One God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity

[BobRyan]

I have updated my OP to be a bit more explicit..


My main question is about that two step definition
1. ONE God
2. In THREE Persons.

does your definition of "Trinity" - your denomination's definition of the term - include both of those aspects???

 

[BobRyan]

the same Church that declared the Book of Matthew inspired text is the same Church that says "proceeds from the Father and the Son"

When one reads the NT - where does one find a church "declaring the book of Matthew to be inspired"??

If you are speaking of a declaration made centuries later - then clearly no NT Christians could have been quoting or referencing a declaration that would not exist for several centuries.

 

[concretecamper]

When one reads the NT - where does one find a church "declaring the book of Matthew to be inspired"?

you don't, that's the point.

 

[BobRyan]

No, as eternally (continually) proceeding from the Father, never not proceeding from the Father (like breath)

The Son and the Holy Spirit are eternally proceeding/originating, never not proceeding/originating from God the Father, like breathing is continual, never not breathing.

Do you then conclude that God the Son stops existing if the Father no longer has Him proceed to Earth or proceed??

For example God the Son does this for all of creation -

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist

so you would not argue that God the Son or God the Holy Spirit causes God the Father to currently exist --- but you appear to say that God the Father causes God the Son and God the Holy Spirit to currently exist --- like God the Son causes creation to currently exist??

That does not make them ontologically the same. If I create a many-generations-advanced hologram of a human ... it is still not ontologically the same as a human and it ceases to exist once I shut off the projection.

 

[Clare73]

Paul was referring to the Tanakh, not what you refer to as the bible.
this doesn't mean every truth needed by a Christian is in the bible

It means that every truth must be in agreement with the Bible, or it is not divine truth.

There is evidence that the NT Christians were beginning to view the writings of the apostles as Scripture,
Peter placing Paul's writings on the same level of authority as "the other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16).

 

[BobRyan]

you don't, that's the point.

ok so no NT Christian relies on the declaration you reference in your view. They could not have since it did not exist until centuries later.

 

[concretecamper]

It means that every truth must be in agreement with the Bible, or it is not divine truth.

you make a claim that the Bible never claims, funny isn't it.

 

[concretecamper]

ok so no NT Christian relies on the declaration you reference in your view. They could not have since it did not exist until centuries later.

the early NT Christians believe many books were inspired text until they were told that only 27 made the cut.

 

[BobRyan]

the early NT Christians believe many books were inspired text until they were told that only 27 made the cut.

So your point is not that they needed a later decision to tell them Matthew was inspired text, a part of scripture - but rather to tell them some other writing was not inspired text.

So no Christian needed that later council to tell them Matthew's text is inspired since all Christians already accepted it from the start - rather they need books like Barnabas and others to be crossed out of the readings accepted as scripture by some.

 

[Clare73]

you make a claim that the Bible never claims, funny isn't it.

Actually, it is rather sad you are unaware that
the Bible is God's truth, which truth does not contradict itself.

Anything not in agreement with the Bible is, by definition, not true

 

[BobRyan]

you make a claim that the Bible never claims, funny isn't it.

Isaiah 8:20 makes that case already.

 

[concretecamper]

So your point is not that they needed a later decision to tell them Matthew was inspired text, a part of scripture - but rather to tell them some other writing was not inspired text.

My point is someone(s) needed to declare Matthew was inspired text.

 

[concretecamper]

Actually, it is rather sad you are unaware that
the Bible is God's truth, which truth does not contradict itself.

that is the second time you deflected. I know why.

 

[concretecamper]

Anything not in agreement with the Bible is, by definition, not true

that ain't the point either.

 

[concretecamper]

Isaiah 8:20 makes that case already.

nope, not referring to the Bible

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Wow great discussion all

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Isaiah 8:20 makes that case already.

20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Isaiah is referencing known scripture of his day - and setting the principle that failure to pass the test of scripture is ... fail.

nope, not referring to the Bible

I think you missed a detail or two in that statement above.

 

[concretecamper]

Isaiah is referencing known scripture of his day - and setting the principle that failure to pass the test of scripture is ... fail.

you are free to exaggerate Isaiah 8:20, but don't be surprised if most don't go along with it.

 

[BobRyan]

the early NT Christians believe many books were inspired text until they were told that only 27 made the cut.

So your point is not that they needed a later decision to tell them Matthew was inspired text, a part of scripture - but rather to tell them some other writing was not inspired text.

So no Christian needed that later council to tell them Matthew's text is inspired since all Christians already accepted it from the start - rather they need books like Barnabas and others to be crossed out of the readings accepted as scripture by some.

BobRyan said: ↑
So your point is not that they needed a later decision to tell them Matthew was inspired text, a part of scripture - but rather to tell them some other writing was not inspired text.

My point is someone(s) needed to declare Matthew was inspired text.

It appears you just made the exact opposite point.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Isaiah 8:20 makes that case already.

20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Isaiah is referencing known scripture of his day - and setting the principle that failure to pass the test of scripture is ... fail.

nope, not referring to the Bible

I think you missed a detail or two in that statement above.

you are free to exaggerate Isaiah 8:20, but don't be surprised if most don't go along with it.

Well you have yet to show such an exaggeration is in fact the case.