Where Did the Trinity Teaching Come From?

I previously posted a link which quotes 3 Bible Encyclopedia/dictionary's ... Each which claims that the trinity doctrine - as defined by the church councils - does not exist in the NT.

It is you who is blind.

 

You blubber on and give no support for your claims. I know what the council of Nicene was convened to do and this has nothing to do with the fact that you had no clue that Tertullian was the person who claimed Jesus was of the same substance as God .. and that this was the main sticking point at the council of Nicea.

The difference between your nonsense musings and my posts is that I give evidence that supports my claims.

 

The sun can be analogous, but it's not univocal. The sun is defined by its changes. The God of the bible is defined y His inability to change. The God of the bible is holy (inviolate). He is what He is. He has no potentiality. The God of the bible has no potential to come to know, come to emote, come to choose, come to be or not be. The God of the bible is what He is necessarily.

 

You haven't given beans, you just spout off and back up nothing. Show me your support for your claims other than just more hot air.

 

Not only was God but Is God. Did the other prophets say "I and the Father are One?" Did not the other prophets fore tell of His coming? The One that John the Baptist declared he was not fit to untie his sandals?

The Sun will terminate. God is eternal. Still......the comparison is of His different aspects. The Son is His representation, The Spirit is the power He dispenses.

 

Between Tecoyah's Straw Man fallacy and your Appeal To Authority fallacy this is starting to look like the fallacy olympics.

The word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, true enough. That doesn't mean the doctrine isn't there. You have clearly not read the Bible or anything else other than "Bible dictionaries". I gave you a book recommendation, try reading a book instead of "dictionaries" (or internet sites), then read the Bible instead of talking about it.

 

By the way, I found your blog, what a bunch of out of context mis-quotes.

 

1) you are the one that claims the modern Trinity doctrine is found in the NT - it is up to you to prove this claim.
2) I have given you 1 Bible dictionaries and 2 Bible encyclopedia's - all which state the modern trinity doctrine is not found in the NT.

You are spewing falsehoods - aka "Lying for Jesus"

 

The prophets foretold that a Messiah would come - similar to David - one who would restore Israel back to its former greatness. This has zero to do with Jesus being "God - God the Father".

Jesus saying "I and the Father are one" is not Jesus saying he is God- God the Father. Cherry picking one passage completely out of context - while ignoring the countless other passages where Jesus refers to "The Father" as someone other than himself - is an exercise in denial and avoidance.

There is a reason why the vast majority of serious Biblical Scholars and Theologians admit that the modern Trinity doctrine is not found in the NT.

In John - where Jesus is depicted as using the phrase "I and the father are one" - the meaning is "One in message" .. one mind. Jesus also states that God is within .... that does not turn humans into God.

In John Jesus is referred to as the "Logos". Everyone during that time knew what this word meant in a religious context. The Logos was the emissary between man and God. Jesus spoke "Gods word" through the Holy Spirit. In this way Jesus "Was the word of God" - The Truth - The Way and so on.

This does not mean that Jesus "was" God - God the Father. He was however a representation of God - a representation of the mind of God.

 

You fail to provide any support for your claim. You asked for evidence that scholars in general state that the modern Trinity doctrine is not in the Bible.

When given 2 Bible encyclopedias and 1 Bible dictionary that backs up that claim you falsely claim "appeal to authority" - you do not even know what the appeal to authority fallacy is and are in denial and avoidance mode.

I have posted directly from the Bible numerous times - and you deny that too.

 

LOL .. I don't have a blog.

 

Then you copied your last post from somebody's blog, word for word.That ain't scholarship, and this particular blogger is a class A quack to boot.

 

You and I are not going to agree on any of this. I understood the three persons of God long before I heard of the doctrine of the "trinity" and that just came from reading scripture before I was ever introduced to organized religion. Jesus was crucified at the urging of the Sanhedrin not because He was a prophet, but because He claimed to be able to forgive sin (making him equal with God.) I'm sure you can explain that away but no other prophet ever made those claims. The Jews did not understand the role of Messiah, therefore they did not understand Jesus. They wanted a Messiah to "protect" the corrupt system of Temple Worship they had developed and the power it entailed. Jesus overturned the money changers tables indicating that. Jesus explained" Kingdom living" and it is not of this world. The Jews became a "stiff necked people" and God grafted in a family of "believers" into the "chosen". From my own prospective.... yours is "an exercise in denial and avoidance as well as self-righteousness.

 

No I didn't. I copied a reference to 1 Bible dictionary and 2 Bible encyclopedias. I realize that perhaps to you citing references for one's claims is not scholarship ... but to the rest of Acadamia

 

And you misrepresented what was said.

Copying them from another writer without attribution is not scholarship.

 

Do not project your failings on to me "denial and avoidance". Your entire post is an exercise in avoiding everything I posted.

