Trinity found in Bible or not?

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Does the NT teach that we should hunt down and murder people who we disagree with?

Hence the entire motivation of this bogus thread, A HURTING TAIL. Was Arius murdered for his false teachings?

 

[Secundulus]

Hence the entire motivation of this bogus thread, A HURTING TAIL. Was Arius murdered for his false teachings?

In fact, during the Arian Controversy none of the Arians were murdered. The worst that happened at that time was that they were removed from being Bishops and were banished. Both sides did that, depending on who was in power at any given time.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

In fact, during the Arian Controversy none of the Arians were murdered. The worst that happened at that time was that they were removed from being Bishops and were banished. Both sides did that, depending on who was in power at any given time.

Moreover, St. Constantine's reconciliation efforts that disregarded the true doctrine went overboard by calling Arius back to communion and ordering Christian bishops to receive him. Those who denied this in favor of true Christian doctrine were exiled (for instance Athanasius) so there goes the argument of Constantine shoving the Trinity doctrine down everyone's throat. However, God took Arius' life in a rather mysterious way moments before he was given communion. It was not meant to be.

 

[DeaconDean]

The word TRINITY is not found ANYWHERE in the Bible. Thus any docterine about the TRINITY proper is unbiblical, just like the practise of INDULGANCE, just like the practise of praying to Saints.

These practises, save perhaps indulgances, were taken from existing Pagan traditions.

See Hecate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hecate

Beyond that, the idea of the Trinity does not make sence within the context of the Bible.

If Jesus and God are ONE: Why does Jesus say: "about that day or that hour only the Father knows, neither the angels in Heaven nor the Son" (Mark 13:32)

If Jesus and God are one, that statement should be able to read: "about that day or that hour only I know, neither the angels in Heaven nor myself" This is an obvious contradiction.

If Jesus and God are ONE: Why does Jesus say: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matt 27:46)

If Jesus and God are one, that statement should be able to read: "Myself, Myself, why have I forsaken Myself?" This obviously doesn't make any sence.

The concept of the Trinity is obviously an afterthought of the Church designed to reconsile the Gospel accounts with monotheism.

Just because the word "trinity" isn't in the scriptures does not mean it isn't true.

Read Mt. 3:16-17.

"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

In these two verses we have proof of a "trinity"!

Jesus, the Son of God in the water.

The Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove coming down from heaven.

And lastly but certainly not least, the voice of God from heaven expressing His delight in His Son.

All the persons of the trinity, in one place, at one time.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Apodictic]

Line Status
Post #34 (Current Response)
Post #39
Post #40
Post #43

Good Morning everyone!

The next argument presented stated the following.

Making arguments against the trinitarian formula, then promoting them into opposition to Christ's deity, that doesn't work. Christ's Deity is much better established than the exact view of trinity. The trinitarian view was finally settled-on as the only early view embracing all Scripture says about Father, Son, and Spirit. The view developed as other views went astray from Scripture.

Christ's divinity is a fundamental piece of the trinity belief. The only reason I am focusing on the deity of Christ is because most of the trinity verses presented as proof for the trinity focus on Christ. The Holy Spirit is not as well represented, often times being left out of alleged support verses. The few places where all three are mentioned together have disputed authenticity to say the least, and often are not all mentioned with titles of deity explicitly. The subject of Christ's divinity is a sub-topic to discussing the trinity in Scripture. The same is true of the Holy Spirit's divinity. When verses a supplied for the Holy Spirit, they will be addressed just as the ones for Jesus have been.

And I have not forgotten about the rather long list I posted on behalf of someone who posted a link. Responding to the thread and typing up a response for each of these verses is quite time consuming.

 

[Apodictic]

Line Status
Post #34 (Current Response)
Post #39
Post #40
Post #43

The next argument presented stated the following.

But Deity of Christ is simply better-attested in Scripture. Thomas answered to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" Jn 20:28 at a time when this wasn't a formulaic exclamation. And that verse is exceedingly well-attested. A physical copy reaches back to ca. 200 AD.

The Scripture of John 20:28 is again suffering from the same mistranslation as John 1:1, the same word exactly. "θεος" which they have translated as "God". If we follow the same line of reasoning I have offered in John 1:1, this word at the very least should be translated as "god", however this can be easily misunderstood. Otherwise there is nothing wrong with it. Jesus being part of God's Perfect and Divine plan is Divine in deed/action.

http://scripturetext.com/john/20-28.htm

Even more support for this claim proceeds.

