View Full Version : Trinity - Should You Believe It?


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lets-say-few
08-10-2009, 16:06
DO YOU believe in the Trinity? Most people in Christendom do. After all, it has been the central doctrine of the churches for centuries.

The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: "Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity." And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]."

The New Encyclopædia Britannica observes: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament."

Bernhard Lohse says in A Short History of Christian Doctrine: "As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity."

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology similarly states: "The*N[ew] T[estament] does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. 'The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence' [said Protestant theologian Karl Barth]."

Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins affirmed: "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; .*.*. they say nothing about it." —Origin and Evolution of Religion.

Historian Arthur Weigall notes: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord."—The Paganism in Our Christianity.

So, do YOU believe in trinity?

UnkleBob
08-10-2009, 16:09
I'm out.
No offence.

f0rd
08-10-2009, 16:17
No, the concept is found nowhere in the hebrew bible. But saying that I don't believe in God.

This concept is is a later invention, many Early Christians didn't believe in the trinity case in point Arianism.

purdyamos
08-10-2009, 16:20
I'm out.
No offence.

Going by your siggy you're a Quadruplicity! Do you believe in yourself?

PuressenceUK
08-10-2009, 16:21
No like anything religious it's a load of old twaddle...........next.

Lets-say-few
08-10-2009, 16:23
If the Trinity is not the Bible teaching why are there so many trinitarians? :)

mick taker
08-10-2009, 16:24
NOT another GOD BOTHERERS thread....SHEESH!....go buy a church or mosque or synagogue or something if you wish to preach!

Lets-say-few
08-10-2009, 16:26
NOT another GOD BOTHERERS thread....SHEESH!....go buy a church or mosque or synagogue or something if you wish to preach!


mick taker

Do you believe in Trinity? Yes or no? We are not preaching here :)

f0rd
08-10-2009, 16:34
If the Trinity is not the Bible teaching why are there so many trinitarians? :)

Possibly because it was a line of though that was adopted by christians sects that had the power to marginalised others.

But come on there is so much of errancy in the bible the ein sof nature of God isn't really a forerunner issue.

Lets-say-few
08-10-2009, 16:37
Possibly because it was a line of though that was adopted by christians sects that had the power to marginalised others.

But come on there is so much of errancy in the bible the ein sof nature of God isn't really a forerunner issue.


f0rd

errancy? 4 EXAMPLE???

f0rd
08-10-2009, 16:47
f0rd

errancy? 4 EXAMPLE???

I'll post what I have said on this forum before:

If the bible is supposed to be without error why do we find such glaring errors such as.

The birth of Jesus, Matthew says he was born under Herod's reign (which ended in 4 BCE) and Luke says he was born when Quirinius was governing Syria and conducting a census (which happened in 6 CE) we have a disparity of dates about a decade apart.

We know who the governors of Syria were between 12 and 4 BCE

Marcus Titius 12 to 9 BCE
Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus 9 to 6 BCE
Publius Quinctilius Varus 6 to 4 BCE

We know even before, but I list these three to make the point

Quirinius was fighting in a war in Asia Minor from roughly 6 to 1 BCE

While this war going on he was in the province of Galatia by command of Augustus.

4 BCE King Heord the Great died.

purdyamos
08-10-2009, 16:51
If the Trinity is not the Bible teaching why are there so many trinitarians? :)


Naughty schoolgirls have always been a popular cultural archetype.

teeny
08-10-2009, 16:59
What is the Trinity?
The word "trinity" is a term used to denote the Christian doctrine that God exists as a unity of three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each of the persons is distinct from the other, yet identical in essence. In other words, each is fully divine in nature, but each is not the totality of the other persons of the Trinity. Each has a will, loves, and says "I," and "You" when speaking. The Father is not the same person as the Son who is not the same person as the Holy Spirit who is not the same person as the Father. Each is divine, yet there are not three gods, but one God. There are three individual subsistences, or persons. The word "subsistence" means something that has a real existence. The word "person" denotes individuality and self awareness. The Trinity is three of these, though the latter term has become the dominant one used to describe the individual aspects of God known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

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). Therefore, it is important to note that the doctrine of the Trinity is not polytheistic as some of its critics proclaim. Trinitarianism is monotheistic by definition and those who claim it is polytheistic demonstrate a lack of understanding of what it really is.

The Trinity
God is three persons
Each person is divine
There is only one God.
Many theologians admit that the term "person" is not a perfect word to describe the three individual aspects/foci found in God. When we normally use the word person, we understand it to mean physical individuals who exist as separate beings from other individuals. But in God there are not three entities, nor three beings. God, is a trinity of persons consisting of one substance and one essence. God is numerically one. Yet, within the single divine essence are three individual subsistences that we call persons.

Each of the three persons is completely divine in nature though each is not the totality of the Godhead.
Each of the three persons is not the other two persons.
Each of the three persons is related to the other two, but are distinct from them.
The word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. But this does not mean that the concept is not taught there. The word "bible" is not found in the Bible either, but we use it anyway. Likewise, the words "omniscience," which means "all knowing," "omnipotence," which means "all powerful," and "omnipresence," which means "present everywhere," are not found in the Bible either. But we use these words to describe the attributes of God. So, to say that the Trinity isn't true because the word isn't in the Bible is an invalid argument.

Is there subordination in the Trinity?
There is, apparently, a subordination within the Trinity in regard to order but not substance or essence. We can see that the Father is first, the Son is second, and the Holy Spirit is third. The Father is not begotten, but the Son is (John 3:16). The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 5:26). The Father sent the Son (1 John 4:10). The Son and the Father send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26). The Father creates (Isaiah 44:24), the Son redeems (Gal. 3:13), and the Holy Spirit sanctifies (Rom. 15:16).

This subordination of order does not mean that each of the members of the Godhead are not equal or divine. For example, we see that the Father sent the Son. But this does not mean that the Son is not equal to the Father in essence and divine nature. The Son is equal to the Father in his divinity, but inferior in his humanity. A wife is to be subject to her husband but this does not negate her humanity, essence, or equality. By further analogy, a king and his servant both share human nature. Yet, the king sends the servant to do his will. Jesus said, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me" (John 6:38). Of course Jesus already is King, but the analogy shows that because someone is sent, it doesn't mean they are different than the one who sent him.

Critics of the Trinity will see this subordination as proof that the Trinity is false. They reason that if Jesus were truly God, then He would be completely equal to God the Father in all areas and would not, therefore, be subordinate to the Father in any way. But this objection is not logical. If we look at the analogy of the king and in the servant we certainly would not say that the servant was not human because he was sent. Being sent does not negate sameness in essence. Therefore, the fact that the Son is sent does not mean that He is not divine any more than when my wife sends me to get bread, I am not human.

Is this confusing?
Another important point about the Trinity is that it can be a difficult concept to grasp. But this does not necessitate an argument against its validity. On the contrary, the fact that it is difficult is an argument for its truth. The Bible is the self revelation of an infinite God. Therefore, we are bound to encounter concepts which are difficult to understand -- especially when dealing with an incomprehensible God who exists in all places at all times. So, when we view descriptions and attributes of God manifested in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we discover that a completely comprehensible and understandable explanation of God's essence and nature is not possible. What we have done, however, is derive from the Scripture the truths that we can grasp and combine them into the doctrine we call The Trinity. The Trinity is, to a large extent, a mystery. After all, we are dealing with God Himself.

It is the way of the cults to reduce biblical truth to make God comprehensible and understandable by their minds. To this end, they subject God's word to their own reasoning and end in error. The following verses are often used to demonstrate that the doctrine of the Trinity is indeed biblical.

Matt. 28:18, Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
1 Cor. 12:4-6, Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.
2 Cor. 13:14, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.
Eph. 4:4-7, There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. 7But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.
1 Pet. 1:2, "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure."
Jude 1:20-21, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; 21keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life."1

f0rd
08-10-2009, 17:02
The trinty is the father God , Jesus the son and the holy spirit which is what we christians believe in !

...but it's a nonsensical notion that isn't found in the hebrew scripture, the concept is pretty much anathema to the Jews of which Jesus is the alleged Messiah (noting he didn't fulfil the Messianic requirements).

Lets-say-few
08-10-2009, 17:33
...but it's a nonsensical notion that isn't found in the hebrew scripture,

Not only in Hebrew scriptures but in NEW TESTAMENT TOO :)
TRINITY IS PAGAN DOCTRINE.

f0rd
08-10-2009, 17:38
What is the Trinity?
The word "trinity" is a term used to denote the Christian doctrine that God exists as a unity of three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Could you find the term in the bible please?

Each of the persons is distinct from the other, yet identical in essence. In other words, each is fully divine in nature, but each is not the totality of the other persons of the Trinity. Each has a will, loves, and says "I," and "You" when speaking. The Father is not the same person as the Son who is not the same person as the Holy Spirit who is not the same person as the Father. Each is divine, yet there are not three gods, but one God. There are three individual subsistences, or persons. The word "subsistence" means something that has a real existence. The word "person" denotes individuality and self awareness. The Trinity is three of these, though the latter term has become the dominant one used to describe the individual aspects of God known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Right, thats nice. But none of that is found in the Old Testament.

The holy spirit isn't a person in the OT, it's the essence of God, its called the divine wind the Ruach HaKodesh, here's the kicker in not one point in the OT does the divine wind is does it state "individual subsistences" part of a God Head, but it's just a wind that emanates.

The notion that a Man (don't forget Jesus was still a man, See 2 Timothy 4:6 "the man christ") goes again Old Testament teaching, God isn't a man, he doesn't change.

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).
None of those verses allude to the trinity at all.

Therefore, it is important to note that the doctrine of the Trinity is not polytheistic as some of its critics proclaim Trinitarianism is monotheistic by definition and those who claim it is polytheistic demonstrate a lack of understanding of what it really is.
Without no basis in scripture. If you are including the holy spirit cf divine wind in the trinity, why not the grace of God?

The Trinity
God is three persons
Each person is divine
There is only one God.
So god is divisible? So much for the oneness of God.

Many theologians admit that the term "person" is not a perfect word to describe the three individual aspects/foci found in God. When we normally use the word person, we understand it to mean physical individuals who exist as separate beings from other individuals. But in God there are not three entities, nor three beings. God, is a trinity of persons consisting of one substance and one essence. God is numerically one. Yet, within the single divine essence are three individual subsistences that we call persons.
...come again


Each of the three persons is completely divine in nature though each is not the totality of the Godhead.
So God is divisible, since you say "each is not the totality of the Godhead.".

Each of the three persons is not the other two persons.
So a divisible God...

Each of the three persons is related to the other two, but are distinct from them.
Pretty much above then.

The word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. But this does not mean that the concept is not taught there.
Cool I mentioned this earlier.

The word "bible" is not found in the Bible either, but we use it anyway.
Because the bible deals with nature of God, not it's self.

Likewise, the words "omniscience," which means "all knowing," "omnipotence," which means "all powerful," and "omnipresence," which means "present everywhere," are not found in the Bible either. But we use these words to describe the attributes of God. So, to say that the Trinity isn't true because the word isn't in the Bible is an invalid argument.
Granted, but these things are taught in the bible, we can list verses that clearly cover all these facets of God, the trinity not so much.

Is there subordination in the Trinity?
There is, apparently, a subordination within the Trinity in regard to order but not substance or essence. We can see that the Father is first, the Son is second, and the Holy Spirit is third. The Father is not begotten, but the Son is (John 3:16). The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 5:26). The Father sent the Son (1 John 4:10). The Son and the Father send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26). The Father creates (Isaiah 44:24), the Son redeems (Gal. 3:13), and the Holy Spirit sanctifies (Rom. 15:16).


Protip: Read in context!

Isaiah 44:24 You do realise this about Israel you know God's "first born", oh and if you had read the verse prior you would know this:

23 Sing, O ye heavens; for the LORD hath done it: shout, ye lower parts of the earth: break forth into singing, ye mountains, O forest, and every tree therein: for the LORD hath redeemed Jacob, and glorified himself in Israel.

I'll deal with the rest later.

Halibut
08-10-2009, 17:41
Surely the question is wrong? It ought to read 'Do you believe in the trinity' rather than 'Should you.'

f0rd
08-10-2009, 17:47
Not only in Hebrew scriptures but in NEW TESTAMENT TOO :)
TRINITY IS PAGAN DOCTRINE.

I wouldn't get too cocky, I still think your views are pretty out there.

Lets-say-few
08-10-2009, 17:49
I'll post what I have said on this forum before:

If the bible is supposed to be without error why do we find such glaring errors such as.

The birth of Jesus, Matthew says he was born under Herod's reign (which ended in 4 BCE) and Luke says he was born when Quirinius was governing Syria and conducting a census (which happened in 6 CE) we have a disparity of dates about a decade apart.

We know who the governors of Syria were between 12 and 4 BCE

Marcus Titius 12 to 9 BCE
Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus 9 to 6 BCE
Publius Quinctilius Varus 6 to 4 BCE

We know even before, but I list these three to make the point

Quirinius was fighting in a war in Asia Minor from roughly 6 to 1 BCE

While this war going on he was in the province of Galatia by command of Augustus.

4 BCE King Heord the Great died.

f0rd

So you think Luke made an Error? :)

Luke explains: "Now in those days a decree went forth from Caesar Augustus for all the inhabited earth to be registered; (this first registration [B]took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria;) and all people went traveling to be registered, each one to his own city."—Luke 1:1; 2:1-3.

Critics (Like you) widely attack this passage as a blunder or, worse, a fabrication. They insist that this census and the governorship of Quirinius took place in 6 or 7 C.E. If they are right, this would cast serious doubt on Luke’s account, for the evidence suggests that Jesus was born in 2 B.C.E.

But these critics ignore two key facts.

First, Luke acknowledges that there was more than one census—note that he refers to "this first registration." He was well aware of another, later registration. (Acts 5:37) This later census is the same one that the historian Josephus described, which occurred in 6 C.E.

Second, the governorship of Quirinius does not force us to assign Jesus’ birth to that late date. Why? Because Quirinius evidently served in that post twice. Many scholars recognize that his first term fell about 2 B.C.E.


P.S.
Many scholars, in view of the evidence of an earlier governorship by Quirinius, suggest the years 3-2*B.C.E. for his governorship. While these dates would harmonize satisfactorily with the Biblical record, the basis on which these scholars select them is in error. That is, they list Quirinius as governor during those years because they place his rule after that of Varus and hence after the death of Herod the Great, for which they use the popular but erroneous date of 4*B.C.E.

Some scholars call attention to the fact that the term used by Luke, and usually translated “governor,” is he‧ge‧mon′. This Greek term is used to describe Roman legates, procurators, and proconsuls, and it means, basically, a “leader” or “high executive officer.” Some, therefore, suggest that, at the time of what Luke refers to as the “first registration,” Quirinius served in Syria in the capacity of a special legate of the emperor exercising extraordinary powers. A factor that may also aid in understanding the matter is Josephus’ clear reference to a dual rulership of Syria, since in his account he speaks of two persons, Saturninus and Volumnius, serving simultaneously as “governors of Syria.” (Jewish Antiquities, XVI, 277, 280 [ix, 1]; XVI, 344 [x, 8]) Thus, if Josephus is correct in his listing of Saturninus and Varus as successive presidents of Syria, it is possible that Quirinius served simultaneously either with Saturninus (as Volumnius had done) or with Varus prior to Herod’s death (which likely occurred in 1*B.C.E.). The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge presents this view: “Quirinius stood in exactly the same relation to Varus, the governor of Syria, as at a later time Vespasian did to Mucianus. Vespasian conducted the war in Palestine while Mucianus was governor of Syria; and Vespasian was legatus Augusti, holding precisely the same title and technical rank as Mucianus.”—1957, Vol. IX, pp. 375, 376.

An inscription found in Venice (Lapis Venetus) refers to a census conducted by Quirinius in Syria. However, it provides no means for determining whether this was in his earlier or his later governorship.—Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, edited by T.*Mommsen, O.*Hirschfeld, and A.*Domaszewski, 1902, Vol. 3, p. 1222, No. 6687.

Luke’s proved accuracy in historical matters gives sound reason for accepting as factual his reference to Quirinius as governor of Syria around the time of Jesus’ birth. It may be remembered that Josephus, virtually the only other source of information, was not born until 37*C.E., hence nearly four decades after Jesus’ birth. Luke, on the other hand, was already a physician traveling with the apostle Paul by about 49*C.E. when Josephus was but a boy of 12. Of the two, Luke, even on ordinary grounds, is the more likely source for reliable information on the matter of the Syrian governorship just prior to Jesus’ birth. Justin Martyr, a Palestinian of the second century*C.E., cited the Roman records as proof of Luke’s accuracy as regards Quirinius’ governorship at the time of Jesus’ birth. (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, edited by B.*Orchard, 1953, p. 943) There is no evidence that Luke’s account was ever challenged by early historians, even by early critics such as Celsus.

Lets-say-few
08-10-2009, 18:03
Matt. 28:18,
1 Cor. 12:4-6,
2 Cor. 13:14,
Eph. 4:4-7,
1 Pet. 1:2,
Jude 1:20-21,

teeny

Trinity

Definition: The central doctrine of religions of Christendom. According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three "Persons" are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the divine essence exists. Thus some Trinitarians emphasize their belief that Jesus Christ is God, or that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are Jehovah. Not a Bible teaching.

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4).... The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.... By the end of the 4th century .... the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

Does the Bible teach that each of those said to be part of the Trinity is God?

