(1) Mark 12:28-30
One of the scribes, when he came forward and heard them disputing and saw how well he had answered them, asked him, “Which is the first of all the commandments?�29Jesus replied, “The first is this: ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!30You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’j
(2) However, while Jesus remained a man (“Son of God, or Son of Man) and was raised from the dead by God, about 85 AD, Jesus began to be considered divine himself. His can be seen in John’s gospel written about 95 AD.
This broke with the traditional Old Testament teaching that the Lord was one, resulted in the Christians being excluded from the Hebrew synagogues, and the Christians labeled as heretics (“minim�).
(3) … According to Berakhot 28b, Samuel ha Katan (fl. c. 80-110), at the invitation of Gamaliel II of Jabneh, composed the "benediction against the minim," included in the Amidah as the twelfth benediction (see E. J. Bickerman, in HTR, 55 (1962), 171, n. 35). This was directed primarily against Judeo-Christians (specifically mentioned in one old text—see Schechter, JQR 10 (1897 / 98)), either to keep them out of the synagogue or to proclaim a definite breach between the two religions." 3
[See article Genizah Specimens / Liturgy, by Solomon Schechter, in The Jewish Quarterly Review, Volume 10, 1898, pages 654 - 659.]
(4) Arianism was a counter movement which claimed that Jesus was not divine himself and a large group of Christians reverted to this view.
(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binitarianism#History
After the 325 Council of Nicaea defeated Arianism, the Council of Constantinople was called in 381 in order to attempt to deal with the binitarians, who were referred to as "Semi-Arians". However, as the Trinity was finalized at this time as official Christian doctrine, the offended Semi-Arians walked out. "They rejected the Arian view that Christ was created and had a different nature from God (anomoios dissimilar), but neither did they accept the Nicene Creed which stated that Christ was 'of one substance (homoousios) with the Father'. Semi-Arians taught that Christ was similar (homoios) to the Father, or of like substance (homoiousios), but still subordinate"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Cr ... itan_Creed
(6) “What is known as the "Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed" or the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed"[21] received this name because of a belief that it was adopted at the Second Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople in 381 as a modification of the original Nicene Creed of 325…
“It differs in a number of respects, both by addition and omission, from the creed adopted at the First Council of Nicaea. The most notable difference is the additional section "And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver-of-Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets….�
How and when did the Trinity become Christian dogma?
Moderator: Moderators
-
2timothy316
- Under Probation
- Posts: 4296
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
- Has thanked: 193 times
- Been thanked: 494 times
Post #71
[Replying to post 70 by RightReason]
Thank you for admitting that it is through eisegesis the trinity doctrine came into existence. At least on this, we agree and the only point I wanted to make. The doctrine only works with eisegesis interpretation and not with exegesis interpretation. It is known that eisegesis is a flawed interpretive tool and can't be trusted. It was eisegesis that the 'marry in your own race' doctrine was taught. It was eisegesis that justified slavery of Africans. It was eisegesis that the crusades were justified. It was eisegesis interpretation of the Bible that Hitler justified war.
“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.�
[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]
This article presents the actual note page from which Hitler uses the Bible as a way to justify his actions.
https://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerBible.htm
Thank you for admitting that it is through eisegesis the trinity doctrine came into existence. At least on this, we agree and the only point I wanted to make. The doctrine only works with eisegesis interpretation and not with exegesis interpretation. It is known that eisegesis is a flawed interpretive tool and can't be trusted. It was eisegesis that the 'marry in your own race' doctrine was taught. It was eisegesis that justified slavery of Africans. It was eisegesis that the crusades were justified. It was eisegesis interpretation of the Bible that Hitler justified war.
“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.�
[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]
This article presents the actual note page from which Hitler uses the Bible as a way to justify his actions.
https://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerBible.htm
Post #72
[Replying to post 69 by RightReason]
RightReason wrote:
RR:
If I have seen it, I don't remember quotes and references being given. Most here do not give proper references.