Thomas' confession is an acknowledgment that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead, but it is not a declaration that Jesus is "God the Son". Thomas, a Jew, used a mode of expression common to the Old Testament in which accredited representatives of God are referred to as "God". Angels are called "God" in the following passages: Gen. 16:7 cf. vs. 13; 22:8, 11, 15 cf. vs. 16; Exod. 23:20, 21. Moses is referred to as a "god" to Pharaoh. (Exod. 7:1, "god" is translated from the Heb. "elohim"). "Elohim" translated "God" can refer to the judges of Israel as in Psa. 82:1, 6 cf. John 10:34. It is also translated "judges" in Exod. 21:6; 22:8, 9 and "gods" (mg. "judges") in Exod. 22:28.
Earlier in this chapter, Jesus told Mary, "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God." (vs. 17). Since Jesus was to ascend to his God, then clearly he was not himself "Very God".

Source of Quotation.
http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/b08trinity/john20v28.html

 

[Apodictic]

Line Status
Post #34 (Current Response)
Post #39
Post #40
Post #43

The next argument presented stated the following.

The confession that Jesus is Lord and that we're to call on Him for salvation, that's the clear point Paul's making. Yet if you go to the OT Scriptures Paul is citing, the pronouns point to YHWH. The term "Lord" is actually even a substitute for YHWH.

And Paul is saying it plainly: "Jesus is Lord."

Jesus is called Lord many times in Scripture, to that I have no disagreement. The interpretation being attributed to the word is what I will have to disagree upon considering divine titles were given to other people in the OT, yet these people are not considered divine by trinity believers. This type of position requires a double standard.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Jesus is called Lord many times in Scripture, to that I have no disagreement. The interpretation being attributed to the word is what I will have to disagree upon considering divine titles were given to other people in the OT, yet these people are not considered divine by trinity believers. This type of position requires a double standard.

You lack the contextual knowledge of the Scriptures and therefore your interpretation is not valid. Show us from Scriptures those other people in OT who were attributed divine and they also claimed so, further acted upon that authority. They are not considered divine because Trinity believers seem to follow the context, unlike you.

 

[Apodictic]

Line Status
Post #39 (Current Response)
Post #40
Post #43

The next argument presented stated the following.

Do you certainly know, do you certainly have EVIDENCE that it WAS the first time? No. So as usual you are assuming again!

I am not the person who brought up the date. The date was introduced to this thread in Post #32. Also, although the term "trinity" was allegedly coined in 160AD, the idea/concept existed before then. My question should have reflected this thought, since I inquired as to when the earliest notion of the concept occurred. I would not ask such a question if I knew the answer.

 

[Apodictic]

Line Status
Post #39 (Current Response)
Post #40
Post #43
Post #44
Post #48

The next argument presented stated the following.

This test of authenticity you have put these Scripture parts upon are, as we have seen, from the links of OTHERS' opinions on the matter. You have not even completely and satisfactorily dismissed 1 John 5:7 yet although you are arrogantly playing a make-believe game that no Scripture has survived your tests. Please, save us the hot air.

So far I have received no rebuttals to my accusations of the disputed authenticity of 1 John 5:7. Telling me I am simply and clearly wrong is not a rebuttal, but rather a submission to the point made. Given the evidence we have available to us in modern times, the comma was more than likely inserted later by the church. That still can allow someone to go against what is likely. Within reasonable doubts, the verse fails authenticity tests.

Yet, for any devote believer of Christ, why is the trinity belief hanging on by the thread of one verse in the first place? If this concept is a cornerstone of what Christ truly preached, I would expect the idea to be clearly and plainly stated in more than a single verse. This is not the case. We are left with many verses that are claimed to imply the trinity, yet with proper insight from the Holy Spirit these implications are revealed as untrue.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

I am not the person who brought up the date. The date was introduced to this thread in Post #32. Also, although the term "trinity" was allegedly coined in 160AD, the idea/concept existed before then. My question should have reflected this thought, since I inquired as to when the earliest notion of the concept occurred. I would not ask such a question if I knew the answer.

Didache teaches baptism in the name of the Trinity, so figure the teaching was around along with disciples of Christ.

 

[Apodictic]

Line Status
Post #40 (Current Response)
Post #43
Post #44
Post #48

The next argument presented stated the following.

