Three Gods

[]RiSeN[]

[quote=ContraMundum;40765330]I think we are at an impasse.

That would be one way of looking at it. Another would be that you are retreating from our discussion with only your opening statements as rebuttal..

I really don't think the Trinity is confusing at all.How can something that does not need reason or logic be confusing?

You can not look at a rubix cube and say "Thats not confusing at all" when you will not attempt or can not match all six sides.

I think the alternative doctrines are fraught with verse juggling and eisegesis, and far more confusing than the Trinity, which accepts each text as written, and works across the whole PaRDeS spectrum easily. You are free to think what you will. Although your statements are what is usually brought against what one would do to arrive at a triune divinity.

I have no idea why people find it difficult. Perhaps they have trouble with separating themselves from reason, logic and history when studying the bible.

While we can argue the logic all we like, I can't accept the fact that you find the Trinity "confusing" as any argument against it. In fact, because I don't find it confusing at all, it gels quite well with the verse you cite against it.I don't see how we can argue from logic since you don't see a need for it. And your dismissing my argument from scripture with "because I don't find it confusing at all" is not a valid counter. That you accept the logic and reason that implied a trinity but will now not accept logic and reason which shows it to be in discord with God's qualities and history is dishonest.


I think Greek grammar, sound interpretive hermenutic and an honest acceptance of the scriptures, without modifying the words, all lead to belief in the One Holy Triune God. This is how He has revealed Himself to us- we have to accept it regardless.If you would like to indulge in Greek grammar, we can start with John 1:1, and discuss how the context does require a definite article when translating.

Also if you dislike modifying words I would think you might find these creeds interesting. They are from the Catholic Encyclopedia, so you don't think I am getting this from some anti-trinity crackpot site.

De Virg. Vel., 1

(1) Believing in one God Almighty, maker of the world,
(2) and His Son, Jesus Christ,
(3) born of the Virgin Mary,
(4) crucified under Pontius Pilate,
(5) on the third day brought to life from the dead,
(6) received in heaven,
(7) sitting now at the right hand of the Father,
(8) will come to judge the living and the dead
(12) through resurrection of the flesh.

De Praecept., 13 and 26

(1) We believe one only God,
(2) and the son of God Jesus Christ,
(3) born of the Virgin,
(4) Him suffered died, and buried,
(5) brought back to life,
(6) taken again into heaven,
(7) sits at the right hand of the Father,
(8) will come to judge the living and the dead
(9) who has sent from the Father the Holy Ghost.


(1) I believe in one God, maker of the world,
(2) the Word, called His Son, Jesus Christ,
(3) by the Spirit and power of God the Father made flesh in Mary's womb, and born of her
(4) fastened to a cross.
(5) He rose the third day,
(6) was caught up into heaven,
(7) set at the right hand of the Father,
(8) will come with glory to take the good into life eternal, and condemn the wicked to perpetual fire,
(9) sent the vicarious power of His Holy Spirit,
(10) to govern believers (In this passage articles 9 and 10 precede 8)
(12) restoration of the flesh.

Notice how the wording subtly but surely moves in a pro-trinity direction?

This is how "the Church" has "revealed" the trinity. Through doctrinal changes of men and not as you would have us believe through holy spirit.

Be they biblical or historical, you made no attempts to address any of the points I made, but only handwaved them with "I don't think so"'s.

I am quite disappointed. This is a debate sub-forum is it not?

I have nothing against Unitarians, if that is your theology. Many have been close to God in the past. I just don't agree with them on the doctrine of the nature of God.
Unitarian? *shivers* Not even close.

[visionary]

RiSeN[;40766112'][quote]

That would be one way of looking at it. Another would be that you are retreating from our discussion with only your opening statements as rebuttal..

How can something that does not need reason or logic be confusing?

You can not look at a rubix cube and say "Thats not confusing at all" when you will not attempt or can not match all six sides.

You are free to think what you will. Although your statements are what is usually brought against what one would do to arrive at a triune divinity.

Perhaps they have trouble with separating themselves from reason, logic and history when studying the bible.

I don't see how we can argue from logic since you don't see a need for it. And your dismissing my argument from scripture with "because I don't find it confusing at all" is not a valid counter. That you accept the logic and reason that implied a trinity but will now not accept logic and reason which shows it to be in discord with God's qualities and history is dishonest.


If you would like to indulge in Greek grammar, we can start with John 1:1, and discuss how the context does require a definite article when translating.

Also if you dislike modifying words I would think you might find these creeds interesting. They are from the Catholic Encyclopedia, so you don't think I am getting this from some anti-trinity crackpot site.

De Virg. Vel., 1

(1) Believing in one God Almighty, maker of the world,
(2) and His Son, Jesus Christ,
(3) born of the Virgin Mary,
(4) crucified under Pontius Pilate,
(5) on the third day brought to life from the dead,
(6) received in heaven,
(7) sitting now at the right hand of the Father,
(8) will come to judge the living and the dead
(12) through resurrection of the flesh.

De Praecept., 13 and 26

(1) We believe one only God,
(2) and the son of God Jesus Christ,
(3) born of the Virgin,
(4) Him suffered died, and buried,
(5) brought back to life,
(6) taken again into heaven,
(7) sits at the right hand of the Father,
(8) will come to judge the living and the dead
(9) who has sent from the Father the Holy Ghost.


(1) I believe in one God, maker of the world,
(2) the Word, called His Son, Jesus Christ,
(3) by the Spirit and power of God the Father made flesh in Mary's womb, and born of her
(4) fastened to a cross.
(5) He rose the third day,
(6) was caught up into heaven,
(7) set at the right hand of the Father,
(8) will come with glory to take the good into life eternal, and condemn the wicked to perpetual fire,
(9) sent the vicarious power of His Holy Spirit,
(10) to govern believers (In this passage articles 9 and 10 precede 8)
(12) restoration of the flesh.

Notice how the wording subtly but surely moves in a pro-trinity direction?

This is how "the Church" has "revealed" the trinity. Through doctrinal changes of men and not as you would have us believe through holy spirit.

Be they biblical or historical, you made no attempts to address any of the points I made, but only handwaved them with "I don't think so"'s.

I am quite disappointed. This is a debate sub-forum is it not?

Unitarian? *shivers* Not even close.You articulate well, and I am impressed.:thumbsup:

[muffler dragon]

Ahem.

Homeschooling mothers don't have a clue about grammar. :D

j/k

Holy Schnikeys!

Someone freaking reported this post of mine.

I would like to point out a few things that may not be obvious:

1) Ivy is my friend, and we kid each other regularly.
2) My wife was homeschooled.
3) My wife IS homeschooling my daughter.
4) the "j/k" at the end of my post means "just kidding".

[Colabomb]

A.D. 29 Jesus said, "The Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12:29). We don't deny it. There is but one God, in three persons. It is a holy mystery. We do not deny that there is one God.

A.D. 57 Paul said, "To us there is but one God" (1 Cor. 8:6).Paul also in other epistles refers to the Holy Spirit as a Person.

A.D. 96 Clement said, "Christ was sent by God".

A.D. 120 "Apostles' Creed": "I believe in God the Father"I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,Born of the Virgin Mary,Suffered under Pontius Pilate,Was crucified, dead, and buried,He descended into hell;The third day he rose again from the dead,He ascended into heaven,And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost;The holy Catholick Church;The Communion of Saints;The Forgiveness of sins;The Resurrection of the body,And the life everlasting. Amen.

When you quote the whole Creed, it is quite trinitarian. You can't just pick out a line to make it fit your theory of history.


A.D. 150 Justin Martyr, introduces Greek Philosophy.

A.D. 170 The word "Trias", appears first in Christian literature.

A.D. 200. "Trinitas" is first introduced by Tertullian.All that happened is we gave a name to a currently existing doctrine.

[Talmidah]

Holy Schnikeys!

Someone freaking reported this post of mine.

I would like to point out a few things that may not be obvious:

1) Ivy is my friend, and we kid each other regularly.
2) My wife was homeschooled.
3) My wife IS homeschooling my daughter.
4) the "j/k" at the end of my post means "just kidding".

I guess you're just more irritating than you realized!

[A_Pioneer]

M D they have "Baby Soft Skin" they chaffe easily!
Especially in this thread, I too got reported for a simple statement, to an adult it was cute, But! j/k lol oh well.

Shalom

[]RiSeN[]

[quote=']RiSeN[;40766112']You articulate well, and I am impressed.:thumbsup:

*wonders why he sees no gold stars or "scratch n sniff" stickers*

:sigh:


;)

[muffler dragon]

RiSeN[;40775066']*wonders why he sees no gold stars or "scratch n sniff" stickers*

:sigh:


;)

They're all from China, and they have lead in them.

:D

[]RiSeN[]

They're all from China, and they have lead in them.

:D


LOL ^_^^_^^_^

[Ivy]

I guess you're just more irritating than you realized!

No no no no no.......this is all wrong. ;)

It's:

I giss yor gist morr irritatin dan you realize.

Gee, Talmidah, get it together, will ya'? :D ^_^

[muffler dragon]

No no no no no.......this is all wrong. ;)

It's:

I giss yor gist morr irritatin dan you realize.

Gee, Talmidah, get it together, will ya'?

And even you're wrong. Sheesh.

Who in their right mind thinks you can get a "j" sound out of a "g"?

:doh:

:)

[Ivy]

Because trying to understand the nature of God with our finite minds is bound by the degree of revelation He gives us.

Trying to understand the nature of God is like trying to fit 200gig of data on a 6 gig HDD. That's why it always ends in mystery.





BTW, the gig analogy is excellent. :thumbsup:

[Ivy]

And even you're wrong. Sheesh.

Who in their right mind thinks you can get a "j" sound out of a "g"?

:doh:

:)

^_^ ^_^

So what's the "gist" of what you're saying????? ^_^

Tag. You're it. :P

[ContraMundum]

RiSeN[;40766112'][quote]

That would be one way of looking at it. Another would be that you are retreating from our discussion with only your opening statements as rebuttal..

