Was Paul a trinitarin?

[2timothy316]

Paul wrote much of the Greek scriptures. Was his goal to teach the trinity?

[bjs1]

There it is, you admit it.

"So these Pharisees and scribes asked him: “Why do your disciples not observe the tradition of the men of former times, but they eat their meal with defiled hands?” He said to them: “Isaiah aptly prophesied about you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines. 'You let go of the commandment of God and cling to the tradition of men.” - Mark 7:5-8

The trinity is a tradition of men made up not in Paul's day but well after he was dead in the 3rd century. History proves this. You have NOT proved that Paul was teaching the trinity. The words you quote is what is called cherry picking which has already been brought out. In context shows that nothing was being taught about the trinity. The trinity was NEVER the subject Paul was speaking on EVER. So we are done here. Just repeating yourself doesn't make it true.

Admit what? That the word “Trinity” wasn’t used by Christians in the first century? Yeah, that’s not a big reveal.

Paul taught that Jesus is God and that Jesus is different from the Father. Paul also taught that the Holy Spirit is God, and that the Holy Spirit is different from the Father and from Jesus. So Paul taught doctrines of the Trinity, but Paul didn’t “teach the Trinity.” People had to come up with that language later based on what Paul and the other Apostles taught.

[2timothy316]

There it is, you admit it.

"So these Pharisees and scribes asked him: “Why do your disciples not observe the tradition of the men of former times, but they eat their meal with defiled hands?” He said to them: “Isaiah aptly prophesied about you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines. 'You let go of the commandment of God and cling to the tradition of men.” - Mark 7:5-8

The trinity is a tradition of men made up not in Paul's day but well after he was dead in the 3rd century. History proves this. You have NOT proved that Paul was teaching the trinity. The words you quote is what is called cherry picking which has already been brought out. In context shows that nothing was being taught about the trinity. The trinity was NEVER the subject Paul was speaking on EVER. So we are done here. Just repeating yourself doesn't make it true.

Admit what? That the word “Trinity” wasn’t used by Christians in the first century? Yeah, that’s not a big reveal.

Paul taught that Jesus is God and that Jesus is different from the Father. Paul also taught that the Holy Spirit is God, and that the Holy Spirit is different from the Father and from Jesus. So Paul taught doctrines of the Trinity, but Paul didn’t “teach the Trinity.” People had to come up with that language later based on what Paul and the other Apostles taught.

The trinity teaching records that the trinity doctrine wasn't a teaching until the 3rd century....Teaching the doctrine but didn't teach the trinity....LOL just wow! Do you know what the term oxymoron means? Just when you think you've heard every excuse, someone comes up with another excuse that just blows one's mind. I'll remember this excuse for years to come. It will one of those, "Do you know what I heard a trinitarin say one time..."

People had to come up with that language later based on what Paul and the other Apostles taught.

Prove this. Take us through step by step, year by year, from the end of Paul's life as to why this 'language' was needed. I'll need historical references and not just some story you made up on the fly.

[bjs1]

There it is, you admit it.

"So these Pharisees and scribes asked him: “Why do your disciples not observe the tradition of the men of former times, but they eat their meal with defiled hands?” He said to them: “Isaiah aptly prophesied about you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines. 'You let go of the commandment of God and cling to the tradition of men.” - Mark 7:5-8

The trinity is a tradition of men made up not in Paul's day but well after he was dead in the 3rd century. History proves this. You have NOT proved that Paul was teaching the trinity. The words you quote is what is called cherry picking which has already been brought out. In context shows that nothing was being taught about the trinity. The trinity was NEVER the subject Paul was speaking on EVER. So we are done here. Just repeating yourself doesn't make it true.

Admit what? That the word “Trinity” wasn’t used by Christians in the first century? Yeah, that’s not a big reveal.

Paul taught that Jesus is God and that Jesus is different from the Father. Paul also taught that the Holy Spirit is God, and that the Holy Spirit is different from the Father and from Jesus. So Paul taught doctrines of the Trinity, but Paul didn’t “teach the Trinity.” People had to come up with that language later based on what Paul and the other Apostles taught.

The trinity teaching records that the trinity doctrine wasn't a teaching until the 3rd century....Teaching the doctrine but didn't teach the trinity....LOL just wow! Do you know what the term oxymoron means? Just when you think you've heard every excuse, someone comes up with another excuse that just blows one's mind. I'll remember this excuse for years to come. It will one of those, "Do you know what I heard a trinitarin say one time..."

People had to come up with that language later based on what Paul and the other Apostles taught.

Prove this. Take us through step by step, year by year, from the end of Paul's life as to why this 'language' was needed. I'll need historical references and not just some story you made up on the fly.

