Why do you believe in the trinity when God and his word is simple

[Wgw]

Scripture, Wgw, does snot say that God has complete and totally monopolistic control over creation. Influence yes? Total control, no.
Next, I still think you are way off about our relationship to our bodies. I believe our bodies are us and that we are in them and they are also in us. For example, for anything to affect you emotionally, it has to reach your brain, and you brain is literally inside your body. If you want to see your mind, it is the size and shape of the brain and nervous system. If the medicine is going to do you any good, you just can't sit and stare at it, you have to swallow it, take it inside yourself. Our bodies are also in us, because they are in our experience of ourselves. Our bodies are identifiable with ourselves, but not wholly so. Often, our bodies fail to carry out and do not represent our wishes and desires, for example.
John clearly states that in him and through him all things ere created. This strongly implies that the world is something internal to God. Also, there is absolutely nothing contradictory about self-creation. It happens every moment in our lives, s moment to moment we are different selves. We create ourselves anew every moment. I view creation as God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-consciousness and self-actualization. God originates in an unconscious homogeneous chaos, but with a strong creative drive to become conscious and also complex in order to be a real personality. God, however, has never been merely unconscious or purely potential, as her has always been some for of creation or universe.

Whereas I disagree, I at least will give you credit for seeking to relate tis post to sacred Scripture as opposed to offering what amounted to an aesthetic critique of so-called classical theism.

I am disinclined to debate with you on this point owing to the Orthodox doctrine of Palamism, which I maintain you would be enriched by, which can be described as panentheistic.

 

[Wgw]

Several problems with that part of your post.

The current mainstream teaching in Christianity is that God is a coequal, coeternal, one-substance trinity, and that Jesus Christ is God.

There is one vital fact you omit: according to the Trinitarian, Nicene faith, Jesus Christ is also man. He is consubstantial with us according to hypostatic union.

This doctrine is considered by many as the cornerstone of Christianity,

By nearly all, not "many." Unitarians, neo-Arians, Modalist Oneness Pentecostals and others are but a tiny minority.

but where did this doctrine come from? The historical record is overwhelming that the church of the first three centuries did not worship God as a coequal, coeternal, consubstantial, one-substance three in one mysterious godhead.

Not true. The Gospels of Ss. Matthew and John aside, we see the Nicene position anticipated in Tertullian, Origen, and St. Irenaeus of Lyons, among other places.

The early church worshipped one God and believed in a subordinate Son.

If by "created," this is untrue; we first see this among the heretical Ebionites, and later in the 3rd century heresiarch Paul of Samosata and his disciple Lucien, the mentor of Arius.

The trinity originated with Babylon, and was passed on to most of the world's religions.

I have no idea what tract you pulled that from; it is quite false, as the Babylonian pagan religion had seven major deities. Chaldean astrology linked these to the seven planets, and created an elaborate system of divinization based on them, which survives as the contemporary western Horoscope, in Mandaeism, and also as an influence in the Yazidi and Yarsani religions.

This polytheistic (believing in more than one god) trinitarianism was intertwined with Greek religion and philosophy and slowly worked its way into Christian thought and creeds some 300 years after Christ.

Not true. Arius on the other hand sought to redefine "Logos" according to the neo-Platonic idea of what the Logos would be, which we see developing in, for example, Philo.

The idea of "God the Son" is Babylonian paganism and mythology that was grafted into Christianity.

I have addressed the false accusation of a Babylonian origin for this doctrine; I shall now address the charge of mythology. No elements of Babylonian mythology were added to Christianity. Some Jews, particularly Karaites, argue that the idea of the devil is borrowed from Zoroastrianism, but this is untrue, in that Angra Mainyu represents a rival malevolent deity in ancient Zoroastrianism (modern Zoroastrianism has clipped his wings a bit by borrowing a Christian conception of diabology).

The only commonality between the Christian faith and the Chaldean religion on the other hand is in the form of certain aspects of the Old Testament, loke the idea of a flood, which are common throughout Semitic religion and folklore.

Worshipping "God the Son" is idolatry, and idolatry is Biblically condemned; it breaks the first great commandment of God of not having any gods before him (Exodus 20:3).

This would be true if we were tritheists in the manner of some Eutychians, but we are not; our Lord and the Holy Spirit are the same God as the Father.

Then three centuries after Christ the corrupt emperor Constantine forced the minority opinion of the trinity upon the council of Nicea.

Nearly all participants at Nicea supported the Nicene creed. What actually happened:

Arius was a priest in the Church of Alexandria. He began to stress the idea that Jesus Christ was a creature, which the patriarch, St. Alexander of Alexandria, objected to. Alexander sought to depose Arius, but Arius was politically adroit, and had supporters, such as the cunning Eusebius of Nicomedia, wno later baptized Emperor Constantine before his death.

Thus, a schism resulted, and the Emperor convened the council as a neutral party in order to restore peace to the church. At the council, the protodeacon of St. Alexander, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, led the charge against the Arian heresy, and was later severely persecuted by Arians, spending much of his life in exile.

The Christian church went downward from there; in fact some of the creeds and councils actually contradict each other.

