Is The Trinity Biblical?

[Benedicta00]

We can see in the bible "letters" were floating around... These letters were then grouped together..

I can't recall the actual classifications, i'll post later.. "The Gospels with the Acts" for one i believe,,, the Pauline letters... etc..

The NT does not have to be "canonized" for the NT writings to be traveling around.

For the hundredth time now- but how did we know those writing were from God, did he leave a note with them?

 

[thereselittleflower]

You know this might be the most sense you have made so far.

You are right Trinity is a word because we do not have anything better to put this into words. The Church fully understands that but what it does imply as much as limited humans can grasp is divine truth and it was in order to counter a heresy that Jesus was not God.

You just can’t for the life of you give credit to the Church for condemning this heresy by infallibly defining who God is as best as us humans possibly can, can you?

(pssst shelb . . he would be committing heresy if he did that! . .a joke Paul, a joke. . )


Peace in Him!

 

[Benedicta00]

* TugOwar lowers head in shame


I am sorry I started this thread.



I hope this example of degrading others isn't representative of the RCC as a whole.

I would respectfully ask that a Mod close this thread and remove it to hell (recycle bin) where it belongs.

When I say ... I am a christian"
I'm not shouting " Im clean living"
I'm whispering " I was lost"
Now I'm found and forgiven.


When I say ..."I am a Christian"
I dont speak of this with pride.
I'm confessing that I stumble
and need CHRIST to be my guide.


When I say ..."I am a Christian"
I'm not trying to be strong.
I'm professing that I'm weak
and need HIS strength to carry on.


When I say ..."I am a Christian"
I'm not bragging of success.
I'm admitting I have failed
and need GOD to clean my mess.


When I say ..."I am a Christian"
I'm not claiming to be perfect,
My flaws are far too visible
but,GOD believes I am worth it.


When I say ..."I am a Christian"
I still feel the sting of pain,
I have my share of heartaches
So I call upon His name.


When I say ... "I am a Christian"
I'm not holier than thou.


Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

Yes but what you guys are doing to the Church is just as unfair- can’t give the Church credit for anything, not even when you have been given historical facts.

 

[@@Paul@@]

Paul, I am confused . . are you saying that the only true history is found in the bible, and that all other historical records are suspect and therefore merely opinions?

It is "my opinion" that WWII happened?


Peace in Him!

But who started it? What was the first move? Was it like the mustard seed, which abnormally grew into a large tree? IE: Not what was supposed to happen? >>>>>>>>>> Now we see WWII as a humungous tree, we only have people's opinion as to WHY it actually grew that way...

I'm sure there are many different stories...

 

[@@Paul@@]

You know this might be the most sense you have made so far.

You are right Trinity is a word because we do not have anything better to put this into words. The Church fully understands that but what it does imply as much as limited humans can grasp is divine truth and it was in order to counter a heresy that Jesus was not God.

You just can’t for the life of you give credit to the Church for condemning this heresy by infallibly defining who God is as best as us humans possibly can, can you?

Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.​

I give credit where credit is due,,,,,, God. (Nothing personal)

 

[Benedicta00]

But who started it? What was the first move? Was it like the mustard seed, which abnormally grew into a large tree? IE: Not what was supposed to happen? >>>>>>>>>> Now we see WWII as a humungous tree, we only have people's opinion as to WHY it actually grew that way...

I'm sure there are many different stories...

That is why we search the history, that is why we go to the eye witnesses, so they can verify- that is exactly how we know the bible is true, that is how we know which version of history is true, from these who bare wittiness to the truth. What do you think the ECF are to us?

 

[nephilimiyr]

Was it not the first century Christians who God inspired to write them??

Yes

At what time? It was over a period of a 100 years all the books were written, and they were those that were no written by God’s inspiration, how did the Christians know what was false and what wasn’t? What did the early Church use before a word was ever penned? How was the early Church kept alive before the gospels were even written down?

Again, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn't write the gospels to put them on a shelf to get dusty. When they were done with writing the gospels they were sent out for others to read.
Now before any of the books were in the hands of the early church christians the Holy Ghost that they were baptistied in feed them wisdom and knowledge. Now I see you saying that the members of the nicene council did the same, however you seem to believe I argue this with you. No I don't. I argue that the truth of the trinity is made evident within the canonized Bible. From what I understand from all that you have said is that you don't believe this is true.

Again this is a straw. We know that. But I ask again… why was Arian able to use scripture to disprove the divinity of Christ and why was it so compelling that martyrs were made and half the Church was divided?

Do you think the early Church as over after Acts? Or do you think they made more history than just what was written down in Acts?

Sorry I can't comment on Arian because I don't know nothing about him or her.

No of course I don't believe the early church was over after Acts but God has not seen fit to give us any other inspired written work after Acts and the Epistles. If Adrian is so important why didn't the nicene council include recorded written testimony to the story? I mean I only take what is known and or believed to be the inspired word of God. Odviously the story of Adrian isn't anything God has required us to learn about. That doesn't mean I'm unwilling to learn about it just that I have never felt the need to or the requirement to, the command from God if you will.

I do believe it's God's command to read his word. I have never seen the nicene creed as being his word. After I have seen it I agree with it because it doesn't contradict what's in the Bible. It doesn't teach a new doctrine about the trinity that is made evident in the canonized Bible, the word of God, but agrees with what is has already been made evident.

Why am I being limited by only citing what is in the bible? Did the early Church pack up after acts? You mean you would dismiss the Church history of the first, second, third, ect, century after Acts just because it wasn’t put in a canon?

Well do as you wish. I really don't know about the early church history after Acts and hoped you'd be gracious enough to provided documented data about the era.

Boy are you and therese sisters? You both assume way too much! I didn't say I would reject extra stories of the early church but that I don't know about the history. You both should stop reading into people's posts what isn't there. Yes you may have gotten into arguements about these things with others but you shouldn't assume I'm like those others.

 

[Benedicta00]

Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.​

I give credit where credit is due,,,,,, God. (Nothing personal)

And you just can’t say, can you that it was He working through that council inspiring those who gave their life defending US against that lie.

 

[thereselittleflower]

But who started it? What was the first move? Was it like the mustard seed, which abnormally grew into a large tree? IE: Not what was supposed to happen? >>>>>>>>>> Now we see WWII as a humungous tree, we only have people's opinion as to WHY it actually grew that way...

I'm sure there are many different stories...

Paul, I agree with you . . historical opinion has to do with understanding the "why" of something . .

But we can know for a fact that historically something happened or not, if we have records for it . .

Historical opinion is one's interpretation of the events, the "why"s and so forth .



See, we find oursleves in agreement more and more . .


This is to Paul, neph, Tug and anyone else bothered by the exchange that happened in this thread.

It is unfortunate that we had to have such a heated exchange earlier . . I grew up in a family where heated discussion happened . .it cleared the air like a thunderstorm does . . no one remained upset with each other .

I think that they can play a healthy role, even in threads like this.


Even with that said, I hope you will accept my apology for anything I said that you found offensive.


Peace in Him!

 

[Benedicta00]

Yes

Again, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn't write the gospels to put them on a shelf to get dusty. When they were done with writing the gospels they were sent out for others to read.
Now before any of the books were in the hands of the early church christians the Holy Ghost that they were baptistied in feed them wisdom and knowledge. Now I see you saying that the members of the nicene council did the same, however you seem to believe I argue this with you. No I don't. I argue that the truth of the trinity is made evident within the canonized Bible. From what I understand from all that you have said is that you don't believe this is true.

Sorry I can't comment on Arian because I don't know nothing about him or her.

No of course I don't believe the early church was over after Acts but God has not seen fit to give us any other inspired written work after Acts and the Epistles. If Adrian is so important why didn't the nicene council include recorded written testimony to the story? I mean I only take what is known and or believed to be the inspired word of God. Odviously the story of Adrian isn't anything God has required us to learn about. That doesn't mean I'm unwilling to learn about it just that I have never felt the need to or the requirement to, the command from God if you will.

I do believe it's God's command to read his word. I have never seen the nicene creed as being his word. After I have seen it I agree with it because it doesn't contradict what's in the Bible. It doesn't teach a new doctrine about the trinity that is made evident in the canonized Bible, the word of God, but agrees with what is has already been made evident.

Well do as you wish. I really don't know about the early church history after Acts and hoped you'd be gracious enough to provided documented data about the era.

Boy are you and therese sisters? You both assume way too much! I didn't say I would reject extra stories of the early church but that I don't know about the history. You both should stop reading into people's posts what isn't there. Yes you may have gotten into arguements about these things with others but you shouldn't assume I'm like those others.

That is the problem, you don’t know anything about Arian and the history. Why can’t you just answer my questions?

How did the early Church know the written works came from God? Did they have a note attached?

 

[@@Paul@@]

For the hundredth time now- but how did we know those writing were from God, did he leave a note with them?

ok ok,, i was gonna wait...

Did ya ever read Acts?

Every single thing which happened to Peter happened to Paul.. They both spoke in tongues, they both healed people, they both had 11 Apostles following them......... the Holy Spirit (when He was writing the books of Acts) was very precise in documenting this...

I'm sure, Paul's credibility was unquestioned by those who followed Him... So, with Paul and his band on an equal playing field, these books were floating around, signs following and all. I'm sure People at that time had no question as to which books were "Authorized". People were rising from the dead!

I tend to agree with the early dating of Revelation, somewhere around the Gospel of Mark>43 AD...

Most everything we have today was written and in circulation prior to God's judgment on Jerusalem in 70ad... The end of Acts was around 63ad. Paul wrote 7 letters after that (63 - 66ad)... Acts itself was written around 64ad..

Imagine living in a time were evangelists were being teleported to other cities!! I mean, how would they not know?

 

[nephilimiyr]

That is the problem, you don’t know anything about Arian and the history. Why can’t you just answer my questions?

How did the early Church know the written works came from God? Did they have a note attached?

Well I don't know the all of the criteria they used to determine this but they did take their time, doing much study of the works. Once the study was completed and the debates were all done the book was either canonized or it wasn't.

 

[@@Paul@@]

Paul, I agree with you . . historical opinion has to do with understanding the "why" of something . .

But we can know for a fact that historically something happened or not, if we have records for it . .

Historical opinion is one's interpretation of the events, the "why"s and so forth .



See, we find oursleves in agreement more and more . .


This is to Paul, neph, Tug and anyone else bothered by the exchange that happened in this thread.

It is unfortunate that we had to have such a heated exchange earlier . . I grew up in a family where heated discussion happened . .it cleared the air like a thunderstorm does . . no one remained upset with each other .

I think that they can play a healthy role, even in threads like this.


Even with that said, I hope you will accept my apology for anything I said that you found offensive.


Peace in Him!

Christians indeed, but we are still human.. That's why we have the 2nd commandment...

As do i apologize,,, if i came off as harsh or offensive to some..

 

[thereselittleflower]

Yes

Again, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn't write the gospels to put them on a shelf to get dusty. When they were done with writing the gospels they were sent out for others to read.
Now before any of the books were in the hands of the early church christians the Holy Ghost that they were baptistied in feed them wisdom and knowledge. Now I see you saying that the members of the nicene council did the same, however you seem to believe I argue this with you. No I don't. I argue that the truth of the trinity is made evident within the canonized Bible. From what I understand from all that you have said is that you don't believe this is true.

neph, no, that is not what either shelb or I have said . .just that it did not exist as the canonized bible by then . . the term you are using is inviting confusion.

Sorry I can't comment on Arian because I don't know nothing about him or her.

Arius (that was his name) was a bishop promoting the idea that Jesus was not fully God.

No of course I don't believe the early church was over after Acts but God has not seen fit to give us any other inspired written work after Acts and the Epistles. If Adrian is so important why didn't the nicene council include recorded written testimony to the story?

neph, have you read about the council of nicea? It was all about Arianism . that is why it was called . of course testimony was given for both sides .

]]quote]

I mean I only take what is known and or believed to be the inspired word of God. Odviously the story of Adrian isn't anything God has required us to learn about. That doesn't mean I'm unwilling to learn about it just that I have never felt the need to or the requirement to, the command from God if you will.

May I encourage you to do so . . then perhaps you might better understand where we are coming from . . I am sure you will find it fascinating.

I do believe it's God's command to read his word. I have never seen the nicene creed as being his word. After I have seen it I agree with it because it doesn't contradict what's in the Bible. It doesn't teach a new doctrine about the trinity that is made evident in the canonized Bible, the word of God, but agrees with what is has already been made evident.

Well do as you wish. I really don't know about the early church history after Acts and hoped you'd be gracious enough to provided documented data about the era.

I think we would both be happy to if we had understood this is what you wanted . . If you asked for this, please understand it was not clear enough for my poor eyes to see . .

Boy are you and therese sisters? You both assume way too much! I didn't say I would reject extra stories of the early church but that I don't know about the history. You both should stop reading into people's posts what isn't there. Yes you may have gotten into arguements about these things with others but you shouldn't assume I'm like those others.

Perhaps we can BOTH stop reading into each other's posts what isn't there?

Here you go . . .

I think you will find this very informative and helpful


http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/51h/51h011.html


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Christians indeed, but we are still human.. That's why we have the 2nd commandment...

As do i apologize,,, if i came off as harsh or offensive to some..

I accept your apology as I hope you do mine.


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

ok ok,, i was gonna wait...

Did ya ever read Acts?

Every single thing which happened to Peter happened to Paul.. They both spoke in tongues, they both healed people, they both had 11 Apostles following them......... the Holy Spirit (when He was writing the books of Acts) was very precise in documenting this...

I'm sure, Paul's credibility was unquestioned by those who followed Him... So, with Paul and his band on an equal playing field, these books were floating around, signs following and all. I'm sure People at that time had no question as to which books were "Authorized". People were rising from the dead!

I tend to agree with the early dating of Revelation, somewhere around the Gospel of Mark>43 AD...

Most everything we have today was written and in circulation prior to God's judgment on Jerusalem in 70ad... The end of Acts was around 63ad. Paul wrote 7 letters after that (63 - 66ad)... Acts itself was written around 64ad..

Imagine living in a time were evangelists were being teleported to other cities!! I mean, how would they not know?

Paul, I am really curious, where does such an early dating of Revelation come from?


Peace in Him!

 

[nephilimiyr]

Wholly COW! We all think this thread has been heated. Look at this.

Home > Christian History & Biography > Early Church

Christian History, Summer 1996

A Hammer Struck At Heresy
What exactly happened at the famous Council of Nicea, when the Roman emperor convened some 250 quarreling Christian bishops?
by Robert Payne

Could any of you imagine what it was like when all these 250 bishops first met and started to debate? LOL...wow!

Thanks for the link therese...I will read it.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Paul, I am really curious, where does such an early dating of Revelation come from?


Peace in Him!

Really because I read several places and heard that John wrote Revelation sometime in the 90s on the Island of Patmos. This is what I've believed for a long time now.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Wholly COW! We all think this thread has been heated. Look at this.

Could any of you imagine what it was like when all these 250 bishops first met and started to debate? LOL...wow!

Thanks for the link therese...I will read it.

LOL

Now I think you might have an idea why this is so important to us . . yes, it WAS heated!!

If you would like more information, let me know.


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Really because I read several places and heard that John wrote Revelation sometime in the 90s on the Island of Patmos. This is what I've believed for a long time now.

That is my understanding too neph, so I am interested in why he thinks this .


Peace in Him!