.............Scriptural Proof for the Holy Trinity of God...........


Here my examination and explanation of Deuteronomy 6:4 – “The Lord our God ” two things, first, lord and god are both capitalized. Since elohim can refer to powers, gods (plural) or god depending upon the modifier used and since lord refers to a person recognized to have authority we can assume that whoever is speaking is granting great power to the god being referred to as lord.

Second, since the speaker is referring to “our” lord as an interchangeable name for the power of authority being recognized, then it makes sense that the speaker was both, talking with people who recognize the same god with the same authority hence, both the lord and god are capitalized.

Next: “our God is One Lord” - I’m not sure which bible completely capitalizes ONE LORD, I have not seen it and it not something that is common in any other language other than modern English and then it is used for emphasis.

If the language is understood, there is no need for such emphasis because it is already made clear that the speaker and the audience are of the understanding that the greatest power and authority is given to only one lord (or master) who is referred to in the name of God.



According to my own research Elohim can refer to gods (plural) a god or an individual or individuals in whom power is assigned or recognized in. Plurality or singular depends on the rest of the sentence – modifiers and the context of the discussion.



The rest of the quote that was meant to explain the one sentence is of little value because it has already been established that the people involved either as speaker or audience believe there is only one god to whom power is granted above all others and that power is referred to as their God.

The sentence does not refer in any way to there being only one god for all people, it refers only to the those who believe there is one supreme god which could infer that this one god is granted power over all other gods. But since it could be either way, then you speak for yourself as one of the audience who believe in the ‘our’ portion of the sentence. Obviously others have assigned and recognize power in other gods.

Just a little support from Wiki below: not that Wiki is the best authority but it has references for further verification. Also it serves as one support (among many) for the fact that there are many faults that occur with multiple translations and interpretation over time.





That is only clear to someone attempting to find support for their belief. Finding support for opinion where does not exist is a common human trait which is referred to as self-serving bias.

Now a questions: If someone loans you a cupcake tin, would you expect it to make only one cupcake?

----AND something I will evaluate later ---- If you wanted to make one really big cupcake how would you put three of the individual ones together after they are baked?????



The belief that the bible is inerrant meaning that every verse can stand on it’s owe without contextual support from the rest of the document is called a fundamentalist belief.

Unfortunately, many people have extended the term fundamentalism to a huge number of believers for one reason – so many believers fall back on that fundamentalist thought only when it serves their purpose (self-serving bias).

Using one verse or one sentence to prove a point only serves to make a person wrong more times than they can be right.



In contrast to the quote above I offer this:



Obviously Jesus did not personally witness to all people in the world at the time nor in the past or future. It is also clear that there is a contradiction between whom Jesus will pray for (in the verses I offer) and whom he prays for in the ones previously offered.

It is as clear to me that this is a contradiction as it is to you that a cupcake tin can be a tin than makes only one cupcake or three than can be made into one after they are already made.

* * *


(by MorningSong) If God the Father and His Son Jesus are not two persons, neither can they be two witnesses. It is clearly seen from the above words of God's Son Jesus that He and the Father are two persons. Together with the Holy Spirit the three are one.



Here we can see that self-serving bias requires blinders such that there can be only one focal point which must obviously be the point that serves the self interest.

If person 1 and person 2 are not individuals in their own right then they cannot witness for each other. This doesn’t work with a (singular) triune god by the following reasoning.

Jesus is or is not God. If Jesus is God then God must have limitations because Jesus could not do what he wanted (with Gods’ power) without approval of God.

Furthermore Jesus could not do what the Holy Spirit can do.
With regards to God, either god is Jesus or God is not. If God is Jesus then God is human.

God cannot be human because Jesus was resurrected and ascended back to God in human form to sit in the glory of God at his side. Side by side they are two individuals in their own right, one is not the other.

This does not preclude people from ‘believing’ that both or all three of the trinity are one person for the simple and creative reasoning of humans which is that humans cannot possibly understand the nature of god.

Therefore one’s belief in the Trinity is based on the unknowable and requires no explanation because it’s a matter of faith alone, neither true or untrue but only a matter of belief.