Not true, for reasons we will explain:

the council of Ephesus 431 said that "human beings are totally depraved,"

Ephesus does not teach that, rather, what you refer to is a Calvinist interpretation of the Augustinian criticism of the heresy of Pelagius, which was another matter. Rather, Ephesus condemned Nestorianism, the idea that the humanity and divinity of our Lord are separate, in a personal union or union of will, as opposed to hypostatically united. Most Christians, including those of my own church, do not believe in total depravity; this is a Calvinist doctrine which is roughly a mirror image of Pelagianism (Pelagius taught that we save ourselves, Calvin taught that we are saved purely by God wirhour any action on our part contributing to it).

The Calvinist form of monergism had been condemned in effect 900 years or so before Calvin, at the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

the council of Chalcedon 451 said that "Jesus Christ is both man and God."

Not true; Nicea said that as early as 325. Rather, Chalcedon was the process of a schism between the Western, Eastern and Oriental churches over how the idea of hypostatic union was to be expressed. There was one legitimate heretic of the Chalcedonian era who was condemned by both sides of the schism: Eutyches, who taught that the humanity of our Lord dissolved into His divinity, a view similiar to the earlier heresy of Apollinarianism and the later heresy of Monothelitism.

If you follow the logic here then first you have Jesus Christ as God, then you have man totally depraved, and then you have Jesus Christ as man and God. If Jesus Christ is both man and God does this mean that God is also totally depraved?

This might be a legitimate criticism of Calvinism.

However, if we step back from your erroneous invocation of total depavity, to the idea of original sin as believed in by most Christians (Orthodox, Catholic, et al), it has never been taught that our Lord was depraved. Rather, He took onto himself our fallen nature, and restored and glorified it, facilitating our own salvation.

Well maybe the doctrine of the coequal, coeternal, one-substance, mysterious three in one triune godhead is deprived of any historical foundation tying it into the Christianity of the Bible and the Christianity of the first three centuries.

Not true; we encounter this doctrine in the Gospels.

However the historical information ties the trinity into various pagan origins.

Not true; the Trinitarian doctrine is entirely unlike any other religion, although later some portions of Hinduism sought to resolve an internal schism by borrowing the concept in part (see Trimurti, which postdates Nicea and the adoption of the Nicene Creed by the Syriac Orthodox Christians of India by several hundred years).

 

[stuart lawrence]

John 1:1-14 and other verses explain in simple and unambiguous language that Jesus Christ is God Himself.



Not true; the only person in this thread arguing against simplicity is a PhD in theology who happens to deny the divinity of our Lord. Of those of us arguing on behalf of the Trinity, precisely one has formal theological training; the rest of us are pious laymen.

Also, perhaps unfairly, as a network engineer working in a hard science I scoff at the idea that studying theology per se is hard. Most of the "hard" in my opinion at least stems from the study of related subject matter required to obtain a degree in theology; the actual theology itself however has always seemed to me fairly easy going. Of course, having an unpleasant professor looming over one can instill artificial rigour even into the most subjective of disciplines.

The simple point is, this is mainly an internet thing. The vast majority of ministers from the pulpit simply preach Christ is the son of God, not God himself and that is what you need to believe to be saved. Whereas on the internet most who partake in these discussions insist you must believe Christ is God himself to be saved.
Simple biblically speaking is believing Christ is the son of God, not God himself for there are plenty of scriptures that plainly and simply state that. There is not one verse of scripture in the entire bible that plainly states Christ is the one true God let alone you must believe it to inherit eternal life.
So the equal trinity formula can hardly be described as simple according to the bible can it. And if it was it would have been official church doctrine in the first century. But of course it wasn't. It only became official church doctrine 300 years after Christ died at Calvary
So my point stands, the ministers from the pulpits keep it simple mostly, but the internet is another matter entirely

 

[Wgw]

The simple point is, this is mainly an internet thing. The vast majority of ministers from the pulpit simply preach Christ is the son of God, not God himself and that is what you need to believe to be saved.

Not true; most clerics mention the Trinity at least in lassing, and the more adept of them expound the doctrine as the basis fo our own salvation. One is more likely to hear this doctrine well expressed in a traditional Orthodox, Protestant or Catholic liturgical church (churches that still account for a majority of the faithful), than in a non-denom church where one is less likely to have a seminary-educated priest.

Whereas on the internet most who partake in these discussions insist you must believe Christ is God himself to be saved.

I have not said that. That said, the Quincunque Vult, which remains an official creed in the Catholic church and much of the Anglican church, does.

Simple biblically speaking is believing Christ is the son of God, not God himself for there are plenty of scriptures that plainly and simply state that.

Untrue; John 1:1-14 and numerous other passages declare that our Lord is God incarnate, in unambiguous language.

There is not one verse of scripture in the entire bible that plainly states Christ is the one true God let alone you must believe it to inherit eternal life.

Not true. Try reading John 1 sometime.

So the equal trinity formula can hardly be described as simple according to the bible can it. And if it was it would have been official church doctrine in the first century. But of course it wasn't. It only became official church doctrine 300 years after Christ died at Calvary

Not true; rather, 285-290 years after Calvary, Arius decided to teach contrary to this doctrine, was deposed, and caused a schism.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Not true; most clerics mention the Trinity at least in lassing, and the more adept of them expound the doctrine as the basis fo our own salvation. One is more likely to hear this doctrine well expressed in a traditional Orthodox, Protestant or Catholic liturgical church (churches that still account for a majority of the faithful), than in a non-denom church where one is less likely to have a seminary-educated priest.



