A case for the Trinity

[Drew]

However, even within the writting of the gospels, we never see this three in one concept.

No. The concept of Jesus' divinity is solidly grounded in the Scriptures. I have presented a detailed argument about this in two consecutive posts earlier in this thread. That argument, I suggest, makes a powerful case that Jesus sees Himself as the embodiment of Israel's God.

Please engage the argument and show where I have erred.

 

[seekandlisten]

The concept of Jesus' divinity is solidly grounded in the Scriptures. I have presented a detailed argument about this in two consecutive posts earlier in this thread. That argument, I suggest, makes a powerful case that Jesus sees Himself as the embodiment of Israel's God.

Please engage the argument and show where I have erred.

Hmmm......Jesus as the embodiment of Israel's God.... Well let's look first at the definition of embodiment of which one is giving concrete form to an abstract concept. So while Jesus may be an 'embodiment' it doesn't make him 'God' himself does it? One of the definitions of deification is an embodiment of the qualities of a god of which anyone who takes on the 'become perfect as your Father is perfect' should eventually achieve some of the qualities of 'God' no?

Anyways, I don't have time right now but I may review your argument you presented earlier and present and alternative but I do realize that an argument as to whether God is 3 or 1 or both is futile as nothing but speculation becomes 'evidence' for the argument.

cheers

 

[jasoncran]

Just an observation for those who may be interested.

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

From the sacred scripture of the Hindu's Veda, written well before John.

"Prajapatir vai idam asit: In the beginning was Brahman. Tasya vag dvitya asit; with whom was the Vak or the Word... Vag vai paramam Brahma; and the word is Brahman."

It's also interesting to look at the trinity similarities you find with Brahma(Father), Vishnu(Word), Shiva(Power). You also needn't look to far to find that both Krishna and Christ are viewed as incarnations of 'God'. Some even go as far as to say the same 'spirit' incarnated in both figures. In the Bhagavad Gita (500-250 BC) you find this doctrine of incarnation (in reference Krishna). These definitely weren't new concepts.

I found this interesting anyways.

cheers

if the lord was a reincarnation then jesus lied when he said i am the only way and the lord in isiah said beside me theres no other.

 

[dadof10]

The so called three in one doctrine didn't show up until some time after the third century.

I know you won't respond to this post either, as it totally refutes your views, but here it is anyway.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Divinity_of_Christ.asp

Ignatius of Antioch

"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

"[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is" (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).

Aristides

"[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).
Tatian the Syrian

"We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).

Melito of Sardis

"It is no way necessary in dealing with persons of intelligence to adduce the actions of Christ after his baptism as proof that his soul and his body, his human nature, were like ours, real and not phantasmal. The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism, of his humanity, in the thirty years which came before his baptism, during which, by reason of his condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages" (Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai’s The Guide 13 [A.D. 177]).
Irenaeus

"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . " (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

"Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that he is himself in his own right God and Lord . . . may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth" (ibid., 3:19:1).

Clement of Alexandria

"The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning—for he was in God—and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things" (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).

"Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the expiator, the Savior, the soother, the divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son" (ibid., 10:110:1).

Tertullian

"The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ 5:6–7 [A.D. 210]).

"That there are two gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord" (Against Praxeas 13:6 [A.D. 216]).

Origen

"Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).

Hippolytus

"Only [God’s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).

Hippolytus of Rome

"For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new" (ibid., 10:34).

Novatian

"If Christ was only man, why did he lay down for us such a rule of believing as that in which he said, ‘And this is life eternal, that they should know you, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent?’ [John 17:3]. Had he not wished that he also should be understood to be God, why did he add, ‘And Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,’ except because he wished to be received as God also? Because if he had not wished to be understood to be God, he would have added, ‘And the man Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent;’ but, in fact, he neither added this, nor did Christ deliver himself to us as man only, but associated himself with God, as he wished to be understood by this conjunction to be God also, as he is. We must therefore believe, according to the rule prescribed, on the Lord, the one true God, and consequently on him whom he has sent, Jesus Christ, who by no means, as we have said, would have linked himself to the Father had he not wished to be understood to be God also. For he would have separated himself from him had he not wished to be understood to be God" (Treatise on the Trinity 16 [A.D. 235]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"One who denies that Christ is God cannot become his temple [of the Holy Spirit] . . . " (Letters 73:12 [A.D. 253]).