How can something that does not need reason or logic be confusing?

You can not look at a rubix cube and say "Thats not confusing at all" when you will not attempt or can not match all six sides.

You are free to think what you will. Although your statements are what is usually brought against what one would do to arrive at a triune divinity.

Perhaps they have trouble with separating themselves from reason, logic and history when studying the bible.

I don't see how we can argue from logic since you don't see a need for it. And your dismissing my argument from scripture with "because I don't find it confusing at all" is not a valid counter. That you accept the logic and reason that implied a trinity but will now not accept logic and reason which shows it to be in discord with God's qualities and history is dishonest.


If you would like to indulge in Greek grammar, we can start with John 1:1, and discuss how the context does require a definite article when translating.

Also if you dislike modifying words I would think you might find these creeds interesting. They are from the Catholic Encyclopedia, so you don't think I am getting this from some anti-trinity crackpot site.

De Virg. Vel., 1

(1) Believing in one God Almighty, maker of the world,
(2) and His Son, Jesus Christ,
(3) born of the Virgin Mary,
(4) crucified under Pontius Pilate,
(5) on the third day brought to life from the dead,
(6) received in heaven,
(7) sitting now at the right hand of the Father,
(8) will come to judge the living and the dead
(12) through resurrection of the flesh.

De Praecept., 13 and 26

(1) We believe one only God,
(2) and the son of God Jesus Christ,
(3) born of the Virgin,
(4) Him suffered died, and buried,
(5) brought back to life,
(6) taken again into heaven,
(7) sits at the right hand of the Father,
(8) will come to judge the living and the dead
(9) who has sent from the Father the Holy Ghost.


(1) I believe in one God, maker of the world,
(2) the Word, called His Son, Jesus Christ,
(3) by the Spirit and power of God the Father made flesh in Mary's womb, and born of her
(4) fastened to a cross.
(5) He rose the third day,
(6) was caught up into heaven,
(7) set at the right hand of the Father,
(8) will come with glory to take the good into life eternal, and condemn the wicked to perpetual fire,
(9) sent the vicarious power of His Holy Spirit,
(10) to govern believers (In this passage articles 9 and 10 precede 8)
(12) restoration of the flesh.

Notice how the wording subtly but surely moves in a pro-trinity direction?

This is how "the Church" has "revealed" the trinity. Through doctrinal changes of men and not as you would have us believe through holy spirit.

Be they biblical or historical, you made no attempts to address any of the points I made, but only handwaved them with "I don't think so"'s.

I am quite disappointed. This is a debate sub-forum is it not?

Unitarian? *shivers* Not even close.

I'd love to respond to this, because I would argue that the scriptures are clear about the Trinity and the Greek grammar demands it, regardless of darkend human reason's inability to respond to revelation without having to "solve" everything. (This is why many in theology go too far- the fallible human mind seeks to understand, and in turn ends up denying one passage of scripture or another.)

I don't believe in fallible human reason when it undermines the clear passages of scripture (and I have assumed- perhaps mistakenly- that you already know the usual Trinitarian "proof texts" and know that there are very good and valid reason to believe this most important doctrine). I don't believe in the magisterial use of reason, but only the ministerial use. That is the essence of true theology- submitting reason to revelation, not vice versa. Scriptura locuta, res decisa est, NOT homo locuta res decisa est.

The problem I have is that I have to moderate here, and it's just too darn busy. I can't respond to this because I don't have the time.

I have no idea why you quoted the Catholic Encylopedia. It makes no difference to me. I believe the Trinity because Christ taught it to His Apostles and I remain faithful to their witness.

A simple explanation to anyone not familiar with this doctrine. (http://www.carm.org/doctrine/whatisthetrinity.htm)

If anyone wants to know why many Jewish Christians like myself believe in the Trinity, please pm me and I will help you.

[visionary]

Included in the doctrine of the Trinity is a strict monotheism which is the teaching that there exists in all the universe a single being known as God who is self-existent and unchangeable (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8).

[Ivy]

I don't know if this is the best way to describe it, but I think of the Trinity as being different facets of the same jewel, God.

I think there is a similar idea with the Sefirot, isn't there?......that they are aspects of God, not multiple gods.

[Colabomb]

I don't know if this is the best way to describe it, but I think of the Trinity as being different facets of the same jewel, God.

I think there is a similar idea with the Sefirot, isn't there?......that they are aspects of God, not multiple gods.

What you are describing is Modalism.

Modalism teaches that there is one "Person" of God, and he takes on different Roles dependant on what is necessary.

Trinitarianism, teaches that there are three "Persons" of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all three of whom, are the one God. It is a very difficult thing to understand, how one is three and three is one, but we find it in scripture, so we humbly submit.

Just as it is difficult to believe that God had no genesis, and we accept it, it should be that although the trinity is difficult, we should accept it.

[muffler dragon]

What you are describing is Modalism.

Modalism teaches that there is one "Person" of God, and he takes on different Roles dependant on what is necessary.

Trinitarianism, teaches that there are three "Persons" of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all three of whom, are the one God. It is a very difficult thing to understand, how one is three and three is one, but we find it in scripture, so we humbly submit.

Just as it is difficult to believe that God had no genesis, and we accept it, it should be that although the trinity is difficult, we should accept it.

I'd like to ask a question.

What leads you to believe that the nature of G-d is triune and not di-une, tetra-une, penta-une, n-une?

[Colabomb]

I'd like to ask a question.

What leads you to believe that the nature of G-d is triune and not di-une, tetra-une, penta-une, n-une?

The references throughout Scripture referring to one of three distinct persons, not two, not four.

[muffler dragon]

The references throughout Scripture referring to one of three distinct persons, not two, not four.

Please feel free to elaborate from the Tanakh as I'm not familiar with a single text that discusses three different "persons" of the godhead.

[Colabomb]

Please feel free to elaborate from the Tanakh as I'm not familiar with a single text that discusses three different "persons" of the godhead.

You know full well that we believe the fuller revelation of the godhead to be in the New Testament.

And Many here would argue that it is evident in the Tanakh as well, but I am not too prideful to admit I am weak in that department.

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by BereanTodd http://www3.foru.ms/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=40135917#post40135917)
Explain John 1 to me if Jesus is not God. Explain his accepting worship. Explain Phillipians 2 which tells us that Jesus is EXACTLY in all ways God. Explain "Before Abraham was born IAM". Explain "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father."

And do go allegorizing any of these, because that is lazy, and poor hermeneutics.

John 1:1
1εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

In begining the Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS God
Hi. Why change the greek wording around. I think it reads just fine word for word.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

John 1:1 | en <1722> {IN} arch <746> {A-BEGINNING} hn <2258> (5713) {WAS} o <3588> {THE} logoV <3056> {WORD,} kai <2532> {AND} o <3588> {THE} logoV <3056> {WORD} hn <2258> (5713) {WAS} proV <4314> {TOWARD/NEAR} ton <3588> {THE} qeon <2316> {GOD,} kai <2532> {AND} qeoV <2316> {GOD} hn <2258> (5713) {WAS} o <3588> {THE} logoV <3056> {WORD.}

Is this YHWH being caught away to YHWH?

Revelation 12:5............ kai <2532> {AND} hrpasqh <726> (5681) {WAS CAUGHT AWAY} to <3588> {THE} teknon <5043> {CHILD} authV <846> {OF HER} proV <4314> {TOWARD/NEAR} ton <3588> {THE} qeon <2316> {GOD} kai <2532> {AND} ton <3588> {THE} qronon <2362> {THRONE} autou <846> {OF HIM}

http://www.christianforums.com/t4507371-question-on-greek-in-reve-12-and-john-1.html#post36988062

Response poster: Just a quick note on the word order in the last part of this verse. While your translation is literally correct, it doesn't convey the meaning of the verse correctly. The phrase "kai theos en ho logos" is better translated "the Word was God."

Both "theos" and "logos" are in the nominative because "en" (eta nu) is an equative (or copulative verb). "theos" is recognized as the predicate of the sentence because it lacks the article. Likewise, "logos" is recognized as the subject because it has the article.

To translate the phrase as "God was the Word" gives the wrong impression in English because in English word order determines subject/predicate relationship.
===========================

Response poster: I think translators in their desire to translate John 1:1 into a clone of Gen 1:1 removed the intended meaning from the verse.

For instance the Greek noun Arche does not have to be translated "beginning" though it often is. In some cases the word means things like "rulers" or "magestry."
The word "was" can also be translated variously according to the context.
Instead of the phase "In the beginning was the word" (or "The word was in the beggining") I like "The logos existed in the magestry"
The rest falls into place.

"The logosystem existed as a prototypical archetype.
This logosystem projected the divine.
This logosystem was the image of the divine."

[muffler dragon]

You know full well that we believe the fuller revelation of the godhead to be in the New Testament.

I know that. Hence, my suggestion for the Tanakh.

And Many here would argue that it is evident in the Tanakh as well, but I am not too prideful to admit I am weak in that department.

I should state that I'm not trying to bait you nor shame you. I'm asking if you have ever considered my question, and if you've answered it through some sort of study.

To be quite honest, I see no reason to stick with the number three.

[torahgrandma]

I am just waiting for someone to pull the "avodah zara" card :o

[ContraMundum]

Please feel free to elaborate from the Tanakh as I'm not familiar with a single text that discusses three different "persons" of the godhead.


Well, apart from the fact that this post is baiting, because we all know that you already know the texts that we say point to the Trinity in the Tanach-

I could ask you where in the Tanach do we find things like the sefirot, reincarnation, metatron, etc etc etc- all things believed by some Jews, and all at one time or another try to "prove" such beliefs from the Tanach.

The fact of the matter is this- if a Christian is consistant, they must say that the NT is a further and clearer revelation from God, just as each book in the Tanach is indebted to a previous revelation in some way. Thus The Trinity (to an orthodox Christian at least- I use the term in the general sense) is clearly taught in the NT and is seen in shadow in the Tanach (other believers in Yeshua may disagree with the Trinitarian doctrine, but their beliefs are not in question in this thread).

