Debating the Trinity

[Der Alte]

Exactly! This is where those who hold the [Trinity] doctrine have resort to linguistical gymnastics. It's simply a logical fallacy. What is troubling is how so many will simply ignore the historical and grammatical evidence to defend a doctrine devised by men from the fifth century.

Wrong! The Trinity was written about as early as 180 AD and it was alluded to even earlier.

Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202.] Against Heresies. Book IV Chap. XX
12. Thus also did Rahab the harlot, while condemning herself,​

inasmuch as she was a Gentile, guilty of all sins, nevertheless receive the three spies, who were spying out all the land, and hid them at her home; (which three were)

doubtless (a type of) the Father and the Son, together with the Holy Spirit.

​

I didn't say the word trinity wasn't in the quote. I said there is no trinity in the quote.

You are entitled to your opinion. Irenaeus believed Jesus was God.

Irenaeus [student of Polycarp, student of John, A.D. 120-202.] Against Heresies. Book I. Chap. VIII
5. For “the beginning” is in the Father, and of the Father, while “the Word” is in the beginning, and of the beginning. Very properly, then, did he say, “In the beginning was the Word,” for He was in the Son; “and the Word was with God,” for He was the beginning; “and the Word was God,” of course, for that which is begotten of God is God. “The same was in the beginning with God” — this clause discloses the order of production. “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made;” (Joh_1:3) for the Word was the author of form and beginning to all the Aeons that came into existence after Him.​

I read your posts. The reason I asked what your point was is that your reply had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

You were talking about the Trinity how it was a logical fallacy and a doctrine devised by men from the fifth century. My post addressed that false assertion.

 

[Butch5]

​

You are entitled to your opinion. Irenaeus believed Jesus was God.

Irenaeus [student of Polycarp, student of John, A.D. 120-202.] Against Heresies. Book I. Chap. VIII
5. For “the beginning” is in the Father, and of the Father, while “the Word” is in the beginning, and of the beginning. Very properly, then, did he say, “In the beginning was the Word,” for He was in the Son; “and the Word was with God,” for He was the beginning; “and the Word was God,” of course, for that which is begotten of God is God. “The same was in the beginning with God” — this clause discloses the order of production. “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made;” (Joh_1:3) for the Word was the author of form and beginning to all the Aeons that came into existence after Him.​

He believed Jesus was Deity, not that there was one being who consisted of three persons.​

You were talking about the Trinity how it was a logical fallacy and a doctrine devised by men from the fifth century. My post addressed that false assertion.

No, I wasn't. My post to Radrook was that the idea proposed by many today, that there is a being called God who consists of three persons, is a logical fallacy. I didn't say the Trinity was a fallacy.

The Trinity espoused by many today is a logical fallacy and it is quite different that that which was believed in the beginning.

 

[Uber Genius]

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-formulation-and-defense-of-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity

Not even the Reformers with their Sola scriptura emphasis came close to this aberrant understanding.

Your challenge in understanding the teachings is understanding the nature of the scriptures and how they relate to theology (systematic theology in the case of your anti-Trinitarian claims).

More specifically you seem to think the Bible a dead document as opposed to living.

Here is an good treatment of the doctrine that has significant focus on historical debate amongst church fathers, as well as philosophical treatments.

By the way is Christ have one nature or two?

Which part of Jesus is divine in nature?

Which part human? His body or his mind, both?

What is the relation between the preexisting Logos and God?

Was the Logos God in preexisting form?

So all those questions AND MORE can't be answered on your view of the Bible and theological epistemology (how we justify our knowledge).

That a whole lot of babies being thrown out with the bath water.

Review the link and we can discuss your questions.

 

[Der Alte]

He believed Jesus was Deity, not that there was one being who consisted of three persons.

I quoted Irenaeus. I can read what he said I do not need someone to explain it to me. Why do you find it necessary to reinterpret what Irenaeus said?

No, I wasn't. My post to Radrook was that the idea proposed by many today, that there is a being called God who consists of three persons, is a logical fallacy. I didn't say the Trinity was a fallacy.
The Trinity espoused by many today is a logical fallacy and it is quite different that that which was believed in the beginning.

And you can logically demonstrate how the Trinity espoused by anyone is a logical fallacy?

 

[Der Alte]

Regardless of what 'one believes', the truth is that there is NO 'trinity' in the Bible. Anyone that disagrees with this: show us. Show us the doctrine of 'trinity' offered in the Bible.

The fact that the English word Trinity does not occur in the scriptures does disprove the doctrine of the Trinity anymore than the fact that the English word Bible does not occur in scripture prove anything about the scriptures.

So if it is NOT in the Bible, it is about as obvious as it could be that it is in deed: a man made doctrine. History clearly shows HOW it was created and introduced into the Catholic Church.

There was no Catholic church to create anything until 1075 when the bishop of Rome took the name Gregory VII, issued 27 Dictatus Papae (Dictates of the Pope) and unilaterally usurped authority over the church.
The Trinity was written about in the church 995 years before that.

And so far as Christ offering that He and the Father are ONE? He also states that it is HIS wish that 'we too' become ONE with the Father.
So if this 'oneness' is indicative of 'being God', then WE TOO can 'be God'.
Blessings,
MEC

Has this happened yet and how does it prove anything about the Trinity doctrine?

 

[Doveaman]

And so far as Christ offering that He and the Father are ONE? He also states that it is HIS wish that 'we too' become ONE with the Father.

So if this 'oneness' is indicative of 'being God', then WE TOO can 'be God'.

There may be some truth to that.

"I said, 'You are "gods "; you are all sons of the Most High." -- (Ps 82:6).

 

[Der Alte]

There may be some truth to that.
"I said, 'You are "gods "; you are all sons of the Most High." -- (Ps 82:6).

And then there may not be.

Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? ​

In John 10:34 Jesus did not, Himself, call anyone "Elohim." He was quoting Psalm 82. Note Jesus speaking to the Jewish leaders said, "If he called them Theos, unto whom the word of God came." He did not say to his audience "If he called you Theos." Jesus acknowledges that God was speaking to a specific group, not all Israel, not the people Jesus was talking to and certainly not all mankind.
.....Note even as Jesus quoted Ps 82, it says, "I said, Ye are theos" Neither God nor Jesus said an unqualified "You are theos" They were not actually theos or elohim, God only said they were, but they were only men, unjust judges.
The congregation of YHWH is the nation of Israel, not some imaginary heavenly tribunal of “elohim."

Numbers 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
Deuteronomy 23:8 The children that are begotten of them [Edomites, Egyptians, vs. 7] shall enter into the congregation of the LORD in their third generation.
Joshua 22:16 Thus saith the whole congregation of the LORD, What trespass is this that ye have committed against the God of Israel, to turn away this day from following the LORD, in that ye have builded you an altar, that ye might rebel this day against the LORD?
1 Chronicles 28:8 Now therefore in the sight of all Israel the congregation of the LORD, and in the audience of our God, keep and seek for all the commandments of the LORD your God: that ye may possess this good land, and leave it for an inheritance for your children after you for ever. ​

So God stood in the midst of his congregation, the nation Israel, judging unjust judges who corrupted their office and who died like the men they actually were, "they shall fall like any one (Judges 16:7, Obadiah 1:11) of the princes who in the course of history have been cast down by the judgment of God (Hosea 7:7)." Keil and Delitsch Hebrew commentary.

 

[Doveaman]

Jesus acknowledges that God was speaking to a specific group, not all Israel, not the people Jesus was talking to and certainly not all mankind.

The specific group God was talking to were all human, and God called them "gods".

Note even as Jesus quoted Ps 82, it says, "I said, Ye are theos" Neither God nor Jesus said an unqualified "You are theos" They were not actually theos or elohim, God only said they were, but they were only men, unjust judges.

So God said they are "gods", and you said they are not.

I think I'll stick with what God said.

Jesus used the 'godhood' of Man to show that if men can be 'gods', how much more is He God:

"'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'
Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your Law, "I have said you are gods"? If he called them "gods," to whom the word of God came -- and the Scripture cannot be broken -- what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?" -- (John 10:34-36).

 

[Der Alte]

The specific group God was talking to were all human, and God called them "gods".
So God said they are "gods", and you said they are not.

Wrong! Twisting scripture. As I carefully pointed out when God spoke to His congregation, i.e. Israel, He did not say an unqualified "You are gods!" God said "I said, you are gods." Words have meaning. There is a world of difference between those two statements. God does not say in several places; "there was no God before me, there is no God beside me and there will be no God after me. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."
Deuteronomy 4:35, Deuteronomy 4:39; Isaiah 43:10-11, Isaiah 43:9, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 44:8; Isaiah 40:25, Isaiah 45:5-6, Isaiah 45: 21-22; Isaiah 46:5 Isaiah 46:9, then contradict Himself and say that all mankind are gods?

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; ​

Even as Jesus quoted Psalm 82 He did not quote God as saying "You are gods" but He quoted "I said you are gods." Please note, Jesus did not say to the scribes and Pharisees "I said said you are gods." Note the 3rd person pronoun, "he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came." "He called them" not "you the pharisees etc" and not all mankind!

I think I'll stick with what God said.

Wrong! You are sticking with what you want the word of God to say and ignoring the context. See my discussion above

Jesus used the 'godhood' of Man to show that if men can be 'gods', how much more is He God:

Wrong! There never was, there is not now and there will never be a "godhood of man." Unless God was lying in all the verses I referred to above. Deuteronomy 4:35, Deuteronomy 4:39; Isaiah 43:10-11, Isaiah 43:9, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 44:8; Isaiah 40:25, Isaiah 45:5-6, Isaiah 45:21-22, Isaiah 46:5, Isaiah 46:9

"'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'
Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your Law, "I have said you are gods"? If he called them "gods," to whom the word of God came -- and the Scripture cannot be broken -- what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?" -- (John 10:34-36).

Even as you quoted Jn 10:34-36 Jesus did not say nor imply that all mankind were called gods only those who first received the law.

 

[sparow]

Regardless of what 'one believes', the truth is that there is NO 'trinity' in the Bible. Anyone that disagrees with this: show us. Show us the doctrine of 'trinity' offered in the Bible.

So if it is NOT in the Bible, it is about as obvious as it could be that it is in deed: a man made doctrine. History clearly shows HOW it was created and introduced into the Catholic Church.

And so far as Christ offering that He and the Father are ONE? He also states that it is HIS wish that 'we too' become ONE with the Father.

So if this 'oneness' is indicative of 'being God', then WE TOO can 'be God'.

Blessings,

MEC

The debate seems to be concentrating on whether the Trinity doctrine is true or false but I think the issue is whether the Trinity doctrine is or is not a doctrine of men; if the Trinity doctrine is determined to be a doctrine of men, not a teaching of God, then the issue is, are doctrines of men valid; it was doctrines of men that brought judgement on the Pharisees, resulting on the kingdom of God being taken from them.

The word Trinity not being in scripture is irrelevant; what is relevant is teachings of men are not in scripture, scripture is the teaching of God. It is irrelevant whether teachings of men are true or false , they are always invalid because they replace what God has given.

 

[Butch5]

I quoted Irenaeus. I can read what he said I do not need someone to explain it to me. Why do you find it necessary to reinterpret what Irenaeus said?

I have to wonder. You posted that quote as proof and yet it didn't say anything at all about a being called God who consists of three persons. Why did you post it.

And you can logically demonstrate how the Trinity espoused by anyone is a logical fallacy?

I and logically demonstrate how the idea that there is a being called God who consists of three persons is fallacious.

 

[Doveaman]

Wrong! Twisting scripture. As I carefully pointed out when God spoke to His congregation, i.e. Israel, He did not say an unqualified "You are gods!" God said "I said, you are gods." Words have meaning. There is a world of difference between those two statements.

I think you are missing the point Jesus is making.

Jesus is quoting from Psalms 82:6:

"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High."

They are called “gods” because they are “sons of the Most High” God.
Jesus is saying that if the adopted sons of God are called “gods”, then He, the begotten Son of God, is also God, but in the fullest sense.

"Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your Law, "I have said you are gods"? If he called them "gods," to whom the word of God came -- and the Scripture cannot be broken -- what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?" -- (John 10:34-36).

God does not say in several places; "there was no God before me, there is no God beside me and there will be no God after me. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."
Deuteronomy 4:35, Deuteronomy 4:39; Isaiah 43:10-11, Isaiah 43:9, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 44:8; Isaiah 40:25, Isaiah 45:5-6, Isaiah 45: 21-22; Isaiah 46:5 Isaiah 46:9, then contradict Himself and say that all mankind are gods?

It is true that there are no gods besides the most High God. There is only one God.
But Man has been reconciled to that one God through the human nature and divine work of Christ, so that Man, through Christ, now participate in His divine nature.

"Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature" -- (2 Peter 1:4).

All who now share in the divine nature of God are adopted sons of God, and are, therefore, "divine gods” just as Jesus, the begotten Son, is divine.

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Even as Jesus quoted Psalm 82 He did not quote God as saying "You are gods" but He quoted "I said you are gods." Please note, Jesus did not say to the scribes and Pharisees "I said said you are gods." Note the 3rd person pronoun, "he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came." "He called them" not "you the pharisees etc" and not all mankind!

God called them “gods” because they were “sons of the Most High”.

"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High."

The spiritual body of Christ, unto whom the word of God now comes, is made up of “sons of the Most High”.
We are all sons of God, and we now share in His divine nature.
The sons of God who share in God's divine nature are "divine gods”.

Wrong! There never was, there is not now and there will never be a "godhood of man." Unless God was lying in all the verses I referred to above. Deuteronomy 4:35, Deuteronomy 4:39; Isaiah 43:10-11, Isaiah 43:9, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 44:8; Isaiah 40:25, Isaiah 45:5-6, Isaiah 45: 21-22; Isaiah 46:5 Isaiah 46:9

Jesus is God who took on the nature of Man, therefore Jesus is the godhood of Man.
Jesus has reconciled Man to God in Himself so that those who believe in Him are now “sons of the Most High”, and are, therefore, “gods” through faith in Christ.
Man in Christ now share in the divinity of God, which makes us “divine gods” in Christ.

Even as you quoted Jn 10:34-36 Jesus did not say nor imply that all mankind were called gods only those who first received the law.

The law of God is now received by the spiritual body of Christ, the Church.
The spiritual members of the Church, who now share in the divinity of Christ, are all “divine gods” in Christ.

"Those who will believe in Me...that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us...And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me" -- (John 17:20-23).

 

[Der Alte]

I have to wonder. You posted that quote as proof and yet it didn't say anything at all about a being called God who consists of three persons. Why did you post it.

I thought you knew everything about the quote from Irenaeus, you tried to tell me what Irenaeus really said.

I and logically demonstrate how the idea that there is a being called God who consists of three persons is fallacious.

I'm waiting, I think I asked you a few posts back to prove this assertion. How many did Irenaeus call God?

 

[Der Alte]

I think you are missing the point Jesus is making.
Jesus is quoting from Psalms 82:6:
"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High."
They are called “gods” because they are “sons of the Most High” God.
Jesus is saying that if the adopted sons of God are called “gods”, then He, the begotten Son of God, is also God, but in the fullest sense.

The unjust judges of Psalms 82 were only said to be elohim. Neither God in Ps 82 nor Jesus in Jn 10 said the unjust judges were actually, literally gods with god like powers. They were mere men and they died like the men they were.

"Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your Law, "I have said you are gods"? If he called them "gods," to whom the word of God came -- and the Scripture cannot be broken -- what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?" -- (John 10:34-36).

Please read you proof text carefully. Third sentence, "If he called them "gods," to whom the word of God came." Jesus did not say "If they were gods..." Neither God nor Jesus said the unjust judges of Israel were actually, literally gods.

It is true that there are no gods besides the most High God. There is only one God.
But Man has been reconciled to that one God through the human nature and divine work of Christ, so that Man, through Christ, now participate in His divine nature.

"Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature" -- (2 Peter 1:4).
All who now share in the divine nature of God are adopted sons of God, and are, therefore, "divine gods” just as Jesus, the begotten Son, is divine.
God called them “gods” because they were “sons of the Most High”.
"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High."
The spiritual body of Christ, unto whom the word of God now comes, is made up of “sons of the Most High”.
We are all sons of God, and we now share in His divine nature.
The sons of God who share in God's divine nature are "divine gods”.
Jesus is God who took on the nature of Man, therefore Jesus is the godhood of Man.
Jesus has reconciled Man to God in Himself so that those who believe in Him are now “sons of the Most High”, and are, therefore, “gods” through faith in Christ.
Man in Christ now share in the divinity of God, which makes us “divine gods” in Christ.
The law of God is now received by the spiritual body of Christ, the Church.
The spiritual members of the Church, who now share in the divinity of Christ, are all “divine gods” in Christ.
"Those who will believe in Me...that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us...And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me" -- (John 17:20-23).

Nothing you have said or ever could say proves that men have been, are now or ever will be gods in any sense.

 

[Butch5]

I thought you knew everything about the quote from Irenaeus, you tried to tell me what Irenaeus really said.

I told you what the quote doesn't say. IT doesn't say what you're trying to ptove.

I'm waiting, I think I asked you a few posts back to prove this assertion. How many did Irenaeus call God?

I've already proven your argument illogical. It is the fallacy of Begging the Question. A fallacy is an error in reasoning. It doesn't matter how much evidence (what you suppose is evidence) you post it's not going to fix the error in your reasoning.

Additionally, it doesn't matter how many Irenaeus called God because his writings are not inspired so it wouldn't prove you're point.

As I pointed out the word "theos" means deity. The Bible uses this word of Molech and Baal too. If the word God means one is a part of the Trinity then how can you exclude them? what about men. Jesus said the Scriptures call men gods. Are they too a part of the Trinity?

Your argument has multiple problems and can be seen in error.

 

[sparow]

Once again, show us through the Bible that we 'must' believe that God 'is three persons in one God'. Or just show us that this 'three persons in one God' is offered in the Bible. Show us where in the Bible we are commanded to 'believe' that Jesus is God. And if you can't, then just admit that regardless of such beliefs, they are really irrelevant to Salvation. And if irrelevant to Salvation, what purpose could such beliefs possibly serve?

Can I KNOW God or KNOW the Son without subscribing to the doctrine of 'trinity'? And if your answer is 'no'. Then show us. Show us WHERE in the Bible we are warned that we MUST accept and believe in 'trinity'. Show where we are encouraged to even believe it exists.

And it is not merely a matter of the 'word trinity' not being in the Bible.

If the concept were TRULY offered in the Bible, there would be some reference to the IDEA. Some specific information offered so that we could KNOW that God is 'three persons in one God'.

Yet there is no such information. Nothing to LEAD us to understand the IDEA of 'trinity'.

Even those that created it and defined it openly admit that it must be 'divinely revealed'.

So those that have simply accepted what others of the past have offered cannot even come close to an understanding of it. For if it was NOT 'divinely revealed' to you, you cannot fathom it.

And those that created and introduced it into the 'church' openly admit that even when divinely revealed, it still remains a mystery.

Do you realize the contradiction? Something after being 'revealed' still remains a mystery.

Oh my. So what is 'revealed'? Just a WORD? For if it still remains a 'mystery', was it TRULY revealed?

One plus one plus one equals three. It is simple mathematics. We didn't 'create math'. We discovered it. And it is 'TRUTH'. It is the manner in which 'things' exist. Numbers.

So if 'trinity' truly exists as offered, it would seem to defy the very nature of the 'truth'. One plus one plus one equals three. Not 'one' as defined in 'trinity'.

And what happens when we throw out all logic and just start following fantasy? Is that "REALLY" the nature of God? Is He a 'magic God'? One that can 'do' things that don't follow logic? That would be a 'strange God' indeed.

I don't view God as a 'magician'. I view God as the ultimate knowledge of the 'truth'. And one plus one plus one equaling one just seems about as contrary to 'truth' as anything I've ever heard.

Blessings,

MEC

Have you heard of Boolean algebra; one son + one Father + one Holy spirit = one God; for this to be true, one God would not only have be plural but number precisely three, unless God is a type and not numbered; another true example could be one Son + one Father + one Holy Spirit = one carrot not; carrot would not have to be plural.

 

[Der Alte]

Der Alter,
They you explain to us 'exactly' what it means when it is stated, "ye are gods".
If it doesn't mean what is says, please explain it to us in a manner that can be understood.
Blessings,
MEC

I have done so more than once in this thread. If you do not understand my post #256 above let me know.

 

[Der Alte]

I told you what the quote doesn't say. IT doesn't say what you're trying to ptove.

No you told me that when Irenaeus said the Son was Theos that he didn't really mean Theos. Remember?

I've already proven your argument illogical. It is the fallacy of Begging the Question. A fallacy is an error in reasoning. It doesn't matter how much evidence (what you suppose is evidence) you post it's not going to fix the error in your reasoning.

No you have not proven I begged the question or that I used faulty reasoning, you have merely repeated your empty assertions. No matter how many times you repeat "I have proved" this, that or the other that does not make it so. You quite evidently do not know what begging the question means. "Begging the question" means assuming something is true with no evidence. An example might be "Since candidate 'X' is a liar and a thief he/she should is not qualified to hold public office." When one provides evidence for a statement or assertion it is not begging the question.

Additionally, it doesn't matter how many Irenaeus called God because his writings are not inspired so it wouldn't prove you're point.

Since Irenaeus was a native Greek speaker, I'm quite sure you are not, and a student of Polycarp who was a student of John, it will take more that empty objections to prove him wrong. Please let me know when you think you have done that?

As I pointed out the word "theos" means deity. The Bible uses this word of Molech and Baal too. If the word God means one is a part of the Trinity then how can you exclude them? what about men. Jesus said the Scriptures call men gods. Are they too a part of the Trinity?

Another empty assertion and an illogical question. I started learning to speak Greek the year that Elvis and I were stationed in Germany and studied both Biblical languages about two decades later, I have multiple Greek language sources in my library so please produce your evidence that when Irenaeus said "He that is begotten of God is God" the second "theos" means divine and not God as the first Theos does?

Your argument has multiple problems and can be seen in error.

More empty assertions with no evidence. Saying something is a logical fallacy or there are multiple problems does not make it so. Please look up a credible list of logical fallacies and tell me which one the Trinity violates?

 

[Butch5]

No you told me that when Irenaeus said the Son was Theos that he didn't really mean Theos. Remember?

You must be thinking of someone else. I said no such thing.

No you have not proven I begged the question or that I used faulty reasoning, you have merely repeated your empty assertions. No matter how many times you repeat "I have proved" this, that or the other that does not make it so. You quite evidently do not know what begging the question means. "Begging the question" means assuming something is true with no evidence. An example might be "Since candidate 'X' is a liar and a thief he/she should is not qualified to hold public office." When one provides evidence for a statement or assertion it is not begging the question.

It's not I that doesn't know what Begging the Question means.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Since Irenaeus was a native Greek speaker, I'm quite sure you are not, and a student of Polycarp who was a student of John, it will take more that empty objections to prove him wrong. Please let me know when you think you have done that?

He's not wrong. You're just not understanding him correctly.

Another empty assertion and an illogical question. I started learning to speak Greek the year that Elvis and I were stationed in Germany and studied both Biblical languages about two decades later, I have multiple Greek language sources in my library so please produce your evidence that when Irenaeus said "He that is begotten of God is God" the second "theos" means divine and not God as the first Theos does?

They both mean Deity. The word theos is a title.

More empty assertions with no evidence. Saying something is a logical fallacy or there are multiple problems does not make it so. Please look up a credible list of logical fallacies and tell me which one the Trinity violates?

I've already show you. Just because you keep denying it doesn't mean it isn't so. Your lack of evidence proves that your claim is wrong. Here is your original post to me.

"Wrong! The Trinity was written about as early as 180 AD and it was alluded to even earlier.
Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202.] Against Heresies. Book IV Chap. XX
12. Thus also did Rahab the harlot, while condemning herself, inasmuch as she was a Gentile, guilty of all sins, nevertheless receive the three spies,71 who were spying out all the land, and hid them at her home; [which three were] doubtless [a type of] the Father and the Son, together with the Holy Spirit"

Where does Irenaeus say anything about the Trinity?

 

[Der Alte]

You must be thinking of someone else. I said no such thing.

Wrong again! You said that when Irenaeus said "He that is begotten of God is God." he didn't mean God but divine. Which OBTW is begging the question.

It's not I that doesn't know what Begging the Question means.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

This says almost exactly what I said about begging the question. But your link confuses "circular reasoning" with "begging the question."

He's not wrong. You're just not understanding him correctly.
They both mean Deity. The word theos is a title.

Evidence? Documentation? Substantiation?

I've already show you. Just because you keep denying it doesn't mean it isn't so. Your lack of evidence proves that your claim is wrong. Here is your original post to me.

Once again you have not shown anything. All you have done is repeat your empty assertions.

"Wrong! The Trinity was written about as early as 180 AD and it was alluded to even earlier.
Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202.] Against Heresies. Book IV Chap. XX
12. Thus also did Rahab the harlot, while condemning herself, inasmuch as she was a Gentile, guilty of all sins, nevertheless receive the three spies,71 who were spying out all the land, and hid them at her home; [which three were] doubtless [a type of] the Father and the Son, together with the Holy Spirit"​

Where does Irenaeus say anything about the Trinity?

You do know the meaning of "alluded to" don't you?