Yes Jesus and the apostles make Trinitarian references all over the place. Additionally the apostolic fathers (the guys right after the apostles, though not inspired) used the same Trinitarian language. Paul himself starts letters with The Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Pope Death Watch... WITH A PRIZE!!! Quart of Maple Syrup to the winner!
- Thread starter sirhrmechanic
- Start date
uh yeah the fact that Jesus says in the name of the father, son, and spirt. That has been the long held belief for 2000 years. The burden of proof otherwise is on the oneness people, and there is no textual evidence to support that it is a vailed illusion by Jesus
What words specifically are you speaking of?
Ie examples, because I don’t know specifically what you are referring to so it’s impossible for me to guess at what you are referring too.
I quoted your post, where you quoted Jesus words
“Matthew 28:19- go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
Dude you are missing the point he is using a singular noun and plural names in order to show they are distinct persons, but one being. This has been the understanding for 2000 years
Apparently my mind cant comprehend that. Call me simple i guess. I kinda like it this way.
Of course i cant fully understand everything about anything.
But what Jesus says in Matthew 28 sounds simple enough. Then Peter said to get baptized in the name of Jesus.
Did Peter say the wrong thing?
Think of it like this. You are you, your body with all your parts and senses. Ears, eyes, nose hands feet. All perform separate tasks, yet they are all you, singular. You have two hands(plural) that perform tasks for you, but its a singular you.
Look at it kind of like that is that simple enough?
Because you were coming to God through Jesus, which is acknowledging that covenant that Jesus made with man.
Acknowledging grace and forgiveness that he taught.
Or at least that’s how I was taught to understand it
So if i go in a catholic place to get baptized, am i all good if i get sprinkled by the priest “in the names of the father, the name of the son, the name of the holy spirit”
Then it will be in the back of my mind that im not obeying Peter.
Or am i ok if i go to another place that dunks me all the way under the water, in the name of Jesus?
No because baptism doesn’t involve some magic incantation that must be said correctly in order to work. Simon the sorcerer was chastised for thinking something similar. We use God’s name as reverence and as a confession, but the exact wording isn’t what is important. Remember baptism is an outward confession of an internal reality
The fact is Peter is speaking to the people who just crucified Jesus. He says in the name of Jesus Christ (which in Hebrew is messiah) to highlight that it is the man that they just crucified that has power and authority. That it was Jesus they just crucified that was their messiah. What Peter said would not have had such weight if he said be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Jesus says this to emphasize the plurality of the Godhead. With that I always baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit because that is what Jesus said
Baptism doesn’t save you, Grace through faith and not of works saves you. So no matter how you are baptized, if you think that just getting baptized makes you all good and don’t have faith, no you will not be saved. Baptism is not some magic thing you to gain salvation
If the wording or name isnt important, then in acts 19 the people were asked how they were baptized, they said in Johns baptism. Then they got re-baptized in the name of Jesus.
so paul missed the boat?
That is because they did not know of Jesus and what he did, they did not know the gospel. This is an important part
4”And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.”
They had not come to the internal reality of following Jesus. Once they did, they were baptized into Him
I am not saying you baptize with any name, like Budah or something, what I am saying is God isn’t going to care if you say Jesus or Father, Son, Spirt since it is an outward sign of an internal truth
But Mark 16:16, Jesus said, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…
Gotcha, so in essence what we SAY doesnt matter so much, its what we believe inside?
“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16 ESV
Not believing is what condemns us. Jesus doesn’t say those who don’t get baptized and those that don’t believe are condemned. He says only those that don’t believe are condemned. So if I have belief I am not condemned. Baptism was and is important and anyone who believes should be baptized, but it is belief that saves us not baptism.
In baptism Yes it’s not about the words that are said, it is not a magical incantation that if you get wrong it doesn’t work. And yes it is about our faith.
Ephesians 2:8-9: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast."
