Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

Status
Not open for further replies.

civilwarbuff

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 28, 2015
14,586
7,102
✟606,026.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
I understand you when you do this. I asked why you insist upon asking for a clearminded discussion...and then persist in going out of your way to insult those who believe in the Trinity.


Illogical and untrue. It's standard usage you can find in any history book.


Then do it...and add the word "the" in front of it.
Don't hold your breath....
 
Upvote 0

Job8

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,634
1,801
✟21,583.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Quite right you are. I suppose by the way since this thread is now tilting towards pneumatomachianism we should bring out the verses in defense of the divinity of the Spirit. In so doing, I expect the non-Trinitarians will attempt to use some references, for example, in Proverbs, to attempt to reject the divinity of the Lord, which they attempted unsuccessfully to use previously.
You are quite welcome. As to whether the Holy Spirit (also called the Holy Ghost) is indeed God, let's examine Acts 5:1-11 (KJV) which is a very solemn warning to Christians:
But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying herforth, buried her by her husband. And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

QUESTIONS
1. Who was lied to? The Holy Ghost. (v 3)

2. Who is contrasted with men? God the Holy Ghost.
(v 4)

3. What is another name for the Holy Spirit?
The Spirit of God. [to "tempt" is to test] (v 9).

We are told in the creation account that "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" (Gen 1:2). So the Holy Spirit is both the Spirit of God as well as God. If this boggles the mind, then it is as it should be. We are dealing with the Mystery of God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nikti and Wgw
Upvote 0

Imagican

old dude
Jan 14, 2006
3,027
428
63
Orlando, Florida
✟45,021.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So the manner that I post isn't 'nice enough' to be considered worthy of consideration.

Over the years, the only people that have ever commented on my 'style' are those that take offense to it due to disagreement.

I already pointed out, I'm not here to play the game of 'political correctness'. I'm not a politician and I'm not looking for VOTES. I try my best to be honest and offer what I'm able in the manner that I'm able.

When I write with pen or pencil, every word that I write is in capital letters. Been writing like that since I was in High School. I graduated in 1979. And you know what? I had a couple of teachers that were like, "Waaahhhhh. You aren't doing it RIGHT. You are suppose to write like we TEACH you to write". And my attitude then was the same as now. "you can READ it and UNDERSTAND it, right?"

In college I had ONE professor that tried to fail me for my writing. Others commended me on it being perfectly legible. I also received many compliments on my spelling and vocabulary as well.

But, I can certainly understand that when one's back is against a wall, whatever they can do to try and 'get away' is usually what they will do. You know, like attack the messenger rather than the message.

It kind of reminds me of all the methods people used each time God sent a messenger. Instead of attacking the message, attack the messenger with whatever method that takes focus OFF the message. Nothing new.

Once again, let me offer, if the interpretation of the beginning of the Gospel of John doesn't FIT the rest of scripture, the obvious answer is that it is being misinterpreted.

You say it points to 'trinity'. I say it does no such thing. And you say that the scriptures are against 'non trinitarians. But it wasn't scripture that created 'trinity'. It was MEN. There have ALWAYS been those that deny 'trinity' since it was invented.

God NEVER instructed us on 'trinity'. Not a single prophet even MENTIONED it. Nor His own Son or the apostles. It's history is clearly revealed. A group of men with more power than others basically 'took it to court' and won their case. Not unusual for a decision to be improperly concluded through the COURTS of men. We see it every day.

And then let us consider the method that was used to instill it into the minds of those under their control. Threats, torture, murder. All these in the name of the NEW Christ created through 'trinity'. History speaks for itself.

And then what about Martin Luther? While he pointed out a ton of false teachings and behavior by 'the church', what he never seemed to figure out was the SOURCE of the deceptions. HOW the 'church' was able to create and perpetuate such atrocities against the congregation, in the NAME of Christ............

I would offer that if you build upon a faulty foundation, anything is possible so far as corruption is concerned. We see the examples throughout history.