Imagine a nation that was governed by representatives who were elected by the whole population, but they didn’t have a word for it. 150 years later people said, “That was a democracy.”

Was that nation a democracy or not?

Paul taught that Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. He taught that the Father is not Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or Jesus. 150 years later people said, “That is the doctrine of Trinity.”

Did Paul teach the Trinity or not?

[onewithhim]

There it is, you admit it.

"So these Pharisees and scribes asked him: “Why do your disciples not observe the tradition of the men of former times, but they eat their meal with defiled hands?” He said to them: “Isaiah aptly prophesied about you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines. 'You let go of the commandment of God and cling to the tradition of men.” - Mark 7:5-8

The trinity is a tradition of men made up not in Paul's day but well after he was dead in the 3rd century. History proves this. You have NOT proved that Paul was teaching the trinity. The words you quote is what is called cherry picking which has already been brought out. In context shows that nothing was being taught about the trinity. The trinity was NEVER the subject Paul was speaking on EVER. So we are done here. Just repeating yourself doesn't make it true.

Admit what? That the word “Trinity” wasn’t used by Christians in the first century? Yeah, that’s not a big reveal.

Paul taught that Jesus is God and that Jesus is different from the Father. Paul also taught that the Holy Spirit is God, and that the Holy Spirit is different from the Father and from Jesus. So Paul taught doctrines of the Trinity, but Paul didn’t “teach the Trinity.” People had to come up with that language later based on what Paul and the other Apostles taught.

The trinity teaching records that the trinity doctrine wasn't a teaching until the 3rd century....Teaching the doctrine but didn't teach the trinity....LOL just wow! Do you know what the term oxymoron means? Just when you think you've heard every excuse, someone comes up with another excuse that just blows one's mind. I'll remember this excuse for years to come. It will one of those, "Do you know what I heard a trinitarin say one time..."

People had to come up with that language later based on what Paul and the other Apostles taught.

Prove this. Take us through step by step, year by year, from the end of Paul's life as to why this 'language' was needed. I'll need historical references and not just some story you made up on the fly.

Imagine a nation that was governed by representatives who were elected by the whole population, but they didn’t have a word for it. 150 years later people said, “That was a democracy.”

Was that nation a democracy or not?

Paul taught that Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. He taught that the Father is not Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or Jesus. 150 years later people said, “That is the doctrine of Trinity.”

Did Paul teach the Trinity or not?

No he did not.

[bjs1]

There it is, you admit it.

"So these Pharisees and scribes asked him: “Why do your disciples not observe the tradition of the men of former times, but they eat their meal with defiled hands?” He said to them: “Isaiah aptly prophesied about you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines. 'You let go of the commandment of God and cling to the tradition of men.” - Mark 7:5-8

The trinity is a tradition of men made up not in Paul's day but well after he was dead in the 3rd century. History proves this. You have NOT proved that Paul was teaching the trinity. The words you quote is what is called cherry picking which has already been brought out. In context shows that nothing was being taught about the trinity. The trinity was NEVER the subject Paul was speaking on EVER. So we are done here. Just repeating yourself doesn't make it true.

Admit what? That the word “Trinity” wasn’t used by Christians in the first century? Yeah, that’s not a big reveal.

Paul taught that Jesus is God and that Jesus is different from the Father. Paul also taught that the Holy Spirit is God, and that the Holy Spirit is different from the Father and from Jesus. So Paul taught doctrines of the Trinity, but Paul didn’t “teach the Trinity.” People had to come up with that language later based on what Paul and the other Apostles taught.

The trinity teaching records that the trinity doctrine wasn't a teaching until the 3rd century....Teaching the doctrine but didn't teach the trinity....LOL just wow! Do you know what the term oxymoron means? Just when you think you've heard every excuse, someone comes up with another excuse that just blows one's mind. I'll remember this excuse for years to come. It will one of those, "Do you know what I heard a trinitarin say one time..."

People had to come up with that language later based on what Paul and the other Apostles taught.

Prove this. Take us through step by step, year by year, from the end of Paul's life as to why this 'language' was needed. I'll need historical references and not just some story you made up on the fly.

Imagine a nation that was governed by representatives who were elected by the whole population, but they didn’t have a word for it. 150 years later people said, “That was a democracy.”

Was that nation a democracy or not?

Paul taught that Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. He taught that the Father is not Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or Jesus. 150 years later people said, “That is the doctrine of Trinity.”

Did Paul teach the Trinity or not?

No he did not.

Ok. Just so I can understand your way of thinking, was the hypothetical nation a democracy or not?

[onewithhim]

There it is, you admit it.