I have not said that. That said, the Quincunque Vult, which remains an official creed in the Catholic church and much of the Anglican church, does.



Untrue; John 1:1-14 and numerous other passages declare that our Lord is God incarnate, in unambiguous language.



Not true. Try reading John 1 sometime.



Not true; rather, 285-290 years after Calvary, Arius decided to teach contrary to this doctrine, was deposed, and caused a schism.

Give me one plain verse of scripture from anywhere in the bible that states Christ is the one true God
I can give you very plain scripture that states only the father is.
It is true that it only became official church doctrine Christ is true God 300 years after Christ died at calvary
So please tell me. In your view should anyone be allowed to preach from a trinitarian pulpit unless they plainly state from it Christ is the one true God and eternal life hinges on believing it?
Please do not give me scriptures to read on this subject. I have the plain text of scripture which you must ignore, you only have your theological extrapolation of the word to seek to overturn the plain words of Christ, john and paul

 

[civilwarbuff]

Several problems with that part of your post.

The current mainstream teaching in Christianity is that God is a coequal, coeternal, one-substance trinity, and that Jesus Christ is God. This doctrine is considered by many as the cornerstone of Christianity, but where did this doctrine come from? The historical record is overwhelming that the church of the first three centuries did not worship God as a coequal, coeternal, consubstantial, one-substance three in one mysterious godhead. The early church worshipped one God and believed in a subordinate Son. The trinity originated with Babylon, and was passed on to most of the world's religions. This polytheistic (believing in more than one god) trinitarianism was intertwined with Greek religion and philosophy and slowly worked its way into Christian thought and creeds some 300 years after Christ. The idea of "God the Son" is Babylonian paganism and mythology that was grafted into Christianity. Worshipping "God the Son" is idolatry, and idolatry is Biblically condemned; it breaks the first great commandment of God of not having any gods before him (Exodus 20:3). Then three centuries after Christ the corrupt emperor Constantine forced the minority opinion of the trinity upon the council of Nicea. The Christian church went downward from there; in fact some of the creeds and councils actually contradict each other. The council of Nicea 325 said that "Jesus Christ is God," the council of Constantinople 381 said that "the Holy Spirit is God," the council of Ephesus 431 said that "human beings are totally depraved," the council of Chalcedon 451 said that "Jesus Christ is both man and God." If you follow the logic here then first you have Jesus Christ as God, then you have man totally depraved, and then you have Jesus Christ as man and God. If Jesus Christ is both man and God does this mean that God is also totally depraved? Well maybe the doctrine of the coequal, coeternal, one-substance, mysterious three in one triune godhead is deprived of any historical foundation tying it into the Christianity of the Bible and the Christianity of the first three centuries. However the historical information ties the trinity into various pagan origins.

Then how John 1-14? It was wrtten well before the "first thee centuries".

 

[Hieronymus]

Apparently the Bible is not simple about everything, hence the many debates even among Christians.
Genesis 18 is a nice example of the Trinity in the OT.

 

[Tiny Bible]

Apparently the Bible is not simple about everything, hence the many debates even among Christians.
Genesis 18 is a nice example of the Trinity in the OT.

Or, it is an example of Jehovah appearing to Abraham with the two Angels Jehovah would later send to Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[Hieronymus]

That's true, we can't be certain.

 

[Tiny Bible]

Then how John 1-14? It was wrtten well before the "first thee centuries".

I think the "one substance trinity" in that excerpt and that appears after, the John 1:1 scripture that tells us in the beginning was the word, the word, notice it isn't saying, the words, plural, but the word. And the word was with God and the word was God.
One God, as Deuteronomy 6:4 reminds us.

This commentary on the verse may help further the discussion.

John Presents the Revelation in a Nutshell (1:1-5)
These first five verses provide the frame of reference and the main components for the story to follow—sort of a prologue to the prologue. We get the story in the right perspective by beginning in eternity (vv. 1-2) and then moving to creation (v. 3). The key ingredients follow, namely, incarnation (v. 4) and conflict (v. 5).

John's opening echoes Genesis (Gen 1:1), but whereas Genesis refers to the God's activity at the beginning of creation, here we learn of a being who existed before creation took place. In the beginning the Word already was. So we actually start before the beginning, outside of time and space in eternity. If we want to understand who Jesus is, John says, we must begin with the relationship shared between the Father and the Son "before the world began" (Jn 17:5, 24). This relationship is the central revelation of this Gospel and the key to understanding all that Jesus says and does.The first verse is very carefully constructed to refer to the personal distinctness yet the essential oneness of the Word with God. To be with God means the Word is distinct from him. The word with (pros) in a context like this is used to indicate personal relationship, not mere proximity (cf. Mk 6:3). But he also was God; that is, there is an identity of being between them. These two truths seem impossible to reconcile logically, and yet both must be held with equal firmness. At this point John simply affirms this antinomy, but later he will reveal more of the relations of the Father and the Son, as well as of the Holy Spirit. John does not reflect philosophically on the Holy Trinity but bears witness to it as the eternal reality, leaving it to later teachers to try to expound its bright mystery.

To speak of the Word (logos) in relation to the beginning of creation would make sense to both Jews and Greeks. In some schools of Greek thought, the universe is kosmos, an ordered place, and what lies behind the universe and orders it is reason(logos). For the Jews, creation took place through God's speech (Gen 1; Ps 33:6). Furthermore, in John's day "word" was often associated with "wisdom" (for example, Wisdom of Solomon 9:1; cf. Breck 1991:79-98), and John will often use wisdom motifs to speak of Jesus (cf. Willett 1992). For example, like the Word who was with God, Wisdom is said to have been "at his side" at the creation (Prov 8:30). As this passage suggests, God's word and wisdom were often spoken of as if they were persons (for example, Wisdom of Solomon 18:14-16; Prov 8:1—9:18; Job 28; cf. Hengel 1974:1:153-56). The Jews did not view these personifications as divine personal beings distinct from God, thereby challenging monotheism (Hurtado 1988:41-50). However, a redefinition of monotheism is called for with the coming of Jesus (for example, Jn 1:14, 18; 5:16-18). Thus the use of "word" and "wisdom" within Judaism was of enormous help to the Christians as they tried to understand and express the reality they found in Jesus. Jesus is what the "word" and "wisdom" were, and much more.

The description of Wisdom as the master worker at God's side at creation (Prov 8:22-31) is now echoed in John's declaration that the Word was the agent of all creation (1:3). As agent he is distinct from the Creator. God the Father is viewed throughout the Gospel as the ultimate source of all, including the Son and the Spirit. But life did not simply come through the Word but wasin the Word (1:4). Only God is the source of life, and it is a mark of Jesus' distinctness and deity that the Father "has granted the Son to have life in himself" (5:26).

By stating both positively and negatively that the Word is the agent of all creation (1:3), John emphasizes that there were no exceptions: the existence of absolutely all things came by this Word. Although with verse 3 we move from eternity to creation, we are still dealing with facts hard to comprehend. Until discoveries made in the 1920s, the Milky Way was thought to be the entire universe, but now we realize there are many billions of galaxies. Science is helping us spiritually, for it silences us before God in wonder and awe. But this verse also helps us put science in its proper place. The universe is incredibly wonderful, so how much more wonderful must be the one upon whose purpose and power it depends. "The builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself" (Heb 3:3).

Because the earliest manuscripts had no verse numbers, nor even spaces between words and sentences, it is sometimes hard to know where one sentence ends and another begins. Such is the case with verses 3 and 4. Many commentators, ancient and modern, divide the text as in the NIV, but many others think the final words of verse 3 belong with verse 4: "What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people" (NRSV). Either option would fit John's style and thought, but the NRSV option reflects how all the earliest commentators took the text, suggesting this was the more natural reading for native speakers. At a later date the orthodox began taking it as in the NIV because of misuses by false teachers who took ho gegonen("what was made in him") to include the Holy Spirit, thus making the Spirit a creature (cf. Chrysostom In John 5.1).

If the text reads "what has come into being in him was life," this could refer to those who came to have union with God in the Son, a major theme of this Gospel. If so, John has moved from creation in verse 3 to re-creation, as it were, in verse 4. The quality of life in the sphere of creation is not yet the deepest life, the divine life in the Word. This idea is true to John's thought, but he does not use light of men to refer to the new order of life now offered in Jesus. So most likely the reference is to the incarnation, declaring that what took place in the Word at his incarnation was the manifestation of life itself (cf. 1 Jn 1:1-2). This allusion to the incarnation would only be evident to those who understand Jesus' identity as revealed in the rest of the Gospel.

His life, manifest in the incarnation, is our light (Jn 1:4). In this Gospel light always refers to the revelation and salvation that Jesus is and offers (cf. 8:12; 11:9 is the one exception). In order to have life we need to know God, and Jesus is our source of such knowledge. As our light, his life is our guide. He is our wisdom, that which reveals all else to us and enables us to see. In Jewish thought it is the law that plays this role (for example, Wisdom of Solomon 18:4; cf. Hengel 1974:1:171; 2:112; Kittel 1967:134-36), but for John it is the incarnation of the Word that makes sense of all of life.

Thus, here at the outset we have the two most fundamental affirmations about Jesus in this Gospel, namely that he himself is the presence of God's own life and light and that he makes this life and light available to human beings. In one profound sentence we have the central assertion of this Gospel concerning the revelation of the Son and the salvation he offers.

The story will reveal the glory described in these opening verses, but it will be a tragic story of conflict, because humanity is in the darkness of rebellion. The shining of the light is an ongoing, continuous activity (phainei, present tense, v. 5), for it is the very nature of light to shine. But when that light and life came amongst us as a human being, the darkness did not grasp, or master, the light; it neither comprehended it nor overcame it (katelaben; cf. the NIV text and note). The story will show both senses of this word to be true.

2 of 2

 

[Der Alte]

Several problems with that part of your post.

The current mainstream teaching in Christianity is that God is a coequal, coeternal, one-substance trinity, and that Jesus Christ is God. This doctrine is considered by many as the cornerstone of Christianity, but where did this doctrine come from? The historical record is overwhelming that the church of the first three centuries did not worship God as a coequal, coeternal, consubstantial, one-substance three in one mysterious godhead. The early church worshipped one God and believed in a subordinate Son.

Please extend me the courtesy of you personally interacting with my posts. This huge copy/paste from some oneness-Я-us.clone website is full of false information and does not specifically address anything in my post.. The first written record of the word Trinity is in the writing of Theophilis 180 AD, It occurs many times in the writings of Tertullian ca. 200 AD. Most of the ECF in the first 3 centuries called Jesus God.

The trinity originated with Babylon, and was passed on to most of the world's religions. This polytheistic (believing in more than one god) trinitarianism was intertwined with Greek religion and philosophy and slowly worked its way into Christian thought and creeds some 300 years after Christ. The idea of "God the Son" is Babylonian paganism and mythology that was grafted into Christianity.

There were no, zero, none cultures or societies in existence which had a trinity or even a clearly defined triad of deities, which could have influenced the early church. Not Babylon, not Rome, Not Greece. Nothing from any pagan religion was intertwined or grafted into Christianity.

Worshipping "God the Son" is idolatry, and idolatry is Biblically condemned; it breaks the first great commandment of God of not having any gods before him (Exodus 20:3).

Have you read the scriptural definition of an idol? Deut 5:8-9 "You shall not make you any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: You shall not bow down yourself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God," Jesus is NOT a graven image, or likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth." In the NT Jesus commanded us to honor the son exactly as we honor the father.

Joh 5:23 That all men should honor the Son, even [καθώς] as they honor the Father. He that honors not the Son honors not the Father which has sent him.

καθώς kathōs kath-oce'
From G2596 and G5613; just (or inasmuch) as, that: - according to, (according, even) as, how, when.​

Then three centuries after Christ the corrupt emperor Constantine forced the minority opinion of the trinity upon the council of Nicea.

Constantine was an Arian not a Trinitarian for what possible reason would he 'force" a minority opinion on the church? Have you ever read any actual history of Nicaea? Constantine only spoke at the opening ceremony and did not speak again. How could he force anything when he did not even speak? Once again the Trinity was never mentioned at Nicaea the major topic was the nature of Jesus. Read the canons of Nicaea, the written decisions, Trinity never appears in them.

The Christian church went downward from there; in fact some of the creeds and councils actually contradict each other. The council of Nicea 325 said that "Jesus Christ is God," the council of Constantinople 381 said that "the Holy Spirit is God," the council of Ephesus 431 said that "human beings are totally depraved," the council of Chalcedon 451 said that "Jesus Christ is both man and God."
If you follow the logic here then first you have Jesus Christ as God, then you have man totally depraved, and then you have Jesus Christ as man and God. If Jesus Christ is both man and God does this mean that God is also totally depraved?

Have you ever actually read any of the "creeds" you are referring to? Three hundred years before Chalcedon the ECF said that Jesus was both man and God. Evidently you are not familiar with Hebrews 4:15. If God chose to become a man, as He did, he could and did so without being depraved.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.​

Well maybe the doctrine of the coequal, coeternal, one-substance, mysterious three in one triune godhead is deprived of any historical foundation tying it into the Christianity of the Bible and the Christianity of the first three centuries. However the historical information ties the trinity into various pagan origins.

Historical information does no such thing! There was no pagan religion which had a trinity or even a clearly defined triad of deities which could have influenced the early church.

Theophilus to Autolycus [a.d. 115-168-181.] Chapter XV

In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man. Wherefore also on the fourth day the lights were made.

Clement of Alexandria. [a.d. 153-193-217.] The Stromata, Or Miscellanies. Book V. Chap. XIV.​

So that when he says, “Around the king of all, all things are, and because of Him are all things; and he [or that] is the cause of all good things; and around the second are the things second in order; and around the third, the third,” I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.

Fragments of Clemens Alexandrinus. 6
For it is said, “Put on him the best robe,” which was his the moment he obtained baptism. I mean the glory of baptism, the remission of sins, and the communication of the other blessings, which he obtained immediately he had touched the font. “And put a ring on his hand.” Here is the mystery of the Trinity; which is the seal impressed on those who believe. “And put shoes on his feet,” for “the preparation of the Gospel of peace,” (Eph_6:15) and the whole course that leads to good actions.

Tertullian [a.d. 145-220] VII. Against Praxeas. Chap. XII.

If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, “Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness;” (Gen_1:26) whereas He ought to have said, “Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness,” as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, “Behold the man is become as one of us,” (Gen_3:22) He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account?

[/quote]

 

[Der Alte]

The simple point is, this is mainly an internet thing. The vast majority of ministers from the pulpit simply preach Christ is the son of God, not God himself and that is what you need to believe to be saved. Whereas on the internet most who partake in these discussions insist you must believe Christ is God himself to be saved.
Simple biblically speaking is believing Christ is the son of God, not God himself for there are plenty of scriptures that plainly and simply state that. There is not one verse of scripture in the entire bible that plainly states Christ is the one true God let alone you must believe it to inherit eternal life.
So the equal trinity formula can hardly be described as simple according to the bible can it. And if it was it would have been official church doctrine in the first century. But of course it wasn't. It only became official church doctrine 300 years after Christ died at Calvary
So my point stands, the ministers from the pulpits keep it simple mostly, but the internet is another matter entirely

Lot of nonsense here. There were no major heresies before Nicaea which required a ecumenical council to resolve. See my post #191 above, the ECF documenting the Trinity as early as 180 AD.