The existing manuscript sources for most, if not all, of the Ante-Nicene Fathers are relatively recent. It is no secret that by the 6th century copyists were trinitarians and controlled by trinitarians. Jerome himself complained about the (trinitarian) additions by other trinitarian copyists/translators. It was acceptable for copyists/translators to adjust the words of the original writer to the 'truth' of the trinity (and other Church doctrinal teachings).
But a copyist/translator would not be copying for long if he attempted to add non-trinitarian statements!!
I am not writing about canonizing certain writings into the Bible. I am talking about the ancient manuscripts which are the basis for the proper translation of those writings.
For example, most modern texts of the NT agree with the earliest (ante-Nicene) manuscripts available (no 1 John 5:7, KJV, for example).
Most manuscript copies (often only one or two) of the Ante-Nicene Fathers still in existence were 'copied' many hundreds of years after the originals and during the time of the trinitarian-controlled Church.
So if you would please answer my bolded question above (or give me a link to your earlier post concerning this), it would be greatly appreciated.
RightReason wrote:
T2:Cool. Because many of the writings of the early Church which demonstrate belief in the Trinity were written 100’s of years prior to the Bible.
Please give quotes and references for some of these.
RR:
Have I been following this thread? Poorly at best. I'm old, tired, poor vision, failing memory, etc. Would it have been so difficult just to give a link (or even a post number) to your relevant post?Have you been following this thread? I already posted early Church writings that date to the first century and yet the Bible, containing all the books as we know it today, did not exist until the 4th century. This means the first Christians did not turn to their Bibles to know their faith – they turned to the Church. And as I demonstrated there are historical records showing the early Church taught and believed the Trinity.
If I have seen it, I don't remember quotes and references being given. Most here do not give proper references.
The existing manuscript sources for most, if not all, of the Ante-Nicene Fathers are relatively recent. It is no secret that by the 6th century copyists were trinitarians and controlled by trinitarians. Jerome himself complained about the (trinitarian) additions by other trinitarian copyists/translators. It was acceptable for copyists/translators to adjust the words of the original writer to the 'truth' of the trinity (and other Church doctrinal teachings).
But a copyist/translator would not be copying for long if he attempted to add non-trinitarian statements!!
I am not writing about canonizing certain writings into the Bible. I am talking about the ancient manuscripts which are the basis for the proper translation of those writings.
For example, most modern texts of the NT agree with the earliest (ante-Nicene) manuscripts available (no 1 John 5:7, KJV, for example).
Most manuscript copies (often only one or two) of the Ante-Nicene Fathers still in existence were 'copied' many hundreds of years after the originals and during the time of the trinitarian-controlled Church.
So if you would please answer my bolded question above (or give me a link to your earlier post concerning this), it would be greatly appreciated.
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 10920
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1545 times
- Been thanked: 447 times
Post #73
It certainly is, and I wonder how people can not see that when they read the research by polonious.advice and yourself that has been presented on this thread. Even the Catholic Church admits that the trinity was not taught by Jesus and the Apostles but was formed hundreds of years later.2timothy316 wrote:That is correct. There is nothing about the trinity in the Bible. Argued about or agreed upon. It was not an issue for another 300 years and it was not put into the Bible because it was not God breathed. If it was inspired by God then the decrees like all the other decrees by the apostles would be in the Bible. Yet it is not. The trinity is a man-made doctrine.RightReason wrote: [Replying to post 60 by 2timothy316]
I’m sorry but what you are asking is actually unscriptural!You have not answered in scripture. You interpret the Bible using eisegesis, a practice I do not accept as a valid way to interpret the Bible. I do not want to hear your argument, I want to read where the apostles were debating the trinity.
I read the following from the New Catholic Encyclopedia which has Imprimatur.
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 10920
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1545 times
- Been thanked: 447 times
Post #74
"The Holy Trinity" from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Volume 14:
"It is difficult, in the second half of the 20th century, to offer a clear, objective, and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and theological elaboration of the mystery of the Trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette....
