Doctrine of Trinity: Index to my Arguments
Here are my pages on Trinity from Doxa. Very complex huge amount of stuff,it would be well worth reading and studying.The pages below are all linked but if the link doesn't work the first one is to the page on Doxa those links will work.
http://www.doxa.ws/Trinity/Trinitysubsub.html
(linked)
Johonnie Theology and The Triune God
Part 2 of John's Theology
Part 3 John's Theology: Jn 8:44.
Pauline Theology and The Triune God.
The Triune God in Hebrew Thought?
More on Memra and Trinity
Targimum and Trinity
The Holy Spirit.
Overview of the Doctirne
The Trinity is a doctrine of Church, that is, it developed over time (from about the second to the fourth centuries) in response to a continuing need. The first emergence of Trinitarian thinking was in response to the question of Christian identity. With Gnosticism infiltrating the church, the Bishops had to find a way of understanding who was a believer and who was not, and of demonstrating this in a clear and definite way. The Gnostic hearsay also forced the understanding of several difficult questions, such as the deity of Christ and the humanity of Christ. Since the Gnostics said that Jesus was just an ethereal being, a ghostlike wreath who only appeared to be flesh and blood, it became just as important to safe guard Jesus' humanity as to explain his deity.
Though the first aspects of the doctrine can be seen forming up in the New Testament, and in the very first extra-canonical Christian literature, at the end of the first century, the problems of Gnosticism forced a sharpened understanding. The Doctrine first took shape in the late second century (contrary to what many skeptics think, who argue that it didn't appear until the fourth). The first Christian theologians to coin the term "Trinity," Was Turtullian. But the doctrine can be seen shaping up as far back as 1 Clement in AD 95.
The Trinity is often misunderstood by many skeptics and anti-Trinitarians who think it calls for three gods. The Doctrine actually says that there is one God. But this one God exists in three persons who share in the same Divine essence. In order to understand this the early church fathers had to draw upon the Aristotelian concept of essence; the essence of a think determines what it is. A thing is the thing that it is because it contains the essence of what it is. Thus a dog is a dog because it exists as a dog, it has "doggedness." Thus, the three persons of the Trinity share the same divine essence. The term actually used by the Fathers was persona the term the Greek actors used for the masks they wore in tragedies. This means that we are actually talking about three identities through which the one divine essence is manifested. Thus one God, three persona; as the creed states (Athenasian creed) the persons are not to be confused, the essence not to be diluted.
Skeptics often quibble over the nature of this doctrine, thinking that its development over time and prescription by the church hierarchy means that it isn't valid. They reason that it must be stated openly in the New Testament to be valid. This they mistake for Luther's notion of Sola Scriptura. But the reformers were totally committed to Trinitarian doctrine. Sola Scriptura just means that Scripture is the final authority, it does not mean that the church has no teaching office. This is what the skeptics are always missing, especially the Christian "wannabe's" like the Christadelpians and Jehovah's Witnesses; that the church has a tradition, and the tradition is the guardian of the faith and the knowledge of the faith; the New Testament is a creature of the Tradition. The same people who chose what books went into the canon of the New Testament also drew up the creeds and developed the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. If we can trust one we have to trust the other. In dealing with the doctrine the church was only doing what theologians are supposed to do, to understand through study of and participation in, the nature of a religious tradition.
Despite the fact that the Doctrine was formulated by the church over several centuries, the basic elements of it can be seen clearly in the New Testament. Several verses actually dipict the there persona of the Godhead working together at the time time, in concert but distinctively.In fact, a formula of the Trinity can be seen in many passages:
Matthew 28:19 | Father, Son, holy spirit |
1 Corinthians 12:4-6 | Spirit, Lord, God |
2 Corinthians 13:14 | Christ, God, holy spirit |
Galatians 4:4-6 | God, Son, spirit of his Son |
Ephesians 4:4-6 | Spirit, Lord, God |
1 Peter 1:2 | God, Spirit, Jesus Christ |
Snapshots of the Trinity in the Gospels.
A. Mark 1: 10-11
"As Jesus was coming up out of the water he saw heaven being torn open and The Spirit decending upon him like a Dove, and a voice from Heaven saying "you are my Son, whom I love, with you I am well pleased." [Here we see all three members of the Trinity acting in Concert. If the Spirit is merely God than why is it that God is speaking from Heaven while the Spirit takes the form of a dove and decends?]
B. Mattehw 28:19
"Go ye therefore into all the world and preach the Gospel, baptizing all nations into the name of the Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit." [This is probably an early baptismal formula. Why is the Spirit mentioned last in all of these formulamatic statements? If the Spirit is merely another word for God, why not metion the Spirit first sometimes? Why is the Formula here? And why baptize into Jesus' name as a well if he is just a secondary being? Now the JW's will argue that in no other case do we see anyone baptized into the name of the father, the son and the Holy Spirit. But we also are not given an actual trasnscript of what was said when they did baptize. IN other situations it is merely reported that people were baptized, but here we see what is probably an ealry formula. Be that as it may, why is it here? Why do they say it this time?] Mt 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
C. Why are both of these Associated with Baptism?
Both of these enstances are associated with baptism. Probably becasue the early baptizmal creed included this phrase. Baptism for the chruch became the initiation ceremony. This is seen in Acts 2 when Peter is asked by the crowd "what shall we do?" And he tells them "reprent, and be baptized." (Acts 2: 38) is probably there to explain the origin of Baptism as an initatiory rite. In the Jewish milieu it was a sign of repentence or a rite for pryosilaties. For the Qumran group it was a regular daily ritual, but they were unique. Now, with this initiatory rite in the infant chruch, one is baptized into the name of the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, becasue they recognize that all three aspects of God. The include the Son in the Godhead. So when Mark depitcs Jesus' baptism he includes the three as befitting the baptismal formula. But why was this a formula? Why should one baptize into the name of all three? Because the three have a speicial relationship to each other and to the initiate who is committing his life to the faith; that faith is oriented toward all three.
Trinity in the Earliest Chruch Fathers.
Skeptics have been known to argue that the Trinity never existed until 325 AD when it was "made up" for the council of Neciea. Some, on discussion boards, have even gone so far as to calim that Contstantine made it up. But it is a commonplace to find anti-Trinitarians asserting that the doctirne was never in the chruch before this council. Yet all the council did was to ratify a statment, making a unified formally worded document, of a dcotrine that can be proven to have existed in Chrstiain thought as far back as the Gosples. We find this notion, or the deity of Christ, in all early Chruch fathers.
Clemet of Rome 95 AD
The First Epislte of Clement: "Jesus Chrsit the high preist of our offerings, the protector and helper of our weakness. Through him we fix our gaze on the heights in heaven, in him we see mirrored God's pure and transcendent face...through him the Master has willed that we should taste importal knowlege, or 'since he reflects God's splindor he is as supiror to the Angels as his title is to theirs,'* for it is written 'he who makes the angels winds and his ministers flames of fire..." (36:2-3, Richardson and Fairweather, Early Chruch Fathers,p260). [*quoting Hebrews 1.]" "...And so the Apostles, after recieving their orders and being fully convenced by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and assured by God's word, went out in the confidence of the Holy Spirit..." [Ibid,62]"
Ignatious of Antioch 110 AD
Justin Martyr. 121 AD
From the First Apology of Justin, Part I The Christian History Institute http://www.gopelcom.net/chi/glimpses/justinone.html "Look at What You Give Credence to. We say the Word, the first birth of God, was produced without sexual union. We say that He, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified, died, rose again and ascended into heaven." "When we say he was begotten of God as the Word of God in a unique manner...Jesus Christ alone was really begotten as son of God, being his Word, and First begotten, and Power, and becoming man by his will..."[in Richardson, p.257] "The Spirit and power from God Cannot rightly be thought of as anything other than the Word, who is also the first born of God...Those who prophesied were inspired by none other than the Divine Word...." [Ibid.263-264]
Second Letter of Clement
(So called) just piror to Mid Second century "...We ought to think of Jesus Christ as we do of God--as the judge of the living and the dead...." [Ibid.193] [Anonymous] Letter to Digognetus (124?) Second centruy "Now Did he [God] send him [Christ] out as a human mind might think to do? To rule by fear or terror? Far from it, he sent him by kindness and gentleness...he sent him as God, he sent him as a man to men..." [Ibid.219] "No man has ever seen God or made him known, but he has manifested, but he has manifested himself, and he manifested himself through faith, but which alone it has been made possible for us to see God.[Ibid] [the MS attributes it to Justin but this is thought to be impossible, better candidate is Quadratus of Asia Minor, who wrote an apology to the emperor in 123 -129]
Athenagora 177 AD
This Greek philsopher turned Christian has the Trinity almost developed into a full blown doctrine. "The Son of God is his Word in idea and in acutality; for by him and through him all things were made, the Father and the Son being one. And since the son is in the Father and the Father in the Son by the unity and power of the Spirit, the Son of God is the mind and Word of the Father...I do not mean that he was created, for , since God is eternal mind, he had his Word within homself from the beginning, being eternally wise. Rather did the Son come forth from God to give form and actuality to all material things...Indeed we say that the Holy Spirit Himself, who inspires those who utter prophecies, is an effluence form God, floweing from hin and teturning like a ran from the sun..." [Athenagora's Plea, Ibid.309]
Comments
Are you aware that that agrees with me? According to this, the concept of the trinity appeared after the first century, after the Bible was written.
Joe: They reason that it must be stated openly in the New Testament to be valid.
This is clearly an admission that it is NOT stated openly in the New Testament.
Joe: In fact, a formula of the Trinity can be seen in many passages:
No, Joe, that is a list of three separate things that later was re-interpreted as the trinity. Nothing in the texts suggests the authors hadany clue of the trinity.
Joe: Mark 1: 10-11
"As Jesus was coming up out of the water he saw heaven being torn open and The Spirit decending upon him like a Dove, and a voice from Heaven saying "you are my Son, whom I love, with you I am well pleased." [Here we see all three members of the Trinity acting in Concert. If the Spirit is merely God than why is it that God is speaking from Heaven while the Spirit takes the form of a dove and decends?]
Wrong. What the author describes is God adopting Jesus was his son.
Joe: B. Mattehw 28:19
Just a list of three separate things again.
Joe: Why should one baptize into the name of all three? Because the three have a speicial relationship to each other and to the initiate who is committing his life to the faith; that faith is oriented toward all three.
Joe: This Greek philsopher turned Christian has the Trinity almost developed into a full blown doctrine.
So nearly 150 years after the crucifixion, it is almost developed into a full blown doctrine.
This is one of the fundamental concepts of Christianity, and yet fpr some reason we have no indication Jesus ever mentioned it. Or was even aware of it.
Pix
First assertion about those passages in NOT is stupid. You are not lookmg at the contentof thpassage
"In the last days I will pour out my spirit" (Acts 2:37) what is spirit why will he pour it out? If it;s him why is it separate?It is something separate from himself. Obviously God refers to his spirit as a separate thing from himself that is two operate persona, Yet it shares his essence because because it is his spirit. You are not operate from your spirit in essence.
God bit it's s separate from God and it talks AMD has it;s own ideas, that's two persona of the Trinity/
Joe: The Trinity is a doctrine of Church, that is, it developed over time (from about the second to the fourth centuries) in response to a continuing need. The first emergence of Trinitarian thinking was in response to the question of Christian identity. With Gnosticism infiltrating the church, the Bishops had to find a way of understanding who was a believer and who was not, and of demonstrating this in a clear and definite way.
Are you aware that that agrees with me? According to this, the concept of the trinity appeared after the first century, after the Bible was written.
I specifically pointed out Trinidadian concept in use in AD 95 sill first centiry,
Joe: They reason that it must be stated openly in the New Testament to be valid.
This is clearly an admission that it is NOT stated openly in the New Testament.
it' not stated alliterate but the concept is clerical there
Joe: In fact, a formula of the Trinity can be seen in many passages:
No, Joe, that is a list of three separate things that later was re-interpreted as the trinity. Nothing in the texts suggests the authors hadany clue of the trinity.
Of courses they are desperate because the persona are separate,but those passages clearly speak of a synonym between God,Jesus and Spirit of God.
"As Jesus was coming up out of the water he saw heaven being torn open and The Spirit decending upon him like a Dove, and a voice from Heaven saying "you are my Son, whom I love, with you I am well pleased." [Here we see all three members of the Trinity acting in Concert. If the Spirit is merely God than why is it that God is speaking from Heaven while the Spirit takes the form of a dove and decends?]
Wrong. What the author describes is God adopting Jesus was his son.
there's sanitarian relationship between God and spirit of God. Sonship is not a contradiction to Triniti
Joe: B. Mattehw 28:19
Just a list of three separate things again.
why do you think Biblical authors would be obsessed with just listing three separate things all the time?, God son is spirit is father is God.
Joe: Why should one baptize into the name of all three? Because the three have a speicial relationship to each other and to the initiate who is committing his life to the faith; that faith is oriented toward all three.
Joe: This Greek philsopher turned Christian has the Trinity almost developed into a full blown doctrine.
So nearly 150 years after the crucifixion, it is almost developed into a full blown doctrine.
I said AD 120 you start counting from the Gosples, AD 70 nmot AD 1.
This is one of the fundamental concepts of Christianity, and yet fpr some reason we have no indication Jesus ever mentioned it. Or was even aware of it.
sorry you so ignorant you are note even listening. I just showed several passages, b bunch that link the three persona of Trinity together as one God.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
I think I am agreeing with you. This was part of the the development of doctrine, but the implication of that is it was not in the NT.
Joe: "In the last days I will pour out my spirit" (Acts 2:37) what is spirit why will he pour it out? If it;s him why is it separate?It is something separate from himself. Obviously God refers to his spirit as a separate thing from himself that is two operate persona, Yet it shares his essence because because it is his spirit. You are not operate from your spirit in essence.
Is the spirit a persona? I would understand a persona to be an intelligent entity with its own personality or ego. That does not sound like what the above is talking about. The above sounds more comparable to love, in that I can imagine a verse saying God will pour out his love on us. On the other hand, would it make any sense to say God will pour out Jesus?
Joe: in many of the passages I point out the Holy spirit is talkie,The Holy spirit is
God bit it's s separate from God and it talks AMD has it;s own ideas, that's two persona of the Trinity/
If you look at the etymology, the Holy Spirit is the breath of God. It therefore makes sense that it talks, but it is God's words. See for example:
Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host.
The breath of God was clearly very important, it was that with animated Adam.
So in a sense the Holy Spirit, the Breath of God, is part of God, but I think it dubious to consider it separate persona.
Joe: I specifically pointed out Trinidadian concept in use in AD 95 sill first centiry,
No. You quoted Clement, but failed to explain how that supports the trinity. Here is the quote:
The First Epislte of Clement: "Jesus Chrsit the high preist of our offerings, the protector and helper of our weakness. Through him we fix our gaze on the heights in heaven, in him we see mirrored God's pure and transcendent face...through him the Master has willed that we should taste importal knowlege, or 'since he reflects God's splindor he is as supiror to the Angels as his title is to theirs,'* for it is written 'he who makes the angels winds and his ministers flames of fire..." (36:2-3, Richardson and Fairweather, Early Chruch Fathers,p260). [*quoting Hebrews 1.]" "...And so the Apostles, after recieving their orders and being fully convenced by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and assured by God's word, went out in the confidence of the Holy Spirit..." [Ibid,62]"
Jesus is the High Priest, which is different to being God. The rest is seeing Jesus as a conduit to God, which fits the High Priest idea. We do see Jesus becoming more and more elevated, but not part of the trinity yet.
Joe: Of courses they are desperate because the persona are separate,but those passages clearly speak of a synonym between God,Jesus and Spirit of God.
No they do not. They are just a list of three distinct things. There is no suggestion that those things are equal or that those things share one substance.
Joe: there's sanitarian relationship between God and spirit of God. Sonship is not a contradiction to Triniti
But it is not evidence for the trinity either. All the kings of the Jews were adopted to be the sons of God; Mark is describing that same process.
Joe: why do you think Biblical authors would be obsessed with just listing three separate things all the time?, God son is spirit is father is God.
Less than a dozen times across the entire NT is hardly an obsession.
Joe: I said AD 120 you start counting from the Gosples, AD 70 nmot AD 1.
I was counting from the crucifixion (as I said) to the date 177 AD, which I took from your text.
Joe: you are being stuborn in refusing to understand my point about the development of doctrine.
I think I am agreeing with you. This was part of the the development of doctrine, but the implication of that is it was not in the NT.
No the implication is that it is, since it was not invented out of nothing but based upon N't and early church ideas,I have three pages showing John and one on Paul
Joe: "In the last days I will pour out my spirit" (Acts 2:37) what is spirit why will he pour it out? If it;s him why is it separate?It is something separate from himself. Obviously God refers to his spirit as a separate thing from himself that is two operate persona, Yet it shares his essence because because it is his spirit. You are not operate from your spirit in essence.
Is the spirit a persona?
yes. all scholars know spirit of God and Holy spirit are same. Father,son,and Holy Spiriot are the persona
I would understand a persona to be an intelligent entity with its own personality or ego. That does not sound like what the above is talking about. The above sounds more comparable to love, in that I can imagine a verse saying God will pour out his love on us. On the other hand, would it make any sense to say God will pour out Jesus?
then how do you account for the passages where the Holy Spirit speaks?
Joe: in many of the passages I point out the Holy spirit is talking,The Holy spirit is
God bit it's s separate from God and it talks AMD has it;s own ideas, that's two persona of the Trinity/
If you look at the etymology, the Holy Spirit is the breath of God. It therefore makes sense that it talks, but it is God's words. See for example:
false assumption, you can;t establish what is first, the term in Greek Pneuuma meas breath but is also used to mean mind,your argument here is groundless,
Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host.
that is Hebrew I;'m not sure Rosh means breath, But probability means the Spirit that is what the word meant,But you don't say:his breath says: they do say:the spirit says,
that is so extremely unfair and really very stupid. what does it mean when a smart person (you) makes stupid argumemt? (this one?) not listening.you have not read the material provided. Read all those pages on "Memra" to get the full scope of history of the idea. Memra is a much older concept than Logos and it is from the earliest escutcheon of Hebrew lit, it means presence, Used in the Targimum for God's presence on earth,it is translated as Logos" when they spoke Greek.the early use of it is OT and it essentially says :the J on earth and the J in heaven implying two Js. Of course they don't believe in two God's it's two aspects of one God. Memra is also related to the Sheepskin glory celluloid So we have again two aspects of God,the cloud that led Israel through the desert and God that put the cloud there. So John calling Jesus logos is actually calling him "Memra." God's presence.
Trying to pawn it off as God's breath is is not illegitimate because it's not that simple spirit meant breath literally but was much more than breath,
No. You quoted Clement, but failed to explain how that supports the trinity. Here is the quote:
The First Epislte of Clement: "Jesus Chrsit the high preist of our offerings, the protector and helper of our weakness. Through him we fix our gaze on the heights in heaven, in him we see mirrored God's pure and transcendent face...through him the Master has willed that we should taste importal knowlege, or 'since he reflects God's splindor he is as supiror to the Angels as his title is to theirs,'* for it is written 'he who makes the angels winds and his ministers flames of fire..." (36:2-3, Richardson and Fairweather, Early Chruch Fathers,p260). [*quoting Hebrews 1.]" "...And so the Apostles, after recieving their orders and being fully convenced by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and assured by God's word, went out in the confidence of the Holy Spirit..." [Ibid,62]"
Jesus is the High Priest, which is different to being God. The rest is seeing Jesus as a conduit to God, which fits the High Priest idea. We do see Jesus becoming more and more elevated, but not part of the trinity yet.
It is true that being high priest does not make him God but niter does it disqualify him from being divine, The function of preset is to take God's place in mediation. The passage calls Jesus Lord, a title reserved for God and it says he's above the Angels.It all so says he reflect's God's splendor,not just anyone can do that. It ends with reference to the Holy Spirit so all three are mentioned,
Joe: Of course they are seperate because the persona are separate,but those passages clearly speak of a synonym between God,Jesus and Spirit of God.
No they do not. They are just a list of three distinct things. There is no suggestion that those things are equal or that those things share one substance.
that is total bull shit. obviously you did not read any of them. they all link the three as being one, they all come into junctures where God is evoked,
Joe: there's Trinitarian relationship between God and spirit of God. Sonship is not a contradiction to Trinity.
But it is not evidence for the trinity either. All the kings of the Jews were adopted to be the sons of God; Mark is describing that same process.
the sonship is not the basis of my argument it;s just part of the passage
Joe: why do you think Biblical authors would be obsessed with just listing three separate things all the time?, God son is spirit is father is God.
Less than a dozen times across the entire NT is hardly an obsession.
It's way more than six, you havn'et looked at all the passage,s you stupidly assume these are the only examples when you know I have like 8 pages,
Joe: I said AD 120 you start counting from the Gosples, AD 70 nmot AD 1.
I was counting from the crucifixion (as I said) to the date 177 AD, which I took from your text.
those dates you clearly chose to help your cause, they show no thought. We should start from the end of the Gospels because when John Calls Jesus Logos he is calling him God,so that sets up the problem that leads to the official doctrine,we see people hinting at it i
NT and late first early second century,don't forget to read my new post on John's Gospel and Trinity
LOTS MORE PASSAGES IN THIS POST
Matthew 28:19
Quote: 19 "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,"
Father, Son, holy spirit
according to your argument this is just three separate unrelated things for no real reason. He;s saying when you convert people Baptiste them into these three names or one name designating the three, Either way they are clearly related because one's salvation is gained through them as in their name. Why would he link those three to soething so importation?
We never see any other formula, no one every says apostles,prophetess and cease, or whatever, baptize them into the names Rufus, Roddoe and George, we don;'t see this
all groups of three names are those three in benidctions,
___________________
1 Corinthians 12:4-6
quotr: "There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work."
Spirit, Lord, God
This is in relation to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, So the link of God to Holy Sprint is natural but why include Lord? Baht is Jesus' designation, again this is more significant that just listing three random unrelated items,that would make no sense, As a Totalitarian passage it makes sense,
_________________________
2 Corinthians 13:14
Christ, God, holy spirit
"14 May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."
This is a benediction so they are bribing God in to it as a closure, where you bless someone and close the interview and send them on their way with God's blessing that's what benedictions do. They always revolve around giving God's blessing. that's what's really being said: "God bless you.' In that context he includes Jesus as Lord which means God, this a title reserved for God and in NT it is used of Jesus all the time.
Why would he just stick in three maltreated names into the benediction? It's not something where you just mention irrelevant things, this kind of benediction with these three persona is used over and over again.
____________________
Galatians 4:4-6
God, son spirit of his son
Quote: 4 "But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.[a] 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba,[b] Father.”"
Very significant passage,
we know from other passages that it is the Holy Spirit who gives us gifts and saves us and changes us and communicates with us, So to speak of the spirit of his son in connection with being adopted by God links Jesus to The Holy Spirit that is clearly a Trinitarian formulation. Why Spirit of Son rather then of God? Because the passage is about sonship, Being the Spirit of God's son also links Jesus to God since it is the spirit of God's son,
at that point they were clearly thinking along the lines of a synonymy between Fahter ,Son and Holy Spirit
___________________________
Ephesians 4:4-6
Spirit, Lord, God
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Very important passage Because it emphasis the unity in the God head, They point is one, One God. For this reason it is argued by some that it is a latter work not by Paul. Even so it's not that late. it still reflects Trinatairn thinking prior to the doctrine's formulation.
It was not invented out of nothing. There were a number of competing theologies, and all came from somewhere - even the Gnostic view that Jesus was an illusion. However, the trinity is still absent from the NT, even if the verses it is founded on are there.
Joe: then how do you account for the passages where the Holy Spirit speaks?
The spirit is God's breath, the words spirit and breath were the same in both Greek and Hebrew. Thus, it is referring to God's voice.
Joe: false assumption, you can;t establish what is first, the term in Greek Pneuuma meas breath but is also used to mean mind,your argument here is groundless,
What is your point about what is first?
Joe: that is Hebrew I;'m not sure Rosh means breath, But probability means the Spirit that is what the word meant,But you don't say:his breath says: they do say:the spirit says,
The point is that God's breath was an important concept. It has power and is mentioned a lot in the OT. It is a very small step from there to the Holy Spirit of the NT. And when a person talks, their voice is on their breath, so the Holy Spirit says the words of God because it is God's breath. No persona.
I agree that became more developed in NT times, but there is still no reason to suppose the Holy Spirit was thought to be independent, to be able to think for itself.
Joe: Trying to pawn it off as God's breath is is not illegitimate because it's not that simple spirit meant breath literally but was much more than breath,
Of course divine breath is more than just breath. This is the breath that gave Adam life, that would raise the dead at the resurrection. And as I said, the idea does seem to have developed.
Joe: It is true that being high priest does not make him God but niter does it disqualify him from being divine,
Hey, no moving the goalposts. The issue is the trinity, which supposes Jesus is equal to God.
What we see in Clement is Jesus divine, but less than God. It was trying to explain how there could be one God, but both Jesus and God were gods that led to the trnity, so this is a step on the way, but it is not the trinity. Not yet.
So the ancient Hebrews would not have called David "lord"? The answer, by the way, is yes they did. See 2 Sam 1:10. David was also the adopted son of God, and the king, and so was called lord.
Joe: that is total bull shit. obviously you did not read any of them. they all link the three as being one, they all come into junctures where God is evoked,
But none indicate they are not three separate things. None indicate all are equal. None indicate all one substance.
Joe: those dates you clearly chose to help your cause, they show no thought. We should start from the end of the Gospels because when John Calls Jesus Logos he is calling him God,so that sets up the problem that leads to the official doctrine,we see people hinting at it i
Does that really help you? If it was made up in 90 AD, and so was in the NT, does that make it more real than if it was made up in 120 AD and missed the NT?
Joe: according to your argument this is just three separate unrelated things for no real reason.
Not for no reason, but three distinct entities, two subordinate to the first. When you find one that suggests anything else, get back to me.
Joe: We never see any other formula, no one every says apostles,prophetess and cease, or whatever, baptize them into the names Rufus, Roddoe and George, we don;'t see this
So it was adopted as a creed. Still no evidence they were equal, or all one substance.
Joe: Quote: 4 "But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.[a] 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba,[b] Father.”"
Did you read this one? It strongly suggests Paul believed Jesus was adopted, and that all righteouis Christians would soon do like.
Joe: 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Again, I wonder oif you actually read this. "one God and Father of all" seems pretty clearly unitarian to me.
Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: No the implication is that it is, since it was not invented out of nothing but based upon N't and early church ideas,I have three pages showing John and one on Paul
It was not invented out of nothing. There were a number of competing theologies, and all came from somewhere - even the Gnostic view that Jesus was an illusion. However, the trinity is still absent from the NT, even if the verses it is founded on are there.
I haven't tried to win a cheap victory by snagging silly technicalities since I was in middle school.They didn't have the phrase "Trinity:" that means they had no concept of God as three persona in one essence I just proved to you they did. If nothing else the term memra proves that you have no answer, you are merely harping on a technicality because you have no real answer,.
Joe: then how do you account for the passages where the Holy Spirit speaks?
The spirit is God's breath, the words spirit and breath were the same in both Greek and Hebrew. Thus, it is referring to God's voice.
I already answered that childish nonsense, one says stuff like "the breath of Jon Smith spoke and said," and "in the latter days the breadth says" no no one does that that utterly childish and silly.,Jews understood the difference imn breath and spirit, just because the word means breath doesn;t mean they would be fooled,.
Joe: false assumption, you can;t establish what is first, the term in Greek Pneuuma meas breath but is also used to mean mind,your argument here is groundless,
What is your point about what is first?
you don't even know what you argued do you? You offered a simplistic little theory about evolution of an idea from breath to sprit based upon passages I say you can;t prove it.,
The point is that God's breath was an important concept. It has power and is mentioned a lot in the OT.
It is very stupid to assume that becasue the word spirit means breath(not even sure it dose in Hebrew) then that means they were talking about God;s breath and not his spirit. that;s fluttery absurd and can;t be proven, certain;y false by Nt times
It is a very small step from there to the Holy Spirit of the NT. And when a person talks, their voice is on their breath, so the Holy Spirit says the words of God because it is God's breath. No persona.
again your ignorance is so overwhelming, all the stuff Is aid about memra is OT it has to be taken into account it was from early times, that means Gods presence so they understood God;s spirit is his presence not his breath,s breath, that is very early, you are making very ignorant and silly assumptions
I agree that became more developed in NT times, but there is still no reason to suppose the Holy Spirit was thought to be independent, to be able to think for itself.
yes there sure as hell is I've wreitten about that on the memra page
Hey, no moving the goalposts. The issue is the trinity, which supposes Jesus is equal to God.
What we see in Clement is Jesus divine, but less than God. It was trying to explain how there could be one God, but both Jesus and God were gods that led to the trinity, so this is a step on the way, but it is not the trinity. Not yet.
the finished doctrine says they are co equal. But I didn;t say the entire doctrine it;s final form is in the NT I said the basic concept is there's enough there to negate your assertion that we can;t trust our salvation because of the absence of the doctrein,
So the ancient Hebrews would not have called David "lord"? The answer, by the way, is yes they did. See 2 Sam 1:10. David was also the adopted son of God, and the king, and so was called lord.
they called God "the Lord." of course you have to go by context but they did not use that title members of the parliament.In New Testament times there was no figure the early church would call "The Lord" except God
Joe: that is total bull shit. obviously you did not read any of them. they all link the three as being one, they all come into junctures where God is evoked,
But none indicate they are not three separate things. None indicate all are equal. None indicate all one substance.
The Trinity is three separate persona,the persons are not to be confused.
Joe: those dates you clearly chose to help your cause, they show no thought. We should start from the end of the Gospels because when John Calls Jesus Logos he is calling him God,so that sets up the problem that leads to the official doctrine,we see people hinting at it i
Does that really help you? If it was made up in 90 AD, and so was in the NT, does that make it more real than if it was made up in 120 AD and missed the NT?
Ho scholar thinks they just made stuff up that is totally unrealistic,the NT was mostly complete by AD 80. Ideas that foreshadow Trinitarain doctrine would have been in the church since the beginning and were voiced by Jesus himself,
Joe: according to your argument this is just three separate unrelated things for no real reason.
Not for no reason, but three distinct entities, two subordinate to the first. When you find one that suggests anything else, get back to me.
again you are confused about the Trinity, the doctrine says the persons are distinct, they are separate in that they are complete persona but they connect in that they share the same essence,
Joe: We never see any other formula, no one every says apostles,prophetess and cease, or whatever, baptize them into the names Rufus, Roddoe and George, we don;'t see this
So it was adopted as a creed. Still no evidence they were equal, or all one substance.
I think the realization of the equality evolved, is has a long history it was disputed by the east which favored monarchism, but the west thought it destroyed Jesus; amity, That is not a deal breaker. AS I say the basic concept of Trinity is the three persona in one essence, Everything else is just working out that arrangement,
concept of
trinity is one God, Three persons one God. that is by virtue of one divine essence,