If you think baptism saves then it is a work. Works don’t save. He also says it’s so no one can boast. Those that think you need to be baptized to be saved, isn’t that a boast when they say “I am saved because I am baptized”? Isn’t it a boast if you say “I am saved because I got baptized in Jesus name and not the Father, Son, Spirt”?
It is by grace we have been saved through faith
Gotcha, so when Jesus said “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”
And peter said “be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ”
Were they were just making suggestions?
And i agree, thats pretty clear that works don't save, but if i don't do some action, ill call it obedience, then my faith is actually dead?
Didnt noah save he and his family by building an ark? Was it works or faith or obedience?
Last edited:
Well on thin about what Peter says in Acts when he says be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. The word “for” (eis in Greek) can be transactional, like I’ll give you $20 for that box of ammo. But it can also be used in a non transactional way. For example, have you ever done anything “for” your birthday? Doing that thing does not grant you or give you your birthday, you do it to remember your birthday.
Now to the Mark quote again, you must read that whole passage.
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16 ESV
Jesus doesn’t say you are condemned if you don’t get baptized, he says if you have unbelief you are condemned.Baptism is import yes, but it does not save or condemn us
To Noah:
“By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.”
Hebrews 11:7
Works are the fruit of faith, not the root of faith. True faith produces fruit, but they do not save us. As James talked about a faith without works is dead. He didn’t say you are saved by your works, rather he is illustrating that true faith produces fruit
“If you think baptism saves then it is a work. Works don’t save.”
Ok, so works don’t save you. So the building is on fire. You see the flames and can smell the smoke and hear the screams as people scramble out the exits. You BELIEVE the building is on fire you WILL DO something. So what did James mean when he said “show me your faith without your works, and I’ll show you my faith by my works.” How about, save yourself from this untoward generation? How about, let every man work out his own salvation with fear and trembling. Baptism isn’t works, because it isn’t something we do to ourselves. It’s something that is done by someone to us. If it doesn’t matter whether we say “in Jesus Name” or in the titles then why are we even having this discussion. As I mentioned a few pages ago, I am one person but I do multiple jobs- father, son, uncle, friend, truck driver etc. If I write a check I don’t write it in those titles of jobs I do, I just write my name on the line. Again, as cgbills said “it doesn’t matter whether you say a name or father son Holy Spirit” so then why does any of this discussion matter?
Ok, so works don’t save you. So the building is on fire. You see the flames and can smell the smoke and hear the screams as people scramble out the exits. You BELIEVE the building is on fire you WILL DO something. So what did James mean when he said “show me your faith without your works, and I’ll show you my faith by my works.” How about, save yourself from this untoward generation? How about, let every man work out his own salvation with fear and trembling. Baptism isn’t works, because it isn’t something we do to ourselves. It’s something that is done by someone to us. If it doesn’t matter whether we say “in Jesus Name” or in the titles then why are we even having this discussion. As I mentioned a few pages ago, I am one person but I do multiple jobs- father, son, uncle, friend, truck driver etc. If I write a check I don’t write it in those titles of jobs I do, I just write my name on the line. Again, as cgbills said “it doesn’t matter whether you say a name or father son Holy Spirit” so then why does any of this discussion matter?
This^. baptizing them in the NAME (singular). The disciples and ALL of the Jews, even the religious elite, knew that God was only one as he had told them in the Pentateuch. Also as I mentioned a few pages ago about Deuteronomy 6:4
You are completely misquoting and mischaracterizing what I said. Additionally you completely overlooked what I said above I’ll say it again.
Works are the fruit of faith, not the root of faith. True faith produces fruit, but they do not save us. As James talked about a faith without works is dead. He didn’t say you are saved by your works, rather he is illustrating that true faith produces fruit
Also saying baptism isn’t a work because someone does it to you is flawed
Ephesians 2:8-9: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast."
So if someone baptizing you saves you, doesn’t that allow them to boast? Paul says so no one can boast. He also says it is a gift of God. Someone baptizing you and saving you is not a gift from God, it is a gift from that person.