But in whom does a believer have faith? Does the faith lay in a god or in a multitude of writings, translated and interpreted by men?

In other words, if there were no written words and if oral history was all we had, what exactly would any Christian really believe?

Clearly people would believe only what man has told them and they would believe only what they so chose to believe which in most cases would boil down to a lot of people with a lot of different beliefs and no one person ever knowing which beliefs are more valid than others or even if there are any valid beliefs pertaining to a creator.

So if a man (human) says there is a universal creator whose nature is unknowable – that is the root of your belief and that belief must be taken on faith but the faith lay in the man who conferred the information, not in an unknowable universal creator.

If said creator wanted humans to know it, let’s say by way of spiritual direction, then would it be appropriate that the creator would have conferred that information individually to every human ever born? If that was the case would we all believe the same thing – would we all have the same ethics, culture, and less or no diversity?

What we have instead are a lot of different beliefs stemming from the broad array of diversity in culture and thought which changes as time passes.

The powers invested in any creators, God, gods and goddesses all become anthropomorphic because the nature of what is believed about them must change in order to be understood by people as their cultures change with time. (Proven by the fact the the bible has been 'purposely' modified time and again because some linquistic, somewhere, has determined that a translation was in error. (Praying to a god & praying to our God is different, why did it take hundreds of years for someone to say - oops, translation error???)

A Word About Self-serving Bias
This human trait is a survival mechanism. It serves us by providing self-righteousness. Without some faith in our own abilities and capabilities, we would not strive for better in any aspect of our life because we would have no faith that we could accomplish anything beyond what our body requires for the continuance of life.

In order to have self-efficacy, it is necessary that we have faith in our capacity to do, to accomplish, and to be accepted in our social network. We depend on our social networks for safety, love, and progress.

Self-serving bias is not of itself a bad thing but it is something we need to be aware of. If we are aware of what this bias is and why it’s necessary, we can also be aware of when it does a disservice to us as individuals and as a collective.

Since the self-serving bias is deeply intertwined with our need to have faith in ourselves, it’s possible that people may instinctively give up their faith in self and put it into the hands of a ‘higher power’. This misplacement of faith is exchanged for a feeling of self-worth that is easy to accomplish.

In exchange for giving away faith in self, the gain is self-worth without risking being wrong or feeling incapable, inadequate, or unaccepted. The fall back position is that “if I believe, I have worth and I will be glorified by my god”.

Giving away one's faith in self creates a lot of problems because once a belief is ‘structured’ and it is believed to be “the one true”, “the only”, “the word of” and so on, the eqo takes over and self-worth & self-efficacy require less than faith in self and more faith in a man-made belief system which ultimately pitts man against man.

There is no one religion, there is no right religion, there is no peaceful religion because the nature of man is to be diverse, that is the way the human species continues which is the reason for progress.

The nature of diversity is that no two men think enough alike to ever hold the same strictly held religiously structured beliefs.

It would be better to have some faith in the words of man and believe there is a universal creator to whom we owe thanks and leave it at. In this way we retain our level of responsibility to build our own self-efficacy and support the same in others.

We would have to make mistakes, admit to them and learn from them, just as we would have to accept that others make mistakes just as we do.

Perhaps faith in self would allow us to have greater faith in others, and ultimately we (the human race) would have less to argue about and more reason to find alliances with those whose cultures and individuality serve us in diversity which can finally be appreciated.

Historically I have not found that accepting ‘religiously structured’ belief systems as a necessary part of individual diversity to be accommodating to peaceful coexistence, which is why I advocate for education and self-determined value systems – in addition to, or extenting from the primary – faith in self.

Adding this verse:


We can better understand why Mormons believe they/we are all gods and will have power over others (like the power given to Jesus) in accordance with one’s behavior in this life.
So who is correct? There is only one way to ascertain correctness which comes down to the approval rating of ONE – the individual who believes himself to be correct.

Yes, Elohim is plural. It is a race of aliens (Those who came from the sky) that were mistaken for Gods.

I know, ya'll think I'm crazy.

Its because you can't handle the truth.