"So these Pharisees and scribes asked him: “Why do your disciples not observe the tradition of the men of former times, but they eat their meal with defiled hands?” He said to them: “Isaiah aptly prophesied about you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines. 'You let go of the commandment of God and cling to the tradition of men.” - Mark 7:5-8

The trinity is a tradition of men made up not in Paul's day but well after he was dead in the 3rd century. History proves this. You have NOT proved that Paul was teaching the trinity. The words you quote is what is called cherry picking which has already been brought out. In context shows that nothing was being taught about the trinity. The trinity was NEVER the subject Paul was speaking on EVER. So we are done here. Just repeating yourself doesn't make it true.

Admit what? That the word “Trinity” wasn’t used by Christians in the first century? Yeah, that’s not a big reveal.

Paul taught that Jesus is God and that Jesus is different from the Father. Paul also taught that the Holy Spirit is God, and that the Holy Spirit is different from the Father and from Jesus. So Paul taught doctrines of the Trinity, but Paul didn’t “teach the Trinity.” People had to come up with that language later based on what Paul and the other Apostles taught.

The trinity teaching records that the trinity doctrine wasn't a teaching until the 3rd century....Teaching the doctrine but didn't teach the trinity....LOL just wow! Do you know what the term oxymoron means? Just when you think you've heard every excuse, someone comes up with another excuse that just blows one's mind. I'll remember this excuse for years to come. It will one of those, "Do you know what I heard a trinitarin say one time..."

People had to come up with that language later based on what Paul and the other Apostles taught.

Prove this. Take us through step by step, year by year, from the end of Paul's life as to why this 'language' was needed. I'll need historical references and not just some story you made up on the fly.

Imagine a nation that was governed by representatives who were elected by the whole population, but they didn’t have a word for it. 150 years later people said, “That was a democracy.”

Was that nation a democracy or not?

Paul taught that Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. He taught that the Father is not Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or Jesus. 150 years later people said, “That is the doctrine of Trinity.”

Did Paul teach the Trinity or not?

No he did not.

Ok. Just so I can understand your way of thinking, was the hypothetical nation a democracy or not?

I apologize, I am not understanding what you are talking about. Can you explain?

[bjs1]

There it is, you admit it.

"So these Pharisees and scribes asked him: “Why do your disciples not observe the tradition of the men of former times, but they eat their meal with defiled hands?” He said to them: “Isaiah aptly prophesied about you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines. 'You let go of the commandment of God and cling to the tradition of men.” - Mark 7:5-8

The trinity is a tradition of men made up not in Paul's day but well after he was dead in the 3rd century. History proves this. You have NOT proved that Paul was teaching the trinity. The words you quote is what is called cherry picking which has already been brought out. In context shows that nothing was being taught about the trinity. The trinity was NEVER the subject Paul was speaking on EVER. So we are done here. Just repeating yourself doesn't make it true.

Admit what? That the word “Trinity” wasn’t used by Christians in the first century? Yeah, that’s not a big reveal.

Paul taught that Jesus is God and that Jesus is different from the Father. Paul also taught that the Holy Spirit is God, and that the Holy Spirit is different from the Father and from Jesus. So Paul taught doctrines of the Trinity, but Paul didn’t “teach the Trinity.” People had to come up with that language later based on what Paul and the other Apostles taught.

The trinity teaching records that the trinity doctrine wasn't a teaching until the 3rd century....Teaching the doctrine but didn't teach the trinity....LOL just wow! Do you know what the term oxymoron means? Just when you think you've heard every excuse, someone comes up with another excuse that just blows one's mind. I'll remember this excuse for years to come. It will one of those, "Do you know what I heard a trinitarin say one time..."

People had to come up with that language later based on what Paul and the other Apostles taught.

Prove this. Take us through step by step, year by year, from the end of Paul's life as to why this 'language' was needed. I'll need historical references and not just some story you made up on the fly.

Imagine a nation that was governed by representatives who were elected by the whole population, but they didn’t have a word for it. 150 years later people said, “That was a democracy.”

Was that nation a democracy or not?

Paul taught that Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. He taught that the Father is not Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or Jesus. 150 years later people said, “That is the doctrine of Trinity.”

Did Paul teach the Trinity or not?

No he did not.

Ok. Just so I can understand your way of thinking, was the hypothetical nation a democracy or not?

I apologize, I am not understanding what you are talking about. Can you explain?

If a nation was governed by representatives who were elected by the whole population then I would call that nation a democracy even if they did not use that word.

If someone (like Paul) taught that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all God and all distinct then I would say that person taught the Trinity even if he did not use that word.

You seem to disagree. I am trying to understand your reasoning.

[Capbook]

Did Paul used the word Bible in his teachings?