You claiming that your perspective of scripture is valid - is not proof of claim. Nor does this refute the fact that biblical Scholarship disagrees with you.

Most of the rest of your post has zero to do with the topic (avoidance and deflection).

That God gave Jesus the ability to forgive sin - does not magically turn Jesus into "God - The Father".

You completely avoid addressing the fact that Jesus refers to God as someone other than himself. Jesus prays to God and asks God "Take this cup from my hand" ... let not my will be done but yours.

One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that obviously Jesus is not referring to himself as God - but someone else.

On the Cross Jesus - says "My God My God - why have you forsaken me". How do you explain this ? If Jesus was actually God - God the Father.

Did God - in an act of masochistic delerium - forget who he was and start cursing himself ? - Did God forsake himself ?

It is you who is avoiding logic and rational thought.

In other places Jesus says there are things that God knows that he does not. Riddle me that one por favor ?[/QUOTE]

 

What did I misrepresent ? - this is a complete falsehood as usual.

Referencing one's sources is scholarship. It is completely within academic norm to reference a source that is referenced by another author. You claiming otherwise is another falsehood.

 

The only times the bible makes a distinction between the persons of the trinity is when God acts.
The bible always attributes the intent to the Father, the affect to the Holy Spirit and the effect to the Son. The only times the bible ever makes a distinction between them is when God acts, and it's always in the economy outlined above. Other than when God acts, the bible affirms only one God. There is only one true God of the bible.
You are one, yet the only contact I ever have with you is with your words. Your word is effectively you. This computer is how you affectively condescend your word to me, but the intentions reside with you. Language us the best analogy to the trinity. Having intent, affect and effect.

 

The only times the bible makes a distinction between the persons of the trinity is when God acts.
The bible always attributes the intent to the Father, the affect to the Holy Spirit and the effect to the Son. The only times the bible ever makes a distinction between them is when God acts, and it's always in the economy outlined above. Other than when God acts, the bible affirms only one God. There is only one true God of the bible.
You are one, yet the only contact I ever have with you is with your words. Your word is effectively you. This computer is how you affectively condescend your word to me, but the intentions reside with you. Language us the best analogy to the trinity. Having intent, affect and effect.

 

God does not read minds; He writes them.
One can author a character that knows that they are a character and that the author is their author. One can even create a dialogue with that character: however, that dialogue is not a conversation; It's a condescension.
There is another way by which an author can condescend to his characters. The author can write himself into his novel work as himself. The author would be no less the author because he is also a character, and his character would be no less a character than any of his other characters. The only difference between the author's character and his novel characters is that his character would not be a novel character. Jesus Christ is God's character incarnate.

 

Yeah?

http://wwwthinkagai.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-doctrine-of-trinity-revisited.html

Same sources, same rant, same MO, if you're not this guy you plagiarized it. Either that or you're both shills for the UCG reading from the same playbook.

By the way, I've read Charles Ryrie, he is not one of you, you have misquoted him as well. This is what you guys do, you cherry pick quotes out of context to try to prove your points, you have done it all throughout this thread.

 

Please get your quotes in order. You attribute thing to me that were not said. Why should anyone listen to your lectures?

 

Man , I like that!

 

Kode:

You are starting to sound paranoid, after which you transfer your paranoia to me by claiming that your mentioning of Matthew 28:19 (which you claim proves Trinity) has resulted in my giving a, to quote you: "knee-jerk attack."

The reality is that you simply cannot cope with the fact that Matthew 28:19 says nothing resembling three persons combined into a single god--as I pointed out to you. So to save face, you are now accusing me of being "scared enough" and making "knee-jerk attacks."

Below is a quotation of Matthew 28:19, which you claim is proof of Christendom's Trinity.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," (Matthew 28:19 -- New International Version or NIV)

The speaker was Jesus Christ. He simply mentioned his Father (Jehovah), himself (Jesus), and his Father's holy spirit in the same sentence. That is similiar to you mentioning your own father, yourself, and something that your father owns. Common sense would tell you that you and your biological father and one of your father's possession are not combined into a single human being; would it not?

To prove my point that Jesus was not talking about a 3-in-1 god at Matthew 28:19, notice part of the context. I will quote from the verse directly before it--with Jesus still being the speaker. Focus on the words bolded in blue.

"Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matthew 28:18 -- New International Version or NIV)

QUESTION TO KODE: If Jesus and Jehovah and Jehovah's holy spirit are combined into a single god, why would Jesus need to have authority aka permission given to him from Jehovah?"

I will watch for your answer to that question.


Alter2Ego

 

FreshAir:

Well said.

The entire doctrine of a 3-in-1 god was copied from pagan trinities that existed centuries before Jesus appeared on earth, as stated in my opening post. And guess what? All of those responsible for Christendom's version of Trinity came from the pagans in Rome.

Alter2Ego