Thats convenient! Now i can go join my band of swashbucking pirates who told me they are believers, and we can pillage and plunder and we dont have to worry. We believe so we are saved!
Dude go back and catch up from the last time you were here. This has been covered. Jesus is not making some vailed allusion to baptizing in his name.
Nope not what I said. God clearly shows both things, being baptized in Jesus name and being Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. (One was Jesus words, and the other wasn’t so there is that) He does not care which ways you do it because it’s not some magic incantation that doesn’t work if you don’t do it right. He cares about your faith
It matters because Jesus is very clearly giving us the formula for the trinity; three distinct persons that are yet the same God. That’s why the singular word name is used. That is how the church has always understood it. And there is nothing in the text that even suggests that Jesus is making this a vailed command to baptize in his name. If he wanted them to baptize in his name he would have said baptize in my name.
Also as I said before, God was given a name in the OT, it YHWH and Jesus name literally means YHWH saves. Jesus is not the revealed name of God
Further as I said a few pages ago, using analogies about yourself having different positions does not work with God and the divine nature. Finally you just like that other oneness guy fail to address Daniel 7:9-14. I’ll post it again so you can’t ignore it, but it clearly shows a plurality in God.
Daniel 7:9-14. Here we have two distinct and different figures, the Ancient of Days and the Son of man. The ancient of days is described with all the Old Testament descriptions of God and no one but God would be seated on a heavenly throne. The seen is a heavenly throne room. There the Ancient of days is seated and the Son of Man, a distant figure and person in this seen, is brought before the Ancient of Day. Then we see the Son of Man was given: “And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.”
Daniel 7:14. No one except God has that. Yet we see the Ancient of Days, who is very clearly God and many would argue the Father, giving his power and authority to the Son of Man. These are two distinct persons and both have the power and authority of God. This is also why Jesus refers to him self more than anything else as the Son of Man.
Now I want you to address, not just try to post some other verse to refute it, but actually address what is going on in this verse. I have several others that illustrate the same thing (as others have noted), but you have not actually addressed any of them. Who is the Son of Man? Who is the Ancient of Days? If they are the same person, why would the author very clearly differentiate the two as individual people in the text? Since the text clearly illustrates them as two separate people, why are they both given the honors, attributes, names, deeds and seat of God? You cannot just post another verse of this, you must address the matter in this verse
Last edited:
Why are you all so scared to say the name Jesus? Next you will be like the Jews saying he was not the Messiah, but just a good teacher or one of the prophets. You need to pray and ask God for a revelation of who He is. You don’t have to stay bound by the demonic lies of the trinity. That is an idea spawned by Satan himself.
No sorry the church has never understood it that way and Jesus doesn’t say that. For 2000 years it has been understood as I have said. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. Nowhere in the text of Matthew does it say or allude to that. Maybe it’s as simple as Jesus meant what he said
No I am not scared to say Jesus name. I do it everyday when I pray to the Father in the name of Jesus, just like Jesus modeled for us.
It is very ignorant of you to say that we will deny Jesus as the messiah, as a Trinitarian view actually has a true and fuller understanding of who Jesus is than you. I know exactly who He is
So much of what you have said shows how ignorant you are or Old Testament theology, church history, and the New Testament itself. You could not even articulate what the trinity was.
Just because you go around throwing around personal attacks and mis representing everything thing that has been said to you does not make you right. You and others have blatantly ignored other passages that do not suit your narrative and you repeat over and over the same tired line.
I’ll try this again like I did with the other guy who refused to actually address what was said. This is but one verse of many in the OT that show a plurality in God. We aren’t even touch the NT verses that have been overlooked time and again.
Daniel 7:13. Here we have two distinct and different figures, the Ancient of Days and the Son of man. The ancient of days is described with all the Old Testament descriptions of God and no one but God would be seated on a heavenly throne. The seen is a heavenly throne room. There the Ancient of days is seated and the Son of Man, a distant figure and person in this seen, is brought before the Ancient of Day. Then we see the Son of Man was given: “And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.”