Gregory the Wonderworker

"There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God of God, image and likeness of deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of immortal and eternal of eternal. . . . And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever" (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).

Please note, all these quotes are before the beginning of the fourth century.

It is still difficult to pin point exactly when it first appeared.

Obviously from the very beginning of Christianity. You are the ones who are holding new, novel doctrines, not us.

 

[dadof10]

Please note, all these quotes are before the beginning of the fourth century.

So in other words these quotes come from the THIRD century, isnt that what watchmen said?

He said:

The so called three in one doctrine didn't show up until some time after the third century.

I took him to mean after the completion of the third century, which would be the year 300 AD. I could be misunderstanding him, but the year 300 jibes with all the "Constantine allowed pagan practices into the church" tripe. That's why I assumed he meant after the third century was over. BTW, it was Mysteryman, not Watchman.

even if these quotes came from before the biginning of the 4th century, that still leaves nearly 400 years of no trinity talk - thats 400 years - longer than the US has been a country. Thats like Americans not historicly mentioning the declaration of independence once until 100 years from now.

If you will take another look, there are 10 quotes from five Church Fathers before 200 AD, Ignatius' quotes being the earliest, 110AD. He was most likely taught by the Apostle John himself.

To compare one doctrine to the founding document of our country is not an accurate analogy. Also, how do you know there was "no Trinity TALK"? Just because it wasn't written down doesn't mean it wasn't taught. We Catholics don't believe in Sola-Scriptura.

Another HUGE clue to the fact that the Trinity was taught from the beginning is the lack of contradictory writings. Where are all the refutations of, say, Ignatius' letter? Why didn't the "orthodox non-trinitarians" write scathing letters condemning this newfangled idea? The silence speaks volumes.

 

[jasoncran]

dad of 10 i could use assistance in another thread relating to the angels speaking to men.

your knowledge of the early texts will be useful.

 

[Mysteryman]

The so called three in one doctrine didn't show up until some time after the third century.

I know you won't respond to this post either, as it totally refutes your views, but here it is anyway.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Divinity_of_Christ.asp

Ignatius of Antioch

"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

"[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is" (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).

Aristides

"[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).
Tatian the Syrian

"We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).

Melito of Sardis

"It is no way necessary in dealing with persons of intelligence to adduce the actions of Christ after his baptism as proof that his soul and his body, his human nature, were like ours, real and not phantasmal. The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism, of his humanity, in the thirty years which came before his baptism, during which, by reason of his condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages" (Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai’s The Guide 13 [A.D. 177]).
Irenaeus

"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . " (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

"Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that he is himself in his own right God and Lord . . . may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth" (ibid., 3:19:1).

Clement of Alexandria

"The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning—for he was in God—and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things" (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).

"Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the expiator, the Savior, the soother, the divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son" (ibid., 10:110:1).

Tertullian

"The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ 5:6–7 [A.D. 210]).

"That there are two gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord" (Against Praxeas 13:6 [A.D. 216]).

Origen

"Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).

Hippolytus

"Only [God’s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).

Hippolytus of Rome

"For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new" (ibid., 10:34).

Novatian

"If Christ was only man, why did he lay down for us such a rule of believing as that in which he said, ‘And this is life eternal, that they should know you, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent?’ [John 17:3]. Had he not wished that he also should be understood to be God, why did he add, ‘And Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,’ except because he wished to be received as God also? Because if he had not wished to be understood to be God, he would have added, ‘And the man Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent;’ but, in fact, he neither added this, nor did Christ deliver himself to us as man only, but associated himself with God, as he wished to be understood by this conjunction to be God also, as he is. We must therefore believe, according to the rule prescribed, on the Lord, the one true God, and consequently on him whom he has sent, Jesus Christ, who by no means, as we have said, would have linked himself to the Father had he not wished to be understood to be God also. For he would have separated himself from him had he not wished to be understood to be God" (Treatise on the Trinity 16 [A.D. 235]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"One who denies that Christ is God cannot become his temple [of the Holy Spirit] . . . " (Letters 73:12 [A.D. 253]).