Even those that 'created trinity' openly admit that there is no where in scripture that it is actually revealed. That it is ONLY through 'divine revelation' that it can be revealed and even then it cannot be comprehended. It STILL remains a mystery. Yet you insist that scripture can not only REVEAL IT, but can plainly show that refusal to accept it can be revealed as 'false understanding' as well.

And after I JUST got through offering you praise on your understanding, you then try and attack ME rather than the topic? Typical. For I have discussed this issue for YEARS with those that profess to believe in and follow 'trinity' and it always seems to work the same way. Once myself and others point out the basics that DISPROVE any possibility of 'trinity', then they go after the individuals instead of the topic. It would seem a recurring tactic that goes back to the beginning. I guess those of us who refuse to accept it should be thankful that the 'churches' no longer possess the authority to torture a confession out of us and then burn us alive. For it seems at times that the same 'spirit' exists today that was born the day it was decided to make 'trinity' LAW. Just saying.........

I believe these words sum it up more precisely than any words I could ever offer:

The priests have so disfigured the simple religion of Jesus that no one who reads the sophistications they have engrafted on it, from the jargon of Plato, of Aristotle and other mystics, would conceive these could have been fathered on the sublime preacher of the Sermon on the Mount. Yet, knowing the importance of names, they have assumed that of Christians, while they are mere Platonists, or anything rather than disciples of Jesus.

and then:

No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was among the efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of the ancients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs. And a strong proof of the solidity of the primitive faith, is its restoration, as soon as a nation arises which vindicates to itself the freedom of religious opinion, and its external divorce from the civil authority. The pure and simple unity of the Creator of the universe, is now all but ascendant in the Eastern States; it is dawning in the West, and advancing towards the South; and I confidently expect that the present generation will see Unitarianism become the general religion of the United States. The Eastern presses are giving us many excellent pieces on the subject, and Priestley's learned writings on it are, or should be, in every hand. In fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."

Blessings,

MEC
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
So the manner that I post isn't 'nice enough' to be considered worthy of consideration.
That really isn't the point, although I think it's quite normal for people to lose interest in debating with some other member who deliberately insults them in every post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wgw
Upvote 0

Imagican

old dude
Jan 14, 2006
3,027
428
63
Orlando, Florida
✟45,021.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I understand you when you do this. I asked why you insist upon asking for a clearminded discussion...and then persist in going out of your way to insult those who believe in the Trinity.

So, not using a capital T is INSULTING to 'trinitarians'? And then you accuse me of INTENTIONALLY insulting 'trnitarians' by NOT using a capital "T"? If I thought for ONE second that you were serious I'd probably rupture something laughing. I guess you really DON'T understand me as you assume.

This reminds me of those that would insist that I MUST dress like they do in order to be considered 'worthy' of speaking. Or that I MUST wear a particular perfume. Silly me, I always thought we were suppose to be free to express ourselves in OUR OWN manner so long as we abide by the TOS.

If you find insult in such triviality, I suggest 'anger management' or some other form of counseling. For I have certainly made NO attempt to elicit such hostility in my posts.


Illogical and untrue. It's standard usage you can find in any history book.

I don't know how the usage of capitalization can be shown to cause offense in ANYONE so far as history is concerned, EXCEPT in those that insist that EVERYONE must accept it or be labeled UNCHRISTIAN. Sorry if I'm not 'standard' according to YOUR standards or anyone else's.

Then do it...and add the word "the" in front of it.

I'm confused. Was that a command? I don't recall usage of capital letters being a part of the TOS. And I have already attempted to state that is not done to cause the insult that you insist. I simply don't capitalize it because I don't place such importance in doing so. It's ONLY a word, a concept, an idea. And not one that I accept or place any validity upon so far as MY beliefs are concerned.

It would seem that to some, the ONLY way that I can offer valid discussion of the issue would be to AGREE with them or follow THEIR standards. I thought that the entire purpose of Christ's manifestation in the flesh was to FREE us from such attempts of MEN to control the thoughts and beliefs of 'other men'.

Funny that you have had little to nothing to add to the conversation. But are so QUICK to jump in and attack ME PERSONALLY. Why is that? Do I detect a bit of resentment towards ME in particular? Not an accusation, an honest question.