This is why the only argument you can demand from a Christian is not "show me a single text that mentions three persons in the Godhead in the Tanach" but rather "show me why you believe the Tanach has shadows of the Trinity in it". We just don't believe that any one text in a older revelation defines the Trinity as the later, fuller revelation of the NT does.

You're asking us to defend our beliefs with your belief system, which we do not hold to and therefore it is not a sufficient question.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

I am just waiting for someone to pull the "avodah zara" card :oAvodah Zarah (Hebrew: "foreign worship," meaning "idolatry") is the name of a tractate in the Talmud, located in Nezikin, the fourth Order of the Talmud dealing with damages. The main topic of the tractate is laws pertaining to Jews living amongst Gentiles, including regulations about the interaction between Jews and "idolaters" (who represented most of the Gentile population during the time of the Talmud), both for distancing Jews from the act of idolatry in every shape as well as distancing Jews from the threat of cultural assimilation.
I have studied the origins of trinitarism, and it is not an original teaching.

[Henaynei]

I don't know if this is the best way to describe it, but I think of the Trinity as being different facets of the same jewel, God.

I think there is a similar idea with the Sefirot, isn't there?......that they are aspects of God, not multiple gods.

What you are describing is Modalism.

Modalism teaches that there is one "Person" of God, and he takes on different Roles dependant on what is necessary. that is not entirely accurate - Modalism teaches that G-d was HaAv in the Old Testament, Yeshua in the New Testament before resurrection and HaRuakh after resurrection, each separate and none existing at the same time .... Thus, G-d never exists as HaAv, HaBen, and HaRuakh at the same time, he can only manifest himself as one person at any specific time....

I think what Ivy is saying is an attempt to describe the multifaceted nature of G-d - all "views" of the One, just as one might view one cut of a fabulous diamond... that faucet is a view of G-d from your perspective but is not the whole nor is it distinct or separate from the Whole... I think that is kinda what she is saying ...

[visionary]

Focusing on God the Holy Spirit for a second..... Are we to pray to the Holy Spirit? Are we to bow down before the Holy Spirit?

We are to pray to God the Father, and we are to bow down before Him.

We are told that we will bow down before Yeshua as King of Kings and Lord of Lords one day but while He walked the earth, even He stated that we are to worship the Father.

So why the different worship for God in His different manifestations?

[torahgrandma]

Avodah Zarah (Hebrew: "foreign worship," meaning "idolatry") is the name of a tractate in the Talmud, located in Nezikin, the fourth Order of the Talmud dealing with damages. The main topic of the tractate is laws pertaining to Jews living amongst Gentiles, including regulations about the interaction between Jews and "idolaters" (who represented most of the Gentile population during the time of the Talmud), both for distancing Jews from the act of idolatry in every shape as well as distancing Jews from the threat of cultural assimilation.

I have studied the origins of trinitarism, and it is not an original teaching.

Ok muff man, I'll bite. So is worship of Jesus avodah zara in your opinion, and the opinion of Judaism?

[muffler dragon]

Well, apart from the fact that this post is baiting, because we all know that you already know the texts that we say point to the Trinity in the Tanach-

I could ask you where in the Tanach do we find things like the sefirot, reincarnation, metatron, etc etc etc- all things believed by some Jews, and all at one time or another try to "prove" such beliefs from the Tanach.

The fact of the matter is this- if a Christian is consistant, they must say that the NT is a further and clearer revelation from God, just as each book in the Tanach is indebted to a previous revelation in some way. Thus The Trinity (to an orthodox Christian at least- I use the term in the general sense) is clearly taught in the NT and is seen in shadow in the Tanach (other believers in Yeshua may disagree with the Trinitarian doctrine, but their beliefs are not in question in this thread).

This is why the only argument you can demand from a Christian is not "show me a single text that mentions three persons in the Godhead in the Tanach" but rather "show me why you believe the Tanach has shadows of the Trinity in it". We just don't believe that any one text in a older revelation defines the Trinity as the later, fuller revelation of the NT does.

You're asking us to defend our beliefs with your belief system, which we do not hold to and therefore it is not a sufficient question.

Contra:

Our respectable discourse ended a long time ago (regretably). Go about your business and I'll go about mine. This is the second time you've intimated something about me, and I'm not about to dignify you or your thoughts enough to continue in this junk.

[muffler dragon]

Ok muff man, I'll bite. So is worship of Jesus avodah zara in your opinion, and the opinion of Judaism?

In all civility, I wasn't playing the avodah zera card.

I have asked in a few forums the very same question I asked Colabomb, and I have never had anyone actually offer up an answer.

Please feel free to take a stab at my question if you want. I would really like to know how a the n-unity of G-d in the Tanakh is strictly considered "tri"? I have reflected on this when I was a Christian and now that I'm not.

[ContraMundum]

Contra:

Our respectable discourse ended a long time ago (regretably). Go about your business and I'll go about mine. This is the second time you've intimated something about me, and I'm not about to dignify you or your thoughts enough to continue in this junk.

I have no idea why you think that post was about *you*. It's not. I had no idea respectable discourse had ended between us either.

I was comparing your belief system to our belief system, nothing more. Your questioning could have been addressed to Christians with the Christian belief system in mind. This is why you've never had an "answer" to your question- because it's like asking a scientist to find the words of Hawking in the works of Newton. It's impossible, because although both are scientists both are different in time and place and one is further down the track in regards knowledge.

Christianity teaches that shadows of the Trinity are found in the Tanach, nothing more. To ask for more than that is asking a Christian to be dishonest to his own belief system.

This is similar to what Cola was saying to you above.

If you really want an answer, your question should be "what shadows (or types) of the Trinity does Christianity believe are found in the Tanach?".

[visionary]

Originally Posted by muffler dragon
Please feel free to elaborate from the Tanakh as I'm not familiar with a single text that discusses three different "persons" of the godhead.I am not familiar with a single text that discusses three, and the closest I think you can come to one is the three visitors to visit Abraham before going on to Sodom.

[torahgrandma]

I am not familiar with a single text that discusses three, and the closest I think you can come to one is the three visitors to visit Abraham before going on to Sodom.

Was YHVH one of those visitors?

[simchat_torah]

Well, apart from the fact that this post is baiting...Oh please contra...

Besides, everyone knows your outright desire to limit both the Jews and Noachides posting ability on this forum, there's utterly no need for you to create trumped up charges.

You're asking us to defend our beliefs with your belief system...Actually, he in no way insisted that the trinity be fitted into the Jewish religion. He merely asked to prove the trinity was even a vague concept from the perspective of the Tenach. I think it would be important to highlight that the trinity was not a created theory in a post-Jesus era.

If these "hints" are truly there, then it can stand on its own two feet. No need to shoot darts from behind cover.

[visionary]

Was YHVH one of those visitors?Gen17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless. "Lord" used in the next verse is the same one that Abraham recognised from before. Genesis 18:1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; 2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, 3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: 4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:

[muffler dragon]

I have no idea why you think that post was about *you*. It's not.

You accuse me of baiting directly. That makes it personal.

I was comparing your belief system to our belief system, nothing more. Your questioning could have been addressed to Christians with the Christian belief system in mind.

My question is for all trinitarians regardless of the semantics between different sects.

This is why you've never had an "answer" to your question- because it's like asking a scientist to find the words of Hawking in the works of Newton. It's impossible, because although both are scientists both are different in time and place and one is further down the track in regards knowledge.

I've already received my answer from you. It was flippant, IMO.

Christianity teaches that shadows of the Trinity are found in the Tanach, nothing more. To ask for more than that is asking a Christian to be dishonest to his own belief system.

I'm not asking for the trinity to be found in the Tanakh. I'm asking why it's a trinity instead of any other number of unified persons.

If you really want an answer, your question should be "what shadows (or types) of the Trinity does Christianity believe are found in the Tanach?".

I didn't ask that, because it's not my question.

[muffler dragon]

Actually, he in no way insisted that the trinity be fitted into the Jewish religion. He merely asked to prove the trinity was even a vague concept from the perspective of the Tenach. I think it would be important to highlight that the trinity was not a created theory in a post-Jesus era.

If these "hints" are truly there, then it can stand on its own two feet. No need to shoot darts from behind cover.

Tell me something, ST. From your former belief system, did you ever question how the number of persons was three instead of two, four, five, six, etc?

[Colabomb]

Tell me something, ST. From your former belief system, did you ever question how the number of persons was three instead of two, four, five, six, etc?


It is three, because there are three persons identified as God.

[muffler dragon]

It is three, because there are three persons identified as God.

Okay.

Taking this further.

Can you show me that there are three and not another number from the Tanakh?

Edit: FWIW, I'm trying to take you outside of the circularity of the argument.

[Colabomb]

Okay.

Taking this further.

Can you show me that there are three and not another number from the Tanakh?

Edit: FWIW, I'm trying to take you outside of the circularity of the argument.

Christians have an entire other testament to appeal to. I never made the claim I believe in the Trinity based on the Tanakh.

In fact I make it quite clear that the New Testament Reveals quite a bit about God not found in the Tanakh.

[simchat_torah]

Tell me something, ST. From your former belief system, did you ever question how the number of persons was three instead of two, four, five, six, etc?Honestly? At first... no. I didn't question Church Dogma. I believed without question.

Then... I started asking questions. Quesitons which couldn't be answered so easily, and this began to shape the way I moved forward.

I was (as Christianity claims) a firm believer that if the NT or Church made the claims, it should easily be verified in the "old testament". As I came to (personally) see that wasn't true, I began to adopt and evolve my beliefs.

-Yafet

[ContraMundum]

Oh please contra...

Besides, everyone knows your outright desire to limit both the Jews and Noachides posting ability on this forum, there's utterly no need for you to create trumped up charges.

That's no true at all. Everyone who actually knows what is going on knows that the staff are obligated to clean the place up from anti-Christian comments. I've stated in another thread that I wish everyone could post, but that some have not been respectful of Christian doctrines. While it is ok to debate doctrine, it is not ok to call them names or insinuate that Christians are somehow inferior, dishonest or anything of the sort because one doesn't agree with their doctrine.

Actually, he in no way insisted that the trinity be fitted into the Jewish religion. He merely asked to prove the trinity was even a vague concept from the perspective of the Tenach. I think it would be important to highlight that the trinity was not a created theory in a post-Jesus era.

I didn't interpret his post that way, sorry.

If these "hints" are truly there, then it can stand on its own two feet. No need to shoot darts from behind cover.

No one is shooting darts at all. To state the blatantly obvious, Christians do in fact see the "hints" loud and clear, but we don't let our beliefs rest on that fact alone. We believe we have a clarification and elucidation of the doctrines of the Tanach in the NT, which (we believe) clearly ends many arguments and questions centred in study of the Tanach.

In a sense, what I've been saying all along is that the whole debate is senseless, because:

a) everyone here already knows the standard proof texts in which Christians base the doctrine of the Trinity,

and

b) everyone knows that if you don't accept the NT, you will never agree with the Christian interpretion of the Tanach.

Thus:

The whole excercise becomes a futile argument, and like rams head-butting, we go at it again and again..."pow...that felt good...let's do it again". No one will change sides in this discussion. We've already made up our minds. People who have a real curiosity on this topic wil go and buy books or something, hopefully.

[torahgrandma]

Okay.

Taking this further.

Can you show me that there are three and not another number from the Tanakh?




Genesis 18
1 And the LORD (YHVH - H3068) appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre. And he was sitting at the door of the tent in the heat of the day.
2 And he lifted up his eyes and looked; and, behold, three men (enoshiym) were standing by him. And he saw, and ran to meet them from the entrance of the tent. And he bowed to the ground.
3 And he said, My Lord (Adonay - H136), if now I have found favor in Your sight, I beg You, do not leave from near Your servant.
4 Please allow a little water to be taken and You wash Your feet, and rest under the tree.
5 And I will bring a bite of bread and will sustain Your heart. Then You may pass on, for this is why You have passed over to Your servant. And they said, Do so, as you have said.

Question:

Did our father Abraham bow prostrate before a man and call him Adonay? Wouldn’t that be forbidden worship (avodah zara)?

In verse 22 we find:

22 And the men (enoshiym) faced around from there and went toward Sodom. And Abraham was still standing before the LORD (YHVH).
23 And Abraham drew near and said, Is it so? Will You cut off the righteous with the wicked?

Then we go to Genesis 19

1 And the two angels (malachiym) came into Sodom at evening. And Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. And Lot saw, and he rose up to meet them
and bowed his face to the earth
.
2 And he said, Behold, now, my lords (adoni - H113), please turn in to your servant's house and lodge, and wash your feet; and rise early and go to your way. And they said, No, for we will lodge in the street.

Let us first notice that Lot only tipped his face to the earth and called them adoni (my lords) and not Adonay (my Lord).

Also notice that there are now only two, when there were originally three at Abraham’s tent. Three enoshiym minus two malachiym equals one YHVH.

In 18:1 we find:

Vayera elayv YHVH (and came to him YHVH)

In verse three we have:

Vayomar Adonay im-na matsa tiy chen ba eyneyka al-na ta abor me al abdeka

The nikudot in the Masoretic text are for the voicing Adonay, not adoni.

Vayomar Adonay (and said my Lord)

That pointing is found over four hundred times in the Masoretic text, and in all instances, it is in reference to YHVH.

So according to the plain text of the Tenach, we have the “invisible” God also appearing in the flesh. That would make it two different forms I would assume. ;)

And then we have this:

Ezekiel 11
5 And the Spirit of The LORD fell on me and said to me, Speak, So says The LORD: So you have said, house of Israel, for I Myself know the elevations of your spirit.

Isaiah 61
1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is on Me, because The LORD has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the meek. He has sent Me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to captives, and complete opening to the bound ones;

1Samuel 16
13 And Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers. And the Spirit of The LORD came upon David from that day and onward. And Samuel rose up and went to Ramah.

1Samuel 19
20 And Saul sent messengers to take David. And they saw the assembly of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as head over them. And the Spirit of God came on Saul's messengers, and they also prophesied.

Psalms 51
10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a steadfast spirit within me.
11 Do not cast me out from Your presence, and do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.

Ezekiel 37
1 The hand of The LORD was on me. And He brought me by the Spirit of The LORD and made me rest in the midst of a valley, and it was full of bones.

Two plus one equals three according to traditional math. The NT need only to be used to confirm this, which it does.

Let the games begin. :o

[A_Pioneer]

Your Three and Revelations' (7) seven spirits of God, Re.1:4; 3:1; 4:5 & 5:6, makes a "Perfect Ten" (10)!
In my book it is (1) one God & (7) seven spirits of God make (8) eight, the "Image of the unseen God" the perfection of man in the sight of God.
Shalom

[torahgrandma]

Your Three and Revelations' (7) seven spirits of God, Re.1:4; 3:1; 4:5 & 5:6, makes a "Perfect Ten" (10)!


Why not try to do something scholarly, and answer the proof I have supplied from the Tenach as muff man requested. I am sure the rabbi will do his best to answer it textually.

[A_Pioneer]

Why not try to do something scholarly, and answer the proof I have supplied from the Tenach as muff man requested. I am sure the rabbi will do his best to answer it textually.Because I am not a "Scholar". Just an old man who has read the bible! This is what the bible says in "Plain English" even an old man can understand it, no mystry at all! Keep you mystry religion, I want none of it! Todah rabah!
Shalom

[tsali]

Jesus did not appear until around 4 BC, the Word
was before Abraham was! Yeshua said he was sent!!!
[\quote]
Ironically, Jesus also said he was before Abraham.
[quote=A_Pioneer;40145152]
Who sent him? If he was god he came on his own volition! Something is wrong with this scene.
Yeshua is/was flesh and blood human sent by God.
He is the same character as God, made in the image of God, the second man Adam, perfect in every way, able to take away the sins of the world.
Another thing if Jesus is God then God played a dirty trick on the Children of Israel! Gave them a mountain to high to climb and said you go straight to hell if you can't climb it! Only I can climb it! My god is not a false God giving his chosen people an impossible job and when they fail give their promises to Christians for free, they don't have to do anything... When pigs can fly!!!
God has not forsaken the people he forknew!
If it is important you that all know the trinity, the burden of proof is yours.
I teach what is "p'sh't"/simple in scripture.
No additions.

Shalom
This reminds me of the elder son's complaint in the parable of the prodigal son. And the complaint of the early laborers who were paid the same as the latter ones in another parable. On the other hand, it also reminds me of common Christian responses to notions of Universal atonement. God would not let him get by so easy after he made me work so hard.

I do understand how a requirement for belief in the diety of Christ could seem onerous to someone disinclined to believe it. I do not think it is necessary to conflate the issues of whether Jesus is divine with whether or not belief in his divinity is required. The first part fits better within the scope of the OP in my opinion.



Tsali

[visionary]

Good point, is it a requirement that we accept Yeshua's deity for salvation?

[A_Pioneer]

Jn. 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death
to life.
Hear the word of the Lord, believe him who sent it/him! Do this and you will be saved. So says the Lord.


Shalom

[visionary]

Jn. 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death
to life.
Hear the word of the Lord, believe him who sent it/him! Do this and you will be saved. So says the Lord.


ShalomThat is regarding salvation in Yeshua. Not necessarily Yeshua's divinity faith to get salvation.

[A_Pioneer]

That is regarding salvation in Yeshua. Not necessarily Yeshua's divinity faith to get salvation.Yud hey vav hey is salvation. Yeshua came in ha shem of God as the means of that gift to mankind.
No where in the whole bible does it claim or command belief in the deity of Yeshua. All the writers of the NT claim he is the son of God. The first-born of creation/word of God. So being the word of God/son of God makes him (as God)!
If you believe the word of God and believe Yod Hey Vav Hey/God sent his word into the world to save the world you are saved. Jn. 5:24 So says Yeshua in ha Shem of the Lord.
Shalom

[visionary]

I also believe Him when Yeshua also said.... John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? and what brought it on for Yeshua to say this... John 10:22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. 24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me....30 I and my Father are one. and their response was 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Yeshua claimed it is not blasphemy to say that you are the son of God. 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 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?

[A_Pioneer]

I also believe Him when Yeshua also said.... and what brought it on for Yeshua to say this... and their response was Yeshua claimed it is not blasphemy to say that you are the son of God.Good! Yes he stated for a fact, I am the Son of God. I find no fault in what he said, only what mankind says he says and didn't say. Read the Purim account of speaking in ha shem of the King. Es 8:8.
Blessed is he who comes in ha shem of the Lord.

Shalom

[visionary]

How many pray to the Holy Spirit? Do you think that is right? How many worship the Holy Spirit?

In order to be a god you must worship and pray to your god. While I believe the Hol Spirit is of God, I do not think it is right to worship or pray to the Holy Spirit directly.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

How many pray to the Holy Spirit? Do you think that is right? How many worship the Holy Spirit?

In order to be a god you must worship and pray to your god. While I believe the Hol Spirit is of God, I do not think it is right to worship or pray to the Holy Spirit directly. God our Father is the Holy Spirit, it's one of His many name titles. A person who has many name titles is not a multiple personage. God is a Spirit, and He is Holy. And all that have, or will have life immortal, are called gods. NIV. See the word "GOD" #468. For "Eloah." Gods Spirit.

Habakkuk 3
Habakkuk's Prayer
1 A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet. On shigionoth .
2 LORD, I have heard of your fame;
I stand in awe of your deeds, O LORD.
Renew them in our day,
in our time make them known;
in wrath remember mercy.

3 God(Gods Spirit) came from Teman,
the Holy One from Mount Paran.
Selah(Pause and consider)
His glory covered the heavens
and his praise filled the earth.

4 His splendor was like the sunrise;
rays flashed from his hand,
where his power was hidden.

5 Plague went before him;
pestilence followed his steps.

6 He stood, and shook the earth;
he looked, and made the nations tremble.
The ancient mountains crumbled
and the age-old hills collapsed.
His ways are eternal.

7 I saw the tents of Cushan in distress,
the dwellings of Midian in anguish.

8 Were you angry with the rivers, O LORD ?
Was your wrath against the streams?
Did you rage against the sea
when you rode with your horses
and your victorious chariots?

9 You uncovered your bow,
you called for many arrows.
Selah
You split the earth with rivers;

10 the mountains saw you and writhed.
Torrents of water swept by;
the deep roared
and lifted its waves on high.

11 Sun and moon stood still in the heavens
at the glint of your flying arrows,
at the lightning of your flashing spear.

12 In wrath you strode through the earth
and in anger you threshed the nations.

13 You came out to deliver your people, (Zion)
to save your anointed one. (Rev 2:28.)
You crushed the leader of the land of wickedness,
you stripped him from head to foot.
Selah

14 With his own spear you pierced his head
when his warriors stormed out to scatter us, (Isaiah 29:8.)
gloating as though about to devour
the wretched who were in hiding.

15 You trampled the sea with your horses,
churning the great waters.

16 I heard and my heart pounded,
my lips quivered at the sound;
decay crept into my bones,
and my legs trembled.
Yet I will wait patiently for the day of calamity
to come on the nation invading us.

17 Though the fig tree does not bud
and there are no grapes on the vines,
though the olive crop fails
and the fields produce no food,
though there are no sheep in the pen
and no cattle in the stalls,

18 yet I will rejoice in the LORD,
I will be joyful in God my Savior.

19 The Sovereign LORD is my strength;
he makes my feet like the feet of a deer, (The person is a Ram.)
he enables me to go on the heights.
For the director of music. On my stringed instruments.
Ezekiel 46:4. The burnt offering the prince brings to the LORD on the Sabbath day is to be six male lambs and a ram...

[visionary]

So there is really two gods, one the Father and the other the Son? Since you have "God our Father is the Holy Spirit, it's one of His many name titles"?? Am I understanding you correctly?

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

So there is really two gods, one the Father and the other the Son? Since you have "God our Father is the Holy Spirit, it's one of His many name titles"?? Am I understanding you correctly? There is only one Almighty God and (YHWH) is one of His names. This universe was created for Peniel who is also known as Jesus. Anything he says or does is to be viewed as if God had said or done it Himself. He is the one who appears as God.

Micah 5
A Promised Ruler From Bethlehem
1 Marshal your troops, O city of troops,
for a siege is laid against us.
They will strike Israel's ruler
on the cheek with a rod.
2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times. "

3 Therefore Israel will be abandoned
until the time when she who is in labor gives birth
and the rest of his brothers return
to join the Israelites.

4 He will stand and shepherd his flock
in the strength of the LORD,
in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God.
And they will live securely, for then his greatness
will reach to the ends of the earth.

5 And he will be their peace.


Deliverance and Destruction
When the Assyrian invades our land
and marches through our fortresses,
we will raise against him seven shepherds,
even eight leaders of men.

[visionary]

Peniel. i.e., the face of God.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Peniel. i.e., the face of God. Yes, and or Penuel. And in the book of Enoch his name is Phanuel.

[Tonks]

How many pray to the Holy Spirit? Do you think that is right? How many worship the Holy Spirit?

In order to be a god you must worship and pray to your god. While I believe the Hol Spirit is of God, I do not think it is right to worship or pray to the Holy Spirit directly.

Why not? Do you deny the Most Holy Trinity?

[Henaynei]

Why not? Do you deny the Most Holy Trinity?the only One we are instructed to pray to is HaShem/HaAv/the Father

there is no example in scripture of anyone worshipping or praying to the Ruakh/Spirit

[Henaynei]

Why not? Do you deny the Most Holy Trinity?there are many of us here who are non-Trinitarian (see my icon)

Personally my belief in non-Trinitarianism includes belief that Yeshua is both G-d and Messiah.

[debi b]

there are many of us here who are non-Trinitarian (see my icon)

Personally my belief in non-Trinitarianism includes belief that Yeshua is both G-d and Messiah.

;)

This is how the Peshitta renders 1 Cor 12:3
Therefore I make known to you that...no one can say that Yeshua is Hashem (Aramaic=Mar-Yah) except by the Holy Spirit.

If you really think about this you can get the same from a Greek version....

[Henaynei]

;)

This is how the Peshitta renders 1 Cor 12:3


If you really think about this you can get the same from a Greek version....:thumbsup: :amen:

[Texasbluebonnet]

Trinity is RANK Heresy! "Precepts of man."
The only benefit derived by accepting trinity is to be accepted as a Christian!
Teach it and be least in the kingdom.
You are in effect calling God a liar!
If it were a salvation issue, it would have been designated as such and it is no where except in Christian literature! What does that scream? Heresy!
Not one of the Talmidim ever addressed the Holy Spirit!
Why don't you change "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." To "He is the invisible God."? In effect that is what you say!
It is your reward that is at stake, no skin off my nose!
Teach away! I stand on solid, high ground. I am not in the least afraid to meet Yeshua. I do not expect him to admonish me for not teaching something he himself did not teach. You may be convinced, but being convinced is not infallable. You could be right, but there is not one word of caution for me in scripture, on the otherhand, remember the "Millstone."

Shalom

Whoa, you don't have to yell, lol. I mean easy there buffalo. There are way too many pages to read, but for the record I believe in the Trinity *raises hand.

[Texasbluebonnet]

the only One we are instructed to pray to is HaShem/HaAv/the Father

there is no example in scripture of anyone worshipping or praying to the Ruakh/Spirit

I don't think you actually worship the Spirit...just my thoughts. :scratch:

[visionary]

Texas.... explain your understanding of the trinity....

[Texasbluebonnet]

Umm...okie dokie.

Well, I kind of like the shamrock interpretation. If you look at the shamrock there are three parts, but it's one leaf. God is one, yes but I believe that what we call the Trinity (and yeah, I know Trinity isn't techinically in the Bible, it was just invented to make it easier for our brains to comprehend) is three aspects of the same God. I believe in the Trinity because I believe that all three were present since the beginning. We say the Father and Son because that's the only way we can understand the nature of God, and the Spirit is another way of saying His omnipresence. It's like His breath. I hope that's clear and if I left anything out, or if I missed anything I'll try to correct that.

[visionary]

Umm...okie dokie.

Well, I kind of like the shamrock interpretation. If you look at the shamrock there are three parts, but it's one leaf. God is one, yes but I believe that what we call the Trinity (and yeah, I know Trinity isn't techinically in the Bible, it was just invented to make it easier for our brains to comprehend) is three aspects of the same God. I believe in the Trinity because I believe that all three were present since the beginning. We say the Father and Son because that's the only way we can understand the nature of God, and the Spirit is another way of saying His omnipresence. It's like His breath. I hope that's clear and if I left anything out, or if I missed anything I'll try to correct that.You seem to be saying something closer to Triune that trinity in belief...

[Texasbluebonnet]

You seem to be saying something closer to Triune that trinity in belief...


Huh :scratch: ? Please explain.

[Colabomb]

You seem to be saying something closer to Triune that trinity in belief...

It is impossible for the greatest theological minds to comprehend the trinity, you can perhaps understand if some amateur messageboard Christians to mess it up a little :)

[Vaneeza Malkah]

I'm going with the trinity being Avodah Zarah, and triunity/trinity makes little difference to me.

[A_Pioneer]

It is impossible for the greatest theological minds to comprehend the trinity, you can perhaps understand if some amateur messageboard Christians to mess it up a little :)
Since it is impossible for the greatest theological minds, then why teach it? No one comprehends it! It is not something that you need to show as a passkey to the next world, so why do you try to teach it to people?:confused: :sleep: :scratch: Wisdom is justified by her deeds/children.

[Colabomb]

Since it is impossible for the greatest theological minds, then why teach it? No one comprehends it! It is not something that you need to show as a passkey to the next world, so why do you try to teach it to people?:confused: :sleep: :scratch: Wisdom is justified by her deeds/children.


We teach it because it is true.

Are you honestly telling me that you understand the fullness of God? Are you telling me that you understand every aspect of your faith?

Christianity is filled with mysteries such as this.

Surely you believe in a God who has no beginning? How do you intend to explain that?

Just because something is beyond the ability of our human minds to fully comprehend, does not make it untrue.

[ContraMundum]

I honestly don't think the Trinity is that difficult to understand. While no human could ever fully plumb the depths of the nature of God, the basics as divinely revealed to us aren't that difficult when approached with humility.

[Ivy]

Whoa, you don't have to yell, lol. I mean easy there buffalo.

:D :D LOL!!!!!!!! :D :D

Whew that was funny. :D I'm gonna have to use that line sometime. It might come in handy with my teenage son....he likes to yell at lot, too.

And I never let him drink caffeine; maybe some other folks around here should think about ditching the caffeine too. Sheesh!

[Steve Petersen]

Just because something is beyond the ability of our human minds to fully comprehend, does not make it untrue.

Nor does it make it true. This is where a rational person has to throw up his hands and say 'I don't know.' But we can't have that in religion can we? We MUST answer all questions with dogma. The religious mind responds with arrogance and says 'I know the unknowable.'

[Texasbluebonnet]

Nor does it make it true. This is where a rational person has to throw up his hands and say 'I don't know.' But we can't have that in religion can we? We MUST answer all questions with dogma. The religious mind responds with arrogance and says 'I know the unknowable.'


Isn't it enough to have a belief in G-d the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? I mean, are we all in agreement that belief in all three is valid irregardless of what form that belief takes?

[Texasbluebonnet]

:D :D LOL!!!!!!!! :D :D

Whew that was funny. I'm gonna have to use that line sometime. It might come in handy with my teenage son....he likes to yell at lot, too.

And I never let him drink caffeine; maybe some other folks around here should think about ditching the caffeine too. Sheesh!



Lol! I hear ya :D !

[Steve Petersen]

Isn't it enough to have a belief in G-d the Father, Son, and Holy

It should have been, but Eusebius and Constantine didn't think so. Now it is the benchmark for defintion of 'Christian.'

[A_Pioneer]

Isn't it enough to have a belief in G-d the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? I mean, are we all in agreement that belief in all three is valid irregardless of what form that belief takes?
I have searched the scriptures and I don't find a requirement that anyone has to believe in three gods or three forms of god to be saved and if it's not needed for salvation and it 'trinity' is an obstacle to anyone it is counter productive and as Sha'ul put it 1 Cor. 8:11 "and so by your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Messiah died." To top that off no one has as yet to explain the plain language of Yeshua when he said; Jn. 5:24 Truly, truly I say to you, he who hears ny word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life, he does not come into judgement

[Texasbluebonnet]

It should have been, but Eusebius and Constantine didn't think so. Now it is the benchmark for defintion of 'Christian.'


Why did you alter my orriginal message? I'm just wondering if it was an accident, it not then...oh well. :sigh:

[Steve Petersen]

Why did you alter my orriginal message? I'm just wondering if it was an accident, it not then...oh well. :sigh:

Accidental. Thought I had selected all of what I wanted to quote but inadvertently left out part.

[Texasbluebonnet]

Accidental. Thought I had selected all of what I wanted to quote but inadvertently left out part.


Oh okay. I hope I didn't sound too judgemental :blush: . It's hard to know the tone of a message since you can't hear the speakers voice. But I agree with you. I think it should be enough to just believe in G-d the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I don't see why we have to split hairs. I wish things like this could just be simpler. :sigh: But, nooooo we always have to complicate things :P . Don't you ever think that?

[Colabomb]

Nor does it make it true. This is where a rational person has to throw up his hands and say 'I don't know.' But we can't have that in religion can we? We MUST answer all questions with dogma. The religious mind responds with arrogance and says 'I know the unknowable.'

But we do know. We don't know HOW he is both three and one, but we know THAT he is three and one.

And that is what we teach. That our God is Truly (not Symbolically) Three, and Truly (Not Symbolically) One.

[Steve Petersen]

But we do know. We don't know HOW he is both three and one, but we know THAT he is three and one.

And that is what we teach. That our God is Truly (not Symbolically) Three, and Truly (Not Symbolically) One.

Could be.

Can't be proven rationally. Has to be accepted on faith (and a particular way of reading the NT.)

[Colabomb]

Has to be accepted on faith

As is the belief that God is without a Beginning. As is the belief that God gave a covenant to moses. As is the Belief that God became man.

Our entire Faith is built on Faith. (Pun intended).

[Simon_Templar]

Could be.

Can't be proven rationally. Has to be accepted on faith (and a particular way of reading the NT.)
If you accept the new testament then it can be proven rationally.

If you don't accept the new testament, why bother with the discussion at all.

I'm sticking my nose in this against my better judgement, because there is likely to be little proffit from such a conversation.

Never the less, those who say that Jesus did not claim to be God, or that the New Testament does not clearly define Jesus as God are either ignorant of the new testament, or they are deceived.

The New Testament leaves only two possible conclusions regarding the nature of God, either he is Three in One, or He is putting on elaborate one-deity puppet show which involves a lot of talking to himself.

Further, the revealed nature of both God and the world itself require that God be a multiple being.

First, the fact that God is love, and God is also eternally unchanging require that he must be a multiple being. If God is to be love, and to be loving, he must have an object to love. If he is completely one with no diversity of personality, who or what did he love before the creation?

The idea of a personal God who exists in loving relationship with his people requires that such a relationship exist within God himself. If it were not so, it would mean either that God was not love, and did not have love prior to the creation (and as such he could not have it no, and could not by nature be a relational being) or it would require that God is dependant upon his creation.

So, a loving God who is a relational being, MUST be a multiple being.

This is the how and the why of the fact that God is both transendant and immanent.

In the world, the creation, this nature is also reflected by the fact that we and the creation itself display the otherwise unexplainable mixing of unity in diversity.

The Holy Trinity is hinted at the in the Old Testament, but it is revealed in Jesus Christ, indeed that was the very purpose for which he came, to reveal God to man. To make visible the mystery which had previously been hidden.

If God is relational, if He is Love, then He has been in relationship, and in love eternally. This is only explained adequetly by the Trinity, which was revealed in Jesus Christ.

Without the Trinity you either have a God who is only transendant, and thus always remote and removed from his creation, or you have a God who is only immanent, and thus dependant upon his creation.

[simchat_torah]

If you accept the new testament then it can be proven rationally.I couldn't disagree more. Even your own Christian scriptures have to be shoe-horned to create a trinity.If you don't accept the new testament, why bother with the discussion at all. Its not a matter of accepting scriptures, but rather a view of them. Some don't accept your view, get over it. Don't be so haughty.

Never the less, those who say that Jesus did not claim to be God, or that the New Testament does not clearly define Jesus as God are either ignorant of the new testament, or they are deceived. Or they actually read what's there. They didn't read into it. period. Further, the revealed nature of both God and the world itself require that God be a multiple being.
Don't know how you squeezed logic into that statement, but whatever. First, the fact that God is love, and God is also eternally unchanging No one denies that.
require that he must be a multiple being.ah, and there's the jump in logic. How did you come to that conclusion?
1) G-d = Love
2) G-d does not Change
3) Therefore, G-d must be a multiple being????

If he is completely one with no diversity of personality, who or what did he love before the creation?Himself. I mean, its the same answer you're getting at, but instead of "Himself" being 3 people, I say it is 1.
The idea of a personal God who exists in loving relationship with his people requires that such a relationship exist within God himself. If it were not so, it would mean either that God was not love, and did not have love prior to the creation (and as such he could not have it no, and could not by nature be a relational being) or it would require that God is dependant upon his creation.
This is really convoluted, but it still doesn't prove G-d is 3 beings. at all.
So, a loving God who is a relational being, MUST be a multiple being.annnnnd, there's that jump in logic again.
The Holy Trinity is hinted at the in the Old TestamentUmmm, where?
but it is revealed in Jesus Christ,Let's play a little game. Its called "You go get your Strong's Concordance and find the word 'trinity' in the NT." Want to play?
If God is relational,Then He'd have a hayday with your post.
if He is LoveHe is.
then He has been in relationship, and in love eternally.Do you "love" at all? Were you always married? Your presentation baffles the essence of logic. But that's already been established.
This is only explained adequetly by the Trinity,Why not a Quadrinity? Or a Quintuplity? How about Singularity?
Without the Trinity you either have a God who is only transendantYes, He is above all things, with nothing His equal.
and thus always remote and removed from his creationNow you're stretching it. You are above your child, your child must respect you. However, you can "come down" to your child's level and chat, no?
Why must you make G-d so complicated?
or you have a God who is only immanent, and thus dependant upon his creationThat makes no sense! Wouldn't an immanent being NOT be dependant upon its creation?

well, shoehorn away. But don't say that non-trinitarian MJ's "Don't believe in Scripture". No, they just don't believe in your version of the interpretation.

I'll admit, you have every right to interpret it however you wish, but don't judge others so harshly becuase they choose to interpret the vague words that are written differently than you do.

[ContraMundum]

Funny how people always try to blame Constantine for everything they disagree with.

The guy had no ecclesiastical authority- just civil authority, and everything the Church believed after Constantine can be found before Constantine. It's far more probable to assume that he was led by the bishops rather than the other way around. I'd say that's the way history reads.

[visionary]

Funny how people always try to blame Constantine for everything they disagree with.

The guy had no ecclesiastical authority- just civil authority, and everything the Church believed after Constantine can be found before Constantine. It's far more probable to assume that he was led by the bishops rather than the other way around. I'd say that's the way history reads.Take a look at the bishops who were called to the meeting and look at all of the leaders of believers who were excluded and you will see how the creed is not representative of the faith of all believers.

[ContraMundum]

If you accept the new testament then it can be proven rationally.

I agree- it's very simple. No gymnastics needed. "In the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is pretty black and white. It's singular in the Greek. It's taught in the ancient witness of the church, in its liturgy and lectionaries and fits in well with the whole witness of scripture.

But Simon, would you agree that many people reject the Trinity because it is illogical to them (let's not discuss the other reasons, like the rejection of the ekklesia in general) ?

The question remains- do we read scripture through faith or reason, or both and which leads the other?

I'm sticking my nose in this against my better judgement, because there is likely to be little proffit from such a conversation.

This is true. :thumbsup:

[ContraMundum]

Take a look at the bishops who were called to the meeting and look at all of the leaders of believers who were excluded and you will see how the creed is not representative of the faith of all believers.

I've seen it, and really, I like the guys who were called- they were more scriptural IMHO. The other bishops couldn't win the debate anyway.

I don't have grudges against the church, and am not afraid to submit to authority if I think it is enlightened and passes my "Berean test" (Acts 17:11). I think the Nicene Creed is A-OK and completely in harmony with scripture, reason, and of course continuity with the men who went before that Council.

I know others here think otherwise- and that's ok- for them. I will never fully understand why others reject the Trinity, nor do I expect others to understand why I accept it. We're wired differently, and that's ok too. Having a diverse opinion in the mind may not be as important as having a Divine action in the heart anyway (but that's another topic).

[Texasbluebonnet]

You seem to be saying something closer to Triune that trinity in belief...


Since no one, especially Visionary replied to my post about what Triune is, I looked it up.

Dictionary.com defines Triune this way:

tri·une http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png /ˈtraɪhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngyun/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trahy-yoon] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1.three in one; constituting a trinity in unity, as the Godhead.

–noun 2.(initial capital letterhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) the Trinity.


and this from American Heritage Dictionary:

tri·une (trī'yōōn') Pronunciation Key (http://cache.lexico.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)

adj. Being three in one. Used especially of the Christian Trinity.

n. A trinity.


[tri- + Latin ūnus, one; see oi-no- in Indo-European roots.]


So...basically Triune and Trinity are the same thing :doh: . Hmmm... :idea: very interstng. Just thought I'd share that in case someone finds it as fascinating as I do. As a result, I believe in the Trinity.

[simchat_torah]

"In the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is pretty black and whiteDespite the fact that this passage doesn't appear in the earlier manuscripts? Despite that this doesn't prove the concept of a trinity?

If you want to shoe-horn it into your box, sure... it can mean whatever you want.

Are there hints of a trinity? maybe.

But don't start declaring that its obvious, and others who can't see it are stupid.

[Colabomb]

Despite the fact that this passage doesn't appear in the earlier manuscripts? Despite that this doesn't prove the concept of a trinity?

If you want to shoe-horn it into your box, sure... it can mean whatever you want.

Are there hints of a trinity? maybe.

But don't start declaring that its obvious, and others who can't see it are stupid.

It may not have been penned by Mark, however it was part of the Book by the time it was accepted and canonized by the Church. If it is an addition, it is a very old addition approved by the Universal Church.

[Texasbluebonnet]

It may not have been penned by Mark, however it was part of the Book by the time it was accepted and canonized by the Church. If it is an addition, it is a very old addition approved by the Universal Church.

:amen: :thumbsup: !

[simchat_torah]

If it is an addition, it is a very old addition approved by the Universal Church.The only place in the NT where the baptism passage exists that explicitly states "Baptise in the name of the Father, and of Jesus, and of the Holy Ghost" is in Matthew 28:19
Every other passage regarding baptism explicitly does not list the trinity. By most accounts, it was late in the 2nd century that the change took place to this passage. I could quote for you extensive ammounts of historical citations, but I think the following paper summarizes it much better than I could (and it is much more extensive):
WHAT NAME SHOULD BE USED IN CHRISTIAN BAPTISM?

Should the repentant Christian be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ only or should baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be followed? What should be believed and what difference does it make if any?

The controversy arises when the scripture in Matthew 28:19,20 is used as the Biblical basis for Christian baptism. The verses state: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Trinitarian Concepts

These verses of scripture are used to support a Trinitarian concept of God which most trinitarians use to support their beliefs. However, commentators doubt the authenticity of these verses. The following extracts from Bible commentaries and dictionaries are a few of the comments made about Matthew 28:19.

Peakes Commentary on the Bible: "This mission is described in the language of the church and most commentators doubt that the Trinitarian formula was original at this point in Mt.'s Gospel, since the NT elsewhere does not know of such a formula and describes baptism as being performed in the name of the Lord Jesus (e.g. Acts 2:38; 8:16, etc.)."

The New Bible Commentary Revised: '19 Make disciples of all nations: the universal authority of the Lord leads to the universal mission of the church. Here is the authority for Christian baptism. It would not have been likely that it would have been practised so early after Pentecost (see Acts 2:38-41) if it had not been commanded by Jesus. It was administered 'in the name of Jesus' (Acts 2:38; 8:16, etc.), the name indicating ownership. In due course it came to be administered in the name of the Trinity. The reference to the Trinity here may not be intended as a baptismal formula but as a theological description of the meaning of the sacrament."

A New Standard Bible Dictionary: "As to the original form of the Baptismal Confession (the NT shows no trace of a baptismal Formula used by the baptiser, whose part is that of a mere minister and witness), it was at first apparently only 'Jesus is the Messiah' or 'the Lord'.

When exactly the Trinitarian form arose we do not know, the date of Mt 28:19, Did 7, being uncertain."

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: "There is, however, grave doubt whether they may be regarded as ipsissima verba of Jesus. The evidence of Acts 2:38; 10:48 (c.f. 8:16; 19:5), supported by Gal 3:27; Rom 6:3, suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but "in the name of Jesus Christ" or "in the name of the Lord Jesus."

The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Some scholars thus doubt the accuracy of the quotation in Matthew and suggests that it reflects a tradition formed by a merging of the idea of spiritual baptism (as in Acts 1:5), early baptismal rites (as in Acts 8:16), and reports of Pentecostalism after such rites (as in Acts 19:5-6)."

The authority for baptism is not given in Matthew 28:19, but rather this verse reflects the mission of the church to make disciples of all the nations. The accuracy of this scripture has been questioned. Hastings Encyclopaedia of Religion asserts that baptism had always been in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr when the Trinitarian formula had been used.

The Insertion Into Matthew 28:19

There is further evidence to suggest that "baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" is a corruption of the original "in My name". In the Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius quotes the passage as: "Go and make all nations disciples in my name, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." In the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew by Shem Tob the passage reads: "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever."

It is clear that the baptismal formula does not appear in these texts and would seem to be an insertion in order to support the doctrine of the Trinity. That ultimate expression of faith in professing Christians is manifested in the form of the Trinitarian baptism.

Wilheim Bousset writes in Kurios Christos: "... it is still essentially a baptism in the name of Jesus."

F C Conybeare wrote: "In the course of my reading I have been able to substantiate these doubts of the authenticity of the text of Matthew 28:19 by adducing patristic evidence against it so weighty that in future the most conservative of divines will shrink from resting on it any dogmatic fabric at all while the most enlightened will discard it as completely as they have its fellow text of the Three Witnesses [1 John 5:7]."
and "... of any other form of text [Eusebius] had never heard until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice" (Hibbert Journal 1902).

In Black's Bible Dictionary on Matthew 28:19 he writes: "The Trinitarian formula was a late addition by some reverent Christian mind."

Furthermore, the Trinitarian Dr Peake (Commentary): "The command to baptise into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion."

G. R. Beesley-Murray stated: "There is not one example in the whole New Testament literature of a baptism taking place in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

RC Jerusalem Bible (1966) states: "It may be that this formula ... is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptising in the name of Jesus."

The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics writes on the subject: "The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matt. 28:19 twenty-one times, either omitting everything between 'nations' and 'teaching,' or in the form 'make disciples of all nations in my name.' The latter being more frequent."

Dean Stanley (Christian Institutions) wrote: "Doubtless the more comprehensive form in which baptism is now everywhere administered in the threefold name ... soon superseded the simpler form of that in the name of the Lord Jesus only."

In the Outline of the Theology of the New Testament, Hans Conzelmann wrote on page 49: "The oldest baptismal formula has one member [ie Jesus]."

The International Biblical Commentary: "This is the only occurrence of the formula from the first century ... Elsewhere baptism is said to be 'in the name of Jesus' (Acts 8:16; 19:5)".

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia: "Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus."

The Expositors' Bible Commentary: "Many deny the authenticity of this Trinitarian formula, however not on the basis of doubtful reconstructions of the development of doctrine, but on the basis of the fact that the only evidence we have of actual Christian baptism indicates a consistent monadic formula-baptism in Jesus's name".

The Change in the Second Century

The Britannica Encyclopaedia admits that baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to words Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the 2nd Century. This is confirmed by the Canney Encyclopaedia of Religion that admits that the early church baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century.

Wilheim Bousset states: "... The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was only later inserted."

The primary source of a different baptismal formula appeared in the writings of Justin Martyr who wrote in 140 AD: "For in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ and of the Holy Ghost, they then received the washing with water."

However, history does not clearly define which person first introduced the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The Catholic Encyclopaedia, volume 2 on page 435 admits that it was the Roman Catholic church which made the change to the Trinitarian baptismal formula.

During the second century baptism in Jesus name had been challenged by trinitarians and they condemned those who did not baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the third century as heretics. At one time the trinitarians demanded individuals who desired to rejoin the church to be rebaptised with the Trinitarian formula. It is interesting to note that Tertullian wrote that Christians are to be immersed three times into the three persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

During the time of Tertullian, the majority of the believers professed in the one true God and rejected the plurality of gods. He wrote: "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 worshipers of the One God."

In 225-256 A.D. Pope Stephen of Rome addressed the issue of baptism in Jesus name verses the Trinitarian formula. He allowed those who baptised in Jesus name to re-enter the church without being re-baptised using the Trinitarian formula. It had been considered by church historians that Pope Stephen of Rome recognised baptism in Jesus name. Joseph Hefele writes in a History of the Christian Councils: "... Stephen, and those who think with him, attribute no value to the baptism, except it be administered in the name of Jesus Christ."

The Council of Nicea

During the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine towards Catholicism in 312 A.D., the trinitarians gained political control to eliminate any resistance towards their teachings. In 325 A.D., the Council of Nicea discussed the Arian-Athanasius issue and declared that those who believed in baptism in Jesus' name were required to be rebaptised using the Trinitarian baptismal formula prior to entering the Catholic church. The Trinity doctrine had been accepted by Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. Finally, Pope Pelaguis stated that "there are many who say that they baptised in the name of Christ alone and by a single immersion." There were still individuals who maintained baptism in Jesus name alone throughout those troubled times of persecution. Today, more people are becoming aware of this issue through the efforts of many publications, individuals and churches.

Baptism in the New Testament

John the Baptist preached a baptism of repentance and only with water (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:4-5). He did not baptise with the Holy Spirit. He pointed people to Christ's coming and to repentance from sins.

The Early Disciples

This baptism of John was used by the other disciples who, after Pentecost in 30 AD, received the power of the Holy Spirit. "For John truly baptised with water, but you shall be baptised with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." (Acts 1:5). They baptised with water immersion following the example of Jesus (Matthew 3:16). The repentant Christian then received the laying on of hands and received the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:6; Hebrews 6:2).

The Name Jesus Christ in Christian Baptism

The following verses in the pages of the Bible should be read to prove once and for all whose names or names should be used in Christian Baptism!
Acts 2:38: "Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.""
Acts 8:16: "For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus."
Acts 10:48: "And he commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days."
Acts 19:5: "When they heard this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus."
Romans 6:3: "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into His death?"
1 Cor. 6:11: "But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."
1 Cor. 12:12,13: "For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptised into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free-and have all been made to drink into one Spirit."
1 Cor. 12:27: "Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually."
Galatians 3:27: "For as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ."