Gregory the Wonderworker

"There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God of God, image and likeness of deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of immortal and eternal of eternal. . . . And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever" (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).

Please note, all these quotes are before the beginning of the fourth century.

It is still difficult to pin point exactly when it first appeared.

Obviously from the very beginning of Christianity. You are the ones who are holding new, novel doctrines, not us.

Hi dad:

What you need to understand, is that before the actual doctrine of the trinity was introduced. The very first thing that needed to be introduced was the lie that Jesus was God. Once this lie was introduced and established. Then approx around the third or fouth century the actual doctrine of the trinity was introduced and established.

Now, that said ------ Biblically speaking -- There is no trinity in the OT, nowhere ! There is no three in one theory in the OT, nowhere !

Since the OT writings do not even have a hint of a trinity doctrine. And since the NT had not been written , nor copied, nor translated as of yet. The first century church established the epislte of Christ.

The NT writings and all the copies, and all the translations, have introduced certain comments / wording changes etc, that would imply two things. 1. the lie that Jesus is God , and 2. the lie that that they baptized in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit.

We know the name of the Son - Jesus the Christ

Never in scripture is there a specific name given to the Holy Spirit, unless you believe as I do, that the Holy Spirit is God Almighty and the Father is God Almighty, are all the same entitiy. The words Holy Spirit carry the same meaning that the words human being, carry in the earthly realm.

The Holy Spirit is a Father, the Father, because we know that it was the Holy Spirit that overshadowed Mary. This shows that the Father and the Holy Spirit are not seperate in any way. The Father and the Holy Spirit are not two gods, nor are they two persons, nor are they two entities. The confusion comes, when you seperate them as being anything other than the exact same spirit being.

The same with a human being, in that a human being does not become a father until this male human being has an offspring. Then and only then does this male human being become a father.

God has many names that are associated with God Almighty, and all of His attributes. Never, ever in the OT is God called Jesus or Jesus Christ. Both the OT and the NT writings should line up perfectly. However, the NT is much more corrupted than the OT, and this is why the OT and the NT writings do not line up perfectly.

Once one corrects the corruption within the NT, then and only then does the OT and the NT line up perfectly. If someone disagrees with me. The only alternative is to claim the opposite of what I have just claimed ! They would have to claim that the OT is corrupted and must be corrected to line up with the NT writings. However, this would be most difficult to do, if not down right impossible.

You believe in your catholic writings much more than you do as to what the scriptures tells us. You only use those scriptures that in some way support your specific doctrines. Your catholic writings are much more important too you.

Bless

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi dad

Let me also point out the words of Jesus , which he spoke to the tempter.

'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God"

All of your comments from your church history are words that come from men, and not from the mouth of God ! The Words of God are established within scripture (writ) . The words of your church history is not to be associated with that which has already been written by holy men of God. In fact , your church history contradicts that which has already been written prior to these writings of your church history. And this starts with the OT writings !

Bless

 

[Pard]

God has many names that are associated with God Almighty, and all of His attributes. Never, ever in the OT is God called Jesus or Jesus Christ. Both the OT and the NT writings should line up perfectly. However, the NT is much more corrupted than the OT, and this is why the OT and the NT writings do not line up perfectly.

Mysteryman,

Do you know what God is called in the Tanakh? He is called Yahweh. Do you know Jesus' real name? Not the English one, not the Latin one, not the Greek one, but the real one. Jesus was a Jew, Jews speak Hebrew. Jesus' real name is Yahushua. What's in a name? I don't know, maybe it's a rose... but I know what the Jews think is in a name. The Hebrew for name that is used in the Tanakh is "shem".

Strong's # 8034 Shem; a primitive word [perhaps rather from 7760 through the idea of definite and conspicuous position; compare 8064]; an appellation, AS A MARK or memorial of individuality; by implication honor, authority, character: - + base, [in-] fame[-ous], name[-d], renown, report.

A name is so much more than something to be called! It is our mark, our signature. God's name is His mark, His signature. It is also a memorial of who we are. God's name is a memorial of who He is. This is very important. However, do not talk my word for this, in fact do not even take Strong's word for this. Instead, take God's word for it:

God, furthermore, said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations. (Exo 3:15)

His name is for us to remember because it defines who He is!

Yahweh. Y-a-h-w-e-h.
Yahushua. Y-a-h-u-s-h-u-a.

Now, maybe you are aware of this, maybe not, but Yahweh is also called Yah at three separate points in the Tanakh. Most English Bible translations do Elohim a grave injustice by simply writing over His name with the word LORD, however the KJV has preserved the original wording here:

Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him. (Psa 68:4 KJV)

Strong's also makes note of the name Yah:

#3050 Yahh {yaw} Meaning: 1) Jah (Jehovah in the shortened form) 1a) the proper name of the one true God

Interesting then, that Elohim's nickname, if you will, is the beginning of Christ's own name, no? Yahushua can be broken into two parts. Yahu and shua. Yahu is the nickname we just talked about for Elohim. "shua", whatever could that mean? Hmm... Oh, nevermind, I do know what it means!

"shua" is Hebrew for saves. That's neat. So, if we break down Christ's name and look at the meaning of the name it says Yahweh Saves...

Now, I know this is not exactly what you were looking for when you said Elohim is never once called Jesus, however I hope you see that there is significant example here, using OT and NT scripture, to show that the name Yahweh and Yahushua are far closer to one another than anyone would imagine.

If you'd like I can also show you that the Trinity does in fact exist within the Tanakh, one only has to look for it.

The OT and the NT are in harmony, my friend. One just needs to study God's Word carefully to see it. I'd serious recommend getting a copy of Strong's or Vine, if you do not already have a copy, it makes understanding these things so much easier. It's a pity that we Christians are not taught to read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, like the Jews and Muslims do.

EDIT

I do hope that this helps you. At the very least I hope you will better understand the meaning Christ intended when He said "I come in my Father's name". He most literally meant He comes with His Father's name!!!

EDIT EDIT

Also, if you do take up my invitation to see the Trinity in the Tanakh, I can also show you how we see that Yahweh's name is Yahushua's name as well.

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi Pard :

How many Jesus' are there in the NT ?

 

[Pard]

There is Christ and also two others (maybe 3?) who are apostles of Jesus. I believe that they share the same name in GREEK. In Hebrew, they do not.

In fact, the reason there are some many different views on the actually Hebrew name of Jesus is because there were others who shared the same name in GREEK. You must remember though, that the New Testament is telling the story of a bunch of Hebrew speaking Jews in the Greek language. It makes for some confusion, to be sure. I have been told that some Aramaic NT books help make this more clear, but I have not found a good translation for one yet.

EDIT

Let it be known, because I think I see where you are trying to go, that the man who Zechariah but the branch to was also named Yaushua.

 

[Mysteryman]

There is Christ and also two others (maybe 3?) who are apostles of Jesus. I believe that they share the same name in GREEK. In Hebrew, they do not.

In fact, the reason there are some many different views on the actually Hebrew name of Jesus is because there were others who shared the same name in GREEK. You must remember though, that the New Testament is telling the story of a bunch of Hebrew speaking Jews in the Greek language. It makes for some confusion, to be sure. I have been told that some Aramaic NT books help make this more clear, but I have not found a good translation for one yet.

EDIT

Let it be known, because I think I see where you are trying to go, that the man who Zechariah but the branch to was also named Yaushua.

Hi Pard:

The point I am trying to make, is that you are not doing your research correctly. Your assimilating with association. If you are going to do your research in this manner, then these others who also were named Jesus, would also be YAHWAH.

Jesus is not YAHWAH (YHWH) in the OT.

Jah or Yah is used within OT names - For instance - Joshuah and Josiah and Joshah and Joshaphat and Joshaviah. And since there is no letter "J" in the Hebrew, these names are only translated into english using the letter "J".

Jah or Yah means - God , and none of these names in the OT are God himself, they are just names given these paticular individuals. These names carry with their paticular name, a meaning. Such is the case with the name Joshua, which means "Jah" or God, saves.

 

[Pard]

I do see your point. Actually, I already knew about Yah as a prefix to names. I think the problem is, I am looking at this from a Trinitarian POV. For me this only furthers Christ's divinity. For you, being a nonTrinitarian, it doesn't further it at all. It's kind of like using OT prophecy to prove Christ is the Messiah, for you and I (faithful) it only emphasizes that which we already know. For a Jew or an atheist it doesn't. I guess it comes down to what we "already know", huh?

Still, I hope you learned something from what I said (at least on word etymology!). Still, would you like to see the Trinity in the OT... then again, it may not work for you, since you "already know" and all.

 

[Mysteryman]

I do see your point. Actually, I already knew about Yah as a prefix to names. I think the problem is, I am looking at this from a Trinitarian POV. For me this only furthers Christ's divinity. For you, being a nonTrinitarian, it doesn't further it at all. It's kind of like using OT prophecy to prove Christ is the Messiah, for you and I (faithful) it only emphasizes that which we already know. For a Jew or an atheist it doesn't. I guess it comes down to what we "already know", huh?

Still, I hope you learned something from what I said (at least on word etymology!). Still, would you like to see the Trinity in the OT... then again, it may not work for you, since you "already know" and all.

Hi Pard :

It was good talking to you. Everything that was said by you was done in a mature and thoughtful manner.

Just to make one thing clear for you, as far as my beliefs. I do believe that Christ has divinity, and was divine. However, I also believe, that many define this word divine or divinity improperly at times.

To be divine or have divinity, means that one has authority. Of course there is also a deeper meaning. But for the most part, that is what divine means. Divine can mean - god - like. God gave power unto Christ, His Son - "exousia" which is transfered power - as in - John 17:2

As the word divinity is not within scripture, it then becomes a derivative of the word - Divine

In the OT, the word "divine" means to bring about. Here is a verse with this usage - Eze. 13:23 - "Therefore ye shall see no more vanity, nor divine divinations", etc." Here is one more - Proverbs 16:10 - "A divine sentence is in the lips of the king : "

 

[Pard]

I guess you really do learn something everyday. Though can't divine also mean "being God"?

 

[Mysteryman]

I guess you really do learn something everyday. Though can't divine also mean "being God"?

Hi Pard:

Actually, the word "divine" can mean -- "godly", but not the word God. The word "divine" is associated with "power" , not the title. Read both II Peter 1:3 and 1:4.

If you read verse 3 very carefully, this verse implies that we as christians are godly, because His divine power has given unto us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virute. And in verse 4 it tells us that we partake of this divine nature.

 

[Drew]

Hmmm......Jesus as the embodiment of Israel's God.... Well let's look first at the definition of embodiment of which one is giving concrete form to an abstract concept. So while Jesus may be an 'embodiment' it doesn't make him 'God' himself does it?

Please read the argument that I have provided. I suggest the following:

1. There is nothing conceptually incoherent with suggesting that Jesus could be divine, and that the Christian "godhead" consists of three equally divine persons;

2. The argument that I have provided makes a strong case that Jesus must have seen Himself as implementing the promised return of YHWH to Zion.

 

[Drew]

The trial scene with Jesus and Caiaphus contains a cryptic claim by Jesus to specifically divine (i.e. co-eqaul with God) Messiahship. From Mark 14:

But He kept silent and did not answer Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and (COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN." Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do we have of witnesses?

Here Jesus alludes to two Old Testament passages from Psalm 110 and, again, Daniel 7. From Psalm 110:

The LORD says to my Lord:
"Sit at My right hand
Until I make (C)Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."

I trust we all see that, by quoting this “Messianic†verse, Jesus is indeed answering yes to the question about being the Messiah.

Again, from Daniel 7:

I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.

Why does Jesus’ statement enrage Caiaphas so much? One needs to remember that there was no expectation that the Messiah or even the “son of God†would be divine (God in the flesh). We can see this in hindsight, but you need to remember that Messiah means “king†and does not connote divinity. Same thing with the concept of “Son of God†– that term did not connote divinity to the 2nd temple Jew.

But what does Jesus do? He claims to be Messiah and then adds a claim of divinity – by the reference to sitting at the right hand. This is complemented by the allusion to Daniel 7 – Jesus is saying that He will be “raised up†and be presented to the Ancient of Days, to be enthroned beside Him – a strong implicit claim of divinity.

And it is in this context that the “coming on the clouds of heaven†metaphor is used. Do you not see how it makes sense to this as a reference to Jesus being raised from the dead and assuming his seat at the right hand of the Father, and not as an allusion to the 2nd coming.

This is fundamentally an ascent, not a descent. Jesus has defeated the beasts, has been raised from the dead, and raised on high to the right hand of God. The phrase “coming on the clouds†should not be viewed in isolation. Jesus knows his Old Testament and makes the reference to Daniel 7 (and Psalm 110) to make the claim of divinity to complement the answer of “yes†to the question of Messiahship.

Caiaphas, too, knows his Old Testament. He understands that what Jesus is saying is a cryptic claim of divinity as well as messiahship. No wonder Caiaphus tore his robe……

 

[dadof10]

If you will take another look, there are 10 quotes from five Church Fathers before 200 AD, Ignatius' quotes being the earliest, 110AD. He was most likely taught by the Apostle John himself.

What evidence shows this? when was ignatius born and when did John die?

Tradition holds that John died around the year 100 AD. This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm

It is also believed, and with great probability, that, with his friend Polycarp, he was among the auditors of the Apostle St. John. If we include St. Peter, Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch and the immediate successor of Evodius (Eusebius, Church History II.3.22). Theodoret ("Dial. Immutab.", I, iv, 33a, Paris, 1642) is the authority for the statement that St. Peter appointed Ignatius to the See of Antioch. St. John Chrysostom lays special emphasis on the honor conferred upon the martyr in receiving his episcopal consecration at the hands of the Apostles themselves ("Hom. in St. Ig.", IV. 587). Natalis Alexander quotes Theodoret to the same effect (III, xii, art. xvi, p. 53).

Even if he wasn't taught directly by St. John, he was a contemporary, as he was an old man when he wrote his letter in about 110 AD.

To compare one doctrine to the founding document of our country is not an accurate analogy. Also, how do you know there was "no Trinity TALK"? Just because it wasn't written down doesn't mean it wasn't taught. We Catholics don't believe in Sola-Scriptura.

Why not, people write things down, religion in the middle east was transmitted via writting and word of mouth - we have govt records and historians accounts, but nothing concerning the Trinity. For Americans, the declaration of independence is a symbol of Americanism - something Americans hold sacred, why then would christians not talk about the thing that seperates them from the rest of man-kind?

They did talk about it, and wrote it down. The end of the Apostolic age was 100 AD with the death of St. John. About 10 years after that we have a letter from St. Ignatius, among others, that calls Jesus "God". Also, no REFUTATIONS.

Another HUGE clue to the fact that the Trinity was taught from the beginning is the lack of contradictory writings. Where are all the refutations of, say, Ignatius' letter? Why didn't the "orthodox non-trinitarians" write scathing letters condemning this newfangled idea? The silence speaks volumes.

A lack of contradictory writtings is not evidence of it alwys being around, the reason, anti trinitarian writings were actively destroyed by the church in the subsequent centuries

Oh boy. Another conspiracy theorist. Let's do this the easy way. You want proof of my statements above, and rightfully so. I want proof of your statement above also. That seems fair. Where is the historical proof of "anti trinitarian" documents being destroyed by "the church".

its like saying, we have no complete fossils of stegasaurus so stegasaurus must not have existed.

You need to work on your analogies.

The lack of writtings suggest that it was an idea introduced later, like around the time the writings started.

I have given you quotes from people who lived and wrote less than 10 years after the Apostolic age. There is no evidence from the writings themselves that Ignatius, Melito of Sardis, or any one of the other writers was introducing anything new.

This post has been quite revealing. The "lack of writings" FOR Trinitarianism is very bothersome to you, yet the "lack of writings" REFUTING Trinitarianism isn't. Would you believe in the Trinity if I claimed that there were many more, earlier pro-Trinity writings, but those evil, anti-Trinitarians burned them all up? Would you at least ask for proof before you believed it?

 

[dadof10]

What you need to understand, is that before the actual doctrine of the trinity was introduced. The very first thing that needed to be introduced was the lie that Jesus was God.

Why? According to who? Where do you get this stuff??

Once this lie was introduced and established. Then approx around the third or fouth century the actual doctrine of the trinity was introduced and established.

