At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
First, This is what I mean when speaking about the Trinity. What is it? It is the believe of 3 almighty, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All are not separate, but one. All are all knowing and omniscient.. No above the 0ther.
The Catholic encyclopedia says: “The trinity is the central teaching of the Christian religion.”
The Baptist encyclopedia says: “That Jesus is Jehovah or YHWH, and that the Holy spirit is Jehovah or YHWH.
Remember now Christians do not believe the Hindu religion to be the true religion and yet they also believe in Triad God’s as the Egyptians also believed in Triune Gods.
In 1553 they burned people alive for not believing in the Trinity. Was that Christian?
Isaiah 42:38 we read: Isaiah 42:8 (Young's Literal Translation)
8 I [am] Jehovah, this [is] My name, And Mine honour to another I give not, Nor My praise to graven images.
Genesis 17:1 (American Standard Version)
1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, Jehovah appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be thou perfect. ALSO take a look at
Rev. 16:7 Jehovah the almighty. No where else in the Bible does it refer to anyone else as almighty. Jesus is referred to as mighty but not almighty. Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah says:
Isaiah 43:10 (American Standard Version)
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Does this mean that, because Jesus Christ is prophetically called “Mighty God” at Isaiah 9:6, Jesus must be Jehovah? Again, the context answers, No! None of the idolatrous Gentile nations formed a god before Jehovah, because no one existed before Jehovah.
Nor would they at a future time form any real, live god that was able to prophesy. Isa. 46:9, 10
No where in the scriptures is Jesus referred to as “God the son” but he is referred to as “God’s son”. Take notice:
John 3:16 (New King James Version)
16 For God so loved the world that ‘He gave His only begotten Son,” that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
Notice how Jesus himself said he is “the son of God” Not “”God the son.”
John 10:33-36 (New King James Version)
33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’?[a] 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
In Matthew after Jesus’ baptism, Jehovah was heard to say, “you are my “Son” the beloved. Not “God my Son.” If all are equal then why did Jehovah continue in Matthew to state that he approved of Jesus. Notice:
Matthew 3:17 (New King James Version)
17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
Jehovah has not beginning or end. Jesus did. Notice Col 1:15
Colossians 1:15 (King James Version)
15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
The Bible says God can not die. Jesus though was raised from the dead, showing Jesus is not God almighty because he could die and did and was resurrected.
Acts 3:15 (New King James Version)
15 and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.
This is just some of the things I find very puzzling when it comes to the teaching of the Trinity. The Trinity doctrine is not compatible with the Bible teachings. If one loves God and believes the Bible to be the truth, how can 0ne believe the Trinity teaching. This information just touches on the lack of compatibility of the Bible and the trinity doctrine
Do you believe in the Trinity? If not, state why you do not believe in it. If you do believe in the doctrine of the trinity then state please why you do and how do you explain the above discrepancies?
Please state your understanding in the matter of the Trinity.
I appreciate your polite response and also I truly respect you right to your opinion. Yes, we do disagree on the Trinity teaching, however, I am sure there are other things we do agree on. I look forward to further communication and alway welcome other's opinions.
The point is Hope, Even though everybody here is sharing their opinion. Your not supposed to give bad comments for a belief. That is exactly what you did. You gave me a disagree for what I shared as my point and belief and what did you do with it? You gave me a disagree with a comment about how I believe in more then one God which is untrue.
You try to act all innocent but your not, If you truly appreciated my opinion like the rest you would have disagreed in a post but not give me a bad comment and at the same time twist my words around. That is the point I was trying to make.
Yes, You did start it but I was not the smart one and I should have stayed out of it because I know how you can get, examples of you on other websites.
BWT, the doctrine of the Trinity has been documented to have been accepted as far back as 200 A.D.
If so then why this?
The Encyclopedia Americana 1956
"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian (believing in one God). The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."
The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967
"The formulation 'one God in three persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century."
The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism 1995
". . . scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the trinity as such in either the Old Testament or the New Testament."
Dictionary of The Bible 1995 John L. Mckenzie
"The trinity of God is defined by the church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief."
Here is part of the document from which I referred.
Tertullian, Against Praxeas, (A.D. 213).
"In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her--being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas."
The main thing is that since there are verses that show there is a trinity, there has to be, the other verses that speak of each seperate are also true, since each have a entire being seperate. But these seperate things are still one and the same.
If you don't understand it, great, we can't, because man has limited being and limited understanding now and alot less 2000 and 4000 years ago and could only write from how they understand life.
And of course in the Old Testement, the idea of one God is all they had, since Christ was merely a promise and they did not understand.
Now that he has come, we still can't understand since we want it to fit things the way mans laws of science says it has to be.
We have to understand that God and his power is far beyond anything we could dream, so if the bible only says once there is a trinity, then there has to be one, no question about it. If you don't accept that, then you are not accepting Gods word. The fact they also name each seperate is great also, since it means that each part of God has its own relationship with us.
As for as the Chistian church, Trinity is part of the majority of all, and is part of basic Christian doctrine. But it was not fully accepted, and the teaching came from some of the early church Councils. There Bishops and leaders from all the major churches meet and worked out the basics for Christian teachings.
Here is part of the document from which I referred.
Tertullian, Against Praxeas, (A.D. 213).
"In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her--being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas."
Yes, I understood your original post and was not challenging its accuracy. By the time you refer to there certainly had to be indications that the Trinity doctrine was in existence. My question was in reference to the comments made by these biblical scholars. If indeed the case for the Trinity doctrine's existence from the outset of Christianity is as clear-cut as you describe, then why would these respected publications make such statements?
Fra Chuck
The Nicene Council's decision to adopt this concept was strongly influenced by Emperor Constantine and his prime directive was Imperial Roman unity not doctrinal accuracy.
To claim that rejection of this council's sudden decision to formalize the Trinity belief
due in large measure to the influence of a Sun Worshipping emperor constitutes rejection of God's Word is naive at best and ludicrous at worst. The Council of Trent added the apocryphal books, does that make them inspired as well? If one Catholic Church council decision is to be taken as sacrosanct because it was a Catholic Church council decision, then you are obligated to take all CC Council decisions as such and judging by the historical record, I sincerely doubt that you would feel comfortable holding to that criterion.
As Christians we agree that the Hebrews were entrusted with the sacred writings of God and received inspired illumination via God's holy spirit. Yet, they were not Trinitarians. In short, they were not worshipping the Christian God. That seems rather strange since Christians accept that they were God's chosen people entrusted with his sacred writings.
It's comforting to think that such is the case but the premise is defective from a cogent reasoning perspective and unfortunately makes the conclusion false.
Appeal to Majority
Also, bandwaggon, or the appeal to majority or popularity of a belief, is fallacious reasoning. Why? Because majority doesn't guarantee accuracy. For example, the majority of scientists are atheists and they are dead wrong. The majority once thought the Earth was flat. Neither does the convening of said majority in order to formulate and officially sanction a popular idea centuries after Jesus died automatically make such conclusions irrefutably true. It only indicates popularity of belief and majority.
By the time church councils formally declared the Trinity to be a valid doctrine the idea of the Trinity was not novel. Early Christians taught and believed in the Trinity. Yet, this teaching was not condemned as heresy, in fact, it was later formally approved and declared valid. It is worthy to note that formal declarations of doctrine will often happen after a large challenge to a held truth is made. Then, the church will act to formally define and declare held beliefs to be valid. Since the Trinity’s validation there has been no incontrovertible reason to declare it invalid. It stands: A Christian truth.
Instead of saying "Abracadabra Lo and behold!" , why not present some solid evidence indicating such a belief existed during Christianity's first century in order to refute the sources below which say otherwise?
The Encyclopedia Americana 1956
"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian (believing in one God). The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."
The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967
"The formulation 'one God in three persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century."
The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism 1995
". . . scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the trinity as such in either the Old Testament or the New Testament."
It was a totally alien concept to the nation of Israel, the people God had chosen to reveal his truths and continues to be a stumbling block because they find no evidence of such a concept in OT.
BTW
It wasn't novel by that time but neither was it universally accepted. If it had been universally accepted then there would not have been a controversy.
Excerpt
Many early Christians were very concerned that the developing doctrine of the Trinity was a departure from monotheism. Some Christians clearly saw it as polytheistic heresy. It had been bitterly debated until it was settled by Constantine's coercion and edict at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Even with that pronouncement of the Nicene Creed, the theological pendulum swung back and forth until later in the century, as different Roman church officials went in and out of power. Those who were on the losing side at any given time were banished, and some even lost their lives over the issue.
the real question is why are you looking for something to be wrong with the Bible or the Holy Trinity? either you believe it or not. either you are lost or saved.
Actually, the Apostles Creed preceeded the Nicene Council Creed and the Apostles' Creed was Unittarian. So the heresy, if we are to go by which preceded which, would have to be the latter that deviated from the former.
Excerpt
The Apostles’ or Unitarian Creed was the creed used during the first two centuries AD. It was not written by the Apostles, though it bears their name:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
And in Jesus Christ, his only son our Lord: who was conceived by the holy ghost (spirit), born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell (the grave); the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God, the Father Almighty: From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
I believe in the holy ghost (spirit); the holy catholic (general) Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.
Linear Mode
