|
Post by fixit on Sept 14, 2015 17:52:15 GMT -5
And quite possibly the 'christians' adopted it, like so many pagan ideas for popularity sake. Yes, it wasn't something taught from the start and many Gnostic Christian groups didn't believe it either, though some also didn't believe that Jesus existed as a flesh and blood being either, but more as a Christ consciousness. The born again and Christ consciousness were important to some of the earlier groups that were also labelled heretics along with those who didn't believe in the Trinity. Here is a link that is interesting: www.christadelphia.org/trinityhistory.htmAn interesting observation from your link Snow: "It is a simple fact and an undeniable historical fact that several major doctrines that now seem central to the Christian Faith -- such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the nature of Christ -- were not present in a full and self-defined generally accepted form until the fourth and fifth centuries. If they are essential today – as all of the orthodox creeds and confessions assert – it must be because they are true. If they are true, then they must always have been true; they cannot have become true in the fourth and fifth century. But if they are both true and essential, how can it be that the early church took centuries to formulate them?"
|
|
|
Post by xna on Sept 14, 2015 18:12:27 GMT -5
Actually the Trinity concept originated in Babylon. It is a pagan concept and it uses the term Godhead. God the Father and the Word/Christ and Holy Spirit existed LONG, LONG before the foundation of the world, any human Sapiens was created, any pagan religion, or Babylon city ever existed. John 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. So, Pagans religions, which started around 6000 years ago, couldn't come up with the concept Trinity before God.A few workers might be more alined with Islam's view on the Christian trinity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2015 19:22:03 GMT -5
Jesus wasn't putting himself on the same footing as God. As the Mediator between God and man, one is baptized into Jesus' name. Think about this: before Jesus, many were baptized by John the Baptist. Was John putting himself on the same level as God? No, but as a prophet sent by God, people were baptized into 'John's baptism." Being baptized in the name of the Father, the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Ghost is simply a way of acknowledging that: the Father sent the Son, the Son is the one we are baptized into, and the Holy Ghost then fully fills the individual. Emy explained this quite well above. Off course John the Baptist wouldn't dare to put his name with the Godhead! He knew his place as a man.
Do you read John the Baptist name in Matthew 28:18-20? " Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?" the answer is NO because he is NOT part of the Godhead= Father, Christ/Son and Holy Spirit.
Here is John the Baptist testimony about Jesus Matthew 3:11 I/John indeed baptize you with water unto repentance but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire...
John 1:15 John the Baptist bare witness of him/Jesus, and cried, saying, "This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me."John the Baptist KNEW Jesus existed before him evem he/Jesus was born 6 months after John. John the Baptist NEVER claim to be God but Jesus DID in John 8:58
Jesus claimed he was the I AM that I AM God in Exodus in John 8:58
Faune posted:
Jesus said to the Jews in His days John 8:58 " Before Abraham was brought into being, I exist." The statement, therefore, is not that Christ came into existence before Abraham did-as Arians affirm is the meaning: it is that he never came into being at all, but existed before Abraham had a being; which, of course, was as much as to say that He existed before all creation, or from eternity, as in John 1:1 (from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary.)
Hence, Abraham "came into being, or was born" genesthai (NT:1086). Jesus' life was from and to eternity. Hence, the formula for "absolute, timeless" existence, "I am" egoo (NT:1455) eimi (NT:1491) (from Vincent's Word Studies of the New Testament) “I am egoo (NT:1455) eimi (NT:1491). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between genesthai (NT:1086) (entrance into existence of Abraham) and eimi (NT:1491) (timeless being) is complete. (from Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament)
We can only come to the conclusion that the “I AM” statements of Jesus were intentional, communicating what they were familiar with from Old Testament teachings and practices to prove the deity of Jesus the Christ to those who could hear his spiritual speech.