The early disciples always used the name Lord Jesus or Jesus Christ only. They never used the name of the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit! Peter baptised in the name of Jesus Christ only (Acts 2:38). The apostle Paul baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 19:4,5).

The Trinitarian formula had never been used in Christian baptism as the above scriptures indicate.


http://www.themeofthebible.com/articles/David%20Clayton/WHAT%20NAME%20SHOULD%20BE%20USED%20IN%20CHRISTIAN%20BAPTISM.html

[Simon_Templar]

Funny how people always try to blame Constantine for everything they disagree with.

The guy had no ecclesiastical authority- just civil authority, and everything the Church believed after Constantine can be found before Constantine. It's far more probable to assume that he was led by the bishops rather than the other way around. I'd say that's the way history reads.
This is very true, Constantine is a favorite whipping boy. The problem is that the people who like to make use of him as a convenient target know next to nothing of the actual history involved.

I've done pretty extensive study on the Roman empire, the actual facts involved with Constantine are pretty interesting.

Looking at the council of Nicea, and the doctrine of the trinity. It is alleged that Constantine created this doctrine and manipulated the council etc. Supposedly this is based on Constantine's own private pagan beliefs that he wants to build into Christianity.

The problem is that Constantine himself, when you read the actual history, had no vested interest and really didn't care which way the council decided. Then, even further, Constantine's personal spiritual advisor WAS AN ARIAN, and opponent of the trinity doctrine.

The result was that Constantine himself not long after the council REJECTED THE TRINITY DOCTRINE and became an Arian. The most popular period for arianism was not before the council of Nicea, it was actually AFTER the council.

Prior to the council the Arian view was basically a small sect that was only held by a few people in egypt, and a few people around the caeseria area. There were basically 3-4 Church leaders who supported it.

Of those only two refused to agree with the council.

After the council, Constantine actually reversed the ruling of the council of Nicea and recalled the Arians who had been exiled and instead exiled the leading trinitarian supporters.

From that point on Constantine began to favor and promote Arianism by actively promoting and supporting arian candidates to ecclesiastical positions of leadership.

The result of this was that almost the entire eastern church became heavily influenced by arianism, or semi-arianism. It was actually the western Church, which was farther removed from Constantine's direct influence that remained trinitarian.

After Constantine died, his two (remaining) sons took over the empire, one ruling in the east and one in the west. They soon engaged in a civil war, partially because the eastern empire was Arian because of Constantine, but the western Empire remained trinitarian and viewed the promotion and enforcing of arianism in the east by the emperor as heretical.

This issue remained wrapped up in civil war until the advent of Theodosius the Great who reunited the empire, and being from the west, he enforced the ruling of the council of Nicea and largely put an end to Arianism.

The irony here is that Arianism only survived BECAUSE constantine supported it. If it were not for Imperial promotion, Arianism would never have been as powerful or widespread as it was.

Another common one is that Constantine established Sunday worship, because he was a sun worshipper.

The problem with this one is that Sunday worship can be proven to have been the ordinary practice of the Church since the beginning of the second century, more than 200 years before Constantine.

Constantine had NOTHING whatsoever to do with establishing sunday worship. It is clearly evident in Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr's writings LONG before Constantine was ever born.

What Constantine ACTUALLY did do was he decreed in 321 AD (if memory serves) that workers would rest and shops would be closed on sunday.

By that time, sunday worship had already been practiced for at the very least, 221 years. The fact is, that sunday worship is established in the new testament.

Now, Prior to this decree by Constantine, sunday had not been regarded as the sabbath by Christians. This is also clearly shown by the early writings. The fact is that the early Christians did not keep a sabbath at all in the Jewish sense.
That is, they did not have a required day of rest. One of the early writers states that the Christians, if they kept the sabbath at all, would sometimes devote it as a day of studying scripture. But that the primary day of worship was sunday.
Sunday was not regarded as a new sabbath in the sense that it was not required to be a day of rest. This is clearly seen in the fact that many early Christians were slaves or poor and had no choice but to work on sunday.

What Constantine did was to establish sunday as a legal STATE holiday so that people didn't have to work.

The basic issue here is that people are too trusting. They read this stuff from sources who are ultimately biased and pushing an agenda.. and because it is what they want to hear, or it fits with what they are thinking, they just accept it.
It is, however, not historically true, or accurate.

[visionary]

You can be baptised for the remission of sins. You can be baptised for believing in the Father, and if a gentile will need to be further baptised in the faith of the Son, and again baptised in the faith of the Holy Spirit.

This is not a belief in three gods, it is a baptism into faith, a belief in the work of each....

Did you know that the work of the Father lasted until Abraham, where the scriptures went from the geneology of the father to the geneology of the sons til Yeshua which was the next two thousand years.. Then came the baptism of the Holy Spirit which has been for believers these last two thousand years... that is why scriptures tell us... Matt 28:20
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
So baptism is the crowning of a teaching or understanding that washes over you like water and cleanses you from previous thinking. Mr 10:39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized: That is why there are many mikvahs... It is like a graduation ceremony... fully submersed in it.1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

[ContraMundum]

Despite the fact that this passage doesn't appear in the earlier manuscripts?

Yes it does. (If you are referring to Matthew 28:19, which is what I'm referring to). There are small variants. I have a list of them if you wish to discuss that. It's one of my favorite topics. I've got all the known variants at the tip of my fingers in more than one source. :thumbsup:

But don't start declaring that its obvious, and others who can't see it are stupid.

I was trying to say that to me it is obvious but that I accept that to others it is not obvious and I'll never understand why. I've never called anyone stupid over this matter. As I said "I know others here think otherwise- and that's ok- for them. I will never fully understand why others reject the Trinity, nor do I expect others to understand why I accept it. We're wired differently, and that's ok too. Having a diverse opinion in the mind may not be as important as having a Divine action in the heart anyway (but that's another topic)."

[ContraMundum]

This is very true, Constantine is a favorite whipping boy. The problem is that the people who like to make use of him as a convenient target know next to nothing of the actual history involved.

I've done pretty extensive study on the Roman empire, the actual facts involved with Constantine are pretty interesting.

Looking at the council of Nicea, and the doctrine of the trinity. It is alleged that Constantine created this doctrine and manipulated the council etc. Supposedly this is based on Constantine's own private pagan beliefs that he wants to build into Christianity.

The problem is that Constantine himself, when you read the actual history, had no vested interest and really didn't care which way the council decided. Then, even further, Constantine's personal spiritual advisor WAS AN ARIAN, and opponent of the trinity doctrine.

The result was that Constantine himself not long after the council REJECTED THE TRINITY DOCTRINE and became an Arian. The most popular period for arianism was not before the council of Nicea, it was actually AFTER the council.

Prior to the council the Arian view was basically a small sect that was only held by a few people in egypt, and a few people around the caeseria area. There were basically 3-4 Church leaders who supported it.

Of those only two refused to agree with the council.

After the council, Constantine actually reversed the ruling of the council of Nicea and recalled the Arians who had been exiled and instead exiled the leading trinitarian supporters.

From that point on Constantine began to favor and promote Arianism by actively promoting and supporting arian candidates to ecclesiastical positions of leadership.

The result of this was that almost the entire eastern church became heavily influenced by arianism, or semi-arianism. It was actually the western Church, which was farther removed from Constantine's direct influence that remained trinitarian.

After Constantine died, his two (remaining) sons took over the empire, one ruling in the east and one in the west. They soon engaged in a civil war, partially because the eastern empire was Arian because of Constantine, but the western Empire remained trinitarian and viewed the promotion and enforcing of arianism in the east by the emperor as heretical.

This issue remained wrapped up in civil war until the advent of Theodosius the Great who reunited the empire, and being from the west, he enforced the ruling of the council of Nicea and largely put an end to Arianism.

The irony here is that Arianism only survived BECAUSE constantine supported it. If it were not for Imperial promotion, Arianism would never have been as powerful or widespread as it was.

Another common one is that Constantine established Sunday worship, because he was a sun worshipper.

The problem with this one is that Sunday worship can be proven to have been the ordinary practice of the Church since the beginning of the second century, more than 200 years before Constantine.

Constantine had NOTHING whatsoever to do with establishing sunday worship. It is clearly evident in Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr's writings LONG before Constantine was ever born.

What Constantine ACTUALLY did do was he decreed in 321 AD (if memory serves) that workers would rest and shops would be closed on sunday.

By that time, sunday worship had already been practiced for at the very least, 221 years. The fact is, that sunday worship is established in the new testament.

Now, Prior to this decree by Constantine, sunday had not been regarded as the sabbath by Christians. This is also clearly shown by the early writings. The fact is that the early Christians did not keep a sabbath at all in the Jewish sense.
That is, they did not have a required day of rest. One of the early writers states that the Christians, if they kept the sabbath at all, would sometimes devote it as a day of studying scripture. But that the primary day of worship was sunday.
Sunday was not regarded as a new sabbath in the sense that it was not required to be a day of rest. This is clearly seen in the fact that many early Christians were slaves or poor and had no choice but to work on sunday.

What Constantine did was to establish sunday as a legal STATE holiday so that people didn't have to work.

The basic issue here is that people are too trusting. They read this stuff from sources who are ultimately biased and pushing an agenda.. and because it is what they want to hear, or it fits with what they are thinking, they just accept it.
It is, however, not historically true, or accurate.


That is one of the best summaries of the story I've sene on these forums. Well done. However, the people who tag Constantine as a bad guy will never change their mind- even though it is obvious that they tag him for the wrong errors. I have no idea why people trust the agenda-minded idealogues above the majority of the witness of history. I guess conspiracy theories and scapegoats give people reasons not to change their opinions- perhaps the opinions have deeper reasons for sticking.