What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

An Open Debate on the Trinity with JLB

Butch5 said:
A better translation is do not test the Lord your God. And, yes, it refers to the Father. It's not even talking about sin. Come on guy, let's stay in the ball park.
Click to expand...
This was a private party between Satan & Jesus .
Was Jesus trying to lay a false groundwork for the trinity when He tells Satan he is the " Lord God " ?

" Thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God " ( Matthew 4:7 )

Or Could this be explained by yet another case of " biased " translation ?
 
Consecrated Life said:
This was a private party between Satan & Jesus .
Was Jesus trying to lay a false groundwork for the trinity when He tells Satan he is the " Lord God " ?

" Thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God " ( Matthew 4:7 )

Or Could this be explained by yet another case of " biased " translation ?
Click to expand...
If you read it in context instead of ripping part of the passage from its context it's a pretty clear statement.

Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt nottempt the Lord thy God. (Mat. 4:5-7 KJV)

If you look at the passage, the devil is trying to get Jesus to test God. Context is important.
 
Butch5 said:
If you read it in context instead of ripping part of the passage from its context it's a pretty clear statement.

Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt nottempt the Lord thy God. (Mat. 4:5-7 KJV)

If you look at the passage, the devil is trying to get Jesus to test God. Context is important.
Click to expand...
Exactly , " the devil is trying to get Jesus " to do something .
The very definition of being tempted.
The tempter and the tempted, pretty simple context.
I do wonder why Jesus refers to Himself as the " Lord thy God " ?

" Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" ( Matthew 4:7 )
 
Consecrated Life said:
Jesus being the target of Satan's " tempting", why does He then respond to Satan by saying:

" Thou shall not tempt the Lord Thy God " ( Matthew 4:7 )

Himself being the one in Satan's crosshairs ?
Did He think he could fool Satan ?
Click to expand...
Matthew 4:7 means that no one should put God to a test....
Who are we to test God?
 
Consecrated Life said:
Exactly , " the devil is trying to get Jesus " to do something .
The very definition of being tempted.
The tempter and the tempted, pretty simple context.
I do wonder why Jesus refers to Himself as the " Lord thy God " ?

" Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" ( Matthew 4:7 )
Click to expand...
He's not.He's calling the Father the Lord God. The devil is trying to get Jesus to test God and Jesus said you shall not test the Lord your God. Jesus wouldn't test God to prove who He was.
 
Consecrated Life said:
Exactly , " the devil is trying to get Jesus " to do something .
The very definition of being tempted.
The tempter and the tempted, pretty simple context.
I do wonder why Jesus refers to Himself as the " Lord thy God " ?

" Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" ( Matthew 4:7 )
Click to expand...
Butch5 is correct in his post no. 322.

the Lord they God is quoting Deuteronomy 6:16 which states:
the LORD your God.

LORD means God almightly, Father, Creator, etc.
Lord means Jesus in human form.

Matthew 4:7
the Lord your God.....
Jesus is referring to Himself.
Satan was tempting Jesus who is both man and God.
 
Butch5 said:
What's the difference?
Click to expand...
The difference between the following is great:

1 God in 3 persons.

3 Persons in 1 God.

In the first,,,there are three persons, each with a God in them..so the result is 3 Gods.
In the second there is ONE GOD, with 3 persons in Him....(3 natures really).
 
wondering said:
The difference between the following is great:

1 God in 3 persons.

3 Persons in 1 God.

In the first,,,there are three persons, each with a God in them..so the result is 3 Gods.
In the second there is ONE GOD, with 3 persons in Him....(3 natures really).
Click to expand...
If that's the case, then your second example has 4 Gods. It has the, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and the God they're in
 
Butch5 said:
Hi Wondering,

The Greek word anggelos simply means a messenger. It can be a spirit being or a person. Anyone who beings a message is a messenger. The apostles brought a message thus they were messengers or angels. The problem is that Christianity has turned the word angel into a religious term. Instead of translating the word Anggelos as messenger, the translators have transliterated the word coming up with angel. This has allowed for the word to be hijacked and used as a religious term and often the original meaning gets lost. They have done the same with baptizo.
Click to expand...
OK
Agreed.
But you or I cannot go back to the original meaning or we lose the ability to communicate.

As to baptizo....
How have we lost the original meaning?
(to immerse).
 
Butch5 said:
If that's the case, then your second example has 4 Gods. It has the, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and the God they're in
Click to expand...
Oh for goodness sake Butch...
don't get silly!

I've KIND OF been following along (not really too well) and I see the problem with the Trinity.

God is God.
Jesus is the Son, or the 2nd Person
The Holy Ghost is the 3rd person

3 persons in One God.



Jesus is the WORD of God.
If God speaks a word, or has a thought....the 2nd person brings it about.
He is the Logos.

see
www.christianity.com

What is Logos in the Bible? Its Definition and Significance in History

Logos is the Greek word transcribed as “reason,” “word,” “speech,” or “principle.” In Greek philosophy, it related to a universal, divine reason or the mind of God. The gospel of John connected this Greek term with the nature and existence of God and Jesus Christ.
www.christianity.com www.christianity.com

The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God...but in the form of a person.
Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are for our benefit so that we can understand better the nature of God....

God Father is the creator.
No one really knows what God is.
He is not a person as we understand it....
However He sent Jesus as the final revelation so that we could understand by SEEING Him (Jesus).
The Holy Spirit has been sent for our benefit also,,,
He existed even in the O.T., as did the 2nd person, but He can now dwell within us.

Jesus always existed as the WORD, or the Logos,,,,
but the 2nd person became a human and became Jesus 2,000 odd years ago.

It's not easy to understand God...
We can only try,,,
and maybe each one of us can understand "Him" in a different way that is suitable for them personally.
 
Butch5 said:
I accept the Trinity doctrine as it was originally espoused by Tertullian. I don't accept the modern concept of one God in three persons that is espoused in the Athanasian Creed. Tertullian is the one who coined the term Trinity as it pertains to Christianity and he argued vehemently that the Father and the Son were two separate beings.
Click to expand...
I don't believe he did.
Argue that the Father and the Son were two SEPARATE beings,,,
only that they were different and had different works to do...as did the Holy Spirit.


Thus, God the Father has a will encompassing all of Creation and Redemption, God the Son accomplished that will, and God the Holy Spirit applies the work of the Son according to the will of the Father to believers. There is a consequent unity of purpose, yet diversity in its operation. On this point, for example, Tertullian exposits John 10:34-38,[4] where Christ says that He is in the Father, and the Father is in Him,

"...it must therefore be by the works that the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father; and so it is by the works that we understand that the Father is one with the Son."[5]
Click to expand...
This point offers a great amount of clarity by preventing the confusion of the Father as the Son (and vice versa). It also maintains the distinctiveness of their persons and the unity of their essence, or substance (substantia). Tertullian reiterates the distinctiveness of the Holy Spirit saying, "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son and of the Son in the Paraclete makes three coherent ones [TR - persons], one distinct from the other; these three exist as one essence, not as one person, just as it is said 'I and my Father, we are one," in respect to the unity of substance, not to the singularity of number.[6]

source: https://www.reformation21.org/blog/tertullians-view-of-the-trinity
 
wondering said:
Oh for goodness sake Butch...
don't get silly!

I've KIND OF been following along (not really too well) and I see the problem with the Trinity.

God is God.
Jesus is the Son, or the 2nd Person
The Holy Ghost is the 3rd person

3 persons in One God.



Jesus is the WORD of God.
If God speaks a word, or has a thought....the 2nd person brings it about.
He is the Logos.

see
www.christianity.com

What is Logos in the Bible? Its Definition and Significance in History

Logos is the Greek word transcribed as “reason,” “word,” “speech,” or “principle.” In Greek philosophy, it related to a universal, divine reason or the mind of God. The gospel of John connected this Greek term with the nature and existence of God and Jesus Christ.
www.christianity.com www.christianity.com

The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God...but in the form of a person.
Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are for our benefit so that we can understand better the nature of God....

God Father is the creator.
No one really knows what God is.
He is not a person as we understand it....
However He sent Jesus as the final revelation so that we could understand by SEEING Him (Jesus).
The Holy Spirit has been sent for our benefit also,,,
He existed even in the O.T., as did the 2nd person, but He can now dwell within us.

Jesus always existed as the WORD, or the Logos,,,,
but the 2nd person became a human and became Jesus 2,000 odd years ago.