Mark 13:6: "For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am He,' and will deceive many.” (I am he, “he” is not in the original.) Luke 21:8-9 adds, 'The time has drawn near.' Therefore do not go after them.” Before the real I AM returns He warns many will impersonate him. Mt. 24:5: "For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many.” If one puts all these warning statements together we learn several things. First that he is taking the name God gave Moses and applying it to himself. Second that to claim to be Christ is the same as claiming to be I am, God. I AM is his name forever (Heb. Hayah ashur hayah, Gr. ego eimei; Exod. 3:14-15 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.”
My point was this: people were baptized into John. Jesus was not making himself equal to the Father in the baptismal formula. The Father, as always, comes first. Trinitarian a cannot (or refuse to) use common sense and logic in interpreting bible passages.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2015 0:05:16 GMT -5
My point was this: people were baptized into John. Jesus was not making himself equal to the Father in the baptismal formula. The Father, as always, comes first. Trinitarian a cannot (or refuse to) use common sense and logic in interpreting bible passages. It seems You don't fully understand Trinity belief/teaching according to your posts.The concept of the Triune God is taught in the Old and New Testament. In the 2nd century the second generation of the apostles/church fathers came up with the word the beautiful word "Trinity" to describe the Triune God in the Bible.Apostolic fathers writings: the Triune God/Trinity Crytian (250 A.D.) We are NOT ignorant that there is ONE God; and One Christ, the Lord; and One Holy Spirit. Jesus said, "Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit." He suggested that TRINITY, in whose sacrament the nations were to be baptized. Hippolytus (205 A.D.) It is the Father who commands, and the Son who obeys, and the Holy Spirit who give understanding. The Father is above ALL, the Son is through ALL, and the Holy Spirit is in ALL. Paul the apostle explains that there is the exact same order within the TRINITY, saying, "I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (I Cor. 11:3). So the Father has authority over the Son. The Son is sent by the Father; the Son does the will of the Father; and the Son sits at the Father's right hand. This hierarchy of order can not be reversed. Yet this hierarchy of order in no way diminishes the Son's divinity.Origin (225 A.D.) Saving baptism was NOT complete except by the authority of the most excellent TRINITY of them all. That is, it is made complete by naming the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In this, we join the name of the Holy Spirit to the Unbegotten God (the Father) and to His Only-begotten Son. #2) The Son is God: The Word was God. (John 1:1-5, 14) Jesus identified as the Word. Jesus' disciple Thomas addressed Jesus as, "My Lord and my God. (John 20:28) Jesus did not tell Thomas he was mistaken; instead Jesus accepted these titles. Other people in Scripture, notably Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14) refused to accept worship as gods. But unto the Son He (God the Father) said, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom. (Heb. 1:6-8) (Philippians 2:9-11) Wherefore God also has highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is the LORD, to the glory of God the Father. Paul, the writer of Philippians, is saying about Jesus what Isiah 45:23 says about the LORD, and then Paul concludes that Jesus is LORD, that is, the same LORD God of the Old Testament.Apostolic Fathers writings: About the SonJustin Martyr (160 A.D.) Moses declares that He who appeared to Abraham under the oak in Mamre is God. He was sent with the two angels in His company to judge Sodom by another One, who remains ever in the super celestial places, invisible to all men, holding personal contact with no one. We believe this is the MAKER and Father of all things. Irenaeus (180 A.D.) Christ is God, for the name Emmanuel indicates this. Thus He indicates in clear terms that He is God, and that His advent was in Bethlehem. God, then was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us. He deserves to be worshiped as God and as Christ. For Christ is King, Priest, God, Lord, and Man. Origen (245 A.D.) The Canaanite woman came and worshiped Jesus as God, saying, "Lord, help me." Novatian (235 A.D.) If Christ was only man, how did he say, "Before Abraham was, I am." For no man can be BEFORE someone from whom he himself has descended. Nor can it be that anyone could have been prior to him of whom he himself has taken his origin. Yet Christ, although He was born of Abraham says that He is before Abraham. Why, then should man hesitate to call Christ "God" when he observes that He is declared to be God, by the Father, according to the scriptures? Whoever acknowlege Him to be God may find Salvation in Christ as God. Whosoever does NOT acknowledge Him to be God will lose Salvation that he could NOT find elsewhere than in Christ as God.