 

[Hoghead1]

I really don't think posters like that are appropriate in posts. I also am sick and tired of this one-sided Christian whining. Yes, Christians have been and are being persecuted. But at the same time, we should also reflect upon all the innocent persons Christianity has persecuted down through the centuries and pray for them.
One of the interesting points about the Trinity is that he Holy Spirit appears to be a real late-comer. Early Christians were called ditheists, rather than tritheists. Augustine said that while there had been much discussion on the Father and the Son, very little had been said about the Holy Spirit. Novatian appeared to be against any discussion o n the Spirit, saying, "I possess its reality, though I comprehend it not." Gregory of Nazianzus spoke of a great confusion about the nature of the Spirit, noting "some consider it energy, others a creature, others God; still others are uncertain what to call it, out of reverence to Scripture, which makes no clear pronouncement." The original Nicene Creed said almost nothing about the Spirit. The ending we have now, "We believe in the Spirit, the Lord and giver of of life..., " was not added until around 500AD. And even here it is not really clear if the Spirit is Deity or no.

The reason why the Spirit appears so ignored was that the church was struggling to see how God could be present in Christ and therefore had little time to reflect on a more ubitioous presence of God (SoSpirit).

 

[Hoghead1]

Sorry, computer glitch prevented me from finishing above post. Last line should read," The reason why the Spirit appears so ignored was that the church was struggling to see how God could be present in the Christ event and therefore was nowhere near ready to consider a more ubiquitous presence of God (Spirit). The problem was that the church had adopted certain major schools of Hellenic metaphysics which viewed the whole or time, change, and matter as something inherently evil and a major illusion. Hence, God and the world, Spirit and matter became like oil and water and did not mix. And that is why the Arians denied the Deity of Christ, as how could God suffer or change.

 

[Tiny Bible]

I find it fascinating that you'd exhort me to extend you the courtesy of personally interacting with your posts, and then make a condemnation of the source I linked, and then proceed to make your own copy and paste wall of text that you not only extracted from more than one source, contrary to what I did in delivering one linked source in my remarks, but multiple different sources. I stopped researching what you've extracted and pasted here without giving proper credit/links to the original source after finding two of your copy/pastes at their original site.
Your post that reads:Theophilus to Autolycus [a.d. 115-168-181.] Chapter XV, is found here.

And the second header that you copied and pasted also without crediting the original: Clement of Alexandria. [a.d. 153-193-217.] The Stromata, Or Miscellanies. Book V. Chap. XIV.
And it's subsequent text is found here.

I think I know now why you call yourself the alter. You altered other peoples intellectual property, copied and pasted different text from other sources after you take me to task and speak of courtesy and personal dialog while condemning my one credited source: (Respectively in just the two references you posted that I researched the source of: )
Hope of Israel Ministries (Ecclesia of YEHOVAH):
Is the Godhead a Trinity?
And
Full text of "The Ante Nicene Fathers Volume II Herms Tatian Athenagoras Theophilus And Clement Of Alexandria"

Please extend me the courtesy of you personally interacting with my posts. This huge copy/paste from some oneness-Я-us.clone website is full of false information and does not specifically address anything in my post.. The first written record of the word Trinity is in the writing of Theophilis 180 AD, It occurs many times in the writings of Tertullian ca. 200 AD. Most of the ECF in the first 3 centuries called Jesus God.



There were no, zero, none cultures or societies in existence which had a trinity or even a clearly defined triad of deities, which could have influenced the early church. Not Babylon, not Rome, Not Greece. Nothing from any pagan religion was intertwined or grafted into Christianity.



Have you read the scriptural definition of an idol? Deut 5:8-9 "You shall not make you any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: You shall not bow down yourself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God," Jesus is NOT a graven image, or likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth." In the NT Jesus commanded us to honor the son exactly as we honor the father.

Joh 5:23 That all men should honor the Son, even [καθώς] as they honor the Father. He that honors not the Son honors not the Father which has sent him.

καθώς kathōs kath-oce'
From G2596 and G5613; just (or inasmuch) as, that: - according to, (according, even) as, how, when.​

Constantine was an Arian not a Trinitarian for what possible reason would he 'force" a minority opinion on the church? Have you ever read any actual history of Nicaea? Constantine only spoke at the opening ceremony and did not speak again. How could he force anything when he did not even speak? Once again the Trinity was never mentioned at Nicaea the major topic was the nature of Jesus. Read the canons of Nicaea, the written decisions, Trinity never appears in them.



Have you ever actually read any of the "creeds" you are referring to? Three hundred years before Chalcedon the ECF said that Jesus was both man and God. Evidently you are not familiar with Hebrews 4:15. If God chose to become a man, as He did, he could and did so without being depraved.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.​

Historical information does no such thing! There was no pagan religion which had a trinity or even a clearly defined triad of deities which could have influenced the early church.

Theophilus to Autolycus [a.d. 115-168-181.] Chapter XV

In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man. Wherefore also on the fourth day the lights were made.

Clement of Alexandria. [a.d. 153-193-217.] The Stromata, Or Miscellanies. Book V. Chap. XIV.​

So that when he says, “Around the king of all, all things are, and because of Him are all things; and he [or that] is the cause of all good things; and around the second are the things second in order; and around the third, the third,” I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.

Fragments of Clemens Alexandrinus. 6
For it is said, “Put on him the best robe,” which was his the moment he obtained baptism. I mean the glory of baptism, the remission of sins, and the communication of the other blessings, which he obtained immediately he had touched the font. “And put a ring on his hand.” Here is the mystery of the Trinity; which is the seal impressed on those who believe. “And put shoes on his feet,” for “the preparation of the Gospel of peace,” (Eph_6:15) and the whole course that leads to good actions.

Tertullian [a.d. 145-220] VII. Against Praxeas. Chap. XII.

If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, “Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness;” (Gen_1:26) whereas He ought to have said, “Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness,” as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, “Behold the man is become as one of us,” (Gen_3:22) He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Hoghead1]

However, 'pagans" Hellenic metaphysics were readily adopted by the early church, as the Bible is not a book of metaphysics. in turn, this free incorporation of Hellenic philosophy formed the basis for the classical Christian model of what God is like in his own nature. In turn, this led to serious difficulties in explaining how God could be at all related to the world and omnipresent in any sense. And in thru, this led to serious difficulties with the Trinity.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Lot of nonsense here. There were no major heresies before Nicaea which required a ecumenical council to resolve. See my post #191 above, the ECF documenting the Trinity as early as 180 AD.

Lot of nonsense here. There were no major heresies before Nicaea which required a ecumenical council to resolve. See my post #191 above, the ECF documenting the Trinity as early as 180 AD.

Lol, it is all the truth. Thank goodness the average pew sitter is not like some on the internet.
Pope dionysis in 256 said the Godhead should not be divided into three and only the father is God.
To suggest everyone believed in an equal trinity before nicea is absured. A council met two generations before nicea and although no definite conclusions were reached, it leant more to denying the houmussis than accepting it.
I have no problem with anyone wanting to believe in an equal trinity but don't try and insist everyone else must believe it.
If anyone believes people will stand condemned on the day of judgement for believing what Christ plainly stated they need help, badly! John 14:28&john 17:3

 

[Der Alte]

I think the "one substance trinity" in that excerpt and that appears after, the John 1:1 scripture that tells us in the beginning was the word, the word, notice it isn't saying, the words, plural, but the word. And the word was with God and the word was God.
One God, as Deuteronomy 6:4 reminds us.

This commentary on the verse may help further the discussion.

John Presents the Revelation in a Nutshell (1:1-5)

These first five verses provide the frame of reference and the main components for the story to follow—sort of a prologue to the prologue. We get the story in the right perspective by beginning in eternity (vv. 1-2) and then moving to creation (v. 3). The key ingredients follow, namely, incarnation (v. 4) and conflict (v. 5).

John's opening echoes Genesis (Gen 1:1), but whereas Genesis refers to the God's activity at the beginning of creation, here we learn of a being who existed before creation took place. In the beginning the Word already was. So we actually start before the beginning, outside of time and space in eternity.

If we want to understand who Jesus is, John says, we must begin with the relationship shared between the Father and the Son "before the world began" (Jn 17:5, 24). This relationship is the central revelation of this Gospel and the key to understanding all that Jesus says and does.The first verse is very carefully constructed to refer to the personal distinctness yet the essential oneness of the Word with God. To be with God means the Word is distinct from him. The word with (pros) in a context like this is used to indicate personal relationship, not mere proximity (cf. Mk 6:3). But he also was God; that is, there is an identity of being between them. These two truths seem impossible to reconcile logically, and yet both must be held with equal firmness. At this point John simply affirms this antinomy, but later he will reveal more of the relations of the Father and the Son, as well as of the Holy Spirit.

John does not reflect philosophically on the Holy Trinity but bears witness to it as the eternal reality, leaving it to later teachers to try to expound its bright mystery.
To speak of the Word (logos) in relation to the beginning of creation would make sense to both Jews and Greeks. In some schools of Greek thought, the universe is kosmos, an ordered place, and what lies behind the universe and orders it is reason(logos). For the Jews, creation took place through God's speech (Gen 1; Ps 33:6). Furthermore, in John's day "word" was often associated with "wisdom" (for example, Wisdom of Solomon 9:1; cf. Breck 1991:79-98), and John will often use wisdom motifs to speak of Jesus (cf. Willett 1992). For example, like the Word who was with God, Wisdom is said to have been "at his side" at

the creation (Prov 8:30). As this passage suggests, God's word and wisdom were often spoken of as if they were persons (for example, Wisdom of Solomon 18:14-16; Prov 8:1—9:18; Job 28; cf. Hengel 1974:1:153-56). The Jews did not view these personifications as divine personal beings distinct from God, thereby challenging monotheism (Hurtado 1988:41-50). However, a redefinition of monotheism is called for with the coming of Jesus (for example, Jn 1:14, 18; 5:16-18). Thus the use of "word" and "wisdom" within Judaism was of enormous help to the Christians as they tried to understand and express the reality they found in Jesus. Jesus is what the "word" and "wisdom" were, and much more.
The description of Wisdom as the master worker at God's side at creation (Prov 8:22-31) is now echoed in

