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.
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.
First, this is a discussion forum where questions are asked, answered, and sometimes discussed extensively. A question was asked on this forum and I responded. There is nothing unusual about this nor does it constitute a breaking of forum rules.
Second, nowhere in the Bible does it say that if I don't share your faith in the Nicene Council's decision to invalidate the Apostles' Creed that preceded it, that I am not saved. That is totally YOUR idea.
i have no idea what you said but i can asure you the only way to be saved is to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and to live a life he would be proud of.
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?
From Catholic Encyclopedia, Newadvent.org
The doctrine of the Trinity is formally taught in every class of ecclesiastical writing. From among the apologists we may note Justin, "Apol." I, vi; Athenagoras, "Legat: pro Christ.", n. 12. The latter tells us that Christians "are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, and the Father, and their distinction in unity." It would be impossible to be more explicit. And we may be sure that an apologist, writing for pagans, would weigh well the words in which he dealt with this doctrine.
Amongst polemical writers we may refer to Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", I, xxii, IV, xx, 1-6. In these passages he rejects the Gnostic figment that the world was created by aeons who had emanated from God, but were not consubstantial with Him, and teaches the consubstantiality of the Word and the Spirit by Whom God created all things.
Yet further evidence regarding the Church's doctrine is furnished by a comparison of her teaching with that of heretical sects.
The controversy with the Sabellians in the third century proves conclusively that she would tolerate no deviation from Trinitarian doctrine. Noetus of Smyrna, the originator of the error, was condemned by a local synod, about A.D. 200. Sabellius, who propagated the same heresy at Rome c. A.D. 220, was excommunicated by St. Callistus.
In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom ("Ad. Autol.", II, 15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian ("De pud." c. xxi). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes: There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P. G., X, 986).
i have no idea what you said but i can asure you the only way to be saved is to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and to live a life he would be proud of.
And you equate not agreeing with the Catholic Nicene Council as a rejection of Jesus, of not living a Christian life and of eternal damnation. Fortunately that concept isn't a biblical teaching. I would also like to humbly remind you that the only one qualified to determine whether you or I or anyone else is or isn't going to gain eternal life is God via Jesus Christ whom he has appointed judge. So I would seriously recommend that you try not to wield an authority which has never been given you due to your lack of qualification for it.
As to not understanding plain English, that's a matter which can't be resolved in this forum but requires perhaps remedial reading and comprehension classes. In any case, it definitely isn't the virtue which you seem to believe it is.
on the other hanbd perhaps it's simply that you aren't meant to understand. That too is a possibility. But as I said before, only God knows for sure and it woud be hubris to assume otherwise.
The doctrine of the Trinity is formally taught in every class of ecclesiastical writing. From among the apologists we may note Justin, "Apol." I, vi; Athenagoras, "Legat: pro Christ.", n. 12. The latter tells us that Christians "are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, and the Father, and their distinction in unity." It would be impossible to be more explicit. And we may be sure that an apologist, writing for pagans, would weigh well the words in which he dealt with this doctrine.
Amongst polemical writers we may refer to Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", I, xxii, IV, xx, 1-6. In these passages he rejects the Gnostic figment that the world was created by aeons who had emanated from God, but were not consubstantial with Him, and teaches the consubstantiality of the Word and the Spirit by Whom God created all things.
Yet further evidence regarding the Church's doctrine is furnished by a comparison of her teaching with that of heretical sects.
The controversy with the Sabellians in the third century proves conclusively that she would tolerate no deviation from Trinitarian doctrine. Noetus of Smyrna, the originator of the error, was condemned by a local synod, about A.D. 200. Sabellius, who propagated the same heresy at Rome c. A.D. 220, was excommunicated by St. Callistus.
In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom ("Ad. Autol.", II, 15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian ("De pud." c. xxi). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes: There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P. G., X, 986).
Thank you for posting the entire article. But it doesn't offer evidence that the Trinity Doctrine was taught during the first century. It merely quotes sources which came much later than that time. Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the Apostles' Creed which was Unitarian and which Christians accepted as truth during the first two centuries preceded the Nicene Council decision.
1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:
10. The forgiveness of sins:
1l. The resurrection of the body:
12. And the life everlasting. Amen.
Why you ignore this fact I don't know. Care to explain?
BTW
One thing I would like to clarify is that I am in no way judging anyone who adheres to the Nicene Council decision as either saved or unsaved. That is for God to decide.
Well Starman, I have reached my limit of dooming people to hell this week, so I guess you are safe for another week.
But you are right, even at the Nicene convention, it was not 100 percent agreement by the Bishops there, But over discussion, they finally agreed on these. While no one knows what points were taken out, what was added toward the end to reach this agreement, We know it was a discussion.
But also we can see ( and I will pick on all denominations here) that they all by this claim to believe in the universal ( catholic) church, so they are saying that they beleive all christians are of the same over all fellowship. But if you discuss this as to doing things together, try to get a baptist and a catholic to do activities together, it just does not happen normally.
But if a person does not accept the full idea of the trinity, but belives on Christ as the Son of God for his salvation, there is no reason to beleive he is not saved.
I think we will all find out that the entire concept of the trinity is just beyond mans ability to understand, and that it is more complicated and we try to explain it with our limited knowledge.
It would be like someone from the 1500 trying to explain to someone what a airplane is, just no frame of reference
Thank you for posting the entire article. But it doesn't offer evidence that the Trinity Doctrine was taught during the first century. It merely quotes sources which came much later than that time. Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the Apostles' Creed which was Unitarian and which Christians accepted as truth during the first two centuries preceded the Nicene Council decision.
To which I have referred is to show that the “Trinity of God” as Theophilus said, was being taught and not condemned long before the Nicene Creed was formally declared.
I will not challenge the Apostle Creed, for it does not contradict the Holy Trinity, and is a creed that I confess as well.
To which I have referred is to show that the “Trinity of God” as Theophilus said, was being taught and not condemned long before the Nicene Creed was formally declared.
I will not challenge the Apostle Creed, for it does not contradict the Holy Trinity, and is a creed that I confess as well.
Theophilus was not teaching the trinity:
Excerpt
Theophilus might have coined the expression "trinity" but he was by no means a trinitarian since considered the holy spirit a force or power of God and not a person....
....It is not totally clear how Theophilus views the Holy Spirit, though life-giving breath may be close. The above writings suggest that it is the power of God, as opposed to a specific person--in no place does Theophilus suggest that the Holy Spirit is a separate person. ....Theophilus did not teach that the Holy Spirit was, or somehow was, one of three persons in any trinity. He simply did not teach the trinity.
The Apostle's Creed was used for the purpose of declaring one's faith during baptism. If the Trinitarian doctrine was as prominant as you say during that three-century pre- Nicene-Council period, then its inclusion in the Apostles' Creed would have been deemed essential.
Below is a link to the entire work of Tertullian Against Praxeas (213 A.D.) This is a clear defense of the Trinity. Take note of the phrases that are used to suggest this is not a new teaching.
“But this conception of theirs has been, in fact, already confuted in what we have previously advanced”
“But the tares of Praxeas had then everywhere shaken out their seed, which having lain hid for some while, with its vitality concealed under a mask, has now broken out with fresh life. But again shall it be rooted up…”
Tertullian's trinity was not identical to the Nicene Council Trinity. But even if it had been, that still would not be proof that it is a first century Christian teaching since his ideas took form much later. Actually, the Catholic Church accuses Tertullian of not teaching the Nicene Council concept correctly and even accuses him of laying the groundwork for heresy. Later Tertullian lashed out at the church and became a member of a heretical sect. Not finding solace there he founded his own heretical sect. Hardly a person I would trust with my spiritual enlightenment. What really impresses me is how he began to write against the church with more vehemence than he had done against what he had perceived as its opposers. That's a complete turnaround of biblical proportions!
Excerpt:
Tertullian
Ecclesiastical writer in the second and third centuries, b. probably about 160 at Carthage....
It was after the year 206 that he joined the Montanist sect, and he seems to have definitively separated from the Church about 211 (Harnack) or 213 (Monceaux).After writing more virulently against the Church than even against heathen and persecutors, he separated from the Montanists and founded a sect of his own.[/b]
Here is some background on the sect that Tertullian decided was better than the Catholic Church and its teachings:
Montanus was a recent convert when he first began to prophesy in the village of Ardabau in Phrygia. He is said by Jerome to have been previously a priest of Cybele; but this is perhaps a later invention intended to connect his ecstasies with the dervish-like behavior of the priests and devotees of the "great goddess." The same prophetic gift was believed to have descended also upon his two companions, the prophetesses Maximilla and Prisca or Priscilla. Their headquarters were in the village of Pepuza. The anonymous opponent of the sect describes the method of prophecy (Eusebius, V, xvii, 2-3): first the prophet appears distraught with terror (en parekstasei), then follows quiet (adeia kai aphobia, fearlessness); beginning by studied vacancy of thought or passivity of intellect (ekousios amathia), [b]he is seized by an uncontrollable madness (akousios mania psyches). The prophets did not speak as messengers of God: "Thus saith the Lord," but described themselves as possessed by God and spoke in His Person. "I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete,"
Then we have the Catholic Church's less than flattering opinion about Tertullian's quasi Trinitarian ideas:
His Trinitarian teaching is inconsistent, being an amalgamation of the Roman doctrine with that of St. Justin Martyr. Tertullian has the true formula for the Holy Trinity, tres Personae, una Substantia. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are numerically distinct, and each is God; they are of one substance, one state, and one power. So far the doctrine is accurately Nicene. But by the side of this appears the Greek view which was one day to develop into Arianism: that the unity is to be sought not in the Essence
Early Trinitarian Ideas were not Nicene Council Ideas
Trinitarians also deny any form of subordination of one person to another in power or eternality. However, they often say God the Father is the head of the trinity, God the Son is begotten by the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father or Son or both. Again, they insist there is no contradiction, because our finite minds simply cannot comprehend the fulness of meaning described by these relationships.
We find, however, that throughout history prominent Trinitarians have interpreted their own doctrine in a way that subordinates Jesus Christ or makes him inferior. Tertullian, the first prominent exponent of Trinitarianism, taught that the Son was subordinate to the Father and that the trinity is not eternal. [77] He taught that the Son did not exist as a separate person in the beginning, but was begotten by the Father to accomplish the creation of the world. Furthermore, Tertullian held that the distinction of persons would cease in the future. Origen, the first great proponent of Trinitarianism in the East, also saw the Son as subordinate to the Father in existence and he even maintained that prayer should be addressed to the Father alone. [78] Both men meant the deity of Christ when they used the term Son. It can, therefore, be said that trinitarianism began as a doctrine that subordinated Jesus to God.
It is also wise to keep in mind that the first Nicene Council doctrinal conclusions did not proclaim the holy spirit as co-eternalor and coequal with God. The decision to officially promote the holy spirit to that privileged position was reached much later at another council.
Linear Mode