Cowboy wrote:




Cowboy, the only part correct in your post is

you did correctly say that Father and Jesus are 2 separate

persons..that part is correct.(The 3 persons of the Godhead

are ONE ENTITY).


BUT .....in your email to me just now, you said they CAN'T be ONE

ENTITY.


Meaning....still nothing got thru to you..... you STILL have NOT

YET grasped even This One BASIC FUNDAMENTALl TRUTH of the

Gospel yet at all( after almost a whole year of trying to teach

you this)....much less any of the rest of the Gospel Truth


YET YOU INSIST ON KEEPING ON WITH FALSELY REPRESENTING

CHRISTIANITY ON HERE!!!!

INSTEAD OF TAKING TIME TO LEARN THE REAL TRUTH FIRST !!!!!

NOT ONE CHRISTIAN HAS BEEN ABLE TO REACH THRU TO YOU ....WE

CAN'T GET THRU TO YOU!!!! There is some kind of a block !!!


WHICH PROVES.....

ONLY GOD THRU THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT , IS ABLE TO

ILLUMINATE THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD TO ANY OF US... NO ONE

ELSE !!!



No one else.

I have to go now.

Why do people believe that there are three persons of the Godhead and that they are one entity?

A pantheists believes there are many persons of the Godhead and that everyone is one entity.

WE ARE ALL ONE.

That is what pantheism is.

Anyway, WHAT DOES IT MATTER ANYWAY???

Shall we shun or hate each other because we do not know or because we do not believe or because we can't force someone to agree with our beliefs?

Ridiculous. Petty.

Just believe what you want. There are many different beliefs and religions. Personally I think they are all worthless if you can't love one another.

YOU THINK YOU AND ONLY YOU KNOW THE TRUTH?
THAT IS ARROGANT AND FUTILE.

Just believe what you will -- and stop preaching!

You can't force feed your beliefs down other people's throats.

When you learn that, then you have learned something important.

God = power, authority.

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

We are gods because we have been given authority over the beasts of this world, we have been given power over them.

Elohim can be used both singular or plural. Is not always singular, is not always plural. Examining sentence structure and the surrounding verses would give meaning to it being used either singular or plural at the specific instance in question.

We could not possibly be one "entity". That's like saying we are all the same person, we are all the same being, ect. We can all be one with one another, yes. Would explain the reasoning one can feel the presence of someone else behind them without seeing them or hearing them. But that does not mean one "entity".

Because I used USA as an example, I used a COUNTRY, I did not use a continent as an example eg., north america, south america, ect.

How? Jesus went to the bowels of Hell and defeated death with his resurrection to life. How does that make or prove any point of Jesus not dying?

A zombie is in fact not restored back to life. A zombie is the walking DEAD. It has no life, only basic instincts, no though process.

And Jesus was not under the father's control. He obeyed the father willingly, on his own decision, not because he had to, or was forced.

Cowboy you are not my teacher and you are not my preacher. Morningsong is gone and no one is listening to your preaching any more.

So you may as well find something else to do with your time.

I am no one's teacher, nor am I anyone's preacher. I'm here merely discussing beliefs. If you do not like another's beliefs, don't read about it.

I neither like or dislike other people's beliefs. You are entitled to them.

Thank you, and same to you along with everyone else :).

I don't really read your posts about what you believe anyway, but I was reading Morningsong's posts and I don't think she should concern herself with what you believe. You can believe anything you want. It does not bother me and I don't read about it.

I don't read her long posts either as I think a lot of it is cut and pasted.

I just think you two have been going at each other for way too long and you should give it a rest.

Nobody is going at anyone. No one is debating, no one is arguing. We are merely discussing. Yes, some of the discussion may not agree with one another, but that is why we continue discussing so one of us can see their error. If we just dropped it at disagreeing, the one in the wrong would go on with that false belief. And by no means am I currently in this post stating that MorningSong is wrong or right in our discussion here, nor am I saying that I am automatically correct as I have been shown my error in the past.

the trinity is three individuals that supposedly forms one..3=1

America is only one country not three individual countries that forms one

if you want to use America to explain the trinity you would need to add two more Americas and use Christian math to make it into one

you simply gave another bad anology