Nope. I'm not ignorant in regards to the doctrine of the Trinity at all. I understand completely what the Trinity teaches. It's quite clear to me that in order to believe that Jesus is equal to the Father one has to deny the validity of numerous bible passages, or they must twist them completely out of context to fit the doctrine. As an example take the term 'the Son of God.' Trinitarians love to say 'God the Son', which is a definite TWISTING of words to make Jesus into something he is not. The MAIN problem with the Trinity doctrine is its insistence of making Jesus equal to the Father when Jesus clearly taught that 'the Father is greater than me.' You deny the very words of the Son of God. You use passages that speak of Jesus being elevated to the divine nature, but ignore important operative words such as 'elevate' (God cannot be elevated higher than what He is, since He is already Above All.). You, like all Trinitarians, ignore the basic facts of Who and What God is (His Natural mAttributes.) In reality, Trinitarians have recreated God into their own image (Man) as Romans speaks of. God is NOT a man, nor the Son of Man, as the scriptures say. No man hath EVER seen. They've seen ELOHIM, which the scriptures clearly reveal to be Angels or judges. Non Trinitarians are not twisting biblical phrases, nor are we creating non biblical words to prove our point. You can quote the 'fathers' of the Church all day long but any serious friend won't pay any heed to them, as you should already know, and for reasons you are already aware of.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 15, 2015 6:02:15 GMT -5
God the Father and the Word/Christ and Holy Spirit existed LONG, LONG before the foundation of the world, any human Sapiens was created, any pagan religion, or Babylon city ever existed. John 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. So, Pagans religions, which started around 6000 years ago, couldn't come up with the concept Trinity before God. A few workers might be more alined with Islam's view on the Christian trinity. A few on TMB might be more aligned with the Inquisition's view on the "Christian" trinity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2015 13:27:19 GMT -5
Nope. I'm not ignorant in regards to the doctrine of the Trinity at all. I understand completely what the Trinity teaches. It's quite clear to me that in order to believe that Jesus is equal to the Father one has to deny the validity of numerous bible passages, or they must twist them completely out of context to fit the doctrine. As an example take the term 'the Son of God.' Trinitarians love to say 'God the Son', which is a definite TWISTING of words to make Jesus into something he is not. The MAIN problem with the Trinity doctrine is its insistence of making Jesus equal to the Father when Jesus clearly taught that 'the Father is greater than me.' You deny the very words of the Son of God. You use passages that speak of Jesus being elevated to the divine nature, but ignore important operative words such as 'elevate' (God cannot be elevated higher than what He is, since He is already Above All.). You, like all Trinitarians, ignore the basic facts of Who and What God is (His Natural mAttributes.) In reality, Trinitarians have recreated God into their own image (Man) as Romans speaks of. God is NOT a man, nor the Son of Man, as the scriptures say. No man hath EVER seen. They've seen ELOHIM, which the scriptures clearly reveal to be Angels or judges. Non Trinitarians are not twisting biblical phrases, nor are we creating non biblical words to prove our point. You can quote the 'fathers' of the Church all day long but any serious friend won't pay any heed to them, as you should already know, and for reasons you are already aware of. By reading your post above, you still don't fully comprehend the Godhead/Trinity, yet.The Trinity Poll on Truth Message board: 4/2013 Poll Options: You may select up to 4 answers in this poll. #1) I believe Jesus is the Son of God and God (14 votes, 33.3%) #2) I believe He is the Son of God but not God (7 votes, 16.6%) I believe Jesus is divine but He is not God (4 votes, 9.5%) I answered 2 and do not believe in the trinity (3 votes, 7.1%) I answered 2 & do believe in the trinity/triune G. (1 vote, 2.3%) I am professing and answered # 1 (6 votes, 14.3%) I am professing and answered # 2. (4 votes, 9.5%) Nate, you seem to think that if someone understands the Trinity (as if anyone could ever understand that 1+ 1 + 1 = 1 [sound like they had the New Math in 350 AD]) that they'll simply accept it as fact. Just because someone understands what a doctrine teaches doesn't mean they'll believe it. And I don't think that polling Friends on this board will give you an accurate result. Really? Well, my friend, you go on believing in the Trinity. I'll accept you as you are. I might not understand why you believe as you do, but then I'm not called to understand everyone and everything. I might argue with you from time to time! But I accept you as you are.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Sept 15, 2015 14:50:32 GMT -5