Let me offer this CLEARLY. I am much more inclined to accept 'trinity' as OFFERED by those that created it rather than the confused offerings that so many offer. Christ is CERTAINLY of similar essence to the Father who created Him, (begat Him). But He is certainly not EQUAL to The Father: GOD. Nor IS HE: God. He is the Son: exactly who He revealed Himself to BE. And it has been THROUGH the Bible that I have come to accept what I believe is CLEARLY offered in TRUTH.

I believe in ONLY ONE God. But not a 'multi part god' as offered in 'trinity'. I believe in ONLY ONE 'begotten Son of God'. And I believe that the Bible is the 'inspired word of God'. I do NOT believe in the teachings of MEN who may or may NOT be or have been 'divinely inspired'.


But I certainly welcome any relevant comments you may have to offer on the subject.

Blessings,

MEC
 
Upvote 0

Imagican

old dude
Jan 14, 2006
3,027
428
63
Orlando, Florida
✟45,021.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I would like to offer that Christ came to REVEAL His Father TO US. And the idea that what He revealed is a MYSTERY is, to me, absurd.

I mean REALLY? Isn't a mystery an UNKNOWN? And if God was revealed as a 'mystery' then Christ would have been unsuccessful in revealing God if He remained a 'mystery' once revealed.

Yet Christ stated that those that had seen HIM had SEEN the Father. Obviously not a reference to His PHYSICAL SELF, for God is NOT physical but SPIRIT. So the obviousness is: Those that Christ revealed the Father TO, KNEW that which was REVEALED. I do not believe Christ revealed God to be the God that is defined in 'trinity'. If it had been such a God revealed, then there would have been MENTION of 'that God'. There is NO such mention.

But what IS offered is God being the Father of Christ. That means that The Father IS God Himself. And He revealed Himself, NOT as God Himself, but as the Son of God. No mystery there.

Blessings,

MEC
 
Upvote 0

Imagican

old dude
Jan 14, 2006
3,027
428
63
Orlando, Florida
✟45,021.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You are quite welcome. As to whether the Holy Spirit (also called the Holy Ghost) is indeed God, let's examine Acts 5:1-11 (KJV) which is a very solemn warning to Christians:
But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying herforth, buried her by her husband. And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

QUESTIONS
1. Who was lied to? The Holy Ghost. (v 3)

2. Who is contrasted with men? God the Holy Ghost.
(v 4)

3. What is another name for the Holy Spirit?
The Spirit of God. [to "tempt" is to test] (v 9).

We are told in the creation account that "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" (Gen 1:2). So the Holy Spirit is both the Spirit of God as well as God. If this boggles the mind, then it is as it should be. We are dealing with the Mystery of God.

What you have offered isn't NEARLY as boggling as 'three persons in ONE God'

For we KNOW that The Spirit of God would be that part of God that has been the means by which we have been introduced to God Himself. Much like we are 'spirit' contained within a vessel, there is indication that there is an actual existence that IS the Glory of God, or, for a lack of better expression: God Himself. That part of God that remains in heaven even when His very Spirit is able to dwell among those here on earth.

And this isn't really a mystery to me. It is quite fathomable to me that God's Spirit is able to be present without the actual presence of His GLORY. Yet still not be a SEPARATE entity.

It would be kind of like the idea of a person being OUTSIDE of their vessel. We've heard accounts from MANY offering the same possibility. While operating from a separate platform, it is STILL ME, but outside of my own body.

I certainly don't SEE The Spirit of God as it's OWN entity. It is merely a separate emanation of HIMSELF that is used when coming in contact with US. But certainly not literally SEPARATED. It's that PART of Himself that He uses to communicate. Kind of like 'the part of God that He is able to SHARE'. Like the Sun being the SOURCE of light but that light not REALLY being SEPARATE from the Sun. The light is a PART of the Sun that is shared by all around it.

Like if we could transfer THOUGHTS or communicate without literal speech. A sort of TELECOMMUNICATION if you will. The communication is not a SEPARATE entity, just a DIFFERENT FORM.

Just an idea to ponder. I won't SWEAR that it's true or even encourage others to follow. Just offering an alternative prospect other than the Holy Spirit as a PERSON or 'third person' that makes up ONE God. Perhaps in no way, shape or form should we even CONSIDER that the Holy Spirit is SEPARATE or a PERSON. Just a 'part of God' that God is able to SHARE with His 'creation'.

Blessings,

MEC
 
Upvote 0

Wgw

Pray For Brussels!
May 24, 2015
4,304
2,074
✟15,107.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
So the manner that I post isn't 'nice enough' to be considered worthy of consideration.

No, I think Albion and other trinitarian members have gone to great lengths to give your remarks a fair hearing. I make a point to reply to your posts on a per-paragraph basis.

Over the years, the only people that have ever commented on my 'style' are those that take offense to it due to disagreement.

I already pointed out, I'm not here to play the game of 'political correctness'. I'm not a politician and I'm not looking for VOTES. I try my best to be honest and offer what I'm able in the manner that I'm able.

And yet you quote politicians rather than religious authorities. If you want to sell your ideas, I propose that a more courteous approach would make your position.

But, I can certainly understand that when one's back is against a wall, whatever they can do to try and 'get away' is usually what they will do. You know, like attack the messenger rather than the message.

You would have a point were we losing this debate, however, everything I set out to show in the OP, that is to say, that the non-Trinitarian position is unbibkical and cannot be defended without rejecting a literal interpretation of John 1:1-14 and other pericopes, and without resorting to red herring criticisms of Roman Catholicism, has been shown to be true, even in this very post of yours.

Once again, let me offer, if the interpretation of the beginning of the Gospel of John doesn't FIT the rest of scripture, the obvious answer is that it is being misinterpreted.

Except it does fit. Numerous other verses in support of this doctrine have been provided by myself, @DerAlter, @Job8 and other members. This is not even a subject of interpretation but of raw textual content.

You say it points to 'trinity'. I say it does no such thing. And you say that the scriptures are against 'non trinitarians. But it wasn't scripture that created 'trinity'. It was MEN. There have ALWAYS been those that deny 'trinity' since it was invented.

I would be interested to know what you believe John 1:1-14 actually means, since thus far you have simply insisted it cannot be taken literally.

God NEVER instructed us on 'trinity'. Not a single prophet even MENTIONED it. Nor His own Son or the apostles. It's history is clearly revealed. A group of men with more power than others basically 'took it to court' and won their case. Not unusual for a decision to be improperly concluded through the COURTS of men. We see it every day.

This again is untrue. If the Council of Nicea was a court, then its decision was rather successfully appealed given the persecution endured by Trinitarians for 50 years. Later, the Arian Visigoths took up arms against Christianity, before later converting in part to Islam.

And then let us consider the method that was used to instill it into the minds of those under their control. Threats, torture, murder. All these in the name of the NEW Christ created through 'trinity'. History speaks for itself.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the Syriac Orthodox never tortured anyone. So this argument against Roman Catholicism fails rather miserably.

And then what about Martin Luther? While he pointed out a ton of false teachings and behavior by 'the church', what he never seemed to figure out was the SOURCE of the deceptions. HOW the 'church' was able to create and perpetuate such atrocities against the congregation, in the NAME of Christ............

I would offer that if you build upon a faulty foundation, anything is possible so far as corruption is concerned. We see the examples throughout history.

What Martin Luther objected to were deviant practices in the Roman Catholic church. If your argument is that the doctrine of the Trinity caused this abuse, it fails due to the example of the Syriac Orthodox and several other Trinitarian denominations that have an extremely good track record, such as the Assyrian Church of the East, and some of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchates.

Even those that 'created trinity' openly admit that there is no where in scripture that it is actually revealed. That it is ONLY through 'divine revelation' that it can be revealed and even then it cannot be comprehended. It STILL remains a mystery. Yet you insist that scripture can not only REVEAL IT, but can plainly show that refusal to accept it can be revealed as 'false understanding' as well.

This is simply untrue. The arguments at Nicea were fought and won on the basis of Scripture. St. Epiphanius of Salamis provides a robust defense of the Trinity against Arianism in Book 2 of the Panarion.

And after I JUST got through offering you praise on your understanding, you then try and attack ME rather than the topic? Typical. For I have discussed this issue for YEARS with those that profess to believe in and follow 'trinity' and it always seems to work the same way. Once myself and others point out the basics that DISPROVE any possibility of 'trinity', then they go after the individuals instead of the topic. It would seem a recurring tactic that goes back to the beginning. I guess those of us who refuse to accept it should be thankful that the 'churches' no longer possess the authority to torture a confession out of us and then burn us alive. For it seems at times that the same 'spirit' exists today that was born the day it was decided to make 'trinity' LAW. Just saying.........

On the contrary, I am not going after you as an individual. I would appreciate it if you considered altering your posting style, but I do not regard your posting style as material to the debate.

I believe these words sum it up more precisely than any words I could ever offer:

The priests have so disfigured the simple religion of Jesus that no one who reads the sophistications they have engrafted on it, from the jargon of Plato, of Aristotle and other mystics, would conceive these could have been fathered on the sublime preacher of the Sermon on the Mount. Yet, knowing the importance of names, they have assumed that of Christians, while they are mere Platonists, or anything rather than disciples of Jesus.

and then:

No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was among the efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of the ancients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs. And a strong proof of the solidity of the primitive faith, is its restoration, as soon as a nation arises which vindicates to itself the freedom of religious opinion, and its external divorce from the civil authority. The pure and simple unity of the Creator of the universe, is now all but ascendant in the Eastern States; it is dawning in the West, and advancing towards the South; and I confidently expect that the present generation will see Unitarianism become the general religion of the United States. The Eastern presses are giving us many excellent pieces on the subject, and Priestley's learned writings on it are, or should be, in every hand. In fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."

And here we have a dissappointingly vitriolic quote from Thomas Jefferson, a man who died in debt, failing to release his slaves, including slaves who were descended from him owing to his own promiscuity. I recognize that he is a popular colonial figure, and is correctly regarded as a statesman, however, morally, and as a religious figure, he has been subject to much criticism - I myself have personally viewed the slave quarters at Monticello, and was unimpressed. Among Trinitarians I can point to heroically virtuous people such as St. Basil the Great, inventor of the hospital, St. John Chrysostom, who was marched unto death for criticizing the lavish lifestyles in Constantinople, and others, right up until the present.

In quoting Jefferson you also rather prove my point that non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural. His "Jefferson Bible" contains the NT with all accounts of miracles et cetera excised, as he considered these to be interpolations of the priesthood.

As far as the Unitarians are concerned, they did not fulfill Thomas Jefferson's expectations, but in fact are one of the smallest religions; they are no longer specifically Christian. The largest denominational churches in the US are the Southern Baptists, the UMC and the Roman Catholics.

I should lastly like to observe that Thomas Jefferson's complaint of St. Athanasius wielding the "sword of civil government" is preposterous given that St. Athanasius spent much of his adult life in exile as a result of Arian persecutions, and on one occasion was very nearly killed. The doctrines espoused by Arius at Nicea were so offensive that St. Nicholas punched him in the face (and was then sternly rebuked by his peers, indeed he was deposed, but later reinstated, as a bishop, for resorting to violence). Also, it was St. Alexander of Alexandria who had excommunicated Arius; St. Athanasius, as his protodeacon, was simply defending hismpatriarch from a council that could have voted the other way.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Wgw

Pray For Brussels!
May 24, 2015
4,304
2,074
✟15,107.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
Let me offer this CLEARLY. I am much more inclined to accept 'trinity' as OFFERED by those that created it rather than the confused offerings that so many offer. Christ is CERTAINLY of similar essence to the Father who created Him, (begat Him). But He is certainly not EQUAL to The Father: GOD. Nor IS HE: God. He is the Son: exactly who He revealed Himself to BE. And it has been THROUGH the Bible that I have come to accept what I believe is CLEARLY offered in TRUTH.



Semi-Arianism, the "like essence" argument. Alas your view runs afoul of John 1:1, et cetera.
 
Upvote 0

Wgw

Pray For Brussels!
May 24, 2015
4,304
2,074
✟15,107.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
I would like to offer that Christ came to REVEAL His Father TO US. And the idea that what He revealed is a MYSTERY is, to me, absurd.

I mean REALLY? Isn't a mystery an UNKNOWN? And if God was revealed as a 'mystery' then Christ would have been unsuccessful in revealing God if He remained a 'mystery' once revealed.

Yet Christ stated that those that had seen HIM had SEEN the Father. Obviously not a reference to His PHYSICAL SELF, for God is NOT physical but SPIRIT. So the obviousness is: Those that Christ revealed the Father TO, KNEW that which was REVEALED. I do not believe Christ revealed God to be the God that is defined in 'trinity'. If it had been such a God revealed, then there would have been MENTION of 'that God'. There is NO such mention.

But what IS offered is God being the Father of Christ. That means that The Father IS God Himself. And He revealed Himself, NOT as God Himself, but as the Son of God. No mystery there.

Blessings,

MEC

This view comes very close to Orthodoxy, in that we regard our Lord as a perfect icon of the Father. However, we cannot deny his Divinity due to "the Word was God," "I and my father are one," "My God and my Lord!" et cetera.

What you describe is basically correct, except for your insistence, which is unscriptural, that Jesus Christ is not God, when the text of the Bible plainly shows this to be the case.

This is clearly predicated on a failure to engage with the essence/energies distinction or non-Eutychian Christology. We say that God was visible in His assumed humanity according to the Incarnation, we say that God is knowable according to His energies. And in response to this, you apparently repeat yourself rather than addressing these points.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Wgw

Pray For Brussels!
May 24, 2015
4,304
2,074
✟15,107.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
What you have offered isn't NEARLY as boggling as 'three persons in ONE God'

For we KNOW that The Spirit of God would be that part of God that has been the means by which we have been introduced to God Himself. Much like we are 'spirit' contained within a vessel, there is indication that there is an actual existence that IS the Glory of God, or, for a lack of better expression: God Himself. That part of God that remains in heaven even when His very Spirit is able to dwell among those here on earth.

And this isn't really a mystery to me. It is quite fathomable to me that God's Spirit is able to be present without the actual presence of His GLORY. Yet still not be a SEPARATE entity.

It would be kind of like the idea of a person being OUTSIDE of their vessel. We've heard accounts from MANY offering the same possibility. While operating from a separate platform, it is STILL ME, but outside of my own body.

I certainly don't SEE The Spirit of God as it's OWN entity. It is merely a separate emanation of HIMSELF that is used when coming in contact with US. But certainly not literally SEPARATED. It's that PART of Himself that He uses to communicate. Kind of like 'the part of God that He is able to SHARE'. Like the Sun being the SOURCE of light but that light not REALLY being SEPARATE from the Sun. The light is a PART of the Sun that is shared by all around it.

Like if we could transfer THOUGHTS or communicate without literal speech. A sort of TELECOMMUNICATION if you will. The communication is not a SEPARATE entity, just a DIFFERENT FORM.

Just an idea to ponder. I won't SWEAR that it's true or even encourage others to follow. Just offering an alternative prospect other than the Holy Spirit as a PERSON or 'third person' that makes up ONE God. Perhaps in no way, shape or form should we even CONSIDER that the Holy Spirit is SEPARATE or a PERSON. Just a 'part of God' that God is able to SHARE with His 'creation'.

Blessings,

MEC

So the Holy Spirit is God, and Jesus Christ isn't?

???

By the way, as has been repeatedly stressed, the Orthodox and western doctrines of the Trinity are rather explicitly clear that the prosopa of the Holy Trinity are not separate entities. You once again baselessly accuse us of tritheism.
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We can understand God in His essence according to what the divine essence is not, roughly speaking, whereas a cataphatic explanation is more elusive.


It's not hard to understand. We're told that there is one God the Father. Not one God in three persons.


There is one God, precisely one God, in three persons. This is the view taught by the Nicene Fathers, this is the view expressed in the creed, this is the view believed in by all of the ancient Christians, and not on account of either St. Augustine or the so-called Athanasian Creed.


The Creed itself rejects your crypto-pneumatomachianism by referring to the Spirit as "Lord." See also the writings of St. Ephraim the Syrian, et cetera.


No, it's not the view that held by all Christians. The Nicene Creed does not say there is one God in three persons. That would be the "Athanasian" creed. The Nicene creed doesn't call the Holy Spirit a person.

Athanasian theology is Nicene Theology; the most definitive exegesis of the original creed of 325 AD is his work De Incarnatione. St. Athanasius also defined the NT canon we now use in his 39th Paschal Encyclical. Whether or not Quincunque Vult was authored by him, or not, is another matter.


No it's not. It goes way beyond the Nicene creed. The authors even go so far as to claim that anyone who doesn't believe as they do cannot be saved. The Athanasian creed calls the Spirit a person, the Nicene creed doesn't. The Athanasian creed also conatains contradictions. It also says that all three are co equal when Jesus said otherwise. They are co-equal in essence only.


The Athanasian Creed as it is used in the West, with the exception of the filioque, accurately conveys the Nicene position.

Maybe if one reads it back into the Nicene creed. However, it's not there otherwise.

In providing a history of the creed, I have sought to demonstrate how your position that the Nicene Fathers are less important in understanding it than their predeccessors, is misguided. In one case, a doctrinal shift did occur; St. Irenaeus and several other ante-Nicene fathers were chiliasts, whereas the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed specifically rules out chiliasm.

How exactly do you see it ruling out chiliasm? In addition my point that the Ante-Nicene writers are more important is not misguided, but correct. It's not logical to look at history that took place after the event to see what caused the event. Likewise, we don't look at what was believed later to see what was believed before.

Let me ask a simply yes or no question. It just needs a one word answer. Do you believe in one God, the Father?[/QUOTE]
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Since there is one ousia, there is One God, in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

There's not one ousia. The word can be used of many things. However, you answer has three not one. You didn't answer my question, it just yes or no. Do you believe in one God, the Father?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Wgw

Pray For Brussels!
May 24, 2015
4,304
2,074
✟15,107.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
There's not one ousia. The word can be used of many things. However, you answer has three not one. You didn't answer my question, it just yes or no. Do you believe in one God, the Father?

What you are seeking to do is entrap me into either appearing to reject Nicea or reject the doctrine of the Trinity which you claim Nice does not contain. In response I can only say that I believe in the entire undivided Nicene Creed, in the entirety of sacred scirpture as received by the Holy Orthodox Church, and in the entirety of Orthodox sacred tradition. I do not believe this is the sort of thing that can be subdivided against itself in the manner you seem to favour.

It's not hard to understand. We're told that there is one God the Father. Not one God in three persons.

On the contrary, the Nicene Creed and the Nicene fathers do tell us there is one God in three persons.

No, it's not the view that held by all Christians. The Nicene Creed does not say there is one God in three persons. That would be the "Athanasian" creed. The Nicene creed doesn't call the Holy Spirit a person.

A non-person cannot hold a personal title like Lord.

No it's not. It goes way beyond the Nicene creed. The authors even go so far as to claim that anyone who doesn't believe as they do cannot be saved. The Athanasian creed calls the Spirit a person, the Nicene creed doesn't. The Athanasian creed also conatains contradictions. It also says that all three are co equal when Jesus said otherwise. They are co-equal in essence only.

Here you confuse the Athanasian creed with the theology of St. Athanasius. That said, I do not believe that St. Athanasius would deny a coequality in terms of dignity, honour or worship.

Maybe if one reads it back into the Nicene creed. However, it's not there otherwise.

If we read the Nicene Fathers who ratified the creed, we will see a doctrine expressed which the Athanasian Creed does not contradict except in terms of the filioque.

How exactly do you see it ruling out chiliasm? In addition my point that the Ante-Nicene writers are more important is not misguided, but correct. It's not logical to look at history that took place after the event to see what caused the event. Likewise, we don't look at what was believed later to see what was believed before.

The revised creed was written to rule out chiliasm with the phrase "Whose Kingdom shall have no end." This was in response to the heresy of Apollinarius, who was among other things a chiliast. This is also a matter of fact, which can be verified through a study of the Patristic thought relating to the Council of Constantinople, which also proves the importance of reading the works at the participants of the councils and the acts of the councils in order to understand their position.
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What you are seeking to do is entrap me into either appearing to reject Nicea or reject the doctrine of the Trinity which you claim Nice does not contain. In response I can only say that I believe in the entire undivided Nicene Creed, in the entirety of sacred scirpture as received by the Holy Orthodox Church, and in the entirety of Orthodox sacred tradition. I do not believe this is the sort of thing that can be subdivided against itself in the manner you seem to favour.


No, just trying to get you to answer the question. Since you refused to answer with a yes or no I have to assume that you don't. Thus I have to assume that you don't agree with the Nicene creed, but rather agree with the Athanasian creed. You see, I can say, yes, I agree with the statement, "I believe in one God, the Father." I can also say that I believe that Jesus is God and I can EXPLAIN how that is. On the other hand, you've said what you believe is defies description. Since you can't define what you believe, I don't see how you can possible say what I believe is wrong, especially when I can explain what I believe.


On the contrary, the Nicene Creed and the Nicene fathers do tell us there is one God in three persons.


I've read the Nicene creed many times. It doesn't say there is one God in three persons. It says, I believe one God, the Father." Your statement here flat contradicts what the creed says. You're simply inferring you belief from the creed, it's not stated there.


A non-person cannot hold a personal title like Lord.


Which is why the authors of the creed should not have used the title Lord.


Here you confuse the Athanasian creed with the theology of St. Athanasius. That said, I do not believe that St. Athanasius would deny a coequality in terms of dignity, honour or worship.


No, I've compared the two creeds. The keys words here are "I do not believe." What we believe or don't believe isn't the issue. What the creeds actually say is the issue.


If we read the Nicene Fathers who ratified the creed, we will see a doctrine expressed which the Athanasian Creed does not contradict except in terms of the filioque.


Unless you can give some evidence of that it's just opinion. The problem you have is that the Athanasian creed goes beyond both the Nicene creed and the Scriptures. One may try to read the Athanasian creed back into the Nicene creed, but they can't do that with the Scriptures. There's nothing in the Scripture, nor the Nicene creed that says there is one God in three persons. Both says, there is one God, the Father.


The revised creed was written to rule out chiliasm with the phrase "Whose Kingdom shall have no end." This was in response to the heresy of Apollinarius, who was among other things a chiliast. This is also a matter of fact, which can be verified through a study of the Patristic thought relating to the Council of Constantinople, which also proves the importance of reading the works at the participants of the councils and the acts of the councils in order to understand their position.

Why would we study people who are wrong in their theology? Their attempt to rule out Chiliasm should be enough to show you that they were rewriting things to suit their own beliefs rather than what the Church taught. The same can be seen with Augustine who claimed it was OK for Christians to use violence. This has been a problem throughout church history, Christians changing things to suit their own desires. That's how the idea of one God in three persons came about.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Wgw

Pray For Brussels!
May 24, 2015
4,304
2,074
✟15,107.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
Why would we study people who are wrong in their theology? Their attempt to rule out Chiliasm should be enough to show you that they were rewriting things to suit their own beliefs rather than what the Church taught.

Ah, so you admit you regard the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed as wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ah, so you admit you regard the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed as wrong.
Up until that last post I hadn't addressed it. I have been defending the Nicene creed. However, if the creed of 381 is in fact an attempt to refute chiliasm, then yes, it is wrong. I affirm the creed of 325.

This fact that in further revisions and creeds beliefs changed shows that they are not what the apostles taught. We can see that the apostles didn't teach one God in three persons. We know that Paul taught, there is one God, the Father.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Wgw

Pray For Brussels!
May 24, 2015
4,304
2,074
✟15,107.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
Well, I am rather glad we cleared that bit up, then, old chap.

The revised creed was specifically revised to refute semi-Arianism, Macedonianism (or more broadly, Pneumatomachianism) and Apollinarianism (including by extension, Chiliasm).
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.