Jesus said in prayer: "Father, ... this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." (John 17:1-3);
(Most translations here use the expression "the only true God" with reference to the Father. NE reads "who alone art truly God." He cannot be "the only true God," the one "who alone [is] truly God," if there are two others who are God to the same degree as he is, can he? Any others referred to as "gods" must be either false or merely a reflection of the true God.)

1 Cor. 8:5, 6, RS: "Although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many "gods" and many 'lords'—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." (This presents the Father as the "one God" of Christians and as being in a class distinct from Jesus Christ.)

1 Pet. 1:3: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!" (Repeatedly, even following Jesus’ ascension to heaven, the Scriptures refer to the Father as "the God" of Jesus Christ. At John 20:17, following Jesus’ resurrection, he himself spoke of the Father as "my God." Later, when in heaven, as recorded at Revelation 3:12, he again used the same expression. But never in the Bible is the Father reported to refer to the Son as "my God," nor does either the Father or the Son refer to the holy spirit as "my God.")

As you see there is no Trinity in the Bible. :)

corkneyfonz
08-10-2009, 18:13
Some quotes runneth over. I believe this trinity nonsense was originated in the caves of turkey years after the death of Jesus the Jew. The Muslims are probably the most correct, they believe and revere Jesus the Prophet. As per dates didn't we used to have a different calendar. Also there's the problem of translation just as 2000 years on from now scholars will wonder why gay could also mean a stone throwing sin and sick used by hip people could also mean good. Thus any account of a sick paedophile could also mean that we approved of child abuse and any earlier mention of gay times would imply we were all engaged in same sex acts. However, true believers should be aware that this thread may be the work of the devil to make you doubt your faith.

Lets-say-few
08-10-2009, 18:19
The word "trinity" is not found in the Bible.

Because its not Biblical teaching. :)

The word "bible" is not found in the Bible either, but we use it anyway.

teeny :)

The English word "Bible" comes through the Latin from the Greek word bi‧bli′a, meaning "little books." The "bible" (Bi′blos) is the Greek term for "book"; its diminutive form bi‧bli′on (literally, little book) is rendered "book", "certificate", and "scroll." See Mr 12:26; Heb 9:19; Mt 19:7; Lu 4:17; Revelation 20:12.)

DragonofAna
08-10-2009, 18:25
The trinity is not restricted to christianity. May have even been stolen. In Britain we have the triple Goddess - the triple goddess ;) Mother, Maid and Crone.

Now there is a topic twist.

Dragon of Ana

Lets-say-few
08-10-2009, 18:28
DragonofAna
teeny

The Trinity doctrine began its slow development over a period of centuries. The trinitarian ideas of Greek philosophers such as Plato, who lived several centuries before Christ, gradually crept into church teachings. As The Church of the First Three Centuries says:

"We maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; that it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers; that in the time of Justin, and long after, the distinct nature and inferiority of the Son were universally taught; and that only the first shadowy outline of the Trinity had then become visible."

Even the word "Trinity" was only slowly accepted. :)

f0rd
08-10-2009, 19:08
f0rd

So you think Luke made an Error? :)

Luke explains: "Now in those days a decree went forth from Caesar Augustus for all the inhabited earth to be registered; (this first registration [B]took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria;) and all people went traveling to be registered, each one to his own city."—Luke 1:1; 2:1-3.
Ok... Why the parenthesis?

Why not use a literal translation as it seems, well I seems I mean it's a blatant attempt acknowledged by modern scholars as a last ditch attempt to reconcile the verse, as one Scholar put it "obviously a last-ditch solution to save the historicity involved" BOO YEAH wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius in case you want to check.

Youngs Literal Translation

1 And it came to pass in those days, there went forth a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world be enrolled --

Critics (Like you) widely attack this passage as a blunder or, worse, a fabrication. They insist that this census and the governorship of Quirinius took place in 6 or 7 C.E. If they are right, this would cast serious doubt on Luke’s account, for the evidence suggests that Jesus was born in 2 B.C.E.
We're getting somewhere, and not it doesn't Herod die 4 B.C thats the latest it can be for the bible to remain credible still

But these critics ignore two key facts.

First, Luke acknowledges that there was more than one census—note that he refers to "this first registration." He was well aware of another, later registration. (Acts 5:37) This later census is the same one that the historian Josephus described, which occurred in 6 C.E.
No he doesn't this is you playing fanciful with biblical translation.

Second, the governorship of Quirinius does not force us to assign Jesus’ birth to that late date. Why? Because Quirinius evidently served in that post twice. Many scholars recognize that his first term fell about 2 B.C.E.
False, it does place is birth after 6 C.E.

We KNOW who the governors of Syria were between 12 and 4 B.C secondly, Quirinius was fighting in a war in Asia Minor from roughly 6 to 1 B.C. Secondly while this war going on he was in the province of Galatia, not Syria by command of Augustus. So he can't be The governor 2 B.C, not forgetting this is still two years after Herod Died!

He was the legate of Galatia for this war, why on earth would a Syrian legate be fighting the war of another province?

Now onto who were the governors of Syria during this time frame:

Marcus Titius 12 to 9 B.C
Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus 9 to 6 B.C
Publius Quinctilius Varus 6 to 4 B.C

4 B.C King Heord the Great died, not a record of Quirinius was governor of Syria, in fact the governors until his death are accounted for.


Many scholars, in view of the evidence of an earlier governorship by Quirinius, suggest the years 3-2*B.C.E. for his governorship. While these dates would harmonize satisfactorily with the Biblical record,
No it wouldn't for the reasons listed above, and still this is a year after the death of Herod. Oh and what Scholars?

the basis on which these scholars select them is in error. That is, they list Quirinius as governor during those years because they place his rule after that of Varus and hence after the death of Herod the Great, for which they use the popular but erroneous date of 4*B.C.E.
Again which Scholars? And we know the date of Varus's rule.

Some scholars call attention to the fact that the term used by Luke, and usually translated “governor,” is he‧ge‧mon′. This Greek term is used to describe Roman legates, procurators, and proconsuls, and it means, basically, a “leader” or “high executive officer.” Some, therefore, suggest that, at the time of what Luke refers to as the “first registration,” Quirinius served in Syria in the capacity of a special legate of the emperor exercising extraordinary powers.

No, as I said before, we know where he was... he was in Galatia by special command of Augustus fighting a war in Asia Minor from roughly 6 to 1 B.C. He was obviously the legate of Galatia during this time, why on earth would a legate of Syria be fighting a war of 7 year in a foreign province?

A factor that may also aid in understanding the matter is Josephus’ clear reference to a dual rulership of Syria, since in his account he speaks of two persons, Saturninus and Volumnius, serving simultaneously as “governors of Syria.” (Jewish Antiquities, XVI, 277, 280 [ix, 1]; XVI, 344 [x, 8])

I take it you have never read Josephus as a full book and are just cherry picking yes, now take a look a couple of years after:

Josephus, Jewish War 1.538:

"Saturninus and the senior colleagues of Pedanius, among whom was Volumnius the procurator"

Do you know what procuratorship is?

It is a position for those such as ex slaves, who reaches the upper classes but never can take the position of governor as they are ineligible he couldn't be governor or co-governor.

Thus, if Josephus is correct in his listing of Saturninus and Varus as successive presidents of Syria, it is possible that Quirinius served simultaneously either with Saturninus (as Volumnius had done)
Nope no dual governorship just your wishful thinking.

or with Varus prior to Herod’s death (which likely occurred in 1*B.C.E.).
1 B.C.E says who, this seems like a recent development in history ... *and all the historical documentation to go with it*, so when did this no shock in history happen?

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge presents this view: “Quirinius stood in exactly the same relation to Varus, the governor of Syria, as at a later time Vespasian did to Mucianus. Vespasian conducted the war in Palestine while Mucianus was governor of Syria; and Vespasian was legatus Augusti, holding precisely the same title and technical rank as Mucianus.”—1957, Vol. IX, pp. 375, 376.

Right...

An inscription found in Venice (Lapis Venetus) refers to a census conducted by Quirinius in Syria. However, it provides no means for determining whether this was in his earlier or his later governorship.—Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, edited by T.*Mommsen, O.*Hirschfeld, and A.*Domaszewski, 1902, Vol. 3, p. 1222, No. 6687.

Have you even read it do you know what it says? Obviously not:

"KING BROUGHT INTO THE POWER OF
AUGUSTUS AND THE ROMAN PEOPLE AND SENATE
FOR THIS HONORED WITH TWO VICTORY CELEBRATIONS
FOR THE SAME THING THE TRIUMPHAL DECORATION
OBTAINED THE PROCONSULATE OF THE PROVINCE OF ASIA
AGAIN OF THE DEIFIED AUGUSTUS SYRIA AND PHOENICIA"

It doesn't mention Quirinius at all, the idea it could be Quirinius is from 18th century scholars such as Sanclemente. But here's the kicker it doesn't mention him at all, unless you want to show me where in there it mentions anything about "refers to a census conducted by Quirinius in Syria".

AND if you read the description (see the bold) and new some history you would notice there isn't a second defeat of ruler King in the career of Quirinius, If you read Tacitus, in his obituary there is no such mention. A better candidate would Lucius Calpurnius Piso, who actually defeated two Kings of Thrace.

Luke’s proved accuracy in historical matters gives sound reason for accepting as factual his reference to Quirinius as governor of Syria around the time of Jesus’ birth.
No it really doesn't and you have a lot of answering up to do.

*snip*

teeny
08-10-2009, 19:30
Because the word trinity is never found in the Bible some wonder about whether this is a biblical doctrine or not, but the absence of a term used to describe a doctrine does not necessarily mean the term is not biblical. The issue is, does the term accurately reflect what the Scripture teaches? In reality, due to the incomprehensible nature of the truth this term reflects, some believe it is a poor word to describe exactly what the Bible teaches us about this truth concerning God. When anyone studies a doctrine like this, reads about it in a theology book, or in an article like this one, it may appear that the writer is saying, “Here are the doctrines we believe, and this is what you must believe, so believe them!” But as Ryrie points out, “If that’s the case it is only because you are looking at the results of someone’s study, not the process”1 that led to their position on a particular doctrine.

The goal is to investigate the facts of Scripture so one can see from the process of investigation presented in this study just what the Bible teaches us about how God exists. Historically, the church has believed that He exists in Holy Trinity or Triunity. The tri-personality of God is exclusively a Christian doctrine and a truth of Scripture. It is this doctrine that will be investigated in what follows. Our purpose, then, is to demonstrate that the doctrine of the trinity (triunity) of the Godhead is another biblical revelation that teaches us more about the nature of God or how He exists. The Bible teaches us that God not only exists as a personal Spirit being, but that He does so in Holy Trinity.

The Nature
of this Revelation About God
Before we investigate the facts of Scripture, I want to begin by pointing out that this is a doctrine beyond the scope of man’s finite mind. It lies outside the realm of natural reason or human logic. The late Dr. Walter Martin points out:

No man can fully explain the Trinity, though in every age scholars have propounded theories and advanced hypotheses to explore this mysterious Biblical teaching. But despite the worthy efforts of these scholars, the Trinity is still largely incomprehensible to the mind of man.

Perhaps the chief reason for this is that the Trinity is a-logical, or beyond logic. It, therefore, cannot be made subject to human reason or logic. Because of this, opponents of the doctrine argue that the idea of the Trinity must be rejected as untenable. Such thinking, however, makes man’s corrupted human reason the sole criterion for determining the truth of divine revelation.2

So what’s the issue that faces us? The ultimate issue as always is, does the biblical evidence support the doctrine of the Trinity or tri-personality of God? If biblical evidence supports it, we can know it is true. Comprehending it is another matter. John Wesley said, “Bring me a worm that can comprehend a man, and then I will show you a man that can comprehend the triune God.”3

We should not be bothered by this fact. Why? Because God’s Word tells us that we should expect His revelation, the revelation of an infinite, omniscient, all-wise Creator, to contain an infinite depth that corresponds to His infinite mind. In Isaiah, God tells us about this and says:

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Kenneth Boa has an excellent word here concerning the concept of God’s thoughts being higher than ours:

It follows from all this that we cannot and should not expect to understand the Bible exhaustively. If we could, the Bible would not be divine but limited to human intelligence. A very important idea comes out of this, something over which many non-Christians and even Christians stumble: Since the Bible is an infinite revelation, it often brings the reader beyond the limit of his intelligence.

As simple as the Bible is in its message of sin and of free salvation in Christ, an incredible subtlety and profundity underlies all its doctrines. Even a child can receive Christ as his Savior, thereby appropriating the free gift of eternal life. Yet no philosopher has more than scratched the surface regarding the things that happened at the Cross. The Bible forces any reader to crash into the ceiling of his own comprehension, beyond which he cannot go until he sees the Lord face-to-face.

Until a person recognizes that his own wisdom and intelligence are not enough, he is not ready to listen to God’s greater wisdom. Jesus alluded to this when He said to God, “you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children” (Luke 10:21).4

God has communicated to men truly though not exhaustively. Moses expressed this to us in Deuteronomy 29:29, “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.”

An understanding of the way the Greek word mystery was used in the New Testament may help us here. It is the Greek word musterion and refers to what was previously hidden, but is now revealed to us through the revelation of the Word (1 Cor. 15:51; Eph. 3:3, 4, 9). Sometimes it is used simply of that which God makes known through His revelation to man which man could not know on his own (1 Cor. 2:7). But there is a sense in which some of God’s truth, though clearly revealed in the Bible, remains a mystery. Though it is a truth revealed in Scripture, like the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son of God or the divine/human nature of Jesus Christ, the Trinity is a kind of mystery in that it goes beyond the boundaries of human comprehension. God hasn’t explained all the mysteries of His revelation to us undoubtedly because we simply cannot yet grasp them.

The Apostle Paul wrote: “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known” (1 Cor. 13:12).

A city like Corinth, famous for its bronze mirrors, would have particularly appreciated Paul’s final illustration. The perfection and imperfection mentioned in verse 10 were deftly likened to the contrasting images obtained by the indirect reflection of one’s face viewed in a bronze mirror and the same face when viewed directly. Such, Paul said, was the contrast between the imperfect time in which he then wrote and the perfect time which awaited him and the church when the partial reflection of the present would give way to the splendor of perfect vision. Then Paul would see God (cf. 15:28; 1 John 3:2) as God now saw Paul. Then partial knowledge (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1-3) would be displaced by the perfect knowledge of God.5

Because of our limited capacity in this life, some of the revelations of God given to us in the Bible defy explanation and illustration. When seeking to explain those truths that fall into this category, our explanations and especially our attempts to illustrate them must of necessity fall short of our ability to clarify and comprehend them.

Does this mean a doctrine cannot be true simply because it defies our human imagination or ability to comprehend it? The answer is, of course not. It would be nothing short of human arrogance to say it was. The truth is, we must recognize our need to simply trust in God’s special revelation to us, the Bible, and submit our minds to that teaching which is truly expressed in its pages. This does not mean we do not test the Scripture to make sure these things are truly taught, but once we are convinced that that is what the Bible says, we must lay hold of it by faith and wait on the eternal future for complete understanding.

It would be the height of egotism for a person to say that because an idea in the Bible does not make sense (does not conform to his or her reasoning), it cannot be true and the Bible must be in error on this point.6

The doctrine of the trinity or triunity is part of God’s revelation of One who is infinite to those who are finite. So again we must ask, doesn’t it seem logical that in our study about God we are going to find things that are incomprehensible, mysterious, and super-rational to finite man’s rational thinking capacity? So, let’s understand from the beginning of this study, “God in His existence as the Three-in-One is beyond the limits of human comprehension.”7

There is another important issue about the nature of this revelation in Scripture. We need to think a moment about the words, explicit and implicit for these two words are important to rightly understanding what Scripture teaches about this doctrine. Explicit means “fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied; fully and clearly defined or formulated.” Implicit means “implied or understood, though not directly expressed.”

Ryrie writes:

Trinity is, of course, not a biblical word. Neither are triunity, trine, trinal, subsistence, nor essence. Yet we employ them, and often helpfully, in trying to express this doctrine which is so fraught with difficulties. Furthermore, this is a doctrine which in the New Testament is not explicit even though it is often said that it is implicit in the Old and explicit in the New. But explicit means “characterized by full, clear expression,” an adjective hard to apply to this doctrine. Nevertheless, the doctrine grows out of the Scriptures, so it is a biblical teaching.8

teeny
08-10-2009, 19:31
Historical Background
Though the Bible taught truth of the Triunity of God implicitly in both Old and New Testaments, the development and delineation of this doctrine was brought about by the rise of heretical groups or teachers who either denied the deity of Christ or that of the Holy Spirit. This caused the early church to formally crystallize the doctrine of the Triunity. Actually, Tertullian in 215 A.D. was the first one to state this doctrine using the term, Trinity.9 Concerning the struggle the early church went through, Walter Martin writes:

As the New Testament was completed toward the close of the first century, the infant church was struggling for its life against old foes—persecution and doctrinal error. On the one hand were the Roman empire, orthodox Judaism, and hostile pagan religions, and on the other hand were heresies and divisive doctrines. Early Christianity was indeed a perilous experiment.

Probably no doctrine was the subject of more controversy in the early church than that of the Trinity. Certainly the teaching of “one God in three Person” was accepted in the early church, but only as this teaching was challenged did a systematic doctrine of the Trinity emerge.

The Gnostic heresy, for instance, (which permeated Christendom in the lifetime of the apostles) drew strong condemnation in Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and John’s First Epistle. Denying the deity of Christ, the Gnostics taught that he was inferior in nature to the Father, a type of super-angel of impersonal emanation from God.

Following the Gnostics came such speculative theologians as Origen, Lucian of Antioch, Paul of Samosota, Sabellius, and Arius of Alexandria. All of these propagated unbiblical views of the Trinity and of the divinity of our Lord.

But perhaps the most crucial test of Christian doctrine in the early church was the “Arian heresy.” It was this heresy which stimulated the crystallization of thought regarding both the Trinity and the deity of Christ …

Today there are still remnants of the Gnostic heresy (Christian Science), the Arian heresy (Jehovah’s Witnesses), and the Socinian heresy (Unitarianism) circulating in Christendom. All of these errors have one thing in common—they give Christ every title except the one which entitles Him to all the rest—the title of God and Savior.

But the Christian doctrine of the Trinity did not “begin” at the Council of Nicea, nor was it derived from “pagan influences.” While Egyptian, Chaldean, Hindu, and other pagan religions do incorporate so-called “trinities,” these have no resemblance to the Christian doctrine, which is unique and free from any heathen cultural vagaries … 10

The point, then, is simply this: While the term Trinity is never specifically used nor the doctrine explicitly explained in Scripture, it is nevertheless implicitly stated. The church councils, in their fight against heresy, were forced to think through what the Bible says about how God exists. The result was the doctrine of the Triunity, but let it be emphasized, the development of this doctrine was based on a careful study of Scripture.

Cairns discusses this time of theological controversy in the early church and the extreme care given to this issue:

It was an era when the main dogmas of the Christian Church were developed. The unfavorable connotation conveyed by the word “dogma” in a day of doctrinal laxity, such as the present, should not obscure the value to the Church of dogma. The word “dogma” came through the Latin from the Greek word dogma, which was derived from the verb dodeo. This word meant to think. The dogmas or doctrines formulated in this period were the result of intense thought and searching of the soul in order to interpret correctly the meaning of the Scriptures on the disputed points and to avoid the erroneous opinions (doxai) of the philosophers.11

Finally, it should be said that,

… the doctrine of the Trinity is the distinctive mark of the Christian religion, setting it apart from all the other religions of the world. Working without the benefit of the revelations made in Scripture, men have, it is true, arrived at some limited truths concerning the nature and Person of God. The pagan religions, as well as all philosophical speculations, are based on natural religion and can, therefore, rise to no higher conception than that of the unity of God. In some systems we find monotheism with its belief in only one God. In others we find polytheism with its belief in many separate gods. But none of the pagan religions, nor any of the systems of speculative philosophy have ever arrived at a trinitarian conception of God. The fact of the matter is that apart from supernatural revelation there is nothing in human consciousness or experience which can give man the slightest clue to the distinctive God of the Christian faith, the triune, incarnate, redeeming, sanctifying God. Some of the pagan religions have set forth triads of divinities, such as, for instance, the Egyptian triad of Osiris, Isis and Horus, which is somewhat analogous to the human family with father, mother and child; or the Hindu triad of Brahma, Vishnu and Schiva, which in the cycle of pantheistic evolution personifies the creative, preservative and destructive power of nature; or the triad set forth by Plato, of goodness, intellect and will—which are not examples of true and proper tri-personality, not real persons who can be addressed and worshipped, but only personifications of the faculties or attributes of God. None of these systems have anything in common with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity except the notion of “threeness.”12

Before we investigate the evidence for the Trinity, let’s define it and then study the evidence.

Definition of the
Trinity (Triunity) of God
Trinity: Webster’s dictionary gives the following definition of trinity: “The union of three divine persons (or hypostases), the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in one divinity, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three Persons (or hypostases as to individuality).” Synonyms sometimes used are triunity, trine, triality. The term “trinity” is formed from “tri,” three, and “nity,” unity. Triunity is a better term than “trinity” because it better expresses the idea of three in one. God is three in one. Hypostases is the plural of hypostasis which means “the substance, the underlying reality, or essence.”

Ryrie writes:

A definition of the Trinity is not easy to construct. Some are done by stating several propositions. Others err on the side either of oneness or threeness. One of the best is Warfield’s: “There is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence.”13

Person: In speaking of the Triunity, the term “person” is not used in same way it is in ordinary usage in which it means an identity completely distinct from other persons. Actually the word persons tends to detract from the unity of the Trinity. According to the teaching of Scripture, the three Persons are inseparable, interdependent, and eternally united in one Divine Being.

It is evident that the word “person” is not ideal for the purpose. Orthodox writers have struggled over this term. Some have opted for the term subsistence (the mode or quality of existence), hence, “God has three substances.” Most have continued to use persons because we have not been able to find a better term. “The word substance speaks of God’s essential nature or being and subsistence describes His mode or quality of existence.”14

Essence: In its theological usage, essence refers to “the intrinsic or indispensable, permanent, and inseparable qualities that characterize or identify the being of God.” The words triunity and trinity are used to refer to the fact that the Bible speaks of one God, but attributes the characteristics of God to three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The doctrine of the trinity states that there is one God who is one in essence or substance, but three in personality. This does not mean three independent Gods existing as one, but three Persons who are co-equal, co-eternal, inseparable, interdependent, and eternally united in one absolute Divine Essence and Being.

Typically, the words triunity and trinity are used to help us express a doctrine that is scriptural, though replete with difficulties for the human mind. Again, it needs to be emphasized that this is a doctrine that is not explicitly stated either in the Old or New Testaments, but it is implicit in both. Note the following points:

(1) Evangelical Christianity has believed in the doctrine of the Trinity, Triunity, or the Triune Godhead because of the teaching of the Bible as a whole (Old and New Testaments) and not because of one or two particular passages. As will be shown below, the whole of Scripture gives testimony to this doctrine.

(2) There are many specific passages which teach us there are three distinct Persons who possess deity, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, but the Bible also teaches us with equal emphasis that there is but one true God or one Divine Essence or Substance and Being.

(3) Taking the whole of Scripture, one can see that there is stress on: (a) the unity of God, one Divine Being and Essence, and (b) on the diversity of God in this unity, three Persons identified as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It speaks of these Persons in such a way that it ascribes absolute undiminished deity and personality to each while stressing that there is but one God in divine substance. It is the doctrine of the trinity that harmonizes and explains these two thrusts of Scripture—oneness in three personalities.

When we see that the Bible teaches these three things: (a) there is but one God, (b) that the Father, Son, and Spirit are each God, and (c) that each is set forth as distinct Persons, we have enunciated the doctrine of the Triunity of God. In a chart, it can be expressed as follows

teeny
08-10-2009, 19:33
The three Persons are the same in substance, i.e., in essence or in their essential nature, but distinct in subsistence which describes God’s mode or quality of existence in three Persons. By mode of existence we do not mean one God acting in three different ways, but one Divine Being existing in three distinct Persons within one Divine Substance or Essence. Again, this is not exactly three individuals as we think of three personal individuals, but one Divine Being who acts and thinks as one within a three-fold personality. This is incomprehensible to our finite and limited minds, but it is the teaching of the Scripture. “In the Being of God there are not three individuals, but only three personal self distinctions within the one Divine Essence.”15

Recognizable and Important Distinctions
The New Bible Dictionary has an excellent summary of this point:

In the relationship between the Persons there are recognizable distinctions.

a. Unity in diversity

In most formularies the doctrine is stated by saying that God is One in his essential being, but that in his being there are three Persons, yet so as not to form separate and distinct individuals. They are three modes or forms in which the divine essence exists. ‘Person’ is, however, an imperfect expression of the truth inasmuch as the term denotes to us a separate rational and moral individual. But in the being of God there are not three individuals, but three personal self-distinctions within the one divine essence [italics mine]. Then again, personality in man implies independence of will, actions and feelings leading to behavior peculiar to the person. This cannot be thought of in connection with the Trinity. Each Person is self-conscious and self-directing, yet never acting independently or in opposition. When we say that God is a Unity we mean that, though God is in himself a threefold centre of life, his life is not split into three. He is one in essence, in personality and in will. When we say that God is a Trinity in Unity, we mean that there is a unity in diversity, and that the diversity manifests itself in Persons, in characteristics and in operations.

b. Equality in dignity

There is perfect equality in nature, honour and dignity between the Persons. Fatherhood belongs to the very essence of the first Person and it was so from all eternity. It is a personal property of God ‘from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named’ (Eph. 3:15).

The Son is called the ‘only begotten’ perhaps to suggest uniqueness rather than derivation. Christ always claimed for himself a unique relationship to God as Father, and the Jews who listened to him apparently had no illusions about his claims. Indeed they sought to kill him because he ‘called God his own Father, making himself equal with God’ (Jn. 5:18).

The Spirit is revealed as the One who alone knows the depths of God’s nature: ‘For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God … No one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God’ (1 Cor. 2:10f.). This is saying that the Spirit is ‘just God himself in the innermost essence of his being.’

This puts the seal of NT teaching upon the doctrine of the equality of the three Persons.

c. Diversity in operation

In the functions ascribed to each of the Persons in the Godhead, especially in man’s redemption, it is clear that a certain degree of subordination is involved (in relation, though not in nature); the Father first, the Son second, the Spirit third. The Father works through the Son by the Spirit. Thus Christ can say: ‘My Father is greater than I.’ As the Son is sent by the Father, so the Spirit is sent by the Son. As it was the Son’s office to reveal the Father, so it is the Spirit’s office to reveal the Son, as Christ testified: ‘He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you’ (Jn. 16:14).

It has to be recognized that the doctrine arose as the spontaneous expression of the Christian experience. The early Christians knew themselves to be reconciled to God the Father, and that the reconciliation was secured for them by the atoning work of the Son, and that it was mediated to them as an experience by the Holy Spirit. Thus the Trinity was to them a fact before it became a doctrine, but in order to preserve it in the credal faith of the church the doctrine had to be formulated.16

Errors to Avoid
Concerning the Trinity
Tri-theism. This is the teaching that there are three Gods who are sometimes related, but only in a loose association. Such an approach, abandons the biblical oneness of God and the unity within the Trinity.

Sabellianism or Modalism. Sabellius (A.D. 200), the originator of this viewpoint, spoke of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but he understood all three as no more than three manifestations of one God. This teaching came to be known as modalism because it views one God who variously manifests Himself in three modes of existence: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Arianism. This doctrine had it roots in Tertullian, who made the Son subordinate to the Father. Origen took this further by teaching that the Son was subordinate to the Father “in respect to essence.” The result was ultimately Arianism which denied the deity of Christ. Arius taught that only God was the uncreated One; because Christ was begotten of the Father it meant Christ was created by the Father. Arius believed there was a time when Christ did not exist. Arius and his teaching was condemned at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.17

Biblical Support for the Trinity
Since the Trinity involves the key aspects of oneness and threeness, support for this doctrine will be dependent on the discovery of these two aspects in Scripture as it reveals how God exists.

Scriptures on the Oneness of God
Old Testament Scriptures
(1) Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!”

Verse 4 is subject to various translations, though the statement is likely stressing the uniqueness of Yahweh and should be translated, “The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.”

However, there is also a secondary emphasis—The Lord’s indivisibility. This is apparent in most English translations. This confession clearly prepares the way for the later revelation of the Trinity, but how? “God” (Elohim) is a plural word, and the word one (the Hebrew, echad) refers to one in a collective sense. As such, it is used of the union of Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:24) to describe two persons in one flesh. Further, it is used in a collective sense, like one cluster of grapes rather than in an absolute sense as in Numbers 13:23 when the spies brought back a single cluster of grapes. Furthermore, the oneness of God is implied in those Old Testament passages that declare that there is no other God beside Yahweh, the God of Israel.

(2) Deuteronomy 4:35 “To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him.”

(3) Isaiah 46:9 “Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me.”

(4) Isaiah 43:10 “You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “And My servant whom I have chosen, In order that you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.”

The New Testament is even more explicit:
(5) 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 “Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.”

(6) Ephesians 4:4-6 “There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.”

(7) James 2:19 “You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.”

Scriptures Demonstrating
God, Who is One, is Also Three
Old Testament Scriptures
While there is no explicit statement in the Old Testament affirming the Triunity, we can confidently say that the Old Testament not only allows for the Triunity, but also implies that God is a triune Being in a number of ways:

(1) The name Elohim, translated God, is the plural form of El. While this is what is called a plural of plenitude pointing to the power and majesty of God, it certainly allows for the New Testament revelation of the Triunity of God.

(2) There are many instances where God uses the plural pronoun to describe Himself (see Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8).

(3) In the creation account, both God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are seen in the work of creation. It is stated that God created heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1), but that it was the Holy Spirit who moved over the earth to infuse it with life in the sense of protecting and participating in the work of creation (Gen. 1:2).

(4) Writing about the Messiah, Isaiah reveals Him to be equal with God, calling Him the “Mighty God” and “Eternal Father” (Isa. 9:6).

(5) Several passages reveal a distinction of Persons within the Godhead.

In Psalm 110:1, David demonstrates there is a distinction of Persons between “LORD,” the one speaking, and the one addressed called by David, “my Lord.” David was indicating the Messiah was no ordinary king, but his own Lord, Adoni (my Lord), one who was God Himself. So God the first Person addresses God the second Person. This is precisely Peter’s point when He quotes this Psalm to show the resurrection of the Messiah was anticipated in the Old Testament.
The Redeemer (who must be divine, Isa. 7:14; 9:6) is distinguished from the Lord (Isa. 59:20).
The Lord is distinguished from the Lord in Hosea 1:6-7. The one speaking here is Yahweh, the Lord, yet, note the statement in verse 7, “I will have compassion … and deliver them by the Lord their God.”
The Spirit is distinguished from the Lord in a number of passages (Isa. 48:16; 59:21; 63:9-10).
(6) In the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, God made it clear that the One who would be born of the virgin would also be Immanuel, God with us.

(7) Two other passages which imply the Trinity are Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1. In Isaiah 48:16 all three Persons are mentioned and yet seen as distinct from each other. See also Gen. 22:15-16.

New Testament Scriptures
The case for the Triunity of God is even stronger in the New Testament. Here it can be unequivocally demonstrated the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Furthermore, the New Testament teaches us that these three names are not synonymous, but speak of three distinct and equal Persons.

(1) The Father is called God (John 6:27; 20:17; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 4:6; Phil. 2:11; 1 Pet. 1:2).

(2) Jesus Christ, the Son is declared to be God. His deity is proven by the divine names given to Him, by His works that only God could do (upholding all things, Col. 1:17; creation, Col. 1:16, John 1:3; and future judgment, John 5:27), by His divine attributes (eternality, John 17:5; omnipresence, Matt. 28:20; omnipotence, Heb. 1:3; omniscience, Matt. 9:4), and by explicit statements declaring His deity (John 1:1; 20:28; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8).

(3) The Holy Spirit is recognized as God. By comparing Peter’s comments in Acts 5:3 and 4, we see that in lying to the Holy Spirit (vs. 3), Ananias was lying to God (vs. 4). He has the attributes which only God can possess like omniscience (1 Cor. 2:10) and omnipresence (1 Cor. 6:19), and He regenerates people to new life (John 3:5-6, 8; Tit. 3:5), which must of necessity be a work of God for only God has the power of life. Finally, His deity is evident by the divine names used for the Spirit as “the Spirit of our God,” (1 Cor. 6:11), which should be understood as “the Spirit, who is our God.”

Ryrie writes: “Matthew 28:19 best states both the oneness and threeness by associating equally the three Persons and uniting them in one singular name. Other passages like Matthew 3:16-17 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 associate equally the three Persons but do not contain the strong emphasis on unity as does Matthew 28:19.”18

The New Bible Dictionary, adds to this the following evidence:

The evidence of the NT writings, apart from the Gospels, is sufficient to show that Christ had instructed his disciples on this doctrine to a greater extent than is recorded by any of the four Evangelists. They whole-heartedly proclaim the doctrine of the Trinity as the threefold source of redemption. The outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost brought the personality of the Spirit into greater prominence and at the same time shed light anew from the Spirit upon the Son. Peter, in explaining the phenomenon of Pentecost, represents it as the activity of the Trinity: ‘This Jesus … being … exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear’ (Acts 2:32-33). So the church of Pentecost was founded on the doctrine of the Trinity.

In 1 Cor. there is mention of the gifts of the Spirit, the varieties of service for the same Lord and the inspiration of the same God for the work (1 Cor. 12:4-6).

Peter traces salvation to the same triunal source: ‘destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ’ (1 Pet. 1:2). The apostolic benediction: ‘The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all’ (2 Cor. 13:14), not only sums up the apostolic teaching, but interprets the deeper meaning of the Trinity in Christian experience, the saving grace of the Son giving access to the love of the Father and to the communion of the Spirit.

What is amazing, however, is that this confession of God as One in Three took place without struggle and without controversy by a people indoctrinated for centuries in the faith of the one God, and that in entering the Christian church they were not conscious of any break with their ancient faith.19

From the above evidence, it should be clear that the Scripture teaches God is one and three.

Difficulties With the
Trinity Considered and Answered
The Meaning of “Only-begotten”
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

In John 1:18, the King James Version has huios, “Son,” in place of theos, “God,” and reads, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

Because to our mind the words “only begotten” suggest birth or beginning, some have tried to take the use of this designation of Jesus Christ to mean that Christ had a beginning, that He only became the Son of God. Such an understanding denies His eternality and also the concept of the trinity. So what does John mean by the term “only begotten?”

“Only begotten” is the Greek monogenes, a compound of monos, used as an adjective or adverb meaning “alone, only.” Kittel writes: “In compounds with genes, adverbs describe the nature rather than the source of derivation (emphasis mine). Hence monogenes is used for the only child. More generally it means ‘unique’ or ‘incomparable.’”20 In the New Testament the term occurs only in Luke, John, and Hebrews, but an instructive use is

teeny
08-10-2009, 19:34
use is found for us in Hebrews 11:17 where it is used of Isaac as the monogenes of Abraham. Isaac was not the only Son of the Patriarch, but he was the unique son of the promise of God. The emphasis is not on derivation but on his uniqueness and special place in the heart of Abraham.

Vine has an excellent summary of the use of monogenes in John 1:14 and 18:

With reference to Christ, the phrase “the only begotten from the Father,” John 1:14, R.V. (see also the marg.), indicates that as the Son of God He was the sole representative of the Being and character of the One who sent Him. In the original the definite article is omitted both before “only begotten” and before “Father,” and its absence in each case serves to lay stress upon the characteristics referred to in the terms used. The Apostle’s object is to demonstrate what sort of glory it was that he and his fellow Apostles had seen. That he is not merely making a comparison with earthly relationships is indicated by para, “from.” The glory was that of a unique relationship and the word “begotten” does not imply a beginning of His Sonship. It suggests relationship indeed, but must be distinguished from generation as applied to man.

We can only rightly understand the term “the only begotten” when used of the Son, in the sense of unoriginated relationship. “The begetting is not an event of time, however remote, but a fact irrespective of time. The Christ did not become, but necessarily and eternally is the Son. He, a Person, possesses every attribute of pure Godhood. This necessitates eternity, absolute being; in this respect He is not ‘after’ the Father” (Moule).

In John 1:18 the clause “The Only Begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father,” expresses both His eternal union with the Father in the Godhead and the ineffable intimacy and love between them, the Son sharing all the Father’s counsels and enjoying all His affections. Another reading is monogenes Theos, ‘God only-begotten.’ In John 3:16 the statement, “God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son,” must not be taken to mean that Christ became the Only Begotten Son by Incarnation. The value and the greatness of the gift lay in the Sonship of Him who was given. His Sonship was not the effect of His being given. In John 3:18 the phrase “the Name of the Only Begotten Son of God” lays stress upon the full revelation of God’s character and will, His love and grace, as conveyed in the Name of One who, being in a unique relationship to Him, was provided by Him as the Object of faith. In 1 John 4:9 the statement “God hath sent His Only Begotten Son into the world” does not mean that God sent out into the world one who at His birth in Bethlehem had become His Son. Cp. the parallel statement, “God sent forth the Spirit of His Son,” Gal. 4:6, R.V., which could not mean that God sent forth One who became His Spirit when He sent Him.21

The Meaning of “First-born”
Another term that has been misinterpreted by some as it is used of Christ is the term “firstborn.” It is used of Christ in Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15, 18; Hebrews 1:6; and Revelation 1:5. Again, because of the thought of birth that this word denotes in our minds, this passage has been used to teach that Christ was not the eternal second Person of the Trinity because He had a beginning as the firstborn of God. “Firstborn” is the Greek prototokos (from protos, first, and tikto, to beget), but this word may mean (a) first in time, or (b) first in priority. The point and focus of the word must be taken from the context in which it is used.

In Colossians 1:15, as verse 16 makes clear, it refers to Christ’s sovereignty expressing His priority to and pre-eminence over creation, not in the sense of time, the first to be born, but in the sense of (a) being the sovereign Creator, the One in Whom were the plans of creation as architect (“by Him all things were created” can also mean, “in Him …”), (b) by Whom all things were created as the builder (“all things were created by Him”), and (c) for Whom all things were created as the owner (“and for Him”). Colossians 1:15 is declaring Christ’s sovereignty as the Creator. We can see this meaning of prototokos to express sovereignty or priority in the Septuagint’s use of this word in Psalm 89:27 where the clause that follows explains the meaning of “firstborn” or prototokos. Psalm 89:27 reads, “I also shall make him My first-born, The highest of the kings of the earth.” Who is the firstborn? He is “the highest of the kings of the earth,” the sovereign Lord.

In the words of Colossians 1:18, “and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead,” it means first in time, the first one to rise in an immortal and glorified body. But even here, He is the first-born of the dead so that He might come to be pre-eminent in all things as the head of the body, the church (vs. 18b). The point is that prototokos can mean either first in time or first in priority and it is the context which determines the meaning. As the second Person of the Trinity, Christ is God and sovereign, but as the God-Man who died for our sins and was raised from the dead, He is the pre-eminent head of the body of Christ, the church. In Colossians 2:9, the Apostle confirmed this meaning when he wrote, “For in Him all the fulness of deity dwells in bodily form.”

The word for “Deity” is theotetos, a strong word (used only here in the NT) for Christ’s essence as God. The full deity of Christ is nonetheless in bodily form—a full humanity (cf. Col. 1:22). Both Christ’s deity and humanity were challenged by this early Gnostic-like heresy. Those heretics diminished Christ to an angel whose “body” was only apparent, not real. Paul affirmed here that Christ is both fully God and truly man (cf. 1 John 4:1-6).22

Practical Ramifications
of the Doctrine of Trinity
All doctrine is practical and has specific ramifications to life. This is no less true of the Triunity of the Godhead which draws our attention to the concept of the tri-fold personality of God. This communicates all the elements of personality—moral agency, intelligence, will, emotion, and communion that exists within the three Persons of the Godhead. What are some of the ramifications of this doctrine not only for theology, but for Christian experience and life?

(1) It teaches us that God is a God of revelation and communion.

Scripture teaches us that God is light, and one of the main functions of light is illumination. The act of revealing is as natural to God as it is for the sun. Before the creation of any being, angel or human, there was revelation and communication taking place within the Persons of the Holy Trinity, the Father to the Son, the Son to the Father, and so on with the Spirit. When, in the eternal decrees of God, He willed to create a universe with angelic and human beings, it was merely the expression of this very nature of God.

So if God is a fellowship within himself he can let that fellowship go out to his creatures and communicate himself to them according to their capacity to receive. This is what happened supremely when he came to redeem men: he let his fellowship bend down to reach outcast man and lift him up. And so because God is a Trinity he has something to share: it is his own life and communion.23

(2) It means that the Trinity is the basis of all true fellowship in the world.

Since God is within himself a fellowship, it means that his moral creatures who are made in his image find fullness of life only within a fellowship. This is reflected in marriage, in the home, in society and above all in the church whose koinonia is built upon the fellowship of the three Persons. Christian fellowship is, therefore, the divinest thing on earth, the earthly counterpart of the divine life, as Christ indeed prayed for his followers: ‘That they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us’ (Jn. 17:21).24

(3) It gives variety to the life of the universe.

There is … diversity in the life of God. God the Father designs, God the Son creates, God the Spirit quickens; a great diversity of life and operation and activity. For that reason we can realize that if the universe is a manifestation of God, we can expect a diversity of life within the whole of the created universe. We think that the so-called uniformity of nature is utterly untrue. All the wonders of creation, all the forms of life, all the movement in the universe, are a reflection, a mirroring, of the manifold life of God. There is no monotonous sameness, no large-scale uniformity of pattern, for nature reflects the many-sidedness of the nature and character of the living God.25

What Are the
Choices Regarding the Trinity?
As in the case of God’s sovereignty and man’s volition (or the God-man mystery), there are three basic responses a person can make concerning the biblical concept of the Trinity. First, historically, men have either ignored it or rejected it as illogical and incompatible with human reason. Second, finding it incompatible with human reason, men have sought to solve the problem by reducing it to their own reason and in the process, they typically gravitated toward one extreme or another maintaining that God is one, or God is three, but He can’t be both. Third, historically and for the most part, the church has accepted it completely by holding both truths (God is three in one, triune) in a proper balance. Based on all the data of the Bible, the church has accepted this doctrine by faith though it is incomprehensible to our finite minds.26

teeny
08-10-2009, 19:37
What Are the
Choices Regarding the Trinity?
As in the case of God’s sovereignty and man’s volition (or the God-man mystery), there are three basic responses a person can make concerning the biblical concept of the Trinity. First, historically, men have either ignored it or rejected it as illogical and incompatible with human reason. Second, finding it incompatible with human reason, men have sought to solve the problem by reducing it to their own reason and in the process, they typically gravitated toward one extreme or another maintaining that God is one, or God is three, but He can’t be both. Third, historically and for the most part, the church has accepted it completely by holding both truths (God is three in one, triune) in a proper balance. Based on all the data of the Bible, the church has accepted this doctrine by faith though it is incomprehensible to our finite minds.26

The Problem of the Two Extremes
Any time man elevates his own reason above the clear revelation of Scripture and he is faced with those truths in Scripture that defy his human logic, he usually goes in one of two extremes. For instance, when faced with two truths which seem to contradict each other (e.g., God’s sovereignty and man’s volition, or Christ’s undiminished deity and true humanity in one Person, or God is One and Three), one of two things happens. In his attempt to make the truth harmonize with his reason, he will inevitably move to one extreme or the other. He will accept one (truth A, God is one) either to the neglect of the other or reject it completely (truth B, God a tri-personality), or he will swing to the other side and either minimize or reject truth A and emphasize truth B.

Kenneth Boa has some excellent comments on this issue:

In an effort to water down the doctrine of the triune God many have fallen into error. One such error is unitarianism. This view regards God as only one Person. Since, for most this Person is God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are stripped of their genuine deity. Jesus is reduced to a mere man (“the humble teacher from Nazareth”), and the Holy Spirit is turned into an impersonal force or fluid that emanates from God. The Unitarian-Universalist Church is an example of this extreme.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are essentially unitarian because they deny the deity of Jesus Christ and view the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force (Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1965, p. 47). This new Arianism repudiates the Trinity because it holds it to be unreasonable.

The second extreme is tritheism. This is a variation of polytheism because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are regarded as three separate Gods. Sometimes this is carried a step further into the idea that there are many different gods, some perhaps associated with other worlds or realms. Mormonism is an example of tritheism, for it speaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three distinct Gods (Ibid., p. 178). Mormonism is actually polytheistic since it indicates that there are other gods besides these three.

The only way to avoid these extremes is to accept all the biblical facts in a balanced way. The Trinity cannot be comprehended by the human mind because it is super-rational. Nevertheless, when anyone places his faith in God and the truth of His Word, he finds a satisfaction in this and other difficult areas of revealed truth. There is no need for a continual struggle.27

Conclusion
The doctrine of the trinity is truly beyond human comprehension or the limits of our finite minds, but it is nevertheless a vital truth of the Bible. It is a doctrine that is closely connected to other key doctrines like the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. In fact, our salvation is rooted in the mysterious nature of the Godhead who coexists as three distinct Persons all of whom are involved in our salvation in all its aspects, past, present, and future. It encompasses everything we know and practice as Christians—our sanctification, our fellowship, our prayer life, our Bible study, or our corporate worship. That this is true and a precious truth for us to rest in is evident in Paul’s closing benediction in 2 Corinthians 13:14 and in Peter’s salutation and doxology in 1 Peter 1:1-5.

2 Cor. 13:14. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

1 Peter 1:1-5. Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure. 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aim4
08-10-2009, 19:38
Edit: I was going to contribute to this thread but changed my mind!

donkey
08-10-2009, 19:54
There is now solid evidence about the causes of the formation of our planet, and the origins of life. One source where it is set out in clearly understandable terms for the general public is in the facinating series Earth Story but there are many other sources out there. However, some people would prefer to spend their time immersing themselves in the myths and superstitions of earlier times, when such scientific knowledge was not available. They apparently believe that it will enlighten them, or cause them to live in eternal bliss. And they think others should also believe what they believe. Well, what can you say?

Lets-say-few
08-10-2009, 20:10
teeny

Read to know how did the Trinity doctrine develope

For many years, there had been much opposition on Biblical grounds to the developing idea that Jesus was God. :) To try to solve the dispute, Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea. About 300, a fraction of the total, actually attended.

Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The Early Church: "Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; ... his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace ... It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians."

What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed .... the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, 'of one substance with the Father' ....Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination."

Hence, Constantine’s role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. "Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology," says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain.

None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the holy spirit. Now question:
If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time? But there were further development :) After Nicaea, debates on the subject continued for decades. Those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even came back into favor for a time. But later Emperor Theodosius decided against them. He established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. to clarify the formula.

That council agreed to place the holy spirit on the same level as God and Christ. For the first time, Christendom’s Trinity began to come into focus.

Yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds. The Encyclopedia Americana notes: "The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology." The Trinity was defined more fully in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius was a clergyman who supported Constantine at Nicaea. The creed that bears his name declares: "We worship one God in Trinity .... The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God."
Well-informed scholars agree, however, that Athanasius did not compose this creed. The New Encyclopædia Britannica comments: "The creed was unknown to the Eastern Church until the 12th century. Since the 17th century, scholars have generally agreed that the Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius (died 373) but was probably composed in southern France during the 5th century.... The creed’s influence seems to have been primarily in southern France and Spain in the 6th and 7th centuries. It was used in the liturgy of the church in Germany in the 9th century and somewhat later in Rome."
So it took centuries from the time of Christ for the Trinity to become widely accepted in Christendom. And in all of this, what guided the decisions? Was it the Word of God, or was it clerical and political considerations? :) Lets findout. In Origin and Evolution of Religion, E.W.Hopkins answers: "The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics".

Now read what does Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity "is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith."

And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: "The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan."
:)

teeny
08-10-2009, 20:24
How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?


AT THIS point you might ask: ‘If the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching, how did it become a doctrine of Christendom?’ Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E.

That is not totally correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead.

Constantine’s Role at Nicaea

FOR many years, there had been much opposition on Biblical grounds to the developing idea that Jesus was God. To try to solve the dispute, Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea. About 300, a fraction of the total, actually attended.

Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The Early Church: “Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; . . . his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians.”

What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father’ . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”

Hence, Constantine’s role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. “Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology,” says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain.

None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the holy spirit. If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time?

Further Development

AFTER Nicaea, debates on the subject continued for decades. Those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even came back into favor for a time. But later Emperor Theodosius decided against them. He established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. to clarify the formula.

That council agreed to place the holy spirit on the same level as God and Christ. For the first time, Christendom’s Trinity began to come into focus.

Yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds. The Encyclopedia Americana notes: “The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology.”

The Athanasian Creed

THE Trinity was defined more fully in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius was a clergyman who supported Constantine at Nicaea. The creed that bears his name declares: “We worship one God in Trinity . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God.”

Well-informed scholars agree, however, that Athanasius did not compose this creed. The New Encyclopædia Britannica comments: “The creed was unknown to the Eastern Church until the 12th century. Since the 17th century, scholars have generally agreed that the Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius (died 373) but was probably composed in southern France during the 5th century. . . . The creed’s influence seems to have been primarily in southern France and Spain in the 6th and 7th centuries. It was used in the liturgy of the church in Germany in the 9th century and somewhat later in Rome.”

So it took centuries from the time of Christ for the Trinity to become widely accepted in Christendom. And in all of this, what guided the decisions? Was it the Word of God, or was it clerical and political considerations? In Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins answers: “The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics.”

Apostasy Foretold

THIS disreputable history of the Trinity fits in with what Jesus and his apostles foretold would follow their time. They said that there would be an apostasy, a deviation, a falling away from true worship until Christ’s return, when true worship would be restored before God’s day of destruction of this system of things.

Regarding that “day,” the apostle Paul said: “It will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7) Later, he foretold: “When I have gone fierce wolves will invade you and will have no mercy on the flock. Even from your own ranks there will be men coming forward with a travesty of the truth on their lips to induce the disciples to follow them.” (Acts 20:29, 30, JB) Other disciples of Jesus also wrote of this apostasy with its ‘lawless’ clergy class.—See, for example, 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1-3; Jude 3, 4.

Paul also wrote: “The time is sure to come when, far from being content with sound teaching, people will be avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes; and then, instead of listening to the truth, they will turn to myths.”—2 Timothy 4:3, 4, JB.

Jesus himself explained what was behind this falling away from true worship. He said that he had sowed good seeds but that the enemy, Satan, would oversow the field with weeds. So along with the first blades of wheat, the weeds appeared also. Thus, a deviation from pure Christianity was to be expected until the harvest, when Christ would set matters right. (Matthew 13:24-43) The Encyclopedia Americana comments: “Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.” Where, then, did this deviation originate?—1 Timothy 1:6.

What Influenced It

THROUGHOUT the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity.

Historian Will Durant observed: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.” And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: “The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.”

Thus, in Alexandria, Egypt, churchmen of the late third and early fourth centuries, such as Athanasius, reflected this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence spread, so that Morenz considers “Alexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity.”

In the preface to Edward Gibbon’s History of Christianity, we read: “If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.”

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity “is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.” And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.”

That is why, in the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings wrote: “In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahmā, Siva, and Viṣṇu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality,” which is “triadically represented.” What does the Greek philosopher Plato have to do with the Trinity?

Platonism

PLATO, it is thought, lived from 428 to 347 before Christ. While he did not teach the Trinity in its present form, his philosophies paved the way for it. Later, philosophical movements that included triadic beliefs sprang up, and these were influenced by Plato’s ideas of God and nature.

The French Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (New Universal Dictionary) says of Plato’s influence: “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge shows the influence of this Greek philosophy: “The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied.”

The Church of the First Three Centuries says: “The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers.”

By the end of the third century C.E., “Christianity” and the new Platonic philosophies became inseparably united. As Adolf Harnack states in Outlines of the History of Dogma, church doctrine became “firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians.”

The church claimed that its new doctrines were based on the Bible. But Harnack says: “In reality it legitimized in its midst the Hellenic speculation, the superstitious views and customs of pagan mystery-worship.”

In the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity: “We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.”

Thus, in the fourth century C.E., the apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles came into full bloom. Development of the Trinity was just one evidence of this. The apostate churches also began embracing other pagan ideas, such as hellfire, immortality of the soul, and idolatry. Spiritually speaking, Christendom had entered its foretold dark ages, dominated by a growing “man of lawlessness” clergy class.—2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7.

Why Did God’s Prophets Not Teach It?

WHY, for thousands of years, did none of God’s prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the latest, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the “central doctrine” of faith?

Are Christians to believe that centuries after Christ and after having inspired the writing of the Bible, God would back the formulation of a doctrine that was unknown to his servants for thousands of years, one that is an “inscrutable mystery” “beyond the grasp of human reason,” one that admittedly had a pagan background and was “largely a matter of church politics”?

The testimony of history is clear: The Trinity teaching is a deviation from the truth, an apostatizing from it.

Lets-say-few
08-10-2009, 20:40
f0rd

Yiur comments does not say anything :) Where is the evidence? Just words would not help you to prove the things you trying :) So relax ;)

carosio
08-10-2009, 20:58
Surely the question is wrong? It ought to read 'Do you believe in the trinity' rather than 'Should you.'

Perhaps either way, we can't, for how can one believe in a concept so totally illogical and impossible, as most theologians admit. So, one could ask, why should you believe it?

Longcol
08-10-2009, 21:15
I thought Trinity played rugby in Wakefield :huh::huh::huh:

carosio
08-10-2009, 21:19
I thought Trinity played rugby in Wakefield :huh::huh::huh:

Is there one or three in the team?

Longcol
08-10-2009, 21:22
Is there one or three in the team?

Thirteen - so shouldn't they be called Wakefield four and a third Trinities?

Crayfish
08-10-2009, 21:30
Did you know that [your myth book of choice] also says you should kill yourself RIGHT NOW if you're a true [term for your collection of superstitions]?


Worth a try.

teeny
08-10-2009, 21:46
Did you know that [your myth book of choice] also says you should kill yourself RIGHT NOW if you're a true [term for your collection of superstitions]?


Worth a try.

my book doesn't read like that ! which version are you using?

Circa
09-10-2009, 08:14
Yeah, believe that there is a father, that jesus is his son and that the holy spirit exists. "The trinity" is just a label we've given to that. Doesn't matter that you don't find the word "trinity" in the bible.

carosio
09-10-2009, 11:44
But why should we believe it? It's took 2000 years for the finest Christian theologians to come to the conclusion that we will never understand this concept (perhaps teeny does). Many of us can't even understand the gas bill, never mind advanced theology. What great benefit has been bestowed upon us by this wonderful concept I have yet to discover. I doubt whether a Masai tribesman, as he chases a gazelle across the Serengeti will be fretting over the problem, or an Eskimo, as he sits fishing beside a hole in the ice will be contemplating whether it be one or three. Perhaps there's something fishy about the whole idea.

Grahame
09-10-2009, 12:15
1. I am invisible and unknown. (God)

2. My spirit roams over the forum. (The Holy Spirit)

3. One day I may manifest myself to you. (Jesus)

(Just an illustration of everyone's tripartite nature.) :)

.

auto98uk
09-10-2009, 13:26
I don't believe in god or the bible, but i don't see what the problem is about the trinity - it is an interpretation of the individual bits as grahame puts above.

Grahame
09-10-2009, 13:52
I don't believe in god or the bible, but i don't see what the problem is about the trinity - it is an interpretation of the individual bits as grahame puts above.

Thank you auto it is nice to see things settling down a bit. :)

Cheers.
.

auto98uk
09-10-2009, 13:54
Thank you auto it is nice to see things settling down a bit. :)

Cheers.
.

Don't worry, our agreements won't last long lol :P

plekhanov
09-10-2009, 14:33
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" (Matthew 28:19 KJV)
That can only be interpreted as implying the doctrine of the trinity.

The phrase "in the name of........" doesn't always mean that the following items are the same thing.

plekhanov
09-10-2009, 14:35
So, do YOU believe in trinity?
It's a nonsensical concept completely lacking in evidence to suggest it exists anywhere outside the addled minds of believers so no I don't.

plekhanov
09-10-2009, 14:37
Yeah, believe that there is a father, that jesus is his son and that the holy spirit exists. "The trinity" is just a label we've given to that. Doesn't matter that you don't find the word "trinity" in the bible.
It's matters quite a lot seeing as how Xianity is supposed to be monotheistic is it not? And monotheisms tend not to have 3 gods.

DragonofAna
09-10-2009, 16:06
I do not think Father, Son and Holy Ghost are viewed as three different individual entities, but as three aspects of a single being.

Dragon of Ana

carosio
09-10-2009, 16:16
(God)

2. My spirit roams over the forum. (The Holy Spirit)





I think my anti-virus software has deleted it.

Grahame
09-10-2009, 16:17
I think my anti-virus software has deleted it.

That's all right then. :D
.

sccsux
09-10-2009, 17:00
I thought Trinity played rugby in Wakefield :huh::huh::huh:

Whereas I thought it was where the US tested the first atomic bomb:confused:

Lets-say-few
10-10-2009, 16:57
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" (Matthew 28:19 KJV).

Grahame

Matther 28:19 does not say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal or coeternal or that all are God. :)

In the Bible 2*Corinthians 13:14 you will also find:

"The undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the sharing in the holy spirit be with all of YOU". But it does not mean that lord Jesus, love of God and Holy spirit are all God. :)

McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, though advocating the Trinity doctrine, acknowledges regarding Matthew 28:18-20: "This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity." (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552)

Regarding other texts that also mention the three together, this Cyclopedia admits that, taken by themselves, they are "insufficient" to prove the Trinity.
Another example is 1 Timothy 5:21, where God and Christ and the angels are mentioned together. Should you believe that God and Crist and angels are all God? :D

Trinity is Not a Bible teaching. That's why The New Encyclopædia Britannica says:

"Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4).... The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.... By the end of the 4th century .... the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since." —(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

Longcol
10-10-2009, 17:00
Whereas I thought it was where the US tested the first atomic bomb:confused:

Where?

Wakefield? I know it doesn't look that good but compared to Dewsbury or Batley it's Shangri La.

teeny
10-10-2009, 18:10
The Trinity is something thats not mentioned in the Bible in the words of Trinity but it is implied by various verses , and is so called to give us an understanding of God being the father ,the son and the holy spirit! so to me I accept what it means and can see why we call the trinity such.

sccsux
10-10-2009, 18:41
Where?

Trinity.

Not enough characters, so here're some dots...........................

Gormenghast
10-10-2009, 19:14
Oh dear, Oh Dear, Oh, dear. I this waste of server space why the 'I'm Bored' threads are being cut?:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

Grahame
10-10-2009, 19:23
Hello Lets-Say-Few. You have been busy and let me say I am willing to be convinced either way and how nice it is to talk about these things.

So what is in dispute is the fact that there are some people (Trinitarians) who speak of ‘God the Father’, ‘God the Son’ and ‘God the Holy Spirit’ who they regard as the three aspects of One God we know as YHWH. (By the way according to the etymology the word 'trinity' did not exist until 1225)

So first of all we have YWHA in the Old Testament which is undisputed. Also the Old Testament speaks of the Holy Spirit giving us both God and the Holy Spirit in the OT and of course not forgetting the Jews were looking for the coming of the Messiah which gives us the Trinity in the Old Testament:

Psa 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

Isa 63:10 But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, [and] he fought against them.

Isa 63:11 Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, [saying], Where [is] he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where [is] he that put his holy Spirit within him?


Then in the New Testament we have mention of the Holy Spirit in connection with God.

Luk 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise,

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

1Th 4:8 He therefore that despises, despises not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit.

Also the Holy Spirit is mentioned in connection with Jesus.

Jhn 14:16 And I [Jesus] will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name [Jesus], he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Jhn 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I [Jesus] will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Jhn 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I [Jesus] go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.


The Divinity of Jesus. (There are more)
18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (Matt 28:18)

Here we see the Supremacy of Christ
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. (Col 1:15-20)

Also we have

I John 5:7
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This to me is the most beautiful verse on the Trinity in the Bible.

Luk 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. Here is Jesus getting baptised, God speaking from Heaven, and the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove.

Lastly we have Polycarp (70-155/160 AD) who was Bishop of Smyrna and a disciple of John the Apostle.

"O Lord God almighty...I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever"


Then there was ATHENAGORAS (ca. 133-190 AD) the Athenian, a Philosopher and Christian who wrote:

The Trinity
”10. I have sufficiently shown that we are not atheists since we acknowledge one God, who is uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassable, incomprehensible, and illimitable. He is grasped by mind and intelligence, and surrounded by light, beauty, spirit and indescribable power. By him the universe was created through his Word ]His Son] was set in order, and is held together.

”Let no one think it stupid for me to say that God has a Son. For we do not think of God the Father or of the Son in the way of the poets, who weave their myths by showing that gods are no better than men. But the Son of God is his Word in idea and in actuality; for by him and through him all things were made, the Father and the Son being one. And since the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son by the unity and power of the Spirit, the Son of God is the mind and Word of the Father.”

There are more as well but these are the two main ones in my view.

Gormenghast
10-10-2009, 19:30
Hello Lets-Say-a-Few. You have been busy and let me say I am willing to be convinced either way and how nice it is to talk about these things.

So what is in dispute is the fact that there are some people (Trinitarians) who speak of ‘God the Father’, ‘God the Son’ and ‘God the Holy Spirit’ who are regarded as the three aspects of One God we know as YHWH. Personally I think of myself as having a heart, lungs, and brain which all carry out different functions but are all one person.

So first of all we have YWHA in the Old Testament which is undisputed. Also the Old Testament speaks of the Holy Spirit:

Psa 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

Isa 63:10 But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, [and] he fought against them.

Isa 63:11 Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, [and] his people, [saying], Where [is] he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where [is] he that put his holy Spirit within him?


Then in the New Testament we have mention of the Holy Spirit in connection with God.

Luk 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise,

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

1Th 4:8 He therefore that despises, despises not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit.

Also the Holy Spirit is mentioned in connection with Jesus.

Jhn 14:16 And I [Jesus] will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name [Jesus], he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Jhn 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I [Jesus] will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Jhn 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I [Jesus] go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.


18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (Matt 28:18)

Here we see the Supremacy of Christ
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. (Col 1:15-20)

Also we have

I John 5:7
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This to me is the most beautiful verse on the Trinity in the Bible.

Luk 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. ,Here is Jesus getting baptised, God speaking from Heaven, and the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove.

Lastly we have Polycarp (70-155/160 AD) who was Bishop of Smyrna and a disciple of John the Apostle.

"O Lord God almighty...I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever"


Then there was ATHENAGORAS (ca. 133-190 AD) the Athenian, a Philosopher and Christian who wrote:

The Trinity
”10. I have sufficiently shown that we are not atheists since we acknowledge one God, who is uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassable, incomprehensible, and illimitable. He is grasped by mind and intelligence, and surrounded by light, beauty, spirit and indescribable power. By him the universe was created through his Word ]His Son] was set in order, and is held together.

”Let no one think it stupid for me to say that God has a Son. For we do not think of God the Father or of the Son in the way of the poets, who weave their myths by showing that gods are no better than men. But the Son of God is his Word in idea and in actuality; for by him and through him all things were made, the Father and the Son being one. And since the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son by the unity and power of the Spirit, the Son of God is the mind and Word of the Father.”

There are more as well but these are the two main ones in my view.

Shouldn't you stick to the 'God does NOT exist' thread Grahame, instead of taking up all this space on here?

Grahame
10-10-2009, 19:32
Shouldn't you stick to the 'God does NOT exist' thread Grahame, instead of taking up all this space on here?

He does exist and may God's blessing be upon you. :)
.

Gormenghast
10-10-2009, 19:38
He does exist and may God's blessing be upon you. :)
.

Well that's your opinion, you're welcome to it and I respect your decision.

We're all, even me, are entitled to our own ridiculous opinions.

But why all the massive quotes that just take up so much space? If you can't give your opinion in less than 50 words then you're not so sure about it are you?

Be more succinct, that way you might be more believable.:)

teeny
10-10-2009, 19:44
Well that's your opinion, you're welcome to it and I respect your decision.

We're all, even me, are entitled to our own ridiculous opinions.

But why all the massive quotes that just take up so much space? If you can't give your opinion in less than 50 words then you're not so sure about it are you?

Be more succinct, that way you might be more believable.:)

sometimes you need to explain what you believe and why , it can tke more than 50 words or less depending on the subject.

Grahame
10-10-2009, 19:49
sometimes you need to explain what you believe and why , it can tke more than 50 words or less depending on the subject.

Hello teeny, I loved your posts and hope you are well. I think these few words speaks very well of the Trinity which were written by the Apostle Paul who of course knew the Old Testament and Judaism very well indeed and would not have said this if it conflicted with the Old Testament.

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."

In Christian love.
.

Lady Star
10-10-2009, 21:35
If the Trinity is not the Bible teaching why are there so many trinitarians? :)

It is in the bible, but not as 'the trinity', rather as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost...

Lets-say-few
10-10-2009, 22:06
Grahame

None of the verses you provided proves your own viewpoint about God. God is one not three. I can go in details with you and prove that trinity is not Bible teaching. If you are ready please let me know. ;)

teeny
10-10-2009, 22:12
Grahame

None of the verses you provided proves your own viewpoint about God. God is one not three. I can go in details with you and prove that trinity is not Bible teaching. If you are ready please let me know. ;)


The trinity as I have said is not in the bible but the bible verses I provided does rather point to God being three persons if you like as I have stated before , Father , son and holy spirit! does that make in clear?:)

Grahame
10-10-2009, 22:13
Grahame

None of the verses you provided proves your own viewpoint about God. God is one not three. I can go in details with you and prove that trinity is not Bible teaching. If you are ready please let me know. ;)

Yes I agree God is one with all the attributes which are many all in one person. However I do not know how you can dismiss scriptures like this prayer which says it as clear as clear can be.

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."

However if you want to post what you have feel free and I will look at it in the morning.
.

teeny
10-10-2009, 22:17
Yes I agree God is one with all the attributes which are many all in one person.

However if you want to post what you have feel free and I will look at it in the morning.
.

me too am off to sleep now !!! I am interested in what you have to say and My husband is too , as he is an ex studant from Cliff collage Calver.

Grahame
10-10-2009, 22:19
me too am off to sleep now !!! I am interested in what you have to say and My husband is too , as he is an ex studant from Cliff collage Calver.

I know Cliff College very well and I wish you and you husband very blessing in the Lords work. Amen.
.

Lets-say-few
10-10-2009, 22:29
Yes I agree God is one with all the attributes which are many all in one person. However I do not know how you can dismiss scriptures like this prayer which says it as clear as clear can be.

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."

However if you want to post what you have feel free and I will look at it in the morning.
.

Grahame

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all". Thank you. Although the words you provided once again can not be used to prove your viewpoint ebout God. :)

Lets continue next time when we both have a time for the topic.
Good night Graham
"May YOU have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ". - Eph 1:2.

plekhanov
10-10-2009, 22:45
It does seem rather odd how many Xians a vehement in their belief that the bible back the doctrine of the trinity (when it is anything but clear that it does). Yet they completely ignore bits like Jesus clearly instructing them not to judge people, saying those who wish to be saved should sell all their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor...

This kind of mindset where you profess to follow a text and then ignore what it blatantly says and utterly convinced yourself that it supports all manner of wild extrapolations is very confusing.

Longcol
11-10-2009, 00:31
Trinity.

Not enough characters, so here're some dots...........................

It was the name given to the first US atomic test, not the place in New Mexico where it took place.

To quote the first website I googled............

"The first atomic bomb was exploded at a desert site near Alamogordo, New Mexico, in a test called Trinity. The ferocious heat generated by the blast fused the desert surface into a greenish glassy substance and melted the 30-metre steel tower on which the bomb had been placed. Even the scientists who had worked on the Manhattan Project (the programme to develop the bomb) were stunned by the power of the test. When 'the sinister and gigantic cloud' rose over the desert, their leader, Robert Oppenheimer, recalled a line from the sacred Hindu text, the Bhagavad-Gita: 'I am become Death, the shatterer of worlds'. "


So now we've got a link between a Hindu sacred text and Wakefield.

This is getting kinda fun :cool:

Lets-say-few
11-10-2009, 11:53
Grahame

Here we are. I would like to go into the details of trinity doctrine and show to you that dogma of trinity teaching does not bases on the Bible.

Lets axamine if Jesus and His Disciples were Teaching the Trinity Doctrine.

Those who accept the Bible as God's Word recognize that they have responsibility to teach others about the Creator. They also realize that the substance of what they teach about God must be true.

Let us start from Jesus. Jesus often prayed to God, whom he called Father, and he also taught others to do so. (Matthew 6:9-11; Luke 11:1, 2) In prayer with his apostles—only hours before his death—Jesus petitioned: "Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, that your son may glorify you. This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."—John 17:1, 3.

Notice that Jesus prays to One whom he calls "the only true God." He points to God's superior position when he continues: "So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was." (John 17:5) Since Jesus prayed to God requesting to be alongside God, how could Jesus at the same time be "the only true God"? :)

The apostle John described Jesus as subordinate to God. John said that he had written his Gospel so that readers might come to believe that "Jesus is the Christ the Son of God"—not that he was God. (John 20:31) John also received a heavenly vision in which he saw "the Lamb", who in his Gospel is identified as Jesus. (John 1:29)
Could "the Lamb" be the same as "his Father"? :) Clearly not. In the Bible they are distinct. They even have different names.
The Christian Century, in its May 20-27, 1998, issue, quotes a pastor who acknowledges that the Trinity is "a teaching of the church rather than a teaching of Jesus."

Grahame
11-10-2009, 13:38
Grahame

Here we are. I would like to go into the details of trinity doctrine and show to you that dogma of trinity teaching does not bases on the Bible.

Lets axamine if Jesus and His Disciples were Teaching the Trinity Doctrine.

Those who accept the Bible as God's Word recognize that they have responsibility to teach others about the Creator. They also realize that the substance of what they teach about God must be true.

Let us start from Jesus. Jesus often prayed to God, whom he called Father, and he also taught others to do so. (Matthew 6:9-11; Luke 11:1, 2) In prayer with his apostles—only hours before his death—Jesus petitioned: "Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, that your son may glorify you. This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."—John 17:1, 3.

Notice that Jesus prays to One whom he calls "the only true God." He points to God's superior position when he continues: "So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was." (John 17:5) Since Jesus prayed to God requesting to be alongside God, how could Jesus at the same time be "the only true God"? :)

The apostle John described Jesus as subordinate to God. John said that he had written his Gospel so that readers might come to believe that "Jesus is the Christ the Son of God"—not that he was God. (John 20:31) John also received a heavenly vision in which he saw "the Lamb", who in his Gospel is identified as Jesus. (John 1:29)
Could "the Lamb" be the same as "his Father"? :) Clearly not. In the Bible they are distinct. They even have different names.
The Christian Century, in its May 20-27, 1998, issue, quotes a pastor who acknowledges that the Trinity is "a teaching of the church rather than a teaching of Jesus."

The only true God is a reference to the many false gods that were being worshipped at the time.


Jesus and God are one.
Jesus said: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

(John 14)
.

flamingjimmy
11-10-2009, 13:40
If it's any consolation at all you're both wrong:)

teeny
11-10-2009, 16:07
If it's any consolation at all you're both wrong:)

Please tell us why?

Lets-say-few
11-10-2009, 16:16
The only true God is a reference to the many false gods that were being worshipped at the time.

Grahame

Yes you are right, The only true God is a reference to the many false gods in many religions but not for christians. For christians there was only One God Father. The disciple Paul wrote:
"For even though there are those who are called "gods", whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many "gods" and many "lords",there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him". - 1 Corinth 8:5,6.
Jesus and all His apostles knew that Jesus never claimed to be God but taught that Father alone is "the only true God".—John 17:3.

Jesus and God are one.
When saying, "I and the Father are one," Jesus did not mean that they were co-equal to eachother. :) Some Trinitarians like you, say that he did.
But note at John 17:21, 22, Jesus prayed regarding his followers: "That they may all be one", and he added, "that they may be one even as we are one".

Obviously, Jesus' disciples do not all become part of the Trinity, did they? :D But they do come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the same sort of oneness that unites God and Christ.



Jesus said: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

The request, "Lord, show us the Father", suggests that Philip wanted Jesus to provide for his disciples a visible manifestation of God, such as was granted in visions to Moses, Elijah and Isaiah in ancient times. (Ex. 24:10; 1 Ki. 19:9-13; Isa. 6:1-5) However, in such visions God's servants saw, not God himself, but symbolic representations of him. See Ex. 33:17-22; John 1:18. Jesus' reply indicated that Philip already had something better than visions of that type. Since Jesus perfectly reflected the personality of his Father, whom only the Son fully 'knew', seeing Jesus Christ was like seeing God himself.—Matt. 11:27.

flamingjimmy
11-10-2009, 16:16
Please tell us why?

Well it's obvious really, the bible was the work of men, and it's content is mostly made up. But i don't wanna take this off topic, forget I mentioned it.:wink:

Lets-say-few
11-10-2009, 16:23
Well it's obvious really, the bible was the work of men, and it's content is mostly made up. But i don't wanna take this off topic, forget I mentioned it.:wink:

flamingjimmy

That's off topic. :) So better I do'nt make any comments on it. Otherwise I would ask you to prove your personal viewpoint to be proved.

teeny
11-10-2009, 16:27
Well it's obvious really, the bible was the work of men, and it's content is mostly made up. But i don't wanna take this off topic, forget I mentioned it.:wink:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

This is the foundational passage on the subject of the inspiration of the Bible. It says very pointedly that all Scripture is inspired by God. There are three points that need be observed.

1. The FACT of Inspiration: All Scripture is INSPIRED by God... (2 Timothy 3:16a).

I have heard people speak of how they were watching a beautiful golden sunset and inspired to paint a picture or to write a poem. But this is not what this verse is saying

The phrase "inspired by God" is translated from the single Greek word qeopneustos. This is the only time that this word ever occurs in the New Testament.

To the best of my knowledge, it is the first time this word is ever used in the Greek language. This means that Paul coined the word himself to describe the work of God in producing the Scriptures. Paul does something similar in 1 Thessalonians 4:9 when he says that you yourselves are taught by God to love one another - literally, you are "God-taught" (qeodidaktos).

In both cases, Paul utilizes a compound word, made up of two commonly used Greek words which are joined together to form a new word.

a. The first word is qeos. It is the word for God.

b. The second word is pnew. It is a verb meaning "to breathe" or "to blow."

It is also the verbal form of the Greek word for "spirit" (pneuma).

Therefore, we could say that "all Scripture is GOD-BREATHED." The very breath and spirit of God has been infused into the writings of the Bible. This is why we refer to it as the Word of God.

Although the specific term that Paul coins was a new one, the concept was not. The Old Testament describes God as accomplishing the work of Creation "by the breath of His mouth" (Psalm 33:6). In the same way, the Bible is the result of the creative work of God.

2. The EXTENT of Inspiration: ALL Scripture is inspired by God... (2 Timothy 3:16a).

All of Scripture is God-breathed. It is not just a small portion of the Bible, but every single sentence and every single word that is God-breathed. This is all-encompassing.

Jesus stressed this principle when He spoke of the abiding quality of the Law in His Sermon on the Mount.

"For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18).

The Greek text is even more specific. It says, "Not one IOTA or one KERAIA shall pass from the law."

The IOTA was the smallest letter of the Greek alphabet.
The KERAIA was the little horn attached to the Hebrew letter BETH to distinguish it from the letter KAPH.
Don't miss this! Jesus says that each and every letter and dot of God’s word would continue to stand. We could say that not one cross of the "T" and not one dot of the "I" will pass away. There is not one part of the Bible that is more inspired or more trustworthy than any other part. It is ALL completely God's word.

3. The OBJECT of Inspiration: All SCRIPTURE is inspired by God... (2 Timothy 3:16a).

It is the Scriptures themselves that are inspired. Paul does not say that the writers of the Scriptures were inspired. He says that the Scriptures themselves that are inspired.

If it had been merely the human authors who had received a revelation from God and then had written their own interpretation of that revelation, then we might wonder if they had not permitted error to creep in as they put this truth into their own words.

However, this is not the case. It is not the writers, but the Scriptures themselves which are said to be God-breathed.

This means that God did not guarantee that everything that Peter or Paul or any other of the human authors ever wrote were correct. No doubt, they wrote many other things that were not inspired by God and the inerrancy of those other writings is not guaranteed.

Rather, it is the truthfulness of the books that make up our Bible that is guaranteed by inspiration.

At the same time, we must recognize the aspect of dual authorship. By this, I mean that there were really two authors of each book - the Holy Spirit and the human author.

There are instances where the human writers described things of which they were eye-witnesses and merely wrote of the thing that they had seen. At other times, these same writers described events that they could not possibly have known about without a supernatural revelation from God (such as those events which took place prior to the creation of man).

There were also times when they wrote and did not themselves understand the full implications of that which they wrote (Daniel writes certain things which are to be sealed up until a future time).

Therefore the principle of inspiration refers to RESULT, not the METHOD in which the Scriptures were written.

In this way, the Bible was written both by men and yet at the same time it is the Word of God.

Gormenghast
11-10-2009, 16:29
Well it's obvious really, the bible was the work of men, and it's content is mostly made up. But i don't wanna take this off topic, forget I mentioned it.:wink:

It's obvious that nobody on this thread is going to change the mind of any other person on the thread. So what's the point of it?

Reasoned intellectual discussion is fine. I love it. But when you get people with such diametrically opposed views together, as on here, there's never going to be a meaningful outcome. As I said previously, we're all entitled to our opinions, but that doesn't give us a right to force them on other people does it?

It just wastes server space that could be used more entertainingly.

Give it a rest please.:)

Grahame
11-10-2009, 16:34
Lets-Say-Few

I have already quoted scripture about the divinity of Jesus which you have ignored and discussion in those circumstances is impossible. However here are more scriptures about the divinity of Jesus.

DIVINITY of JESUS
The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he. And upon this came his disciples; and they marvelled that he was speaking with a woman; yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why speakest thou with her? (John 4:25)

The divinity of Jesus Christ is further illustrated in John 8:58. Jesus said, “Truly, Truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am”, which means that Jesus existed before His human life on earth.

“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” (Matthew 28:18.)

"I and the Father are one." (John 10:30.)

“the Father is in me and I am in the Father." (John 10:38.)

"Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me," [ONE PERSON] (John 14:11)

“In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.” [ONE PERSON] John 14:20

Mar 1:24 "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God."

.

teeny
11-10-2009, 16:36
It's obvious that nobody on this thread is going to change the mind of any other person on the thread. So what's the point of it?

Reasoned intellectual discussion is fine. I love it. But when you get people with such diametrically opposed views together, as on here, there's never going to be a meaningful outcome. As I said previously, we're all entitled to our opinions, but that doesn't give us a right to force them on other people does it?

It just wastes server space that could be used more entertainingly.

Give it a rest please.:)

We all have misconceptions and this is how we learn by disscussing the topic here , I am not forcing my beliefs on anyone but I am sharing freely what i believe , as are you.We can agree to disagree but not be disagreeable:)

Gormenghast
11-10-2009, 16:40
We all have misconceptions and this is how we learn by disscussing the topic here , I am not forcing my beliefs on anyone but I am sharing freely what i believe , as are you.We can agree to disagree but not be disagreeable:)

I agree. But I don't see any useful outcome from this thread. People have opinions, and they're not going to be changed by what's on here are they?

teeny
11-10-2009, 16:43
I agree. But I don't see any useful outcome from this thread. People have opinions, and they're not going to be changed by what's on here are they?

You never know, I have a friend on here who read a thread on religion and it totally changed what she had believed all her life !

flamingjimmy
11-10-2009, 16:44
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

This is the foundational passage on the subject of the inspiration of the Bible. It says very pointedly that all Scripture is inspired by God. There are three points that need be observed.

1. The FACT of Inspiration: All Scripture is INSPIRED by God... (2 Timothy 3:16a).


Oh right so we know it's inspired by god because it says it's inspired by god. Well that's convincing:rolleyes:

Anyway this is off topic, we should probably take this to the 'which religion is the right one' thread, see you there:thumbsup:

What I will say that is on topic is that in a hypothetical situation where god existed and the bible really was his word, then I'd agree with Let's say Few about the trinity, from just the quotes all you guys have been supplying his arguments are more convincing. But like I said, don't worry, he's not really right about god:wink:

teeny
11-10-2009, 16:47
What I will say that is on topic is that in a hypothetical situation where god existed and the bible really was his word, then I'd agree with Let's say Few about the trinity, from just the quotes all you guys have been supplying his arguments are more convincing. But like I said, don't worry, he's not really right about god:wink:[/QUOTE]


thats your opinion and who is to say you are anymore right than me :)

04jessops
11-10-2009, 17:47
Sorry for going off topic (as this is a Grahame-bashing thread first and foremost), but I would like to share with you a wonderful comment about the Trinity that someone told me one day:

The best way to think of the Trinity is like this: a man can be someone's brother, son and father yet he is still one person.

:)

donkey
11-10-2009, 18:11
flamingjimmy

That's off topic. :) So better I do'nt make any comments on it. Otherwise I would ask you to prove your personal viewpoint to be proved.

That old chestnut!

Well I actually believe the universe was created by a giant frog who lives in the centre of Pluto. Unlikely as that seems, nobody can disprove it. Does that make it a valid argument that should be seriously considered?

teeny
11-10-2009, 19:23
That old chestnut!

Well I actually believe the universe was created by a giant frog who lives in the centre of Pluto. Unlikely as that seems, nobody can disprove it. Does that make it a valid argument that should be seriously considered?

what evidence do you have to back this up?

flamingjimmy
11-10-2009, 20:17
what evidence do you have to back this up?

The posts of the great prophet donkey, that's an inspired post you quoted there! Almost blasphemy!

donkey
11-10-2009, 20:33
what evidence do you have to back this up?

The Sacred Troutfish appeared to me in a dream. He told me to spread the word, and that those who refuse to believe will be boiled in a giant vat of cow pats for all eternity.

teeny
11-10-2009, 21:16
The Sacred Troutfish appeared to me in a dream. He told me to spread the word, and that those who refuse to believe will be boiled in a giant vat of cow pats for all eternity.


physical evidence I mean
there is more evidence for Jesus Christ than Ceaser!

plekhanov
11-10-2009, 21:28
physical evidence I mean
there is more evidence for Jesus Christ than Ceaser!
There is? Can you point us to it?

carosio
11-10-2009, 22:10
You never know, I have a friend on here who read a thread on religion and it totally changed what she had believed all her life !

I did the same but through books, and it changed my belief!

flamingjimmy
11-10-2009, 22:38
physical evidence I mean
there is more evidence for Jesus Christ than Ceaser!

even if we concede that there is evidence of a guy called something like that around that time or so, that does not constitute evidence that he did any of the things attributed to him, let alone the truth of the rest of the bible.

Can you point to any evidence that the bible was not written by men?

Longcol
11-10-2009, 23:50
The Sacred Troutfish appeared to me in a dream. He told me to spread the word, and that those who refuse to believe will be boiled in a giant vat of cow pats for all eternity.

And verily thou shalt walk in the vale of the cow pats and the Lord shall say unto you go forth and to this day henceforth we shall know thee by the sign of the Sacred Troutfish.

For it is written and foretold while the angels multiply ( or summat) that man knoweth nothing but ale and chips. Amen. The Gospel according to Longcol, Act One, Scene Four, Line Two

donkey
12-10-2009, 02:49
And verily thou shalt walk in the vale of the cow pats and the Lord shall say unto you go forth and to this day henceforth we shall know thee by the sign of the Sacred Troutfish.

For it is written and foretold while the angels multiply ( or summat) that man knoweth nothing but ale and chips. Amen. The Gospel according to Longcol, Act One, Scene Four, Line Two

And verily, they did read the words of the prophet Longcol, and they saw it was good. For what the Sacred Troutfish has ordained Holy, let no ring tailed lemur rent asunder. Let ye who have understanding eat the chocolate bunnies of knowledge and weep.

Lets-say-few
12-10-2009, 10:11
Lets-Say-Few

I have already quoted scripture about the divinity of Jesus which you have ignored and discussion in those circumstances is impossible. However here are more scriptures about the divinity of Jesus.

Grahame
That's not true . I did reply on the Bible verses you provide and you brought the same verses again which I have answered already. :)


“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” (Matthew 28:18.)
I love the verse you qouted here :) Note what it says:

"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” (Matthew 28:18).
If Jesus were God why there was need to GIVE the power to him? Is him not the God almighty? :) But Jesus was not God almighty thats why there were need to be GIVEN the all power to him. So once again the Bible verses you provide can not prove the one you are trying.


Mar 1:24 "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God.".

Again. Note what does it say: "The Holy one of God" not "The Holy God".

Try to find other verses please. :)

teeny
12-10-2009, 17:30
even if we concede that there is evidence of a guy called something like that around that time or so, that does not constitute evidence that he did any of the things attributed to him, let alone the truth of the rest of the bible.

Can you point to any evidence that the bible was not written by men?

I have never said the bible wasn't written by Man ,
I said it was inspired by God through man!

Crayfish
12-10-2009, 17:34
I have never said the bible wasn't written by Man ,
I said it was inspired by God through man!

Then why is it such a third-rate read?

klatu
12-10-2009, 17:41
It looks like the whole of theology is about to take a fall and all current understanding of the Trinity with it.

The first wholly new interpretation for 2000 years of the moral teachings of Christ is on the web, titled The Final Freedoms, redefining all primary elements including Faith, the Word, Baptism, the Trinity and the Resurrection, this new interpretation questions the validity and origins of all Christian tradition; focusing specifically on marriage, love and human sexuality, it overturns all natural law ethics and theory. At stake is the credibility of several thousand years of religious history and moral teaching.

Using a synthesis of scriptural material from the Old and New Testaments, the Apocrypha , The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Nag Hammadi Library, and some of the worlds great poetry, it describes and teaches a single moral LAW, a single moral principle, and offers the promise of its own proof; one in which the reality of God responds directly to an act of perfect faith with a individual intervention into the natural world; correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries. Intended to be understood metaphorically, where 'death' is ignorance and 'Life' is knowledge, this experience, personal encounter of transcendent power and moral purpose is the 'Resurrection', and justification for faith.

In 'religious' terms, this is revolutionary stuff for those who can handle it?

teeny
12-10-2009, 17:41
Then why is it such a third-rate read?

To me its a good read and I love it , I have always thought that the words of the Bible were precious and wcertainly not third rate, its written in a way we can understand and relate to

plekhanov
12-10-2009, 18:13
To me its a good read and I love it , I have always thought that the words of the Bible were precious and wcertainly not third rate, its written in a way we can understand and relate to

Exodus 7:3-4 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments.

Perhaps you can explain to us how you "understand and relate" to the bible claiming that Yahweh repeatedly 'hardened Pharaoh's heart' so he wouldn't let the Jews leave Egypt. Only to inflict a series of terrible punishments upon the whole Egyptian people as a punishment for something Yahweh himself had caused to happen.

That story never made any sense to me when I heard it all those times in church as a child as at the same time I was being told that the all powerful super being who acted in such a nonsensical and cruel manner was 'all knwoing', 'all loving' and 'just'. It still makes no sense to me now, you can apparently "understand and relate" to such things so no doubt you can explain it to me.

Rah Rah Rah
12-10-2009, 18:19
I believe being a nice person is very important. Peace and love:)

teeny
12-10-2009, 19:34
Exodus 7:3-4 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments.

Perhaps you can explain to us how you "understand and relate" to the bible claiming that Yahweh repeatedly 'hardened Pharaoh's heart' so he wouldn't let the Jews leave Egypt. Only to inflict a series of terrible punishments upon the whole Egyptian people as a punishment for something Yahweh himself had caused to happen.

That story never made any sense to me when I heard it all those times in church as a child as at the same time I was being told that the all powerful super being who acted in such a nonsensical and cruel manner was 'all knwoing', 'all loving' and 'just'. It still makes no sense to me now, you can apparently "understand and relate" to such things so no doubt you can explain it to me.Certainly one of the most enduring paradoxes of scriptural narratives is the seemingly irreconcilable conflict between the free-will of humanity and the sanctity of divine will. In the stories of Job and Abraham, divine will is born out in the hearts of people, so much so that we must ask, what is the point? If, in fact, free-will can be alleviated by the divine, can free-will even exist at all? Is it a concept predicated on universality?

Perhaps the most interesting question is why and how. �If God can relieve man of his free-will, what are the conditions of such degradation? That is to say, what willful acts incur the loss of free-will as divine punishment? It is a question that engenders questions of sin and redemption. After all, the concept at the heart of the covenant between God and the Israelites is the epistemological inscription of sin and redemption, both notions requiring some form of choice.

There is perhaps nowhere in the scriptures that characterizes these questions more than the story of the Israelite�s Exodus from Egypt. �For example, in the Exodus story we see God hardening Pharaoh�s heart over and over again, such that he will not permit the Israelites to leave Egypt, at least not on their own terms. As a result, God unleashes upon Egypt a series of terrible plagues. This story then begs the question, what is the purpose of God hardening the Pharaoh�s heart and the subsequent plagues? Is it retribution for the persecution of God�s chosen people? If not, what then?

Taken to abstraction, this question poses a necessary threat to the notion of covenantal ethics. If God takes free-will from Pharaoh, then He takes from him the capacity for repentance, or, for that matter, sin, and, therefore, undermines the covenantal relationship. This problem profoundly needs fixing, so to speak. Obviously, I am not the first person to wrestle with it. Commentators of scripture have dealt with this problem for centuries and have arrived at a series of conclusions about the form and function of God�s actions.

One approach to the problem might be to make an ontological distinction between the Israelites and the Egyptians. That is to say, we might claim that the covenant does not apply to the Egyptians because they are not God�s chosen people. However, this is a profoundly dangerous way of thinking. After all, to claim that a people are not worthy of a covenantal relationship is to undermine not only their possession of free-will, but indeed their capacity for free-will. It has a dehumanizing effect that might, if we extrapolate this ontological distinction to the modern world, rationalize any number of atrocities. Luckily for us, we can recognize the covenantal ethics with the hardening of Pharaoh�s heart without making such an ontological distinction.

In order to reconcile the problem of Pharaoh�s hardened heart with the seeming undermining of the covenantal ethics, I will consider the commentaries of four prominent thinkers on the subject. First, I will look at the exegesis of Rashi, who sees Pharaoh as an inadequate covenantal partner, not capable of repentance for his actions. Second, I will consider Nahmanides, who considers the hardening of Pharaoh�s heart not as a contradiction to the covenantal ethics, but rather a function of the covenantal relationship. Third, I will consider Maimonides, who sees free-will as a function of the covenantal relationship and, therefore, a blessing that can be withdrawn as a result of sin. That is to say, Pharaoh was evil of his own free-will and consequently deserved the punishment that he received. Finally, I will consider the work of Origen who in some sense agrees with Maimonides but who also, in Christian fashion, centers his exposition much more on the nature of free-will than on assuming free-will as a starting point.

R. Shlomo ben Isaac, known as Rashi, takes a traditional exegetic approach to the problem by noting in the Exodus a basic contradiction. That is, in Exodus 7:3, God says to Moses, �I will harden Pharaoh�s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt.� However, until the sixth plague, the scriptures say that God hardens Pharaoh�s heart. �While at first it seems as though God treats Pharoah harshly here, Pharaoh can stop the plagues at any moment simply by �letting the people go.� Then, however, Pharaoh�s recalcitrance makes him an inadequate covenantal partner. �As a result, Pharaoh loses the capacity to repent through his own free-will, a function of the covenant that Pharaoh implicitly rejects.

Rashi seems to be hinting at a philosophical answer to the questions raised by the hardening of Pharaoh�s heart, but, being a pure exegete, he really does not elaborate. In my analysis, however, Rashi suggests a solution to the philosophical problem of the Exodus narrative. That is, the free-will which humans enjoy is not an a priori property of humanity. Free-will, instead, is a function of the covenantal relationship with God. As such, we are all born with the capacity to act freely, but once we expressly reject the covenantal relationship by denying the divine authority of God, our capacity for free-will is also rejected. After all, it can be argued that the function of free-will is to create the capacity for repentance, but we cannot repent if we do not recognize the nature of our sin. This notion, suggested by the exegesis of Rashi, ties into the more philosophical approach of Nahmanides who, as Shaul Magid points out, �draws this episode into the covenantal ethics and interprets God�s actions as just in light of Pharaoh�s sinful behavior.�[1]

Nahmanides, in his exegetic/philosophical approach to the Exodus narrative, tends to distance himself from the questions of free-will that we are attempting, in this paper, to reconcile with God�s actions. Nahmanides states, in his commentary on Exodus 7:3: �when the plagues intensified and [Pharoah] began to suffer from them, his heart began to suffer from them and he was wont to free them [the Israelites] because of the plagues and not because of the divine will.� Here, Nahmonides explores an idea that I see as the central function of God hardening Pharaoh�s heart. Our discomfort with God�s seemingly unjust action is that, from a first reading, Pharaoh appears ready to repent after the fifth plague, at which point God hardens his heart against such a repentance. However, upon closer inspection, Pharaoh is still not ready to repent, only to relent to pressure.

Nahmanides�s approach to the problem then brings us to an important subtext of the Exodus narrative. When Moses originally approached Pharaoh about releasing the Israelites from captivity, it was highly unlikely that Pharaoh would agree. After all, Pharaoh had an empire to run and it was an empire whose economy was predicated on slave labor. In that context, his recalcitrance may be understood in an essentially pragmatic light. What was missing from his worldview, however, was the recognition of God�s divine authority. Thus, when he relented to Moses� demands after the fifth plague, it was not out of a genuine repentance and understanding of God�s will, but rather the same pragmatic concern. �It is more difficult for Pharoah to deal with the ravages of the plagues than it would have been to let the Israelites go on their way. In this construct, God hardened Pharaoh�s heart because Pharaoh still missed the point. That is, he still did not regard God as the singular divine authority.

Maimonides� approach to scriptural commentary is more philosophical rather than exegetic. That is, he aims to reconcile the hardening of Pharaoh�s heart with an abstract philosophical or legal ethic rather than making sense of a single verse or the narrative as a whole. As such, Maimonides�s central claim is that free-will can be taken from those whose sins are grave enough. As he writes in his Laws of Teshuva:�It is possible that a person may commit a grave transgression, such that the True Judge rules that punishment for this sinner�is that teshuva will be withheld from him.�[2] �So, Maimonides�s position is fairly straightforward: our free-will is ordained by our covenantal relationship with God and, if our sins are grave enough, as the Pharaoh�s apparently were, then free-will can be stripped from us.

Rashi, Maimonides, and Nahmanides each take different approaches to understanding the hardening of Pharaoh�s heart, but they all still have a common purpose. That is, they attempt to understand the means and motives of God�s actions, in addition to formulating a reasonable basis for the divine will. Interestingly enough, they also have Judaism in common. That is, they express a tradition in Jewish theology to alleviate, through exegetical or philosophical expositions, the uneasiness many might feel when reading scriptural narratives. This, however, is a notion that tends to be lost on many Christian theologians who often preface their theological expositions by saying that it is not for human minds to know the nature of God�s actions. This is plainly evident in the Christian theologian Origen�s treatment of the hardening of Pharaoh�s heart.

In principle, Origen tends to mirror Maimonides�s thoughts on the subject. That is, he asserts that sins exist grave enough for God to strip man of his free-will and subsequently the capacity for repentance. However, it is important in order to differentiate Jewish from Christian theology to note that the entire precept of free-will is a bit dubious in Christian theology. As such, Origen�s writing on the hardening of Pharaoh�s heart is not so much about God�s action in this particular narrative, but rather the form and function of free-will in Christian theology as a whole. Origen�s exposition is largely based on the notion that the same merciful act of God can have different effects on different people, �hardening one and softening the other.�[3]� Paul, in Hebrews 6:7-8 for example, says that �for land, which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, its end is to be burned.� In this analogy, the land that is plowed and well-tended yields fruits and vegetation that are helpful and good. However, the untended, poorly maintained land yields thorns and thistles. As such, God�s action�bringing the rain�and the quality of the land are the same. So, it is the action of the landowner, i.e. the man, which determines whether God�s action will be a blessing or a curse.� In this context, we may interpret God�s decree that �I will harden Pharaoh�s heart� in an altogether different light. That is to say, we may understand it as a colloquialism.

Consider, for example, an overly friendly and accommodating boss who says to a lazy employee, �I spoil you.� In this context we understand that the boss does not spoil his employee by taking his free-will from him. Rather, he is saying that, even though the employee is lazy and not doing his job, the boss has been too easy on him. This analogy works quite nicely with the Exodus narrative, noting that the first three plagues God inflicts upon Egypt are, in fact, replicated by the Pharaoh�s own magicians. As such, we may be able to soften God�s meaning when he says, before Moses approaches Pharaoh, that he �will harden Pharaoh�s heart� in Exodus 4:21 and Exodus 7:3. This interpretation, however, raises some questions of its own. In particular, why would God bother with such minor plagues, if he knew that they would not sway the Pharaoh towards recognition of divine authority?

We might explore such considerations when we juxtapose this interpretation with Romans 9:17: �I have raised you [Pharaoh] up for the very purpose of showing my power in you� If we take the two together, we come to an interesting interpretation of the Exodus narrative: God�s motive, or at least one of his motives, was to demonstrate the nature of divine prophecy. Events that we might consider miraculous can only be so if they are foretold by some manner of divine revelation. Conversely, the truth of what one sees as divine revelation can only be ascertained by the manifestation of the predictive revelation. Is it then possible that the first three plagues were to secure Moses and the rest of the Israelites in the truth of Moses� revelation? A bit of a stretch perhaps, but nonetheless possible. Now we come to the unifying idea of this paper.

The uneasiness that people feel as a result of the Exodus narrative can be summed up in our seeing God�s actions as fundamentally unjust. In Genesis 12:3, God promises to Abraham, �Him who curses you I will curse.� �And likewise, God promises to deliver the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. However, we can scarcely argue with the assertion that vengeance is not justice and also that to say that God�s will shall come to pass is tautological.� The uneasiness we feel then seems to be engendered by the notion that the ten plagues and all the suffering that they caused was unnecessary. After all, if God is all powerful, then with the mere proverbial snap of his fingers, the Israelites would find themselves miraculously transported from Egypt to the Promised Land. Superficially then, we might see God�s unleashing of the mighty plagues as a form of retribution, a grand punishment upon the Pharaoh who callously persecuted God�s chosen people. But, as I have said, vengeance is not justice and vengeance on such a grand scale certainly seems particularly unjust. What then is the point?

teeny
12-10-2009, 19:35
The commentaries I discussed in this paper point to common conclusion. Namely, God�s actions were not a function of some malicious retributive will, but rather a demonstration of divine authority with a fundamentally redemptive purpose. God laid the plagues upon Egypt so that the Pharaoh, and by extension the Egyptians, might see the power of God�s divine will and enter into the covenant of their own volition. In this context, the hardening of Pharaoh�s heart was not so that God would continue to lay curses upon Egypt but rather so that �the Egyptians shall know that [he is] the LORD.� (Exodus 14:4). The hardening of Pharaoh�s heart would be necessary for the completion of that goal. As I said previously, even when Pharaoh�s heart softens a bit and he relents to Moses� demands, he still misses the point. He does not understand and does not wish to enter into a covenantal relationship with God. Even before Pharaoh�s heart was hardened against letting Moses and his people leave on their own terms, his heart was already hardened to the nature of God�s divine authority.

Using this perspective, we can go back through the Exodus narrative and begin to realize that God�s actions are plainly stated in the text, that God�s most sincere wish was that the people of Egypt would accept the covenantal relationship and follow the Israelites into the Promised Land. We see, for instance, in Exodus 12:49 that God decrees, �There shall be one law for the native and stranger who sojourn among you.�� We see in this verse a clear statement of purpose. God wished to demonstrate his power in the land of Egypt so that the people of Egypt would have accepted his authority and entered into the covenantal relationship. Once they accept, then they can, in effect, become one of God�s chosen people. So, it is the divine wish that not only the Israelites be freed from Egypt, but also that, paradoxically, that the Egyptians be freed from Egypt, for their enslavement at the hands of Pharaoh was much different. It was, in essence, an enslavement of the soul, a bondage that prevented them from knowing God as the Israelites did.

I will conclude now with an observation that may help to bring the Exodus story into perspective. Judaism, and subsequently Islam and Christianity, are unique in that they expose the moral universe in which we live through narrative form rather than through philosophical or pseudo-scientific doctrines. Perhaps it is the all-encompassing point of all the exegesis and interpretation that the function of God�s actions in the Exodus was to, paradoxically, create the narrative. As I have written, to say that the will of God shall come to pass is tautological; however, that we humans, in our capacity to act freely, will fulfill our part in bringing about the divine will is not. So, in the end, perhaps it is the point that the story might be written and that future generations might read that story and, through it, understand the challenge of fulfilling man�s covenant with God. As such, we may see in Moses the essence of ourselves.� Moses is the prototypical anti-hero. God, however, promises Moses that He will stand by him.� It was faith that sustained Moses and gave him the courage to stand up to what was then the most powerful king on earth. When we read the story of the Exodus and find a bit of ourselves in Moses, we understand that it is faith in the reciprocation of the covenantal devotion by God that may free us from whatever bondage in which we might find ourselves.

plekhanov
12-10-2009, 19:56
<snip plagiarised apologist article>
If as you claim:

"I have always thought that the words of the Bible were precious and wcertainly not third rate, its written in a way we can understand and relate to"

Then why can't you explain to me in your own words your own personal understanding of why an "all loving" super being would "harden Pharaoh's heart" and then viscously punish the Egyptian people for something that is the super being's own doing?

Why instead did you plagiarise someone else's attempt to reconcile the utterly contradictory claims that the god described in the bible is 'all loving' with the brutally sadistic acts the bible claims that same god was responsible for?

teeny
12-10-2009, 20:13
If as you claim:

"I have always thought that the words of the Bible were precious and wcertainly not third rate, its written in a way we can understand and relate to"

Then why can't you explain to me in your own words your own personal understanding of why an "all loving" super being would "harden Pharaoh's heart" and then viscously punish the Egyptian people for something that is the super being's own doing?

Why instead did you plagiarise someone else's attempt to reconcile the utterly contradictory claims that the god described in the bible is 'all loving' with the brutally sadistic acts the bible claims that same god was responsible for?

What is above is explained is what I see the verses you gave me and its what i believe them to mean.

µscope
12-10-2009, 20:24
I believe that St. Patrick was correct when he said that Shamrocks (Clovers) have three leaves, which they generally do, but that's as far as it goes for me! :hihi:

Bloomdido
12-10-2009, 20:27
I have just logged on to see that there are 111 replies to this post. This clearly is a message from god, the father, the son, and the holy spirit, all equal parts of the trinity.