Paul used the term the law and prophets. That was what the Bible was called in that time....didn't you know this? Read Romans 3:21
There is no word that comes close to the word trinity in Paul's writings.

The Greek word “theios” wasn't describing Jesus. in Acts.

Paul was quoting the Scriptures not the Bible.
The Tanakh; Torah, Niviim and Ketuvim. (Luke 24:44)

Lexicon defined it as Trinity at the time of its usage.

LOL What?
What lexicon? It seems you're making things up as you go along.

Scriptures and Bible are two sides of the same coin. The Law and the Prophets is what we call the Bible today. Are you aware of what the word Bible means?

Did you read Luke 24:44? "The Law the Prophets and Psalms?
And do you know what Tanakh is? That is the Law the Prophets and the Writings, that is the OT referred as Scriptures in 2 Tim 3:16.
Is the New Testament already existing when Timothy said of 2Tim 3:16?
As Bible means the Christian scriptures, consisting of the Old and New Testaments verses from the Bible.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bible+m ... e&ie=UTF-8

Apostle Paul implies Trinity in Acts 17:29, see Lexicon define the meaning of Godhead, in Greek "theios", as 2) spoken of the only and true God, trinity
2a) of Christ
2b) Holy Spirit
2c) the Father

Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

θεῖος theios
Thayer Definition:
1) a general name of deities or divinities as used by the Greeks
2) spoken of the only and true God, trinity
2a) of Christ
2b) Holy Spirit
2c) the Father

[2timothy316]

Is the New Testament already existing upon the reading of 2Tim 3:16?

Yes, much of it existed.

Paul wrote his 2nd letter to Timothy around 65 C.E.
2 Timothy was Paul's last letter that means that all of his other letters were already in circulation and considered scripture.
This means Romans, Hebrews, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus were already available for people to read.

No one know for sure when Matthew or Mark wrote their letters but they will likely written before 70 C.E. So at there were likely two Gospel books in circulation when Paul wrote 2 Tim 3:16.
It is also likely that the letter James wrote, the books of Acts and one of Peter's letters also existed at the writing of 2 Tim 3:16.

John was the only one we know for sure that wrote his letters after Paul's death. However, John's writings are considered scripture thus they would be included as the scriptures Paul was referring to in 2 Timothy even though John wrote his letters after 2 Timothy was written.

The WHOLE Bible was written before the trinity even became a doctrine forced on people to accept.

The RCC tries to take credit for 'giving the world the bible' but the scriptures were already in circulation and had already been accepted as scripture like writings of the Hebrew scriptures. All the RCC did was put them all together in one volume and gave it the name Bible. Which simply means, book of little books. Big whoop.

[Capbook]

Is the New Testament already existing upon the reading of 2Tim 3:16?

Yes, much of it existed.

Paul wrote his 2nd letter to Timothy around 65 C.E.
2 Timothy was Paul's last letter that means that all of his other letters were already in circulation and considered scripture.
This means Romans, Hebrews, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus were already available for people to read.

No one know for sure when Matthew or Mark wrote their letters but they will likely written before 70 C.E. So at there were likely two Gospel books in circulation when Paul wrote 2 Tim 3:16.
It is also likely that the letter James wrote, the books of Acts and one of Peter's letters also existed at the writing of 2 Tim 3:16.

John was the only one we know for sure that wrote his letters after Paul's death. However, John's writings are considered scripture thus they would be included as the scriptures Paul was referring to in 2 Timothy even though John wrote his letters after 2 Timothy was written.

The WHOLE Bible was written before the trinity even became a doctrine forced on people to accept.

The RCC tries to take credit for 'giving the world the bible' but the scriptures were already in circulation and had already been accepted as scripture like writings of the Hebrew scriptures. All the RCC did was put them all together in one volume and gave it the name Bible. Which simply means, book of little books. Big whoop.

The earliest known complete list of the NT was was dated 367 AD (Wikipedia), how come Timothy was able to read the Bible (a complete book of OT & NT) where he died around the year AD 97?(Wikipedia)

I believe you are not familiar with the Jewish Scripture Tanakh mentioned in Luke 24:44.

And Apostle Paul implies Trinity in Acts 17:29, see Lexicon define the meaning of Godhead, in Greek "theios", as 2) spoken of the only and true God, trinity
2a) of Christ
2b) Holy Spirit
2c) the Father

Timothy or Timothy of Ephesus (Greek: Τιμόθεος, Timótheos, meaning "honouring God" or "honoured by God"[8]) was an early Christian evangelist and the first Christian bishop of Ephesus,[9] who tradition relates died around the year AD 97.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Tim ... %20AD%2097.

The earliest known complete list of the 27 books is found in a letter written by Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, dated to 367 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament