• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

  • The rule regarding AI content has been updated. The rule now rules as follows:

    Be sure to credit AI when copying and pasting AI sources. Link to the site of the AI search, just like linking to an article.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom
jessedance said:
would someone be so kind as to explain to me the trinity using only biblical terminology? Oh gee, trinity isn't a biblical word. This is going to be hard.
Hi there!




Once upon a time there was an eyewitness to the workings of God. He walked and talked with the Lord daily, and he grew to love the Lord in a very special way. And the Lord grew to love him in a very special way.



Because of this, the Lord called this special eyewitness to His works, the disciple whom He loved, and the eyewitness became known as the disciple whom Jesus loved. Jesus loved this disciple above his own brothers, and one of His dying requests would be for the eyewitness whom Jesus loved to take His earthly mother into his care. And the disciple whom Jesus loved did take Mary into his home.



And what is the importance of the disciple who was an eyewitness to the workings of Christ? He was also the eyewitness to the events that tell of the second coming of Christ.



This eyewitness, of course, was John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.



John specifically describes the throne of God in Revelation, Chapter 4. John writes in Revelation 1:1 that this is the revelation of Jesus Christ given by God, Himself, to John; And John describes the throne of God in heaven. A singular throne was in heaven (4:2) and one sat on the throne (the Father).





There is no temple in the Holy City because Rev 21:22 states the Lord God almighty AND the Lamb are the temple.... together they are the singular temple. There is no need for the sun because the singular light is from the glory of God and the Lamb is the light. God and the Lamb are the singular light (21:23)



John, the eyewitness, continues to discuss the singular throne of God in verse 22:3 where there is no more curse, but the [singular] throne of God AND of the Lamb shall be. And there is the Holy Spirit with the Lamb. You see the eye witness saw the Lamb, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father on the singular throne. He didn't see a three-headed monster with six eyes, but he saw God as one. John specifically describes hideous things that he saw.... the war with satan, the destruction, the armies of God assembled for war. If the trinity were the hideous creature you believe it to be, John would have described a hideous creature. John didn't appear to have a problem with the workings of the total essence of God.



That would be why John could so easily write of the divinity of Christ and record the words that "I and the Father are one". John knew that they were the same, both being God. The eyewitness knew that Jesus Christ the Son and God the Father were one.

~malaka~
 
Upvote 0

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Hi there!






Sir, you are doing just exactly what you accused the first poster on this thread of doing.... resorting to demeaning comments....

now... you criticized them for their conduct.




~malaka~
 
Upvote 0

TOmNossor

Senior Member
Nov 15, 2003
1,000
18
Visit site
✟1,236.00
Faith
Jessedance,

I have researched the council of Nicea and the time following it. For almost the entire fourth century the relationship between Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father was debated. These men had the books of the Bible that we have. I believe that the Bible is the word of God so far as it is “translated” correctly. This does not technically preclude what you speak of, but I stay rather agnostic on this. The fact is that the JW group that started the JW religion used the Bible that we have today. If I understand correctly, they thought that it taught what Catholic’s call the Arian Heresy. I do not think one can demand that the Bible is strictly Trinitarian and the almost 100 years of conflict in the 4th century evidences this.



It is interesting that you mentioned Eusibius. He was a semi-Arian. Much of Nicea was associated with convincing the semi-Arians to take a position that would not allow the Arians to be part of Christianity.



Anyway, a Catholic and a LDS will acknowledge that the Bible does not produce one single reasonable theology. A Catholic and a LDS will recognize the need for a teaching authority and/or tradition. So, I know that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost make up a divine Trinity (the structure I embrace is called a Social Trinity), because I have scriptures in addition to the Bible which are Trinitarian and I have authoritative teachers.



Charity, TOm
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,128
6,153
EST
✟1,151,696.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

Let me get this straight, when I paraphrase what you said it is insulting but not when you said it? Is that about right? Do you think it is alright to talk down to people with snide remarks, as you did?

Both of the scriptures I quoted were NOT interpolations! As you noted we have been down this road before. You quoted one (1) source Ploughman, the same site you linked to in this post, and did NOT verify any of the primary sources yourself. And even one of the so-called sources that Ploughman quotes, no longer exists, if it ever did.

Your only argument is that Eusebius, who OBTW was an Arian, seemingly does not quote the triadic formula until after the Nicaean council. Let us ignore that Eusebius frequently only quoted parts of verses, not just Matt 28:19.

#58 - Mat 28:19 - Was the trinitarian formula in this verse a corruption?

The definitive United Bible Society's Greek New Testament, 4th Revised Edition, (UBS4), which is identical with the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testement, 27th Edition (NA27), has the following reading of Matthew 28:19, which is very similar to the Nestle text that you cite:

Poreuthentes oun matheteusate panta ta ethen, baptizontes autous eis to onoma tou patros kai tou huiou kai tou hagiou pneumatos.

The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), which is based upon the UBS4/NA27 Greek New Testament, translates this verse:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Nowhere in either the critical apparatus footnotes of the Greek text nor in Bruce Metzger's definitive A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, is there any mention of variants of this text that do not have "eis to onoma tou patros kai tou huiou kai tou hagiou pneumatos" ["in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"]. None of the many editions of the Greek New Testament that I have in my library even mentions a possible alternate rendering. Even members of the very skeptical "Jesus Seminar" (Robert J. Miller, Editor, The Complete Gospels, San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1994, p. 114) have unconditionally noted:

28:19 The Father and the son and the holy spirit is the earliest Trinitarian formula in the New Testament.

The only references that I could find to any alternative views on the subject are the following:

The HarperCollins Study Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books (edited by Wayne Meeks and the Society of Biblical Liberature, San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1993, page 1914):

The Father and ... the Son and ... the Holy Spirit. This explicit trinitarian formula is rare in the NT and probably derives from early Christian worship.

The International Critical Commentary: St. Matthew, Third Edition (by Willoughby C. Allen, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d., pages 307-308):

The evidence of Eusebius must be regarded as indecisive, in view of the fact that all Greek MSS. and all extant VSS., contain the clause (S1 S2 are unhappily wanting). The Eusebian quotation: poreuthentes matheteusate panta ta ethen en to onomati mou may be Eusebius' way of abbreviating, for whatever reason, the following clause. On the other hand, Eusebius cites in this short form so often that it is easier to suppose that he is definitely quoting the words of the Gospel, than it is to invent possible reasons which have caused him so frequently to paraphrase it. An if we once suppose his short form to have been current in MSS. of the Gospel, there is much probability in the conjecture that it is the original text of the Gospel, and that in the second century the clause paptizontes autous eis to onoma, k.t.l., supplanted the shorter en tow onomati mou. An insertion of this kind derived from liturgical use would very rapdily be adopted by copyists and translators. The Didache has, chapter 7: baptisate eis to onoma tou patros kai ton uiou kai tou hagiou gneumatos. but the passage need not be dependent on our canonical Gospel, and the Didache elsewhere has a liturgical addition to the texts of the Gospels in the doxology attached to the Lord's Prayer. But Irenaeus [120-202 AD] and Tertullian [145-220 AD] already have the longer clause.

In summary, there is overwhelming manuscript evidence for, and no credible evidence to the contrary, that Matthew 28:19 originally included that Trinitarian formula.

http://www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa058.htm

The Johannine Comma: 1 John 5:7

Now, to specifics, the evidence for the early existence of the Johannine Comma is found in the following sources (some abbreviations are made when quoting the source - if there are questions, I can give the specifics):

1) 200 - Tertullian quotes the verse (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp. 907-8)

2) 250 - Cyprian, who writes, "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'and the Three are One'" (Vienna, vol. iii, p. 215)

3) 350 - Priscillian cites the verse (Vienna, vol. xviii, p. 6)

4) 350 - Idacius Clarus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 62, col. 359)

5) 350 - Athanasius cites the verse (Gill)

6) 415 - Council of Carthage appeals to the verse as a basic text proving a fundamental doctrine when contending with the Arians (Ruckman, "History of the NT Church", Vol. I, p. 146)

7) 450-530 - several orthodox African writers quote the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:

A) Vigilius Tapensis (MPL, vol. 62, col. 243)

B) Victor Vitensis (Vienna, vol. vii, p. 60)

C) Fulgentius (MPL, vol. 65, col. 500)

8) 500 - Cassiodorus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 70, col. 1373)

9) 550 - Old Latin ms r has the verse

10) 550 - The "Speculum" contains the verse

11) 750 - Wianburgensis cites the verse

12) 800 - Jerome's Vulgate includes the verse

13) 1150 - minuscule ms 88 in the margin

14) 1200-1400 - Waldensian Bibles have the verse

15) 1500 - ms 61 has the verse

16) various witnesses cited in Nestle's 26th edition for a replacement of the text as it stands with the Comma: 221 v.l.;2318 vg[cl]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r; and other important Latin mss.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/1john57.htm



Recognize that all true Christians will be Armenian in Glory. . .
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,128
6,153
EST
✟1,151,696.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

Let us not overlook Rev 3:21 also written by the disciple that Jesus loved. Note, Jesus said, " am set down WITH my Father in HIS throne." With the Father and NOT on Jesus' throne but on "His," the Father's, throne. And, as you have noted, John continually emphasizes one throne and one on the throne.

Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
 
Upvote 0

Ben johnson

Legend
Site Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟99,049.00
Faith
Christian
Trinity = Schizophrenic being
Or so I was told
This is of course referring to something _I_ said. And I also CORRECTED the term: "Schizophrenia is a disassociation between thought and emotion". It is NOT "multiple personality".

Ben did NOT say "SCHIZOPHRENIA", Ben CORRECTED the wrongly-used-term, please receive the correction.

What I SAID, was that one BEING CAN exist with several personalities; and I gave Sybili (who developed 9 distinct personalities in order to survive her horrible maternal abuse) only as an example that it is POSSIBLE.

The ONLY correlation that God has with this, is that Jesus, and the Father, and the SPIRIT, are separate PERSONS. Of this there can be no doubt.

Jesus is God.
The Father is God.
The Spirit is God.
There is also no doubt that EACH is GOD.

1 + 1 + 1 = 3! But there is ONLY ONE GOD!

There is only one way to understand it --- one BEING, who exists in three PERSONS.
Jesus is the only God I need!
Then you're in for a major problem. Salvation is FELLOWSHIP:
"Our FELLOWSHIP is with the Father, AND with His Son, JESUS CHRIST." 1Jn1:3

Salvation is FELLOWSHIP with God, and with Jesus; and other passages speak of fellowship with the Spirit. Salvation is INDWELT by Jesus, and INDWELT by the Spirit.

If you have fellowship with only ONE of them, HOW IS IT SALVATION?
We must approach God on HIS terms, not on ours...
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,128
6,153
EST
✟1,151,696.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Talyn said:
Ok i'm confused? What is the trinity? Is it as Ben said:
Or is it ONE person? I always thought the trinity meant ONE person.

ie: Jesus = God in the flesh.

Maybe this is part of the difficulty here. People trying to discuss the Trinity when they don't even understand what is is they are discussing. Trinity=tri-unity, three who, one what.
 
Upvote 0

Ben johnson

Legend
Site Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟99,049.00
Faith
Christian
Talyn, we can prove Jesus is God; we know that the Father is God, we can prove the Spirit is God. Now, the fact that there are separate PERSONALITIES, is also provable --- look at Matt24:36 --- there are things that the FATHER knows, that the Son does NOT.

But all Scripture must harmonize; so we have three separate PERSONS, each DIVINE (each fully GOD); yet Scripture says ONE GOD. There is only one answer: one Being, three persons.

Look at John 14 (8-10 for example) --- Jesus says, "Why do you say 'SHOW US THE FATHER'? He who has seen Me HAS SEEN THE FATHER!' " This really only makes sense if Jesus is PART of the ONE GOD. But doesn't deny that the Father is a different PERSON than Jesus.

Look at Genesis: "God said, 'Let US make man in OUR image.' And God created man in HIS own image..." 1:26,28 First GOD, is PLURAL; and then He is SINGULAR.

I'm not saying that we completely UNDERSTAND the duality, but we can kinda make SENSE of it.

GOD is one BEING; but He has three personalities. It is as IF there are three beings, but each is fully part of the Godhead.

And now you know as much as we do. Someday,we will have more answers than we do now...

 
Upvote 0

xsimmsx

A New Creature
Nov 4, 2003
246
1
46
Philadelphia
✟22,891.00
Faith
Christian


That doesn't prove persons. Things the father knows that the Son does not. First of all what Son is being referenced? And besides the scripture says that he Jesus the Son of God knows all things. If he knows all things then how does he not know something? You can't prove persons for there aren't persons there is One person his name is Jesus. Jesus is Father in the Flesh. When you see a distinction it is between Spirit and Flesh. OR as you say Father and Son. or God and man. That is the distinction not multiple personality disorder.
 
Upvote 0

roadie432002

Jesus is Lord
Sep 22, 2003
123
7
82
kentucky
Visit site
✟285.00
Faith
Protestant
the docrine of the Trinity asserts that there is one God that exists in three Persons:one divine essence which expresses itself always in three coequal,coeternal subsistences:the Father,the Son,and the Holy Spirit.Various metaphors have been used as ways of imagining the idea of three in one.The shamrock.Ice, water and steam are three states of the same compound.A person consists of body,soul,and spirit.The biblical evidence that compels Christians to adopt the trinitarian position consists of passages that treat each Person of the Trinity as equally divine and passages that group Father,Son and Spirit together.Matthew 3:16,17:28:19.John 14:15-23:15:26:,16: 13-15.Acts 2:32,33.1 Corinthians 12:4-6.2nd Corinthians 13:14.Galatians 4:4-6.Ephesians 1:2-14,2:18,4:4-6.Philippians 3:3.Hbrews 10:10-15.1 Peter 1:2.1 John 5:1-12.
 
Upvote 0

KennySe

Habemus Papam!
Aug 6, 2003
5,450
253
61
Visit site
✟29,554.00
Faith
Catholic
xsimmsx said:
Jesus is Father in the Flesh.
No. Absolutely not.

Jesus is The Word. The Word is God and the Word is with God.

The Word became flesh.

The Father did not become flesh.

Jesus prayed to the Father who is in heaven.
The Father spoke from on high when Jesus was baptized by John.
Jesus prayed to the Father when jesus was in the garden before His Passion.

Emmanuel: God with us
(NOT> Father with us)
 
Upvote 0

KennySe

Habemus Papam!
Aug 6, 2003
5,450
253
61
Visit site
✟29,554.00
Faith
Catholic
jessedance said:
would someone be so kind as to explain to me the trinity using only biblical terminology? Oh gee, trinity isn't a biblical word. This is going to be hard.

FIrst, here is an explanation of the Blessed Trinity.
 
Upvote 0

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom

Hi there!



The poster asked that the thread be in biblical terms.... discussions on doctrinal interpretation are not "in biblical terms".

Perhaps, a second thread needs to be started concering the "doctrine" of the trinity to include theological reasoning and not being limited to "in biblical terms".


~malaka~
 
Upvote 0

KennySe

Habemus Papam!
Aug 6, 2003
5,450
253
61
Visit site
✟29,554.00
Faith
Catholic
jessedance said:
would someone be so kind as to explain to me the trinity using only biblical terminology? Oh gee, trinity isn't a biblical word. This is going to be hard.

 
Upvote 0

KennySe

Habemus Papam!
Aug 6, 2003
5,450
253
61
Visit site
✟29,554.00
Faith
Catholic
(continuation of post 35)
 
Upvote 0

KennySe

Habemus Papam!
Aug 6, 2003
5,450
253
61
Visit site
✟29,554.00
Faith
Catholic
And now the Holy Spirit


NOW BE BRAVE AND READ THOSE PASSAGES IN YOUR BIBLE.
Or be a coward and dismiss them.
 
Upvote 0

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom
KennySe said:
And now the Holy Spirit



NOW BE BRAVE AND READ THOSE PASSAGES IN YOUR BIBLE.
Or be a coward and dismiss them.

Hi there!



You were doing just a great job, until you resorted to name-calling... then you lost your witness. "I" would be offended at being called a "coward". In fact, everyone on this forum would be offended at being labeled as such.


~malaka~
 
Upvote 0

KennySe

Habemus Papam!
Aug 6, 2003
5,450
253
61
Visit site
✟29,554.00
Faith
Catholic
Hello, Malaka.

I agree that my ending was harsh. It was meant to be harsh, like a glass of water to the face. Re-read the OP and see the spirit in which it was written.

Be informed that I have not called anyone a coward.
Just as I have not called anyone brave, either.

Peace be with you,
Kenny
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.