the Father but that has to do with AUTHORITY, not NATURE. You entirely confuse the two.

Now wait a minute??? He's 100% God in nature but not authority! OK OK! Jesus is 200% - 100% God and 100% man!

Trump has more authority than you, he ergo is NOT more human than you;. Authority has nothing - absolutely nothing whatsoever - to do with nature. Just as it seems the Holy Spirit is subject to the human nature of Jesus (Jesus sends the Holy Spirit).

His divine NATURE is equal to the Father but is subject to him

Beyond contradictory and illogical!

Monophysitiam is a heresy. So are Arianism, docetism and socianism. You imposing these heresies and misunderstandings does nothing to deny the Trinity or Two Natures of Christ.

It's not about me. It's about the heresy of Trinitarianism.

 

[Josiah]

The Roman Church is largely responsible for pushing Trinity throughout the Roman Empire.

Wrong

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church Councils (Western and Eastern churches) brought the Trinity doctrine into Christianity.

Well, that's the entirety of Christianity until 1521. So ALL Christianity embraced the Trinity. And rejected - as horrible heresy - monophysitism, docetism, socianism and the other heresies you used to reject the Trinity and Two Natures of Christ.



.

 

[Josiah]

It has been being adequately explained as a 'mystery' that cannot fully be explained or understood. That's what makes trinity illogical.

No. I reject your heresy of monophysitism. And the heresies of sociansim and docetism you imply.

The Trinity has been proclaimed. Yes, it involves MYSTERTY (as many things do); I reject your premise that something must be wrong if TO YOU it does not adequately explain things; frankly, it matters not at all whether something seems to adequately explain things TO YOU. I don't agree with you that the nature of God is subject to what you regard as adequately explained.

I don't hate Rome. I have a lot of Catholics in my family and still go to a Catholic Church once in a while.

Good. Then there goes your apologetic of the Trinity must be wrong because the Pope of the Catholic Church invented it.

Athanasius of Alexandria was an Egyptian theologian and ecclesiastical statesman. Also known as St. Athanasius, St. Athanasius the Apostolic, and Athanasius the Confessor, he was the 20th bishop of Alexandria." ..... Athanasius served for over 45 years as ‘Bishop of Alexandria.

Your claim that Athanasius invented the teaching of the Trinity and that he was the Bishop of Rome, a Roman Catholic and a Catholic Pope (and thus his teaching is ergo wrong) is simply wrong. He was not Western.... He was not Catholic.... He was not a Pope... He never set foot in Rome... he didn't invent the teaching of the Trinity he defended the teaching against herestics, -people promoting horrible hereries suchg as monophysitism, docetism and socianism.

How does the Father being greater support two natures?

It supports His HUMAN nature and repudiates Monophysitism.

The fact that Jesus said the Father is greater proves he is not fully God.

Wrong. It proves that His HUMAN nature is less than divine (duh) and also that the Son has less authority than the Father. It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with God being less than God.

Again, your whole premise is an unbiblical and universally condemned HERESY: Monophysitism. Jesus has TWO NATURES, not one blended nature.

He's 100% God in nature but not authority! OK OK! Jesus is 200% - 100% God and 100% man!

No. He has TWO natures, not one. He is NOT 200% because His natures are not blended. He is fully God AND fully man. Both/and. Not either/or. Not the two blended into one new whole. Your heresies are wrong.




.

 

[harmonicat]

Again, your whole premise is an unbiblical and universally condemned HERESY: Monophysitism. Jesus has TWO NATURES, not one blended nature.

How about going to the scriptures to prove your point. I've been asking you to do that since the onset. And STOP making this about me!

Your claim that Athanasius invented the teaching of the Trinity and that he was the Bishop of Rome, a Roman Catholic and a Catholic Pope (and thus his teaching is ergo wrong) is simply wrong.

He was not Western.... He was not Catholic.... He was not a Pope... He never set foot in Rome... he didn't invent the teaching of the Trinity he defended the teaching against herestics, -people promoting horrible hereries suchg as monophysitism, docetism and socianism.

Twice now you accuse me of saying Athanasius invented Trinity and that he was a pope and I didn't! Get a grip!

AND I never said he's was a Pope! Get on board would you!
_____________________________________________________________________

Athanasius of Alexandria was an Egyptian theologian and ecclesiastical statesman. Also known as St. Athanasius, St. Athanasius the Apostolic, and Athanasius the Confessor, he was the 20th bishop of Alexandria. During the 4th century, he was one of the main defenders of Christian Orthodoxy against Arianism. His enemies called him ‘Black Dwarf. Athanasius served for over 45 years as ‘Bishop of Alexandria,’ 17 of which were spent in exile, as four Roman Emperors banished him five times. He was a crusader of the Catholic belief about Incarnation and champion of Christ’s Divinity, thus was called the ‘Father of Orthodoxy.’ All through his life, he defended one true belief of church - ‘The divinity of Jesus Christ.’ In the Catholic Church, he is considered as one of the four great ‘Eastern Doctors of the Church.’ He is revered as a Christian Saint and his Feast day is May 2.

Athanasius
________________________________________________________________________

He never set foot in Rome...

Yes he did!
Athanasius took refuge at Rome under the protection of Constantius’s brother Constans, emperor in the West. An Arian bishop, Gregory, was installed at Alexandria. Athanasius, however, kept in touch with his flock through the annual Festal Letters announcing the date of Easter.
______________________________
Athanasius in Rome Britannica

Your heresies are wrong.

Again, your whole premise is an unbiblical and universally condemned HERESY.

Let me tell you ONE MORE TIME BIG GUY! I NEVER SUGGESTED THAT TRINITY IS WRONG BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED. I'M DONE. YOU DON'T HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO HAVE AN INTELLIGENT PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION. THREE LONG REPLIES FROM YOU AND IT'S ALL ABOUT ME AND NOT ONE VERSE TO SUPPORT WHAT YOU BELIEVE.

 

[Lamb]

Scripture where the trinity is referenced:

1. Matthew 3:16​

“After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him.”

2. Matthew 12:28​

“But if I [Jesus] cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”

3. Matthew 28:19​

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit . . .”

4. Luke 3:22​

“And the Holy Spirit descended upon Him [Jesus] in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, “You are My [the Father’s] beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”

5. John 14:26​

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My [Jesus’] name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”

6. John 15:26​

“When the Helper comes, whom I [Jesus] will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me . . .”

7. Acts 1:4​

“Gathering them together, He [Jesus] commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me . . .”

8. Acts 2:33​

“Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He [Jesus] has poured forth this which you both see and hear.”

9. Acts 10:38​

“You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.”

10. Romans 1:4​

“Who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord . . .”

11. Romans 8:9​

“However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.”

12. 1 Corinthians 6:11​

Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

13. 2 Corinthians 13:14​

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

14. Galatians 4:6​

Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

15. Ephesians 1:17​

That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him.

16. Ephesians 2:18​

For through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

17. Ephesians 2:22​

In whom [Jesus] you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

18. Titus 3:6​

Whom [the Holy Spirit] He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior.

19. Hebrews 9:14​

How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

20. 1 Peter 1:2​

According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: may grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

20 Bible verses that mention all Trinity members

Here's a list of single Bible verses that explicitly reference all three members of the Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

overviewbible.com