Um, this represents a misused promotion of grammar to convert "God" into "Divine".

The word choice of "Divine" includes some interpretation through the Holy Spirit to come to the true meaning of this verse. I would not argue this translation is literal. A translation using "god" or "godly" is just as agreeable to me, yet less clear in English.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

So far I have received no rebuttals to my accusations of the disputed authenticity of 1 John 5:7.

You are not the one making the accusations, biblical scholars are. You are reading their opinions. That is the difference. Unless you are a Church Historian yourself, you are reading too much into their minds. There are very legitimate arguments in defense of the comma from the same scholars also. The Comma is authentic. The lack of rebuttals to your views doesn't mean you are right in your views against it.

Telling me I am simply and clearly wrong is not a rebuttal, but rather a submission to the point made.

It is not a rebuttal, it is a logical outcome. You are dismissing the 2000 yr tradition and teaching based on your "own" understanding.

Given the evidence we have available to us in modern times, the comma was more than likely inserted later by the church.

You have no evidence of that given the historical context of the Comma. You are assuming based on a few scholars views. There is great evidence that suggests comma was possibly removed earlier in order to avoid thoughts that it was inserted by the Church. If it was inserted by the church, then it would have been a great device against the earlier heresies, but Church never utilized it. Inserting such context in a time period where the doctrine it speaks for had already been establish for centuries doesn't make any sense. That speaks for itself.

That still can allow someone to go against what is likely. Within reasonable doubts, the verse fails authenticity tests.

Those reasonable doubts belong to you, my friend, the comma is authentic.

Yet, for any devote believer of Christ, why is the trinity belief hanging on by the thread of one verse in the first place?

It doesn't. Read the Nicene Creed.

If this concept is a cornerstone of what Christ truly preached, I would expect the idea to be clearly and plainly stated in more than a single verse.

Christ taught salvation to mankind. He didn't teach His identity.

This is not the case. We are left with many verses that are claimed to imply the trinity, yet with proper insight from the Holy Spirit these implications are revealed as untrue.

So Church was based on a simple "untrue" implication? You have not established that, I am sorry, not with that Greek knowledge my friend... You are in the wrong venue seeking answers ...

 

[Apodictic]

This post was revised/clarified and moved to the front of the thread!

 

[Apodictic]

Line Status
Post #43 (Current Response)
Post #44
Post #48
Post #51
Post #53

The next argument presented stated the following.

Moreover, St. Constantine's reconciliation efforts that disregarded the true doctrine went overboard by calling Arius back to communion and ordering Christian bishops to receive him. Those who denied this in favor of true Christian doctrine were exiled (for instance Athanasius) so there goes the argument of Constantine shoving the Trinity doctrine down everyone's throat. However, God took Arius' life in a rather mysterious way moments before he was given communion. It was not meant to be.

Mysterious death could be interpreted to mean assassination. What better way to draw out your opposition from hiding than to offer the olive branch of peace as a cloak for evil intentions. I will be starting a new thread regarding early Christian history soon, although since the topic is not for the faint of heart and can generate controversy, I am taking the time to finish this thread first so I am not overwhelmed.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Line Status
Post #43 (Current Response)
Post #44
Post #48
Post #51
Post #53

The next argument presented stated the following.

Mysterious death could be interpreted to mean assassination. What better way to draw out your opposition from hiding than to offer the olive branch of peace as a cloak for evil intentions. I will be starting a new thread regarding early Christian history soon, although since the topic is not for the faint of heart and can generate controversy, I am taking the time to finish this thread first so I am not overwhelmed.

You are quite prejudiced against Church and the teachings of Church in the steps of Christ due to actions of man. Arius' death is documented, noone defecates their insides out because they were assassinated. But you are very likely to accept that idea because it supports your opinions and views.

Please go ahead and start a thread about early Christianity. Do so in an appropriate venue, such as Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic forums ...

 

[Apodictic]

Line Status
Post #44 (Current Response)
Post #48
Post #51
Post #53
Post #56

The next argument presented stated the following.

Just because the word "trinity" isn't in the scriptures does not mean it isn't true.

Read Mt. 3:16-17.

"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

In these two verses we have proof of a "trinity"!

Jesus, the Son of God in the water.

The Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove coming down from heaven.

And lastly but certainly not least, the voice of God from heaven expressing His delight in His Son.

