Is The Trinity Biblical?

[nephilimiyr]

As I understand it, those books were canonized because the Council used them.

Your missing my point totally. The question has to be asked, what gave the NC the belief in a God as one in nature but three persons? The answer is found in the canonized Bible. They didn't gain their understanding by reading someother creed but gained that understanding by reading God's Holy Word, which yes I agree they did canonize those writings into the book called the Bible but main main point is that as they read the writings of Paul and the apostles the Holy Spirit gave them truth and wisdom to write the creed.

It's my belief that if they gained this understanding by reading those writings then all of us can as well. We don't need the creed to do this, all we need is God's Holy Word. After all, that's all the nicene council members had to go on.

 

[@@Paul@@]

Well this I would gladly agree that the council did do this...so what? The main point in the question in this whole thread is where do we get the belief of the trinity? Was it the NC or the Bible? it doesn't matter to me that the NC canonized the books but that the books where there for them to read and gain understanding. It's that understanding that is reflected in the creed.

The books of the canonized NT were basically in order and floating around prior to 100ad... If anyone likes i will post a NEW thread explaining this. However, i'm sure many would disagree... such is life..

While these "church fathers" were writing doctrines of the Trinity & "officially" canonizing scripture,,,, most Christians paid no attention to these matters and spent their time on street corners doing what we're supposed to be doing,,, "witnessing"........ They had their own bibles...

 

[thereselittleflower]

[/font]
therese I really don't see you understanding at all what we are talking about nor what we are argueing about. You act as though you just want a arguement.

No neph .. you have made certain statememt that are not logical, but they flow from popular protestant thinking . .

I have asked you pointed questions because of your denial of the importance of the Creed and the Early Church . .

I really see you not understanding the implications of your words . . .

I never accused you of saying that either! I asked you to answer the question that's all! It's not an accusation but a question!

Then why did you need an answer when you already gave it yourself?

If you make a rhetorical question, that you then answer yourself, why demand anyone else answer it?

I'm only giving you a dose of your own medicine. When you told me if I say no to your 2 questions you gave me a whole lists of things that I would be accused of. I'm mearly doing the same to you! Sure doesn't feel good being on the other end of the stick does it therese???

Ah . no neph . . your demands started much earlier than that . . and not at all in response to my comments you refer to above. . you had already started down this road . . you didn't need any help from me . .

I don't feel like I am on the other end of the stick at all . . so, sorry . .but no . . you are merely avoiding the issue by continually trying to make ME the issue . .

It is pretty obvious what you are doing . .

How much more time do you need?

No not at all! I think your a very smart woman

Thank you neph . . that was a very nice compliment.

who covers her tracks very well.

I have no need to cover my tracks . . but I do see you trying to cover yours, but not being able to . .

Your above comment shows you have no idea what you are argueing with me! I never have made the claim that people here are saying that the comforter is not the Holy Spirit. Well I wasn't at first but now I see that other guy has and I did answer him. They only thing I have differed on in this thread and which my original posts were directed to was Shelb5's asertion that the nature of God as being one nature but three persons is not in scripture.

neph. . the other guy, Kenny, was not saying what you think he said . . read his post again . .

neph .. now, I am a very smart woman who has no idea what I am arguing with you . . hmmm . ..


And in regards to Shelb's statement that you took exception with . . you are asserting that the fact that the Holy Spirit shares the one nature of God is in the scripture .

I would like you to show us where . .

Why is it you take my real questions and consider them rhetorical and my rhetorical questions as real?

Perhaps because of the way you have chosen to communicate in this thread? Espeically when one answers their question and the answer is obvious?

I sounds like you do yes but that is lightyears from the issue that I am argueing!

I don't think so neph .. I have pretty much heard it all . .

You are mistaken that I even questioned that!

Then there was no point to your continued demands that I answer your question about who the Comforter is . .

The point is, do you believe the scriptures give you that understanding?

But that is not what you asked . . you asked WHO the comforter is, not how I know this . .

The bible clearly tells us the Comforter is the Holy Spirit .. again, a redundant quesiton that appears totally rhetorical because it is clearly stated in the scriptures and you provided them . .

So, not the point isn't do I believe the scripture give me that understanding . . it is obvious they do . .

You are simply doing it again, with a slightly differnt emphasis . .

If you would've just gave it an honest try at answering these questions to begin with we would'nt have had to go through all these posts! Now in the context of the John passages that I posted does it or does it not refer to the Holy Spirit or do you believe like that other guy that by reading those verses only tells you that Jesus is sending a messenger along the lines of Gabriel?

See? here you go again! First you don't question what I believe, then you question it .

Is this rhetorical or not? If it is not, then you didn't mean what you said about me above or what you think I believe . .

You are merely using me as a springboard to say what you want to say .

either you beileve that I believe that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit or you don't . .

You are contradiciting yourself again neph .. .

I will show you!

What is it that you need to show me? .. that the comforter is not Gabriel? Why do you need to show me this? You already said you believe I know the comforter is the Holy Spirit, and I have already told you this .

Why are you using me in this way? (for that is exactly what you are doing)

This is not the way one engages in honest intellectual discussion . .

Quite it! I am not hounding you, you are hounding me and calling me a hypocrate because I wont answer your precious question. You have not dealed with me in good faith. If you were you would have answered my questions and in good turn I would've answered your questions in good faith.

Nope .. you are the one who has done all the refusing AND ALL the demanding! . . repeating such demands are indeed hounding .

I have made no demands of you . . you are free to answer or not . your failure to answer speaks volumnes, but I have never demanded you answer . .


By the way, where did I say you were a hypocrite? I seem to remember that I gave you the opportunity to answer some questions sp ou could demonstrate that you are NOT a hypocrite . . why haven't you taken advantage of the opportunity to clarify things by answering the questions put to you?



I have absolutely dealt with you in good faith . .

1. Whom made a promise to whom?
2. Who has not kept their word?
3. Who is not dealing in good faith here?

Rather than impugn my character, perhaps you should be looking at your own?


Peace in Him!

 

[Benedicta00]

Right, which does not mean they were not in use prior to a council "canonized"...

So one can not say we got the bible because of a council... they simply "published" it and stamped their name on it... like the "Trinity".

Straw.

Where did they get this information from that the scriptures were from God???
Where??? Did it fall from the sky?? How did the Early Church know which writing were from God and which ones were not???

 

[thereselittleflower]

Your missing my point totally. The question has to be asked, what gave the NC the belief in a God as one in nature but three persons? The answer is found in the canonized Bible. They didn't gain their understanding by reading someother creed

ummm . . you are aware, of course, that the Apostle's creed predated the Nicene Creed?

but gained that understanding by reading God's Holy Word,

Which New Testament books were looked upon as the infallible word of God before the canonizaiton of those books which occured many decades AFTER the council of Nicea?

which yes I agree they did canonize those writings into the book called the Bible but main main point is that as they read the writings of Paul and the apostles the Holy Spirit gave them truth and wisdom to write the creed.

I agree with you . . thank you for clarifying your point . .

But you assume that the Early Church had only those writings to draw from, and the point WE are making is that they had much more . .

They had the FULL deposite of faith to draw from, of which those writings of Paul and the Apostles (and others by the way . . Luke was not the Apostle Luke) are but a part .

So they were not LIMITED to those writings from which to formulate their concept of the Trintiy, or from which to base the Nicene Cread . .

They used the FULL deposite of faith . .

So yes, they used the scriptures, but that is not all they used . .

It's my belief that if they gained this understanding by reading those writings then all of us can as well. We don't need the creed to do this, all we need is God's Holy Word. After all, that's all the nicene council members had to go on.

Well, since they did not gain that understanding SOLEY from those writings, I don't see how you can either ..

Unless, of course, you PERFECTLy and INERRANTLY hear the Holy Spirit revealing to you the FULL truth about the Trinity from the scriptures alone . .

And then, we get right back to the 2 questions I asked you, which you have so persistently dodged answering . .


But you keep bringing the subject back up . . . so please do not accuse me of hounding you . . your logic has a big gaping black hole in it . . . . All I am doing is hitting "flush" . ..


Peace in Him!

 

[Benedicta00]

Why do these people want to gloss over that fact?

Because it is not a fact it is a straw, a fact that is something documented. Document what you believe the early Church was like for me please.

 

[Benedicta00]

Well this I would gladly agree that the council did do this...so what? The main point in the question in this whole thread is where do we get the belief of the trinity? Was it the NC or the Bible? it doesn't matter to me that the NC canonized the books but that the books where there for them to read and gain understanding. It's that understanding that is reflected in the creed.

So what…? With out it, we would all be Arian right now. Jesus said the gates will not prevail, the council was that promise in action.

 

[Benedicta00]

No i do not... Obviously... as there is no such gift...

Then you place all your faith in a fallible man... I do not. I place all my faith in God, and His word... And that is all i need to get through this period rightly named "the fulness of the Gentiles"... You have a right to your opinion as do I.--------- I respect your descisions,,,, as a fellow Christian you should respect mine.

Your faith is in God but you faith in what the bible says is in your self-interpretations and personal truth. You even said yourself time after time that all we need to know is that Christ saves the rest is personal truth.

 

[nephilimiyr]

nephilimiyr

Are you able to hear and understand the Comferter perfectly? Are you infallible in your understanding and comprehending of what He says to you?


Peace in Him!

Even though I believe you have totally missed my point and haven't really answered those questions by me I will answer these now since at least you did show a willingness to by fair about this. I can't fault you totally for misunderstanding me since part of the blame is on my shoulders.

Editted to say: You know what therese? forget it. After reading your post #123 I see no willingness that you want to be fair or any willingness to try and understand. It's all about you and what you believe.

If you have already grabed this post and will reply to my answers don't expect any reply from me. I'm through with you!

 

[thereselittleflower]

The books of the canonized NT were basically in order and floating around prior to 100ad.

There was no order to them, they were separate writings, books. And there were many more besides them . some of which almost made it into the canon of scripture later . .

While these "church fathers" were writing doctrines of the Trinity & "officially" canonizing scripture,,,, most Christians paid no attention to these matters and spent their time on street corners doing what we're supposed to be doing,,, "witnessing"........ They had their own bibles...

That is absolutely false and an outright lie . .

The common people were so embroiled in the Arian controversy, that Bishops wrote of not being able to go buy bread or go anywhere without encountering heated debate and dicussion among the common people . . Most Christians were MOST DEFNITELY paying CLOSE attention to all this!! Arianism threatened to split the Church not because the Bishops disagreed, but because the common people were in such heated debate over it .. everywhere!

And no, most Christians in the early Church did not spend their time on street cornders "witnessisng" . . they spent their time living the witness of the Christian faith in their day to day lives . .

You really should bone up on Early Church history . .


Peace in him!

 

[Benedicta00]

The books of the canonized NT were basically in order and floating around prior to 100ad... If anyone likes i will post a NEW thread explaining this. However, i'm sure many would disagree... such is life..

While these "church fathers" were writing doctrines of the Trinity & "officially" canonizing scripture,,,, most Christians paid no attention to these matters and spent their time on street corners doing what we're supposed to be doing,,, "witnessing"........ They had their own bibles...

Really?? Can you cite this? Document these historical facts?

 

[@@Paul@@]

Straw.

Where did they get this information from that the scriptures were from God???
Where??? Did it fall from the sky?? How did the Early Church know which writing were from God and which ones were not???

Straw??

Did you ever read the book of Acts?

Early Christians knew very well which books were from God.. And the NT writings were traveling around in basically two groups... Jewish and Pauline... (Hebrews was obviously added to the jewish group)... i might i say, history proves they were even in their proper 'dispensational' order prior to the council getting a hold of them, who of course believed the Church age, replaced Israel..

Sounds like a good topic for tomorrow! I'll gather what little thoughts i have.

 

[@@Paul@@]

There was no order to them, they were separate writings, books. And there were many more besides them . some of which almost made it into the canon of scripture later . .

That is absolutely false and an outright lie . .

The common people were so embroiled in the Arian controversy, that Bishops wrote of not being able to go buy bread or go anywhere without encountering heated debate and dicussion among the common people . . Most Christians were MOST DEFNITELY paying CLOSE attention to all this!! Arianism threatened to split the Church not because the Bishops disagreed, but because the common people were in such heated debate over it .. everywhere!

And no, most Christians in the early Church did not spend their time on street cornders "witnessisng" . . they spent their time living the witness of the Christian faith in their day to day lives . .

You really should bone up on Early Church history . .


Peace in him!

I have as should you...

Are you calling me a liar?

liar

li·ar [līr]
n
teller of lies: somebody who tells lies

Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.​

Even IF i was missguided, one would have to KNOW the truth and be saying something else to be considered a liar...

Jam 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
Jam 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.​

 

[@@Paul@@]

Your faith is in God but you faith in what the bible says is in your self-interpretations and personal truth. You even said yourself time after time that all we need to know is that Christ saves the rest is personal truth.

Right,,, which God reveals to me as needed... What the problem with that??

 

[thereselittleflower]

Even though I believe you have totally missed my point and haven't really answered those questions by me I will answer these now since at least you did show a willingness to by fair about this. I can't fault you totally for misunderstanding me since part of the blame is on my shoulders.

No not perfectly with all things but the Holy Spirit is insistant and I believe will not stop to reveal the things that he wants to reveal to me. Now in the context in the way I believe you want me to answer this I have to say that for me that is a negitive. There are hinderence's to the Holy Spirit and I believe I have some. We all have had something pulling us down from understanding the word of God. For some these hinderence's are few and they can over come them, for others the hinderence's are many and may lead them into many errors.

Thank you neph . . we are in agreement in this.

LOL, I believe I answered that above. For me no, I do believe I am fallible in understanding the word of God but as I continue to study his word and walk in the light I find helps me to day to day. Others however I find have reached a level with God that shows them to be truely annointed to understand the word and preach it! The nicene council members themselves I believe were perhaps at this level as I also believe many people today are.

Thank you again ..

Here is the dilema I see you have then ..


You are saying that you don't need the Creed, which is the same thing as saying you don't need the teaching of the Early Church, for that is what the Creed is, a summary of the Church's fundamental beliefs.

But you are saying that you don't hear the Holy Spirit perfectly.

If you don't hear the Holy Spirit perfectly, and you don't need the Early Church teachings, then how do you KNOW with 100% certainty that your understanding of the TRINITY (which is obscure in the scripture compared to some other doctrines) is RIGHT??

How do you know that you haven't messed up and that you are in error in your understanding of the Trinity?

What can you go to to compare your understanding of the Trintiy, from what you have heard the Holy Spirit reveal to you through the scriptures, so you can be SURE you are hearing the Holy Spirit correctly?


Please understand, I am not in any way saying that the Holy Spirit does not speak to us through scripture . . He has spoken mightly through scripture so many times in my life I cannot count . . the scriptures have been like a personal letter from God to me . . the experience of the Holy Spirit enlightening the scriptures is incredible . .

BUT is that ALL we need?

It seems to me that you are saying yes . .

but at the same time you are saying that you do not hear the Holy Sprit perfectly (and I agree with your reasons why) so you cannot be sure you DO understand the Trintiy rightly or fully . . .

So we are left with one of two possibilities . .


Either, It is not important to rightly understand scripture, for no man can do so perfectly, so it is OK to believe what seems right to you . . even though it results in thousands of different understandings of those same scripture, many of which (speaking of understandings here) directly contradict each other . .

OR it is important and we have to have another source to measure our imperfect understanding (of what the Holy Spirit is revelaing to us through the scriptures) against . .

For the Trinity, we use the Nicene Creed and the writings of the Early Church fathers and the teaching of the Early Church to help us. .


Without this, you are adrift, not knowing for sure that you really do understand what the Trinity is and the relationships between the 3 persons of the Trintiy correctly . . for you cannot hear the Holy Spirit perfectly or infallibly . .


The promise by Jesus of the Comforter to lead us in all truth was given to the Apostles collectively, not individually, the gift of ALL truth to be exercised collectively, not individually, and this was transferred to those they ordained, collectively, not individually. That is why we see them operating together in council in Acts, to declare the truth . .COLLECTIVELY
.. for this is where this gift is in operation.


And it was COLLECTIVELY tht the Bishiops were led to declare the truth of the Trinity in the council of Nicea. . the gift of ALL truth being in operation within them, COLLECTIVELY . .


I prefer to be anchored to something solid . . the Church, to whom the gift of ALL Truth was given, who is the pillar and foundation of Truth . . which in turn is anchored to our Lord . .


Peace in Him!

 

[nephilimiyr]

Because it is not a fact it is a straw, a fact that is something documented. Document what you believe the early Church was like for me please.

I'm talking about the writings Shelb5 not the early church. The early church had the writings in there possession did they not? The writings just didn't poof themselves into existance just in time for the church to write the NC. Otherwise read the Epitles, that's where I learn what the early church was like.

Could you please document for me what you believe about the early church that isn't in the canonized Bible? I honestly want to know what your talking about here.

 

[@@Paul@@]

Personally, I feel this thread should be locked...

There is a BIG difference between Biblical FACT and Historical OPINION...

God could use Mickey Mouse to preserve His words if He wants to, even IF Mr Mouse is an atheist.... One's understanding of "Historical OPINION" does not make that opinion infallible...

I do not accept the the kingdom age has been replaced with the church age... so of course i would not accept one's opinion on the infallibility of the church... Why is this not hard to understand?--------------


If you want to prove something,,, open a Bible...

 

[thereselittleflower]

Personally, I feel this thread should be locked...

There is a BIG difference between Biblical FACT and Historical OPINION...

God could use Mickey Mouse to preserve His words if He wants to, even IF Mr Mouse is an atheist.... One's understanding of "Historical OPINION" does not make that opinion infallible...

I do not accept the the kingdom age has been replaced with the church age... so of course i would not accept one's opinion on the infallibility of the church... Why is this not hard to understand?--------------


If you want to prove something,,, open a Bible...

Of course, if you can't swim with thie fish, close the pond so no one else can either . . . .


Paul, you are a dispensationalist to the core . .

If you do not accept the authority of the Church, the kingdom of God, to exercise the charism of infallibility, the ALL truth Jesus promised us through the Holy Spirit, then you have nothing to anchor you . . you are adrift . . you have no plumb line .. only your own imperfect understanding . .

Peace in Him!

 

[@@Paul@@]

Of course, if you can't swim with thie fish, close the pond so no one else can either . . . .


Paul, you are a dispensationalist to the core . .

If you do not accept the authority of the Church, the kingdom of God, to exercise the charism of infallibility, the ALL truth Jesus promised us through the Holy Spirit, then you have nothing to anchor you . . you are adrift . . you have no plumb line .. only your own imperfect understanding . .

Peace in Him!

those are total lies!!!!!!!

Ye do err, GREATLY, not knowing the scriptures..

 

[thereselittleflower]

I have as should you...

Are you calling me a liar?

No Paul . . you are merely repeating someone else's lie I am sure . .for in order for you to be a liar in this regard, you would have to be well enough versed in early Church history to know the truth about this subject and then deliberately misrepresent it.



It thnk you are merely presenting the lies someone else has fed to you . which you think are true



That does not make it any less a lie . . now that you know the truth, I am sure you won't be repeating that one again . .

Even IF i was missguided, one would have to KNOW the truth and be saying something else to be considered a liar...

Jam 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.

Jam 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
​

Paul . .

Again . . did I use the word "liar" or "lie" . .

Did I say you were a liar . . ???

Or did I say what you said was a lie . .


Please don't jump to conclusions . .


Peace in Him!