John's declaration that the Word was the agent of all creation (1:3). As agent he is distinct from the Creator. God the Father is viewed throughout the Gospel as the ultimate source of all, including the Son and the Spirit. But life did not simply come through the Word but wasin the Word (1:4). Only God is the source of life, and it is a mark of Jesus' distinctness and deity that the Father "has granted the Son to have life in himself" (5:26).
By stating both positively and negatively that the Word is the agent of all creation (1:3), John emphasizes that there were no exceptions: the existence of absolutely all things came by this Word. Although with verse 3 we move from eternity to creation, we are still dealing with facts hard to comprehend. [/quotrUntil

discoveries made in the 1920s, the Milky Way was thought to be the entire universe, but now we realize there are many billions of galaxies. Science is helping us spiritually, for it silences us before God in wonder and awe. But this verse also helps us put science in its proper place. The universe is incredibly wonderful, so how much more wonderful must be the one upon whose purpose and power it depends. "The builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself" (Heb 3:3).
Because the earliest manuscripts had no verse numbers, nor even spaces between words and sentences, it is sometimes hard to know where one sentence ends and another begins. Such is the case with verses 3 and 4. Many commentators, ancient and modern, divide the text as in the NIV, but many others think the

final words of verse 3 belong with verse 4: "What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people" (NRSV). Either option would fit John's style and thought, but the NRSV option reflects how all the earliest commentators took the text, suggesting this was the more natural reading for native speakers. At a later date the orthodox began taking it as in the NIV because of misuses by false teachers who took ho gegonen("what was made in him") to include the Holy Spirit, thus making the Spirit a creature (cf. Chrysostom In John 5.1).
If the text reads "what has come into being in him was life," this could refer to those who came to have union with God in the Son, a major theme of this Gospel. If so, John has moved from creation in verse 3

to re-creation, as it were, in verse 4. The quality of life in the sphere of creation is not yet the deepest life, the divine life in the Word. This idea is true to John's thought, but he does not use light of men to refer to the new order of life now offered in Jesus. So most likely the reference is to the incarnation, declaring that what took place in the Word at his incarnation was the manifestation of life itself (cf. 1 Jn 1:1-2). This allusion to the incarnation would only be evident to those who understand Jesus' identity as revealed in the rest of the Gospel.
His life, manifest in the incarnation, is our light (Jn 1:4). In this Gospel light always refers to the revelation and salvation that Jesus is and offers (cf. 8:12; 11:9 is the one exception). In order to have life

we need to know God, and Jesus is our source of such knowledge. As our light, his life is our guide. He is our wisdom, that which reveals all else to us and enables us to see. In Jewish thought it is the law that plays this role (for example, Wisdom of Solomon 18:4; cf. Hengel 1974:1:171; 2:112; Kittel 1967:134-36), but for John it is the incarnation of the Word that makes sense of all of life.
Thus, here at the outset we have the two most fundamental affirmations about Jesus in this Gospel, namely that he himself is the presence of God's own life and light and that he makes this life and light available to human beings. In one profound sentence we have the central assertion of this Gospel concerning the revelation of the Son and the salvation he offers.

The story will reveal the glory described in these opening verses, but it will be a tragic story of conflict, because humanity is in the darkness of rebellion. The shining of the light is an ongoing, continuous activity (phainei, present tense, v. 5), for it is the very nature of light to shine. But when that light and life came amongst us as a human being, the darkness did not grasp, or master, the light; it neither comprehended it nor overcame it (katelaben; cf. the NIV text and note). The story will show both senses of this word to be true.

2 of 2

Yet another copy/paste without proper citation. It happens to be from IVP New Testament Commentary but it does not appear to support your earlier argument "The vast majority of ministers from the pulpit simply preach Christ is the son of God, not God himself." See highlights.

 

[Wgw]

Give me one plain verse of scripture from anywhere in the bible that states Christ is the one true God
I can give you very plain scripture that states only the father is.
It is true that it only became official church doctrine Christ is true God 300 years after Christ died at calvary

John 1:1-14

So please tell me. In your view should anyone be allowed to preach from a trinitarian pulpit unless they plainly state from it Christ is the one true God and eternal life hinges on believing it?

Soteriology I can't comment on; Quincunque Vult aside, there is scope for saying that someone who does not understand the doctrine or indeed someone who rejects it might be saved, although there is Galatians 1:8; certainly any clergyman who rejects the Trinity should be deposed. It is also a very good idea to do what Orthodox, Catholics and traditional Protestants do, and recite the Nicene Creed during the Liturgy.

As far as what is preached from the pulpit, bema or ambo, this should positively have a Trinitarian context. http://creedalchristian.blogspot.com is run by an Anglican vicar who is a friend of mine; many of his homilies have a Trinitarian theme, and they are both tied into the Revised Common Lectionary and are from a Protestant (high church) POV, although most are broadly ecumenical to the point where I could reccommend them as the basis for anyone's use.

Please do not give me scriptures to read on this subject. I have the plain text of scripture which you must ignore, you only have your theological extrapolation of the word to seek to overturn the plain words of Christ, john and paul

You just asked me to give you Scripture. It is not possible to overturn the words of our Lord, Ss. John and Paul, using their own words.

 

[Wgw]

Lot of nonsense here. There were no major heresies before Nicaea which required a ecumenical council to resolve. See my post #191 above, the ECF documenting the Trinity as early as 180 AD.

Gnosticism, Docetism, Marcionism and Montanism, for example, were major, but there was no need for an ecumenical council. Or rather, if there was a need, there was no way of safely having such a council due to the persecution. In the mid second century, at a relatively peaceful moment, St. Polycarp of Smyrna met with the Roman church to address the issue of the Paschalion, and you had local councils and so on, but the idea of bringing all the bishops of the Empire together in one place would have been madness.