Daniel 7:14. No one except God has that. Yet we see the Ancient of Days, who is very clearly God and many would argue the Father, giving his power and authority to the Son of Man. These are two distinct persons and both have the power and authority of God. This is also why Jesus refers to him self more than anything else as the Son of Man.
Now I want you to address, not just try to post some other verse to refute it, but actually address what is going on in this verse. I have several others that illustrate the same thing (as others have noted), but you have not actually addressed any of them. Who is the Son of Man? Who is the Ancient of Days? If they are the same person, why would the author very clearly differentiate the two as individual people in the text? Since the text clearly illustrates them as two separate people, why are they both given the honors, attributes, names, deeds and seat of God? You cannot just post another verse of this, you must address the matter in this verse
This phrase or variations of it have been used numerous times in this thread.
Ill just say that saying the church or theologians or religious or spiritually mature or whatever all agree on something, to me that doesn't hold much weight.
It was the religious leaders that had Jesus killed.
It was the religious leaders that freaked out and literally started biting stephen before they killed him.
Globally, the pope is also considered a religious leader, yet he is member of one of the most corrupt groups in existence.
Also, I cant explain what much of prophesy or things in daniel mean. I dont know.
I don’t mean to simply argue all day. You clearly have studied untold more amounts of historical context than i. We clearly have different beliefs on many things.
I dont have to prove it to you.
You dont have to prove it to i.
You believe what you believe.
I believe what i believe.
Cheers
So it’s actually a duality instead of a trinity? You are playing mental gymnastics to try to imagine a god that was invented by people that crucified Jesus because he told them who He is. I’m not attacking you, but I am attacking a lie that is called the trinity. One of your other fellow trinitarians called me a heretic some distance back and I pointed out that your founders of false doctrine did the same to the apostles. I’ve also pointed out verses that CLEARLY state that God is one yet you obscurely and smugly try to claim I’m scared of genesis 18. I’m scared of NO Bible verses. I LOVE EVERY one of them.
Catholics pray to every tom, dick, and harry in the name of sainthood. They pray to Mary, they pray before tombs and former popes and God only knows to or what they pray. They pray for the dead even though the Bible says that as the tree falls so shall it lie. The Catholics are the ones that gave you the trinity. I don’t care if you’re catholic or any other flavor. If you believe the trinity you have your roots in Catholicism. Go to Israel and ask went Jew with a yarmulke on his head if God is a trinity or one God. You will hear One God every time.
The trinity can be understood by long range shooting. We have the barrel, the action, and the chassis. Or we have the rifle, the cartridge, and the target. Or it’s like a cartridge- the case, the bullet, and the propellant. Or it’s like the conditions-the wind, the distance, and the atmosphere. Or it’s like a tripod…
Ok, that’s it. I’m officially leaving this particular thread now. We’ve thoroughly hijacked it from its original lottery of a jug of maple syrup. Wish I had won that though cause I love a couple buttermilk pancakes topped with 3 eggs over easy and covered in maple syrup.
I skimmed, and my brain hurts.
But, I still like guns.
Baptism is an outward expression of an inner commitment of turning ones self over to a new life as a disciple of Christ.
I don't believe we can sinply say a prayer in a handbook and are now 'saved', relying only on Grace due to saying a printed phrase, like some I know personally think they can.
However, we can never get to heaven by just doing a checklist of tasks, like some may believe.
I believe we are saved by Grace after all we can do- and all we can do means improving each day, failing again, repenting, and accepting his Love, plan, and Grace.
Seems like alot of tearing down one religion or another, and drawing lines in the sand.
Seems best if a thread like this ever comes back up to build off what we find in common, not lawyer up getting lost in jargon and egos.
The ancient Jews had the list of do's and don'ts- a checklist. It was about the outward show of it all.
Jesus taught a higher law- all about how you feel about following, doing and believing. An inward reflection about it all.