"One should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'one God in three Persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought.
"Herein lies the difficulty. On the one hand, it was the dogmatic formula'one God in three Persons' that would henceforth for more than 15 centuries structure and guide the Trinitarian essence of the Christian message, both in the profession of faith and in theological dialectic. On the other hand, the formula itself does not reflect the immediate consciousness of the period of origins; it wasthe product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development."
This Roman Catholic author says in very flowery language what can more simply be said. He admits that any discussion of the Trinity is one of an unsteady subject. In other words, there is nothing that firmly supports this doctrine. He states in wording that he probably hopes no one will really understand, that Trinitarianism is not found in the period of Christian origins---that is, what Jesus and his Apostles taught. It is not found in their teachings. The doctrine is found over three centuries later....not in the early first century.
If Jesus and his Apostles didn't teach a Trinity, then where did it come from? Three centuries of men's arguing and political posturing, far from the untainted words and writings of the earliest disciples of Christ.
"It is difficult, in the second half of the 20th century, to offer a clear, objective, and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and theological elaboration of the mystery of the Trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette....
"One should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'one God in three Persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought.
"Herein lies the difficulty. On the one hand, it was the dogmatic formula'one God in three Persons' that would henceforth for more than 15 centuries structure and guide the Trinitarian essence of the Christian message, both in the profession of faith and in theological dialectic. On the other hand, the formula itself does not reflect the immediate consciousness of the period of origins; it wasthe product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development."
This Roman Catholic author says in very flowery language what can more simply be said. He admits that any discussion of the Trinity is one of an unsteady subject. In other words, there is nothing that firmly supports this doctrine. He states in wording that he probably hopes no one will really understand, that Trinitarianism is not found in the period of Christian origins---that is, what Jesus and his Apostles taught. It is not found in their teachings. The doctrine is found over three centuries later....not in the early first century.
If Jesus and his Apostles didn't teach a Trinity, then where did it come from? Three centuries of men's arguing and political posturing, far from the untainted words and writings of the earliest disciples of Christ.
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 10920
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1545 times
- Been thanked: 447 times
Post #75
Jesus was the same on earth and in heaven. Did you miss I Corinthians 11:3 which states that "the head of Christ is God"? God, the Father, is the head of Christ, just as Christ is the head of his church. Christ guides his church, and the Father guides and directs Christ---telling him what to do. If Christ was God he wouldn't have anyone telling him what to do. This verse in I Corinthians was written after Jesus went back to heaven, so the idea that he was subservient only on earth is false.Overcomer wrote: 2timothy316 quoted this verse:
He said that while on earth, meaning that his role was one of subservience to God the Father when he lived as God Incarnate. But he is not talking ontologically, that is, about his very being.John:14:28 "The Father is greater than I"
And you quoted this verse:
Philippians 2:5, 6 "Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God."
Equal? No.
Again, that verse refers to Christ's role on earth. It is not talking about who he is ontologically. In fact, if you look at the word "form", also translated as "nature", it DOES refer to him ontologically and it's saying that he is, in his very being, God.
I quoted Gen. 1:26 about God saying, "Let us make man in our image" and you replied:
But it doesn't say 'us' is God. The eiesgesis interpretation practice you use makes it a prop for your doctrine. While it is likely that the us is Jehovah and Jesus there is nothing that directly say they are both God.
Who is the "us" then? We are made in the image of God. We are not made in the image of anybody else.
I wrote this in a previous post:
I provided links where I explain why Jesus and the Holy Spirit are deity along with Yahweh. You are welcome to check them out and you are welcome to debate them. If I'm guilty of eisegesis as you keep suggesting, then please offer some evidence to back up that opinion.
You replied:
That's your choice, but it suggests that you don't have any answers for what I wrote in those three threads and that you aren't prepared to address 1,000 verses that, combined, prove the reality of the Triune Godhead.I am not interested. I have seen all of them before and they do not teach the trinity. They are being use as props in eiesgesis. An interpretation practice I do not accept
I took a look at the link you provided here:
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html#_1_17
The entire thing is a strawman fallacy because the author begins with a false definition of the Trinity. He writes:
"Most Christians in the world today believe in the Trinity which is the union of the three divine persons -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- into one Godhead."
That is not what the Trinity is. The proper definition is this: There is one God who exists in three persons, meaning that all are ontologically one. It is NOT the union of three separate divine persons.
Bottom line: The author makes up a definition that he can knock down. That's a strawman argument. It's fallacious.
2timothy316 wrote:
There is nothing about the trinity in the Bible.
As I have pointed out repeatedly, there are 1,000 verses in the Bible that speak to it. But you're not interested in reading them. I don't think that just repeating what you believe, without any willingness to investigate what we're saying, is a legitimate approach to discussion.
Jesus' nature and form are suited to the spirit world. That is what those words are referring to, not that he is God. He is LIKE God in form. He said, "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24), and that is what Jesus was before he came to Earth and also when he went back to heaven. Being a spirit Person does not mean that Person is God.
You have difficulty understand the point about Genesis 1:26 for some reason. It was explained to you that it was Jehovah (the ONLY true God) speaking to His Son, Jesus. There is nothing there that shows that Jesus is equal to his Father.
Because someone might say that they disagree with your viewpoint and therefore are not going to argue further, after having argued previously, this does not show that "they have no answers." They have already shown you the answers but you choose to ignore them. What use is there to keep hashing them over with you? There is not one single verse in the Bible that supports the Trinity. Your 1,000 verses are bogus.
It is not timothy or myself or other JWs here that refuse to examine your lame arguments. We have done so many many times on these threads. Your viewpoint is the same as many others whose arguments have been rebutted over and over again.
-
brianbbs67
- Guru
- Posts: 1871
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:07 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #76
I would add this to the debate.
As to the claim of us being made in God's image, we almost are.
Gen1:27 God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created the.
Genisis 5:3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he begot a son in his likeness after his image, and he named him Seth.
As to the claim of us being made in God's image, we almost are.
Gen1:27 God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created the.
Genisis 5:3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he begot a son in his likeness after his image, and he named him Seth.
-
2timothy316
- Under Probation
- Posts: 4296
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
- Has thanked: 193 times
- Been thanked: 494 times
Post #77
An image is not a copy. I think this is where a lot of people error in thinking. They are trying to make themselves equal to God in some way or visa versa. The image of myself in a mirror is in no way equal to me. First off, I live in a 3D world and an image of me is 2D. A twin or clone isn't an image. A clone is identical physically in every way. Somehow people think they are in some way a clone of a spiritual being, yet the definition doesn't fit. Could a 2D being in anyway understand what it is to live as a 3D being? Heaven is where Jehovah lives. It is certainly not a 3D universe. I don't think we 3D meatbags can understand what a spiritual place is even like, much less try to try and say we are spiritual beings.brianbbs67 wrote: I would add this to the debate.
As to the claim of us being made in God's image, we almost are.
Gen1:27 God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created the.
Genisis 5:3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he begot a son in his likeness after his image, and he named him Seth.
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Post #78
[Replying to post 71 by 2timothy316]
DODGE BALL!!!!!
Ignatius a.d. 30–107
Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one preaching, and one faith, and one baptism;
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chapter IV
But the Holy Spirit does not speak His own things, but those of Christ, and that not from himself, but from the Lord; even as the Lord also announced to us the things that He received from the Father. For, says He, “the word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father’s, who sent Me.� And says He of the Holy Spirit, “He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever things He shall hear from Me.� And He says of Himself to the Father, “I have,� says He, “glorified Thee upon the earth; I have finished the work which, Thou gavest Me; I have manifested Thy name to men.� And of the Holy Ghost, “He shall glorify Me, for He receives of Mine.�
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians Chapter IX
For if there is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, “of whom are all things;� and one Lord Jesus Christ, our [Lord], “by whom are all things;� and also one Holy Spirit, who wrought in Moses, and in the prophets and apostles;
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians Chapter I
Justin Martyr a.d. 110–165
For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.
The First Apology Chapter LXI
Ireneaus a.d. 120–202
The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,� . . .
Against Heresies Book I Chapter X
The rule of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existence, all things which exist. Thus saith the Scripture, to that effect “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the might of them, by the spirit of His mouth.� And again, “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.� There is no exception or deduction stated; but the Father made all things by Him, whether visible or invisible, objects of sense or of intelligence, temporal, on account of a certain character given them, or eternal; and these eternal things He did not make by angels, or by any powers separated from His Ennœa.
For God needs none of all these things, but is He who, by His Word and Spirit, makes, and disposes, and governs all things, and commands all things into existence,—He who formed the world (for the world is of all),—He who fashioned man,—He [who] is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, above whom there is no other God, nor initial principle, nor power, nor pleroma,—He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we shall prove.
Book I Chapter XXII
Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.� Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord.
Against Heresies Book III Chapter VI
For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, “Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;� He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world.
Against Heresies Book IV Chapter XX
Clement of Alexandria a.d. 153–217
O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, . . .
The Instructor. Book I Chapter VI
Tertullian a.d. 145–220
In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or οἰκονομία , as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her—being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost.
But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of divers persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.
Against Praxeas Chapter II
The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own οἰκονομία . The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth.
Against Praxeas Chapter III
But as for me, who derive the Son from no other source but from the substance of the Father, and (represent Him) as doing nothing without the Father’s will, and as having received all power from the Father, how can I be possibly destroying the Monarchy from the faith, when I preserve it in the Son just as it was committed to Him by the Father? The same remark (I wish also to be formally) made by me with respect to the third degree in the Godhead, because I believe the Spirit to proceed from no other source than from the Father through the Son.
Against Praxeas Chapter IV
Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit.. . . Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete (Holy Spirit), so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter…even the Spirit of truth,� thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality? For, of course, all things will be what their names represent them to be; and what they are and ever will be, that will they be called; and the distinction indicated by the names does not at all admit of any confusion, because there is none in the things which they designate. “Yes is yes, and no is no; for what is more than these, cometh of evil.�
Against Praxeas Chapter IX
Origen a.d. 185–254
From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, i.e., by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the unbegotten God the Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the Holy Spirit.
. . .
Nevertheless it seems proper to inquire what is the reason why he who is regenerated by God unto salvation has to do both with Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and does not obtain salvation unless with the co-operation of the entire Trinity; and why it is impossible to become partaker of the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit.
Origen De Principiis. Book I Chapter III
Cyprian a.d. 200–258
Finally, when, after the resurrection, the apostles are sent by the Lord to the heathens, they are bidden to baptize the Gentiles “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.� How, then, do some say, that a Gentile baptized without, outside the Church, yea, and in opposition to the Church, so that it be only in the name of Jesus Christ, everywhere, and in whatever manner, can obtain remission of sin, when Christ Himself commands the heathen to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?
Epistle LXXII.5.18
Augustine of Hippo a.d. 354–430
Those holy angels come to the knowledge of God not by audible words, but by the presence to their souls of immutable truth, i.e., of the only-begotten Word of God; and they know this Word Himself, and the Father, and their Holy Spirit, and that this Trinity is indivisible, and that the three persons of it are one substance, and that there are not three Gods but one God; and this they so know that it is better understood by them than we are by ourselves.
Augustine The City of God Book 11 Chapter 29
http://apostles-creed.org/confessional- ... ology/earl...
LOL!!!!! Nothing in the Bible works without being interpreted. Do you literally cut off your hand when it causes you to sin? Why not? That’s what the Bible says. To understand it any differently then the very text written, you must be interpreting it. <sigh>Thank you for admitting that it is through eisegesis the trinity doctrine came into existence. At least on this, we agree and the only point I wanted to make. The doctrine only works with eisegesis interpretation and not with exegesis interpretation.
The only possible thing to reply to that comment is:It was eisegesis that the crusades were justified. It was eisegesis interpretation of the Bible that Hitler justified war.
“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.�
[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]
DODGE BALL!!!!!
These individuals lived in the first and second centuries – possibly 3rd. The Bible wasn’t compiled and given to Christians until the 4th century. So, sounds like there was quite a bit of understanding of the Trinity.give me a link to your earlier post concerning this
Ignatius a.d. 30–107
Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one preaching, and one faith, and one baptism;
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chapter IV
But the Holy Spirit does not speak His own things, but those of Christ, and that not from himself, but from the Lord; even as the Lord also announced to us the things that He received from the Father. For, says He, “the word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father’s, who sent Me.� And says He of the Holy Spirit, “He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever things He shall hear from Me.� And He says of Himself to the Father, “I have,� says He, “glorified Thee upon the earth; I have finished the work which, Thou gavest Me; I have manifested Thy name to men.� And of the Holy Ghost, “He shall glorify Me, for He receives of Mine.�
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians Chapter IX
For if there is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, “of whom are all things;� and one Lord Jesus Christ, our [Lord], “by whom are all things;� and also one Holy Spirit, who wrought in Moses, and in the prophets and apostles;
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians Chapter I
Justin Martyr a.d. 110–165
For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.
The First Apology Chapter LXI
Ireneaus a.d. 120–202
The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,� . . .
Against Heresies Book I Chapter X
The rule of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existence, all things which exist. Thus saith the Scripture, to that effect “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the might of them, by the spirit of His mouth.� And again, “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.� There is no exception or deduction stated; but the Father made all things by Him, whether visible or invisible, objects of sense or of intelligence, temporal, on account of a certain character given them, or eternal; and these eternal things He did not make by angels, or by any powers separated from His Ennœa.
For God needs none of all these things, but is He who, by His Word and Spirit, makes, and disposes, and governs all things, and commands all things into existence,—He who formed the world (for the world is of all),—He who fashioned man,—He [who] is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, above whom there is no other God, nor initial principle, nor power, nor pleroma,—He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we shall prove.
Book I Chapter XXII
Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.� Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord.
Against Heresies Book III Chapter VI
For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, “Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;� He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world.
Against Heresies Book IV Chapter XX
Clement of Alexandria a.d. 153–217
O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, . . .
The Instructor. Book I Chapter VI
Tertullian a.d. 145–220
In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or οἰκονομία , as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her—being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost.
But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of divers persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.
Against Praxeas Chapter II
The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own οἰκονομία . The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth.
Against Praxeas Chapter III
But as for me, who derive the Son from no other source but from the substance of the Father, and (represent Him) as doing nothing without the Father’s will, and as having received all power from the Father, how can I be possibly destroying the Monarchy from the faith, when I preserve it in the Son just as it was committed to Him by the Father? The same remark (I wish also to be formally) made by me with respect to the third degree in the Godhead, because I believe the Spirit to proceed from no other source than from the Father through the Son.
Against Praxeas Chapter IV
Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit.. . . Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete (Holy Spirit), so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter…even the Spirit of truth,� thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality? For, of course, all things will be what their names represent them to be; and what they are and ever will be, that will they be called; and the distinction indicated by the names does not at all admit of any confusion, because there is none in the things which they designate. “Yes is yes, and no is no; for what is more than these, cometh of evil.�
Against Praxeas Chapter IX
Origen a.d. 185–254
From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, i.e., by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the unbegotten God the Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the Holy Spirit.
. . .
Nevertheless it seems proper to inquire what is the reason why he who is regenerated by God unto salvation has to do both with Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and does not obtain salvation unless with the co-operation of the entire Trinity; and why it is impossible to become partaker of the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit.
Origen De Principiis. Book I Chapter III
Cyprian a.d. 200–258
Finally, when, after the resurrection, the apostles are sent by the Lord to the heathens, they are bidden to baptize the Gentiles “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.� How, then, do some say, that a Gentile baptized without, outside the Church, yea, and in opposition to the Church, so that it be only in the name of Jesus Christ, everywhere, and in whatever manner, can obtain remission of sin, when Christ Himself commands the heathen to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?
Epistle LXXII.5.18
Augustine of Hippo a.d. 354–430
Those holy angels come to the knowledge of God not by audible words, but by the presence to their souls of immutable truth, i.e., of the only-begotten Word of God; and they know this Word Himself, and the Father, and their Holy Spirit, and that this Trinity is indivisible, and that the three persons of it are one substance, and that there are not three Gods but one God; and this they so know that it is better understood by them than we are by ourselves.
Augustine The City of God Book 11 Chapter 29
http://apostles-creed.org/confessional- ... ology/earl...
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Post #79
[Replying to post 75 by onewithhim]
Not quite. You don’t get it. When Jesus walked the earth, there was still a great deal the Apostles did not understand. Scripture even tells us as much saying there is much more to be said . . . Scripture tells us often how Jesus said or did something, but at the time they had no idea what He actually meant. One example of this is when Jesus said he will rebuild the temple in 3 days. Clearly, the Apostles could not have explained that Jesus was referring to the resurrection. Scripture reveals the Trinity to us (as I and many others have already pointed out in numerous Scripture passages). Now, whether man fully understood all that this meant from the get go is of course another story. We are still today trying to fully understand all that Christ intends us too. Good thing He left us His Church, who alone has the authority to help us in these matters. This is exactly what she did regarding the Trinity. You simply don’t get it. But also like I already posted there is historical evidence of early church writings showing there was an understanding of the Trinity, but it is just one more thing being ignored.Even the Catholic Church admits that the trinity was not taught by Jesus and the Apostles but was formed hundreds of years later.
No, but avoiding conversation by saying things like, “It was eisegesis interpretation of the Bible that Hitler justified war.� And then posting some comment about Hitler is a hint that one has little to say on the topic at hand and resorts to playing the Hitler card even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic on hand. When in a corner, just yell Hitler!because someone might say that they disagree with your viewpoint and therefore are not going to argue further, after having argued previously, this does not show that "they have no answers."
Correct there isn’t one verse – it’s the reading of Scripture as a whole that is required AND the acknowledgment of the authority of Christ’s Church that is necessary. We were instructed to listen to the Church. Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition (the Church) reveal to us the Trinity. Thanks be to God.There is not one single verse in the Bible that supports the Trinity. Your 1,000 verses are bogus.
-
2timothy316
- Under Probation
- Posts: 4296
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
- Has thanked: 193 times
- Been thanked: 494 times
Post #80
There is proper interpretation and improper interpretation. The trinity interpretation uses eisegesis and that is improper. The proof is in that huge copy and pasted rhetoric you posted. It is your trinity colored glasses. One must go through that messy trinity doctrine decree before they even get to the Bible. I would not be surprised that the trinity is taught first before a Bible is even cracked open. Perfect example of eisegesis, the improper way to interpret the Bible.RightReason wrote: [Replying to post 71 by 2timothy316]
LOL!!!!! Nothing in the Bible works without being interpreted. Do you literally cut off your hand when it causes you to sin? Why not? That’s what the Bible says. To understand it any differently then the very text written, you must be interpreting it. <sigh>Thank you for admitting that it is through eisegesis the trinity doctrine came into existence. At least on this, we agree and the only point I wanted to make. The doctrine only works with eisegesis interpretation and not with exegesis interpretation.
Next time you meet some who has never read the Bible try showing the those scriptures that are supposed to support the trinity. Make sure they read it in context and then ask them what did they just learn about. They will not say the trinity.
"You must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength." Deut 6:5Nothing in the Bible works without being interpreted
I need no interpretation here. No extra understanding. No lines to read between. I don't need some imagined explanation longer than my arm. You say Nothing? I don't believe you and you might want to reflect on who told you 'nothing works without being interpreted'.