Are you aligned with the inquisitions view on the Son of God, fixit?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 15, 2015 18:49:07 GMT -5
A few on TMB might be more aligned with the Inquisition's view on the "Christian" trinity. Most of the early apostles Matthew, John, Thomas, Paul, and the apostles/early church fathers in the 2 and 3rd century had a clear understanding of the Godhead/Trinity.... Unfortunately, the latter RCC Pope, bishops, cardinals and inquisitors took it too far to eradicate the anti-Trinity heretics, the RCC bishop Arian and his followers from the church. They should let God deal with the heretics in His own time like Jesus did to the church at Pergamos in Revelation 2:12-17.As a non-Trinitarian do you consider me a heretic that God will have to deal with in his own time? At least I can take comfort in the fact that you're not calling for me to be burnt at the stake.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 15, 2015 18:52:15 GMT -5
Are you aligned with the inquisitions view on the Son of God, fixit? I don't know. I don't mean to be disrespectful of your beliefs enuf, but I do feel compelled to put forth an alternative view.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 15, 2015 20:08:35 GMT -5
Well said, and an excellent way to progress a meaningful discussion.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 15, 2015 21:58:53 GMT -5
As a non-Trinitarian do you consider me a heretic that God will have to deal with in his own time? ~~ Yes, God will open your eyes like the apostle Thomas and the rest of us Trinity believers.... saying to Jesus, " My Lord and My God.".... "My Redeemer and Savior." You're half way there, fixit.I guess its nice to know that I'm at least half way there, in your estimation. How do you cope with being in fellowship with "half way there" Christians?
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Sept 15, 2015 22:39:35 GMT -5
Avoiding the question fixit. You are agreeing with the Muslims view on the trinity so I ask do agree with his view on Jesus not being the Son of God? You either believe what this guy says or you do not or are you picking or choosing what you believe.
Not well said because you avoided the question. You either agree with the guy or you don't.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 15, 2015 23:50:57 GMT -5
Nope. I'm not ignorant in regards to the doctrine of the Trinity at all. I understand completely what the Trinity teaches. It's quite clear to me that in order to believe that Jesus is equal to the Father one has to deny the validity of numerous bible passages, or they must twist them completely out of context to fit the doctrine. As an example take the term 'the Son of God.' Trinitarians love to say 'God the Son', which is a definite TWISTING of words to make Jesus into something he is not. The MAIN problem with the Trinity doctrine is its insistence of making Jesus equal to the Father when Jesus clearly taught that 'the Father is greater than me.' You deny the very words of the Son of God. You use passages that speak of Jesus being elevated to the divine nature, but ignore important operative words such as 'elevate' (God cannot be elevated higher than what He is, since He is already Above All.). You, like all Trinitarians, ignore the basic facts of Who and What God is (His Natural mAttributes.) In reality, Trinitarians have recreated God into their own image (Man) as Romans speaks of. God is NOT a man, nor the Son of Man, as the scriptures say. No man hath EVER seen. They've seen ELOHIM, which the scriptures clearly reveal to be Angels or judges. Non Trinitarians are not twisting biblical phrases, nor are we creating non biblical words to prove our point. You can quote the 'fathers' of the Church all day long but any serious friend won't pay any heed to them, as you should already know, and for reasons you are already aware of. For me, the biggest mistake trinitarians make is believing that Jesus could not sin, because he was God and God does not sin.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 15, 2015 23:57:01 GMT -5
Avoiding the question fixit. You are agreeing with the Muslims view on the trinity so I ask do agree with his view on Jesus not being the Son of God? You either believe what this guy says or you do not or are you picking or choosing what you believe. Not well said because you avoided the question. You either agree with the guy or you don't. Fixit doesn't believe Jesus is the Son of God? I think you better spend a little more time reading him.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 16, 2015 1:15:14 GMT -5
For me, the biggest mistake trinitarians make is believing that Jesus could not sin, because he was God and God does not sin. Jesus is God and Man. Jesus the son of man could have sinned but the God nature Holy Spirit in Him didn't yield to sin. Jesus the son of man was tempted in all points, but he didn't yield to sin. His God nature was his being completely filled with the Holy Spirit. That is what he and God want for us. (John 17)
|
|
|
Post by Rob Sargison on Sept 16, 2015 1:45:30 GMT -5
I don't think about the whatchamacallit..............The Trinity. Not then, not now, not ever. Never think about it.