As for me, I believe him, I try to learn his attributes, and that's enough.
But, I still like guns.
Baptism is an outward expression of an inner commitment of turning ones self over to a new life as a disciple of Christ.
I don't believe we can sinply say a prayer in a handbook and are now 'saved', relying only on Grace due to saying a printed phrase, like some I know personally think they can.
However, we can never get to heaven by just doing a checklist of tasks, like some may believe.
I believe we are saved by Grace after all we can do- and all we can do means improving each day, failing again, repenting, and accepting his Love, plan, and Grace.
Seems like alot of tearing down one religion or another, and drawing lines in the sand.
Seems best if a thread like this ever comes back up to build off what we find in common, not lawyer up getting lost in jargon and egos.
The ancient Jews had the list of do's and don'ts- a checklist. It was about the outward show of it all.
Jesus taught a higher law- all about how you feel about following, doing and believing. An inward reflection about it all.
As for me, I believe him, I try to learn his attributes, and that's enough.
Well good thing I am not Catholic and good thing the Catholic Church didn’t “give” us the trinity. The fact you don’t realize the Catholic Church wasn’t what we call the Catholic Church till the 1,000s shows you do not understand history, yet we are supposed to trust you in your assessment of Trinitarian history. Sorry but no, the Catholics didn’t give it to us and it wasn’t created an Nicea. This is a historically provable face that you choose to ignore. Even writings like the Didache which is contemporaneous with the NT show Father, Son, Spirt. Contemporaneous means at the same time as and the Catholic Church wasn’t a thing then, it was just followers of Jesus so no you are incorrect
Second you talking about going and asking modern day Jews shows you have a lack of understanding. I don’t care what Jews in Israel today would say about the trinity or a plurality in the Godhead. I care about the first century Jews. The verifiable proof is they had a pre- trinity called the two powers in heaven that was a wide held belief, one founded in numerous passages in the OT where we see a plurality in God. This was fully revealed and built upon with the incarnation of Jesus and the coming of the unique person of the Holy Spirit. Again Daniel 7:9-14. Here the Ancient of Days is not the Son of Man, The Son of Man is not the Ancient of Days, yet they both are God. The first century Jews had no problem with Trinitarian understanding. It was not until Christianity spread that they banned the teaching because it supported the Christians. But again your historical statements show you do not know of what you speak.
Finally, your last statement making analogies between shooting and the Trinity show you don’t understand the basic concepts. In that, none of those are fully the entire thing, but yet different in their relationship and function (i.e. personhood) All parts of the trinity are fully God, but yet separate persons. Also your analogy falls flat just like all your others because you are talking about inanimate, material things. God is not material and his nature/what he is made of is unique. We do not understand exactly how the trinity works, but that is ok because we cannot fully understand God (the Bible is clear on that). But hey go ahead and try and say that you fully understand how the very being and nature of God works. When you do, you are putting yourself on the same level with him. That is not a place I would want to be.
God has a sense of humor and a deep sense of irony. It’s really not hard to see how so many Jews completely missed the messiah even though prophesy after prophesy was fulfilled. He just wasn’t what anyone was expecting at all, but in retrospect he was exactly as foretold.
Humans are just really bad at seeing, understanding, and listening (this thread).
Kind of funny he dismisses thousands of years of studying the same text, but those early Christians sure had it right?!?! Have you read Paul’s letters? Maybe with the exception of the Ephesians, those early Christians are kind of retards, and had people telling them all sorts of made up stuff.
There is a “main stream” because people have been studying the same text for more than a thousand years, but no one with a mind as closed and narrow are yours could possibly read for comprehension once you’ve made your mind up.
This is especially true when talking about an omnipotent being that exists out of (what we perceive) our time and space. You are in the realm of the theoretical and it is like the point trying to imagine what the line looks like, or the line trying to imagine what the cube looks like. We are limited by our dimensions, time, and space. The conclusion that I've come to is, again, that the Bible is describing things so that we can comprehend them in a way that is not wrong from our perspective, but that we literally cannot comprehend any more than the a line in two dimensions can comprehend the cube in three. I believe, through my faith, that when we leave the confines of this reality these things will not just become clear, but obvious and basic, and our current understanding of them will seem funny. True, but on the kind of primary level that doesn't do them any kind of justice. I don't understand not because I am dumb, but because I am trying to understand something out of this reality while I exist within it.
To have faith is to embrace mystery not deny or shun it because you think it doesn't make sense. To have faith is to not be afraid to think about it even in the understanding that our own limited nature will prevent you from "knowing". IMHO God designed us to learn, be curious, and to pass that knowledge on to our next generation and grow in our understanding. I do not want to be ignorant in my faith and understanding, but I want to know almost like a hunger. Studying the Bible and considering all these difficult or even impossible questions and truths fascinates me even if it makes my head hurt sometimes to try and think in ways that are beyond our own reality. This is part of faith, and part of being a believer and living in grace. We are charged with growing our wisdom and understanding through the Bible. Believing should be more of a journey than a destination, and if you think you've arrived and know everything you are missing it.
Humans are just really bad at seeing, understanding, and listening (this thread).
Kind of funny he dismisses thousands of years of studying the same text, but those early Christians sure had it right?!?! Have you read Paul’s letters? Maybe with the exception of the Ephesians, those early Christians are kind of retards, and had people telling them all sorts of made up stuff.
It’s totally you. You’re cherry picking sentences to get it to say what you want it to say, instead of considering the whole book and its message, probably because you’re listening to the leader of a cult and not a man of God.
There is a “main stream” because people have been studying the same text for more than a thousand years, but no one with a mind as closed and narrow are yours could possibly read for comprehension once you’ve made your mind up.
As I said earlier, when I blundered into this shit show, it is a way to describe something, so that a goat herder can understand it, that is not wrong. I'm no divinity student, PhD, or theologian, but I've been studying the Bible Seriously for 25+ years. My small, men's, group uses the Paul Stevens "Life Guide" through the whole bible around three times in that 25 years. The guy who leads it was the son of a Baptist Missionary who is now in a non-denominational Evangelical church. I can say with certainty that my knowledge and wisdom has kept growing the entire time, and that over the years we've gone deeper and deeper into the mysteries, but as you plumb the depths you start to understand that we simply aren't equipped in this reality to fully comprehend some of the concepts that the Bible puts forth.
This is especially true when talking about an omnipotent being that exists out of (what we perceive) our time and space. You are in the realm of the theoretical and it is like the point trying to imagine what the line looks like, or the line trying to imagine what the cube looks like. We are limited by our dimensions, time, and space. The conclusion that I've come to is, again, that the Bible is describing things so that we can comprehend them in a way that is not wrong from our perspective, but that we literally cannot comprehend any more than the a line in two dimensions can comprehend the cube in three. I believe, through my faith, that when we leave the confines of this reality these things will not just become clear, but obvious and basic, and our current understanding of them will seem funny. True, but on the kind of primary level that doesn't do them any kind of justice. I don't understand not because I am dumb, but because I am trying to understand something out of this reality while I exist within it.
To have faith is to embrace mystery not deny or shun it because you think it doesn't make sense. To have faith is to not be afraid to think about it even in the understanding that our own limited nature will prevent you from "knowing". IMHO God designed us to learn, be curious, and to pass that knowledge on to our next generation and grow in our understanding. I do not want to be ignorant in my faith and understanding, but I want to know almost like a hunger. Studying the Bible and considering all these difficult or even impossible questions and truths fascinates me even if it makes my head hurt sometimes to try and think in ways that are beyond our own reality. This is part of faith, and part of being a believer and living in grace. We are charged with growing our wisdom and understanding through the Bible. Believing should be more of a journey than a destination, and if you think you've arrived and know everything you are missing it.
I agree with you fully in your above post. I would just like to address the quotation you had from me about Daniel. (Unless you meant to be quoting the other guy, if so I apologize) Here I was not trying to give a whole theology about Daniel. This was part of an exchange between CaptNkm and several other people. He kept saying there was nowhere in scripture where we see a plurality in God. He was given multiple verses, but continued to not address them or consider them. He continued to ignore what was put in front of him with multiple OT texts. I continued to ride him on Daniel 7:3-14, because it shows the plurality he asked for. I was not trying to illustrate or interpret prophecy, I was giving it because he asked for proof of the Trinity or plurality in the OT. Here in Daniel and many other texts, it shows that. Obviously the message of Daniel is much more than this one selection, but that was not the point.
When people come in trying to proof text a limited number of verse, then build a whole theology on only those cherry picked verses, sometimes you have to throw a proof text “wrench” in their gears. This hopefully gives them pause and hopefully makes them think twice about their conclusions. Obviously this is not how I approach scripture as a whole and approach it with all contexts and redemptive story in mind, but even Jesus occasionally proof texted the religious leaders (who think legalistically like these guys) to show they were thinking incorrectly about things
Last edited:
Easy to answer. Daniel was seeing not just into the spirit world, he was seeing into the future. Of the beasts he saw we know that one was Alexander the Great and so on. The ancient of days he saw was obviously God. He also saw the son of man which is obviously a man, and that is the Man Christ Jesus. Not duality. He saw God and he saw the flesh that God would put on to save us. Read revelation 1. John describes the same thing as Daniel but calls it the Son of man. When we get to heaven we will see God. He will be sitting by himself on ONE throne. He will have scars in His hands, feet, and brow. And we will bow down and worship him.
But that is not how Daniel reads. And I am not worried about the prophetic part. I want you to read it carefully and pay attention to the context. Specifically this:
““I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.”
Daniel 7:13 ESV
There is a fixed scene, it is a throne room. It is not seeing the same person just in the past then in the future like you said. It is not seeing God, then seeing the flesh in the future. This is happening all in one moment, this is import. You have the Son of Man come to the Ancient of Days and he is presented before. Then you have the Ancient of Days giving the Son of Man all of his power glory and dominion.
There are two distinct people here, this is happening in the same moment. How could God be presented before himself if he does not have distinct persons? How could God give something to himself, if he does not have distinct persons? If this was a vision of God with no persons, it would just be the ancient of days going down and become the Son of Man, that is not what is happening. Here The Son of Man is not the Ancient of Days, and The Ancient of Days is not the Son of Man, yet both are given attributes of God.
Additionally, the long standing understanding of this verse in the early church was these were two distinct persons yet one God. So your argument falls flat linguistically (again) as well as historically (again).
You always have this problem when you try to apply the modalism heresy to scripture the New Testament there are numerous examples that show Jesus interacting with the Father even Praying to Him. Why would Jesus be praying to himself. When he is dying on the cross, why would he call out to Himself, ABBA Father. I will go more into one specific verse deeper because it was used to refute the modalism (sebalianism) heresy by Origen and others in the 100s (yes way before Nicea, way before Constantine this heresy was handled with Trinitarian thought straight from the Bible)
Please answer also to the Garden before his crucifixion.
“When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,” John 17:1
Jesus isn’t praying to himself. Why would he ask himself (father) to glorify himself (son) in turn so he could glorify himself (son)
“And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”
John 17:5
Jesus is very clearly not talking about his own presence, he is asking to be glorified in someone else’s presence (the Father). This point is super clear in Greek by the way it is conjugated, but it is also plain in English. If Jesus is praying to himself, why would he be asking to be in someone else’s presence?
I could go on and on, but go read all of John 17 and Jesus prayer here to the Father. The distinct persons here are self evident in English, but in the Greek it is even clearer and linguistically impossible (as well as logically impossible) for Jesus to be praying to himself.
The fact is your position is the one that goes against the plain reading of scripture.
Last edited:
