In what sense is the Trinity "biblical"?

For Hillsong College Postgraduate Symposium (20 Nov 2020)
A lecture on how or in what sense is the Trinity biblical?

[@johnny.musician]

Came across this down a KZbin rabbit hole, and appreciate that this is the best explanation I’ve found. Thank you Dr Bird, Mike, or however you wish to be addressed, it’s a marvellous work.

[@earlychristianhistorywithm8684]

Thanks John.

[@bobthebuilder4660]

The great shame of this is that there are thousands of Hillsong folk, but only 300 people watched this... I am a Christian, and accept Hillsong as part of the Body of Christ, but I find those in this fellowship seriously lacking in a biblical orthodoxy; so I appreciate this video greatly...

[@NickAhern20]

I thought the capital of Australia was Fosters. Love the vid, Mike!

[@JudeOne3Four]

*The Supernal Triad of the Kabbalah* is the source of your Trinity doctrine and not the Bible. It was populorized by *Philo of Alexandria* and adopted by your so called church fathers. There are verses deliberately translated incorrectly to push this Babylonian religion. That's why they have to use philosophy (which the Bible forbids Col 2:8) to explain away the obvious verses. Trinitarians act like, there is a hidden message in Scripture about the identity of Jesus Christ. He is not the Son of God but actually Almighty God Himself. So the Trinitarians got the secret Gnosis and the rest is ignorant. Pure esoteric Babylonian mysticism mixed with Scripture. *Trinity world has another Jesus.* John 10:36 Say ye of him, *whom the Father hath SANCTIFIED,* and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because *I said, I AM the Son of God?* Now these *THREE are ONE,* KETHER - CHOKMAH - BINAH, and they form the first Triad of *the Tree of Life,* which is called the *SUPERNAL TRIAD.* The SECOND TRIAD was derived from this by REFLEXION, for as *these Three are One,* so this *"One-in-Three"* again reflected Itself, reversing as in a mirror. Thus we obtain *two further Sephiroth harmonized in a third.* www.spellsandmagic.org/supernal-triad/chapter-one.html

[@willlaw]

This is almost as good as a cup of hot coffee

[@allanscontreras]

This was very helpful. Thank you Michael!

[@earlychristianhistorywithm8684]

Glad to help.

[@tp3922]

If this is constructive open debate - I will connect where I, as an Oneness believer, where we do agree. I have studied early church writings and why we agree at the same points in concepts. The disagreements are minor, if you understand what it means from the stand point of early church writings of Trinity and Oneness positions. For both agree that there is a distinction between Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit - since we agree that Father-Son-Holy Spirit are not the same - but there is one God (strict oneness). This is concepts nature of open debate to find a common sense in teaching: questions are meant to explain where we disagree (no term of condemnation). This I have not able to find on youtube: I served for years with trinitians, as a co-pastor position in that ministry (I was the only Oneness believer). Yes, I was asked questions and I answered those questions; we loved each other because I asked them questions and they tried explain how they believed in the Trinity from the notion of one as three - but I responded with agreement of distinction of the One and still be One.

[@Eloign]

Do you believe God has no "passions" ie emotions? How's that work?

[@brotherwait]

.how cool is that.....John 14:16 is Ezek 44:6.......wow

[@bobthebuilder4660]

I would dispute with you on one point, the Baptism is a an act of worship, and therefore, is Trinitarian. Most of the first Christians encounter the doctrine of the Trinity in Baptism!

[@mitchellc4]

Hello God is never referred to as multiple persons Nobody calls God “they” God is always a single HE The God of Abraham The God of Jesus - Cambridge commentary i. Until recently, the traditional Christian interpretation has seen in the 1st pers. plur. a reference to the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. The requirements of a sound historical exegesis render this view untenable: for it would read into the Book of Genesis the religious teaching which is based upon the Revelation of the New Testament. … iii. It has been explained as the plural of Majesty. It is pointed out that the commands and rescripts of royal personages are conveyed in the 1st pers. plur.; and reference is made, in support of this view, to Ezra 4:18, 1Ma 10:19; 1Ma 11:31. It may be allowed that the view is tenable; but the examples adduced are drawn from a very late period of Biblical literature, and, as an explanation, it appears to be little in harmony with the directness and simplicity of the passage. … vi. It was the old Jewish explanation that God is here addressing the inhabitants of heaven. In the thought of the devout Israelite, God was One, but not isolated. He was surrounded by the heavenly host (1 Kings 22:19); attended by the Seraphim (Isaiah 6:1-6); holding His court with “the sons of God” (Job 1:6; Job 2:1). We are told in a poetical account of the Creation, that when the foundations of the earth were laid, “all the sons of God shouted for joy,” Job 38:7 (cf. Psalm 29:1; Psalm 89:7; Psalm 103:19-22). It’s pretty well accepted that it’s nothing to do with a trinity, of which Moses never knew of I would go with the Jewish interpretation that he’s speaking to angels or all of creation There’s not really an example of a “royal we” in Hebrew But the idea that Moses just “missed” this verse or else he would’ve been a trinitarian is silly