Is The Trinity Biblical?

[thereselittleflower]

neph

By the way, I don't remember how clear that article makes it, but the reason the emperor stepped in was because the division between Arius and the Church created such unrest it threatened the stability of his empire on a real and actual level ..

It was in his and his empire's best interests, no, it was imperative, to get the bishops to settle this. . (he didn't care which way they settled it as long as it was settled and peace returned) . .

That was how big of an issue this whole arianism was, and how very important the council of nicea was to Christianity and the empire. .


Peace in Him!

 

[nephilimiyr]

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!

I believe that this is important to all of us here otherwise we wouldn't be sitting here all day long going at it the way we all have. But yeah, yikes! I don't know if I'd want to be a fly on there walls or not...

 

[nephilimiyr]

neph

By the way, I don't remember how clear that article makes it, but the reason the emperor stepped in was because the division between Arius and the Church created such unrest it threatened the stability of his empire on a real and actual level ..

It was in his and his empire's best interests, no, it was imperative, to get the bishops to settle this. . (he didn't care which way they settled it as long as it was settled and peace returned) . .

That was how big of an issue this whole arianism was, and how very important the council of nicea was to Christianity and the empire. .


Peace in Him!

I'm very interested in what this has to say about the Book of Enoch. When I first learned why that book wasn't made canon I started to doubt seriously the motivations of the council. Maybe later otherwise just skip it, that's for another thread.

I'm now going to shut off my PC and get a life. LOL, print out the link and read.

 

[@@Paul@@]

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

Peace in Him!

The study was mainly based on biblical proof.. Hopefully i can explain.

Peter wrote his epistles sometime around 60ad, someone (I say Paul) wrote the book of Hebrews prior to 60ad.. by the writings, it appears both Peter and Paul knew the contents of Revelations... (I can't remember the exacts,i'll post later).. i do remember Paul was the only other person to refer to the "heavenly city or "new Jerusalem" other than the author of Revelations..

Likewise, The Gospel of John talks about the "sheep gate" which was by the pool... the sheep gate was in the north (I believe) wall of the temple by the pool of Bethesda.------- in 70ad only the west wall of the temple was left standing. I would assume the Gospel of John was written prior to the destruction of the Temple, or John might have said "There WAS a sheep gate, by the pool".

Joh 5:2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.​

Plus the fact that ALL the NT writers were stressing the end of all things.. or the End of this age.. or the day is at hand.. Certainly they got this "assumption" from somewhere...

The book of Revelations..

 

[thereselittleflower]

I believe that this is important to all of us here otherwise we wouldn't be sitting here all day long going at it the way we all have. But yeah, yikes! I don't know if I'd want to be a fly on there walls or not...

LOL! Maybe you're right .. you might have gotten swatted flat as a pancake just because someone was upset . .


Peace in Him

 

[nephilimiyr]

Plus the fact that ALL the NT writers were stressing the end of all things.. or the End of this age.. or the day is at hand.. Certainly they got this "assumption" from somewhere...

The book of Revelations..

Actually that's not an assumption by them. Jesus revealed some of these things to the apostles. Read Matthew 24 and 25, Jesus is the one who gave them their beliefs on the end of the age and of course the Holy Spirit who revealed this to them also.

 

[KennySe]

Neph, remember me?

Let me be clear on what I am saying.

I am saying that you have shown me through scripture that the God in heaven who sent Jesus from heaven, also sent the Comforter.

What you have not shown through scripture is Jesus is God and the Comforter is God, and you most certainly have not shown that they are the SAME God.

I refer you to the subjectline of this thread.

I should correct my post above.

You did NOT show that the Comforter/Holy Spirit is God. You showed that the C/HS was sent by God.

 

[thereselittleflower]

The study was mainly based on biblical proof.. Hopefully i can explain.

Peter wrote his epistles sometime around 60ad, someone (I say Paul) wrote the book of Hebrews prior to 60ad.. by the writings, it appears both Peter and Paul knew the contents of Revelations... (I can't remember the exacts,i'll post later).. i do remember Paul was the only other person to refer to the "heavenly city or "new Jerusalem" other than the author of Revelations..

Likewise, The Gospel of John talks about the "sheep gate" which was by the pool... the sheep gate was in the north (I believe) wall of the temple by the pool of Bethesda.------- in 70ad only the west wall of the temple was left standing. I would assume the Gospel of John was written prior to the destruction of the Temple, or John might have said "There WAS a sheep gate, by the pool".

Joh 5:2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.​

Plus the fact that ALL the NT writers were stressing the end of all things.. or the End of this age.. or the day is at hand.. Certainly they got this "assumption" from somewhere...

The book of Revelations..

Paul, when was John on the isle of Patmos ?


Peace in Him!

 

[@@Paul@@]

Paul, when was John on the isle of Patmos ?


Peace in Him!

I'm guessing people say around 90ad.. as i said... this study was purely biblical...

 

[nephilimiyr]

Neph, remember me?



I should correct my post above.

You did NOT show that the Comforter/Holy Spirit is God. You showed that the C/HS was sent by God.

Read Acts 2 specically Acts 2:16-18. This I see as very evident that the Holy Ghost that is mentioned in Acts 2:4 is the "MY SPIRIT" in Acts 2:17-18, the MY SPIRIT that Joel wrote about. There the word of God reveals that the Holy Ghost is God.

I also mentioned this in post #88

In John 15:26 Jesus says that he will send the Comforter from the Father. He calls him even the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father. A messager is sent by the Father, a messenger never proceeds from the Father.

Now in John 16:7 Jesus says that the Comforter will not come unless He(Jesus) is taken away.

John 16:8-11, when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
This Comforter will rebuke and convict the world. Can a simple messenger from God convict the world of sin? I see nowhere in the Bible where this is taught. Messengers may send warnings of judgement but they are not the ones who convict. Only God himself can convict sinners and judge them. This tells me the Comforter has to be God.

Now in Acts 2 after the men were filled with the Holy Ghost Peter says this
Acts 2:16-18, But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of MY SPIRIT upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of MY SPIRIT; and they shall prophesy:
MY SPIRIT, this is referring the the Holy Ghost that they just received. I don't need the nicene creed to tell me the Holy Ghost is God because both Peter and Joel have already proclaimed it!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Paul, here is a well written article regading the writing of revelation, historical and Early Church references to it:

http://www.thingstocome.org/datrev.htm

Here is an interesting quote that dates the writting of this book (one among many)

Although there are many indirect references to John being banished to Patmos under Domitian in the Church Fathers, there are also direct references to John’s banishment under Domitian. The earliest of these is that of Irenaeus (c. 130-202). He was bishop of Lyons in Gaul. In Against Heresies (A.D. 180-199), Book V, Chapter 30, we read:

We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.

​

Domitian's reign was from 81-96 AD . . he was a cruel ruler and he sent many to the prison isle of Patmos, inlcuding John ..

After his death, John was released.


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

I'm guessing people say around 90ad.. as i said... this study was purely biblical...

But what worth is a "biblical" study of when Revelation is written if its results are in direct contradiction with what the book of Revelation says about itself? John was on Patmos when he had the revelation . .that was at the end of the 1st century AD . .

Why would you go with, "tend to agree with" a "biblical" study that starkly contradicts what the very book itself says about itself, let alone what the historical record shows us . .


Peace in HimW

 

[@@Paul@@]

Paul, here is a well written article regading the writing of revelation, historical and Early Church references to it:

http://www.thingstocome.org/datrev.htm

Here is an interesting quote that dates the writting of this book (one among many)



<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">"Although there are many indirect references to John being banished to Patmos under Domitian in the Church Fathers, there are also direct references to John’s banishment under Domitian. The earliest of these is that of Irenaeus (c. 130-202). He was bishop of Lyons in Gaul. In Against Heresies (A.D. 180-199), Book V, Chapter 30, we read:
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.