What is the Trinity......Could someone elaborate...?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 16, 2015 1:49:51 GMT -5
I don't think about the whatchamacallit..............The Trinity. Not then, not now, not ever. Never think about it. What is the Trinity......Could someone elaborate...? Oh NO, Please don't elaborate...!
The whole discussion if crazy enough already.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 16, 2015 1:59:08 GMT -5
I don't think about the whatchamacallit..............The Trinity. Not then, not now, not ever. Never think about it. What is the Trinity......Could someone elaborate...? The Trinity is a religious theory that no one understands, but some folks think it's extremely important and some folks don't.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Sargison on Sept 16, 2015 3:41:31 GMT -5
I don't think about the whatchamacallit..............The Trinity. Not then, not now, not ever. Never think about it. What is the Trinity......Could someone elaborate...? The Trinity is a religious theory that no one understands, but some folks think it's extremely important and some folks don't. Well that sounds pretty simple then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2015 3:44:52 GMT -5
The Trinity is a religious theory that no one understands, but some folks think it's extremely important and some folks don't. Well that sounds pretty simple then. maybe to simple
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Sept 16, 2015 4:00:25 GMT -5
Just a question, its often said 7 is Gods perfect number......so why stop at 3?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 16, 2015 11:58:41 GMT -5
I don't think about the whatchamacallit..............The Trinity. Not then, not now, not ever. Never think about it. What is the Trinity......Could someone elaborate...? It's basically something the RCC made up in the 3rd century, packaged it with the power of an emperor and tied the bow with the Roman Army and people bought it. Kind of like all the other stuff people buy that doesn't make sense and there is no proof of.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 16, 2015 15:00:20 GMT -5
I don't think about the whatchamacallit..............The Trinity. Not then, not now, not ever. Never think about it. What is the Trinity......Could someone elaborate...? It's basically something the RCC made up in the 3rd century, packaged it with the power of an emperor and tied the bow with the Roman Army and people bought it. Kind of like all the other stuff people buy that doesn't make sense and there is no proof of. But it tied up some of the 'inerrant' biblical text problems.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Sept 17, 2015 14:32:36 GMT -5
I don't think about the whatchamacallit..............The Trinity. Not then, not now, not ever. Never think about it. What is the Trinity......Could someone elaborate...? Rob just wants to start another trinity thread.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 17, 2015 14:44:54 GMT -5
I don't think about the whatchamacallit..............The Trinity. Not then, not now, not ever. Never think about it. What is the Trinity......Could someone elaborate...? Rob just wants to start another trinity thread. He should start three and have them eventually merge into a single thread.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 17, 2015 15:11:04 GMT -5
Rob just wants to start another trinity thread. He should start three and have them eventually merge into a single thread. Then claim it's definitely three threads but its definitely one thread and if folks question how 1+1+1=1 then they are definitely heretics.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Sept 17, 2015 15:21:05 GMT -5
Or workers going 2x 2 = 2.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Sargison on Sept 18, 2015 22:51:48 GMT -5
Three individual threads intertwined create a single thread, bigger, stronger, faster......no hang on that's the bionic man.
A three-fold cord is not easily broken.
My train of thought broke down in consideration of the fact there is only one fred on the board.
But anyway it's obvious that after centuries of handwringing and browbeating and confusion, the disparity of understanding around the trinity points without doubt to the conclusion that there has simply not been enough discussion about it.
|
|