All the persons of the trinity, in one place, at one time.

I agree the absence of the term "trinity" in the Bible is not grounds for dismissing the concept as being part of the Scripture. I disagree that the concept is grounded in Scripture.

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

I have a few important notes regarding this Scripture. First of all, Jesus was baptized. If Jesus was God, what point would there be in baptizing him? The very appearance of this event is a testament to Christ's true nature. Secondly, the mention of a "Spirit of God" which is interpreted to be the "Holy Spirit". The terminology here denotes God stakes ownership over this Spirit as can be seen be the use of the genitive case for God (θεου). This same genitive ownership is attributed to Jesus, the followers of Jesus, and even John, the author of this Gospel. Yet the followers of Jesus and John are not considered parts of God, therefore the Spirit owned by God does not denote the Spirit was God. Additionally the word "υιος" translated as "Son" is misleading.

υιος noun - nominative singular masculine
huios hwee-os': a son (sometimes of animals), used very widely of immediate, remote or figuratively, kinship -- child, foal, son.

In this verse God is pronouncing Jesus to be His companion. God did not say that Jesus was God. If God wanted to make such a claim, it could have easily been done so here.

 

[Apodictic]

Line Status
Post #48 (Current Response)
Post #51
Post #53
Post #56

The next argument presented stated the following.

You lack the contextual knowledge of the Scriptures and therefore your interpretation is not valid. Show us from Scriptures those other people in OT who were attributed divine and they also claimed so, further acted upon that authority. They are not considered divine because Trinity believers seem to follow the context, unlike you.

I have provided a source supporting this claim.

Thomas' confession is an acknowledgment that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead, but it is not a declaration that Jesus is "God the Son". Thomas, a Jew, used a mode of expression common to the Old Testament in which accredited representatives of God are referred to as "God". Angels are called "God" in the following passages: Gen. 16:7 cf. vs. 13; 22:8, 11, 15 cf. vs. 16; Exod. 23:20, 21. Moses is referred to as a "god" to Pharaoh. (Exod. 7:1, "god" is translated from the Heb. "elohim"). "Elohim" translated "God" can refer to the judges of Israel as in Psa. 82:1, 6 cf. John 10:34. It is also translated "judges" in Exod. 21:6; 22:8, 9 and "gods" (mg. "judges") in Exod. 22:28.

http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/b08trinity/john20v28.html

I do not agree Jesus proclaimed his deity nor acted on his own authority. The Scripture is clear on this topic.

John 5:19
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

John 10:28-35
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Jesus did not say that the Father is greater than all, except himself. The Father is greater than all. The "I and my Father are one." verse is misinterpreted to mean they are the same being. The verse when interpreted properly reveals that Jesus, in deed/action, only does what the Father tells him. They are one in their Message/Plan. Jesus attributes his works to the Father, not himself. The Jews misunderstood Jesus just as it is being misunderstood in today's world. They thought he claimed to be the most High God. Jesus responded by showing the title of god is found in their Scriptures. Jesus would not have alluded to the prior Scriptures if he was God. He would have said something authoritative claiming deity. There are other verses, but this should serve to support my point.

 

[Apodictic]

Line Status
Post #51 (Current Response)
Post #53
Post #56

The next argument presented stated the following.

Didache teaches baptism in the name of the Trinity, so figure the teaching was around along with disciples of Christ.

Thanks. I will begin reading about Didache. If you have any preferred sources on him, I welcome them.

 

[Apodictic]

Line Status
Post #53 (Current Response)
Post #56

The next argument presented stated the following.

You are not the one making the accusations, biblical scholars are. You are reading their opinions. That is the difference. Unless you are a Church Historian yourself, you are reading too much into their minds. There are very legitimate arguments in defense of the comma from the same scholars also. The Comma is authentic. The lack of rebuttals to your views doesn't mean you are right in your views against it.

If I have evidence supporting the dispute in authenticity, and none presented supporting the authenticity, then what less can you expect from me then to take the position that has support? The opposing point has excuses, to that I will attest. But no sound arguments increasing the likely hood of the Scripture being authentic.

So far the nearest comment, although far removed, to evidence has been a variation of "The Comma is authentic." I understand that such a response is seen as sufficient by many Christians because they have been taught to not question the authority of the church and their views. But to state this to someone who does not recognize the authority of the church does nothing to further the opposing point.