You're splitting hairs. You don't believe that Jesus is God, yet this doctrine was mentioned, and NOT REFUTED, as early as 110 AD, 10 years after the traditional death of John. Notice how the ECFs simply MENTION the fact that Jesus is God. Almost like they are assuming it's truth. They are not arguing the point at all, and there is NO REFUTATION. Of course, you are going to go to the conspiracy card. I can feel it coming...

Now, that said ------ Biblically speaking -- There is no trinity in the OT, nowhere ! There is no three in one theory in the OT, nowhere !

There are many Christian doctrines not specifically mentioned in the OT that you believe. Water baptism, the end of circumcision, communion services, salvation by faith, salvation by Grace alone. There are others. The point is, this is a sad argument.

Since the OT writings do not even have a hint of a trinity doctrine. And since the NT had not been written , nor copied, nor translated as of yet. The first century church established the epislte of Christ.

What in the world is the "epistle of Christ"

The NT writings and all the copies, and all the translations, have introduced certain comments / wording changes etc, that would imply two things. 1. the lie that Jesus is God , and 2. the lie that that they baptized in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit.

????

We know the name of the Son - Jesus the Christ

Very good.

The Holy Spirit is a Father, the Father, because we know that it was the Holy Spirit that overshadowed Mary. This shows that the Father and the Holy Spirit are not seperate in any way. The Father and the Holy Spirit are not two gods, nor are they two persons, nor are they two entities. The confusion comes, when you seperate them as being anything other than the exact same spirit being.

The same with a human being, in that a human being does not become a father until this male human being has an offspring. Then and only then does this male human being become a father.

:crazy Whew...Why don't we stick to Jesus...

God has many names that are associated with God Almighty, and all of His attributes. Never, ever in the OT is God called Jesus or Jesus Christ.

Agreed. The OT does not even use the words "Jesus Christ"

Both the OT and the NT writings should line up perfectly. However, the NT is much more corrupted than the OT, and this is why the OT and the NT writings do not line up perfectly.

Which parts of the NT are corrupted? This should be good. Let me guess, the parts that explain the Trinity, perhaps?

Once one corrects the corruption within the NT, then and only then does the OT and the NT line up perfectly.

Awesome. Who, in your opinion, should be the "corrector"? Where does the NT say it will "line up" with the OT? Wait a minute...is this one of the "corrupted" parts? Maybe it DID say so, but those evil 3rd century Trinitarians removed those parts. Those rascally Trinitarians...

If someone disagrees with me. The only alternative is to claim the opposite of what I have just claimed ! They would have to claim that the OT is corrupted and must be corrected to line up with the NT writings. However, this would be most difficult to do, if not down right impossible.

Are you kidding? It would be easy. Just claim that the "Holy Spirit" told me that the OT was "corrupted" and needed to be corrected. I'll simply accept the parts that agree with me...I mean...the Holy Spirit, and reject the parts that contradict him. See, simple.

You believe in your catholic writings much more than you do as to what the scriptures tells us.

So what? Aren't the Scriptures "corrupt"? I can "correct" Scriptures the same as you can, right? I'll simply open the Canon, [creeeaaakkk}....there...Now Ignatius' letters are Scripture and the entire "Jesus is God" problem is solved. You're welcome.

You only use those scriptures that in some way support your specific doctrines. Your catholic writings are much more important too you.

i love it when non-Catholics try and tell me what the Church teaches. Show me where in Catholic doctrine this is true. Show me where it's taught that we put "Catholic writings over Scripture" and please don't use any Jack Chick comix or jesusislord.com.

Not that I have your attention, I would like an answer to this question. I've posted it a few times, but you may have missed it.

You wrote:

God is Spirit ! True, Jesus Christ was not created, I agree. He was born of the virgin Mary, and the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. Jesus the Christ, is both, the son of man and the Son of God. Thus, his flesh is of man, which was taken from the earth. However, his seed is spiritual, which comes from his Father. Jesus the Christ is the seed Son of God - speaking spiritually.

My question is, if Jesus is "not created" wouldn't that make Him the Creator? I don't see a middle ground, He was either created or He is God the Creator. Do you see another way?