Now I'm off to see if I can make Jesus appear on my cheese toastie.

plekhanov
12-10-2009, 20:31
What is above is explained is what I see the verses you gave me and its what i believe them to mean.
Buy how come you can't explain their meaning in your own words, if as you claim the Bible is "written in a way we can understand and relate to"?

Can you really relate to a superbeign sadistically toying with people in the way he played with the lives of the Egyptians? Can you "understand and relate to" this:

Deuteronomy 20:10-18 10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

It'd be fascinated to hear you in your own words explain how you "understand and relate" to an "all loving" superbeing instructing his chosen people to demand whole cities surrender to be enslaved, massacring any all the men in cities that resist enslavement and those cities are the lucky ones...

Again when I read this as I child I just couldn't see how an "all loving" god would order and assist in massacres, mass enslavement and even genocide. Can you please explain in your own words how this is possible?

flamingjimmy
12-10-2009, 20:37
Hey teeny, can you stop copying and pasting huge volumes of text in your posts. I've given the benefit of the doubt that they were actually your words before, but when funny symbols start popping up in every sentence it become painfully obvious its a control C job.

Don't be so lazy, phrase your own arguments, preferably in a more concise way than your sources.

flamingjimmy
12-10-2009, 20:39
I have never said the bible wasn't written by Man ,
I said it was inspired by God through man!

OK well is there any evidence of that then?

carosio
12-10-2009, 20:39
.

In 'religious' terms, this is revolutionary stuff for those who can handle it?

I could be if we understood it!

teeny
12-10-2009, 20:53
Hey teeny, can you stop copying and pasting huge volumes of text in your posts. I've given the benefit of the doubt that they were actually your words before, but when funny symbols start popping up in every sentence it become painfully obvious its a control C job.

Don't be so lazy, phrase your own arguments, preferably in a more concise way than your sources.

using my husbands essays is not wrong as he has studied this all at clliff college and has had some published on another site.
this to me was the best way in explaining what I know to be true.

plekhanov
12-10-2009, 20:58
using my husbands essays is not wrong as he has studied this all at clliff college and has had some published on another site.
this to me was the best way in explaining what I know to be true.
Passing someone else's work off as your own is always wrong.

flamingjimmy
12-10-2009, 20:58
using my husbands essays is not wrong as he has studied this all at clliff college and has had some published on another site.
this to me was the best way in explaining what I know to be true.

It's still not cool really, they're far too long to begin a response to without spending hours! Like doing an essay for uni or something. If you really understand it all then can you try and summarise it next time, or select the key points that back up your argument. the debate would be much more enlightening for all involved.:)

teeny
12-10-2009, 21:07
I am Dave,Teeny's husband she has never passed this as her own work but of that of her views, she does this with my full knowlegde and consent. She uses my work to backup and give essence to the disscussion nothing else and nothing less.

flamingjimmy
12-10-2009, 21:15
I am Dave,Teeny's husband she has never passed this as her own work but of that of her views, she does this with my full knowlegde and consent. She uses my work to backup and give essence to the disscussion nothing else and nothing less.

Yeah I got the part that she's (you? whoever's reading) not tea leafing the words, but the points I made in my last post still stand, I think.

"It's still not cool really, they're far too long to begin a response to without spending hours! Like doing an essay for uni or something. If you really understand it all then can you try and summarise it next time, or select the key points that back up your argument. the debate would be much more enlightening for all involved.:)"

Or I suppose you could just let Dave come on here and debate with us instead.

Also I think it's worth noting that this doesn't reflect too well on your assertion that the bible is "written in a way we can understand and relate to"

teeny
12-10-2009, 21:38
Yeah I got the part that she's (you? whoever's reading) not tea leafing the words, but the points I made in my last post still stand, I think.

"It's still not cool really, they're far too long to begin a response to without spending hours! Like doing an essay for uni or something. If you really understand it all then can you try and summarise it next time, or select the key points that back up your argument. the debate would be much more enlightening for all involved.:)"

Or I suppose you could just let Dave come on here and debate with us instead.

Also I think it's worth noting that this doesn't reflect too well on your assertion that the bible is "written in a way we can understand and relate to"


sometimes its better to use alot of words to explain as topics need the depth, which you asked for and have been given valid answers, which you seem not to really want.:suspect:

Grahame
12-10-2009, 21:45
All the way through the Bible we read of rebellious people and people like Saddam Hussain reminds me of Pharaoh. The more people try to bring a man like that to justice the harder his heart becomes fuelled by the good intentions of the people who work for peace.

The peace makers in their attempts for a good outcome don't harden a man's heart as such, he does it himself at the conference table when he rejects all they have to say, and likewise Pharaoh rejected God and hardened his heart against him.

This is the nature of a despot and so it was with Pharaoh whose heart was hardened through his own determination to keep God's people captive regardless of what happened. Eventually the Israelites found freedom and God remained sovereign over all, as he always has been and as he always will be, regardless of what the rebellious people on Sheffield Forum think or say who have hardened their own hearts against God. What happened to Pharaoh in as much as he was overruled by God can happen to you also and it pays to learn lessons from history.
.

flamingjimmy
12-10-2009, 21:53
sometimes its better to use alot of words to explain as topics need the depth, which you asked for and have been given valid answers, which you seem not to really want.:suspect:

Actually you haven't given me any essays in response, I'm beginning to feel left out:(, it's just Plek and the JW guy you've done that for. If you want you could answer my last post where I asked you a question, number 116.

donkey
12-10-2009, 21:55
What happened to Pharaoh in as much as he was overruled by God can happen to you also and it pays to learn lessons from history.
.

And there - stripped of all the ambiguous, pseudo mystical ramblings - is the bottom line of Abrahamic religion. ''You don't got no choice. Believe what you is told to believe, or big G's gonna send his badda boys round to make you real sorry. Eternity is a long time to be in agony, you freakin' dumbfrock!''

Grahame
12-10-2009, 21:57
And there - stripped of all the ambiguous, pseudo mystical ramblings - is the bottom line of Abrahamic religion. ''You don't got no choice. Believe what you is told to believe, or big G's gonna send his badda boys round to make you real sorry. Eternity is a long time to be in agony, you freakin' dumbfrock!''

That's what Pharaoh said to Moses. Or words to that effect.

The thing is, it is people like Pharaoh who cause all the trouble in the world and you people want to blame the peace maker.
.

plekhanov
12-10-2009, 22:07
I am Dave,Teeny's husband she has never passed this as her own work but of that of her views, she does this with my full knowlegde and consent. She uses my work to backup and give essence to the disscussion nothing else and nothing less.
Whether or not she had the consent of the writer (and if indeed you really are the writer) is irrelevant. Teeny attempted to pass another's work off as her own when she cut and pasted the work of another with nothing to in anyway indicate that the words were not her own.

The fact that teeny did so in an attempt to back up a boast she made about the depth of her personal understanding of the bible:

"I have always thought that the words of the Bible were precious and wcertainly not third rate, its written in a way we can understand and relate to (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=5526314#post5526314)"

Makes the attempt all the more indefensible.

carosio
12-10-2009, 22:12
What happened to Pharaoh in as much as he was overruled by God can happen to you also and it pays to learn lessons from history.
.

Ah! Divine Intervention, is it not? He must have been very busy, intervening here, intervening there; if He had intervened to stop the Jews going into Egypt in the first place, a whole lot of bother would have been avoided.

Grahame
12-10-2009, 22:17
Ah! Divine Intervention, is it not? He must have been very busy, intervening here, intervening there; if He had intervened to stop the Jews going into Egypt in the first place, a whole lot of bother would have been avoided.

Read what happened and why the Israelites were in Egypt. It was wholly good.
.

donkey
12-10-2009, 22:28
Read what happened and why the Israelites were in Egypt. It was wholly good.
.

Yeah, fabulous. the slaves who born in misery, lived in misery and died in misery must have been saying to each other. ''Hey, mysterious ways, innit?'' ''I'm sure there's a man in the sky who made everything, and if our life is a nightmare, it's all for the best.''

Grahame
12-10-2009, 22:30
Yeah, fabulous. the slaves who born in misery, lived in misery and died in misery must have been saying to each other. ''Hey, mysterious ways, innit?'' ''I'm sure there's a man in the sky who made everything, and if our life is a nightmare, it's all for the best.''

Find out the facts first before you talk.
.

donkey
12-10-2009, 22:30
Find out the facts first before you talk.
.

Tell me, what 'facts' you are refering to?

Bloomdido
12-10-2009, 22:33
It doesn't matter that they died in misery because they entered the kingdom of god when they died, provided they adhered to the rules, gave away their wealth and passed through the eye of a needle. They are still here in heaven for eternity. If you are a believer, you may even get to meet them some day. Imagine all he people in heaven that you will get to talk to when you die and ascend.

Grahame
12-10-2009, 22:41
Seeing as this thread is about the Trinity and we are talking about facts, here is a fact for MR Jehovah Witness which he will try to deny, but let him at his peril.

In their own New Translation you will see that every time the Greek word KURIOS (LORD) appears , they change it to read JEHOVAH and in actual fact that is a good translation of the Greek word KURIOS.

But in Phil 2:11 , they REFUSE to change KURIOS to Jehovah , and when you read Phil 2:11, you will see why.

This is what Phillipians 2:11 says in my Bible and yours if you have one: "And that every Tongue should Confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of the Father .

In their Bible it should read: "And that every Tongue should Confess that Jesus Christ is Jehovah to the glory of the Father.

If they DID CHANGE IT, the Jehovah Witnesses would be admitting that Jesus is Jehovah, and that would be a big MISTAKE, IN THEIR THEOLOGY.
.

donkey
12-10-2009, 22:44
The thing is, it is people like Pharaoh who cause all the trouble in the world and you people want to blame the peace maker.
.

If I thought for a second this 'being' actually existed, I would have to wonder how they could be a peacemaker, and yet ultimately rely on the worst kinds of threats of everlasting physical agony, that can be imagined.

''I made you, and I love you, but if you don't think what I want you to think, I will torture you forever! I Create beings and then torment them?'' It fits the bill of abusive, manipulative people who crave power and control, taking their megalomania to the next level, and claiming their sick desires are the will of a divine all powerful being. Not much of a thing to build a civilisation on.

Grahame
12-10-2009, 22:55
If I thought for a second this 'being' actually existed, I would have to wonder how they could be a peacemaker, and yet ultimately rely on the worst kinds of threats of everlasting physical agony, that can be imagined.

''I made you, and I love you, but if you don't think what I want you to think, I will torture you forever! I Create beings and then torment them?'' It fits the bill of abusive, manipulative people who crave power and control, taking their megalomania to the next level, and claiming their sick desires are the will of a divine all powerful being. Not much of a thing to build a civilisation on.

Pharaoh was a despot like some we have had in recent years and God did three things, firstly Pharaoh who was the king of Egypt denied all knowledge of God, and so God made himself known to him, that was the first thing, then God showed him who the real ruler was which was himself, and then lastly he restored peace again in Egypt.

All the trouble was caused by one evil person and that was the king of Egypt and it was his stubbornness and his hatred that caused it, and one of the things to bring out in this is that at the bottom of it all is a God of love who wants peace among the nations.
.

donkey
12-10-2009, 23:17
All the trouble was caused by one evil person and that was the king of Egypt and it was his stubbornness and his hatred that caused it, and one of the things to bring out in this is that at the bottom of it all is a God of love who wants peace among the nations.
.

You have the version of one side of a conflict, who claimed ''God is on our side''. It is the earliest recorded example of a very familiar theme. If Christianity hadn't superceded ancient Roman beliefs, people like yourself would be running round today, throwing curses down wells, and looking at entrails for 'omens.'

''Ah, but my superstition is the right superstition.'' I have to say though, I prefer your interpretation of the Bible to that of those people who convince themselves there is a subtle shifting world of mystical interpretation in the Bible, available only to the self elected elite what 'knows' or 'has understanding' ' Now there's a mental cul de sac of no return! Hey, I'm all for altered states, but they have existed long before there was ever a concept of 'God'. To claim you 'know' is to attempt to tie down, and therefore deny the mysterious and fluid nature of reality and perception. And that would be a pile of ****!

donkey
13-10-2009, 00:30
Irrelevant late night ramblings

redrobbo
13-10-2009, 00:43
Unitarians do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity and they reject the theology of original sin.

Unitarians have a strong attachment to social responsibility and support equality for gays and lesbians.

donkey
13-10-2009, 01:05
Unitarians do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity and they reject the theology of original sin.

Unitarians have a strong attachment to social responsibility and support equality for gays and lesbians.

So, they support the same ideals as many of the people who aren't religious at all.

Tipex
13-10-2009, 06:28
I love how people do not believe. I bet they'd be the first on their hands and knees, praying if the ship was sinking.

God exist, and till he proves he doesn't, i shall go on with the belief that he does.

quisquose
13-10-2009, 10:49
There's only one clear mention of the trinity in the bible:

1 John 5 (King James Version) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%205%20;&version=KJV;)

7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Satisfied?

But wait ... that's an English translation, of a Latin translation of the original Greek.

What about an English translation direct from the original Greek:

1 John 5 (New International Version) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%205%20;&version=NIV;)

7 "For there are three that testify"

Mmmm. Spot the difference? "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" was dishonestly added to the Latin without a Greek precedent. This was simply inserted to add weight to the Trinitarian doctrine. :suspect:

Those naughty naughty Vatican folks, they'll do anything to protect their dogma, anything I tell you.

Whatif wewin
13-10-2009, 10:57
Look I shall say this only once:

There is but one God.
There is no God.
I am hedging my bets.

carosio
13-10-2009, 11:07
Read what happened and why the Israelites were in Egypt. It was wholly good.
.

I will read it up while on hol. Me and Grahame are mates.

flamingjimmy
13-10-2009, 11:12
I love how people do not believe. I bet they'd be the first on their hands and knees, praying if the ship was sinking.
Praying to who exactly? there are a multitude of mutually exclusive gods, picking one and desperately praying when the end comes would be the act of a fool.

What if Al-Quaeda are the ones that have got this religion malarky right? then you're just as screwed as I am when we die.

God exist, and till he proves he doesn't, i shall go on with the belief that he does.

You have a giant invisible teapot on your head, that cannot be touched or heard.

And until you prove that you don't, I will continue in the belief that you do.:)

Also, god takes the form of a a lesbian dolphin and he doesn't like people with brown hair, they can never enter heaven.

And until you prove that this is untrue, I will continue to believe it!

Plain Talker
13-10-2009, 11:29
Read what happened and why the Israelites were in Egypt. It was wholly good.

I'm sure the Hebrew slave that Moses (S-A-W) witnessed being beaten to death by the slavemaster thought it was all just peachy-keen.

Plain Talker
13-10-2009, 11:39
Unitarians do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity and they reject the theology of original sin.

Unitarians have a strong attachment to social responsibility and support equality for gays and lesbians.

We should all take note of what our social responsibilities are, and live up to them. (whether it's caring for the environment, or making sure the little old lady who lives down the street is okay)

As for gay and lesbian equality, again, that is social and humanitarian justice, to allow everyone their right to live their life fully and without prejudice.

One of the minor prophets in the old testament, Micah, said this:- my favourite quote from the bible

"This is what Yahweh asks of you: this only, to act justly, to love tenderly, and to walk humbly with your God". Micah 6:8

Lets-say-few
13-10-2009, 12:45
Seeing as this thread is about the Trinity and we are talking about facts, here is a fact for MR Jehovah Witness which he will try to deny, but let him at his peril.

In their own New Translation you will see that every time the Greek word KURIOS (LORD) appears , they change it to read JEHOVAH and in actual fact that is a good translation of the Greek word KURIOS.

But in Phil 2:11 , they REFUSE to change KURIOS to Jehovah , and when you read Phil 2:11, you will see why.

This is what Phillipians 2:11 says in my Bible and yours if you have one: "And that every Tongue should Confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of the Father .

In their Bible it should read: "And that every Tongue should Confess that Jesus Christ is Jehovah to the glory of the Father.

If they DID CHANGE IT, the Jehovah Witnesses would be admitting that Jesus is Jehovah, and that would be a big MISTAKE, IN THEIR THEOLOGY.
.

Grahame

Mr, are we writing about The Bible translations or about trinity doctrine? :)

I can see that you do not have any Bible verses to prove your viewpoint about trinity.

Now lets go back to topic. Answer me:

Is Jesus almighty God? Perhaps you say Yes. If its so why Jesus did not know 'that day or hour' ? and why only Fether knows? :)

Read Mark 13:32:

NIV© "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
NAS© "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
ISV© "No one knows when that day or hour will come-not the angels in heaven, not the Son, but only the Father.
GWT© "No one knows when that day or hour will come. Even the angels in heaven and the Son don't know. Only the Father knows.
KJV But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
AKJ But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
ASV But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
BBE But of that day or that hour no one has knowledge, not even the angels in heaven, or the Son, but the Father.

plekhanov
13-10-2009, 13:04
I love how people do not believe. I bet they'd be the first on their hands and knees, praying if the ship was sinking.
Don't you think it'd be rather more likely they'd be trying to get themselves and their loved ones to a life boat?

Praying instead of taking blatantly obvious lifesaving action is relatively rare even amongst devout theists never mind atheists.

God exist, and till he proves he doesn't, i shall go on with the belief that he does.
Which god has to prove he doesn't exist Thor, Zeus, Horus, Vishnu....?