Since we are talking "history"...
I believe the earliest copy of the book was a Syriac verson which said John was banished by "Nero Caesar"...... which could be the same person Irenaeus was refering to: "Domitianou - i.e., Domitius (Nero)."

I also remember a person (Jerome i think) writing about the condition of John being "weak", hardly able to walk... this was around 96ad...Clearly we can all agree it was before this?

But thanks for the link... I may not beleive it to be infallible, that doesnt mean i haven't researched history..

 

[@@Paul@@]

But what worth is a "biblical" study of when Revelation is written if its results are in direct contradiction with what the book of Revelation says about itself? John was on Patmos when he had the revelation . .that was at the end of the 1st century AD . .

Why would you go with, "tend to agree with" a "biblical" study that starkly contradicts what the very book itself says about itself, let alone what the historical record shows us . .


Peace in HimW

Because the person who banished him is in question. Which would change the date..

I guess i base it on scripture and history... Does scripture have enough proof to even consider an early dating for Revelation? I think so.

PS. i am NOT a Preterist. (but i'm sure everyone knows that by now)

 

[thereselittleflower]

Since we are talking "history"...
I believe the earliest copy of the book was a Syriac verson which said John was banished by "Nero Caesar"...... which could be the same person Irenaeus was refering to: "Domitianou - i.e., Domitius (Nero)."

I also remember a person (Jerome i think) writing about the condition of John being "weak", hardly able to walk... this was around 96ad...Clearly we can all agree it was before this?

But thanks for the link... I may not beleive it to be infallible, that doesnt mean i haven't researched history..

Paul, I think I might be getting you lost in the details so that you aren't seeing the connection I am making ..

We agree that John was on the isle of Patmos in the 90'sAD . .


This is what the Book of Revelation says about itself:

Rev 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
​

The book of Revelation was written somtime after this vision, and sometime after he was in the isle of Patmos . .


How could it have been written in 43AD ?


Why would you tend to agree with a biblical study that directly contradicts what what John himself says about where he was when he had that vision, which dates that vision to at a good 5 decades later?


Why you would really has me scratching my head!


Peace in Him!

 

[@@Paul@@]

Paul, I think I might be getting you lost in the details so that you aren't seeing the connection I am making ..

We agree that John was on the isle of Patmos in the 90'sAD . .


This is what the Book of Revelation says about itself:

Rev 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
​

The book of Revelation was written somtime after this vision, and sometime after he was in the isle of Patmos . .


How could it have been written in 43AD ?


Why would you tend to agree with a biblical study that directly contradicts what what John himself says about where he was when he had that vision, which dates that vision to at a good 5 decades later?


Why you would really has me scratching my head!


Peace in Him!

OK, This is all based on the fact that someone named "Domitius" exiled him there.... There is equal evidence (in the world according to Paul) to prove this peron was "Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus"

Which would make sense considering all that was going on at that time... He was persecuting Christians,,,,,,,, He did set fire to Rome around 65ad and blamed it on the Christians.. Not a nice guy..

 

[thereselittleflower]

Hey Paul, will talk more later . . I have to run.



Peace in Him!

 

[Benedicta00]

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.

They- meaning the Catholic Church I hope, just studied it until they got the notion form God it was okay? But I thought Catholics didn't study the word?

Anyway, you don't think it is plausible that they had this faith that was left to then by the apostles who learned directly from Christ and they based what was true on that deposit?

 

[JMRE5150]

Ok...just finished reading this thread...


Its become a mudslinging contest back and forth. Unacceptable. Beliefs are beliefs, and each of us hold our own very dear to our hearts, but we will not let that hurt or offend others here at CF.

I see many sides throwing mud, and this thread had already been reported, by no less that an admin staff member. Im closing it. Period.

If anyone wants to disagree with me, feel free...but it won't change my mind.

This thread was already answered early on with somewhat civil responses, but now its just turned into rants and raves against our fellow chirstians.

Its over. Done.


(Don't try and start a new thread, as staff will watch it closely to make sure its not an attempt to rehash passed grievences from this thread)

Good points were made, and many points were just unruly. Staff was right, this thread has gotten out of hand.

Robb