It's not easy to understand God...
We can only try,,,
and maybe each one of us can understand "Him" in a different way that is suitable for them personally.
Click to expand...
Hi Wondering,

I'm not being silly. You're giving personality to 4 beings. If there is a being called God who consists of three persons, then logically those persons are a part of God, thus each one alone is not fully but only a part of God.

Of course we can't understand it. It's a logical contradiction. Three persons cannot be one person. Understanding the relationship between, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, isn't hard if we just listen to the Scriptures. But, for 1500 years Christians have been trying to force a 5th century idea onto the Scriptures. An idea that doesnt fit and is flatly refuted by the Scriptures themselves.
 
Butch5 said:
Hi Wondering,

I'm not being silly. You're giving personality to 4 beings. If there is a being called God who consists of three persons, then logically those persons are a part of God, thus each one alone is not fully but only a part of God.

Of course we can't understand it. It's a logical contradiction. Three persons cannot be one person. Understanding the relationship between, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, isn't hard if we just listen to the Scriptures. But, for 1500 years Christians have been trying to force a 5th century idea onto the Scriptures. An idea that doesnt fit and is flatly refuted by the Scriptures themselves.
Click to expand...
God is the being.
The Son is in Him.
The Holy Spirit is in Him.
That's 3.

Tertullian, which you brought up...was born in 155 and died in 230 AD.
How is that the 5th century?

The early fathers had an understanding that God had different natures that were revealed to us.
I hope you read the following...it also explains the trinity in understandable terms.

Around 110 AD, a pastor from Antioch name Ignatius (c. 35–c. 110) wrote several letters to various churches on his way to his eventual martyrdom. His trinitarian consciousness was informed by a discernible mix of Old Testament and New Testament writings, though exact quotations were minimal. His affirmation of the Son’s relation to the Father even had a certain hymnic quality. The clearest trinitarian imagery and most profound statements can be found in his letter to the Ephesians. Comparing church unity to a chorus, Ignatius instructs them to “[take] your pitch from God [so that] you may sing in unison with one voice through Jesus Christ to the Father, in order that he may both hear you and, on the basis of what you do well, acknowledge that you are members of his Son” (Letter to the Ephesians 4.2). Noting the trinitarian foundation of the church, Ignatius describes believers like “stones of a temple, prepared beforehand for the building of God the Father, hoisted up to the heights by the crane of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, using as a rope the Holy Spirit” (Letter to the Ephesians 9.1). A few years after Ignatius, Polycarp the bishop of Smyrna (69–156) also demonstrated his trinitarian consciousness before his martyrdom: “I glorify you, through the eternal and heavenly High Priest, Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom to you, with him and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and for the ages to come” (Martyrdom of Polycarp, 14).

Similar to Polycarp, early apologists for the Christian faith did not shy away from a trinitarian confession. Athenagoras of Athens (c. 133–190) remarked, “Who…would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?” (A Plea for the Christians, 10). Justin Martyr (100–165) described the typical baptismal routine for his readers: “In the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, [new converts] then receive the washing with water” (First Apology, 61). In defending the faith, apologists asserted that Christianity worshipped the one true God revealed as Father, Son, and Spirit. This was nothing new, as many detractors assumed, but was the revealed truth from the very beginning made crystal clear through the Word made flesh (cf. John 1:14).

Irenaeus of Lyons (c.130–c. 202) presented a thorough defense of the economic Trinity, that is, how the members of the Godhead relate to one another and the history of salvation. The cooperating of the three is expressed as “the Father planning everything well and giving his commands, the Son carrying these into execution and performing the work of creating, and the Spirit nourishing and increasing [what is made]” (Against Heresies 4.38.3).
 
wondering said:
God is the being.
The Son is in Him.
The Holy Spirit is in Him.
That's 3.

Tertullian, which you brought up...was born in 155 and died in 230 AD.
How is that the 5th century?

The early fathers had an understanding that God had different natures that were revealed to us.
I hope you read the following...it also explains the trinity in understandable terms.

Around 110 AD, a pastor from Antioch name Ignatius (c. 35–c. 110) wrote several letters to various churches on his way to his eventual martyrdom. His trinitarian consciousness was informed by a discernible mix of Old Testament and New Testament writings, though exact quotations were minimal. His affirmation of the Son’s relation to the Father even had a certain hymnic quality. The clearest trinitarian imagery and most profound statements can be found in his letter to the Ephesians. Comparing church unity to a chorus, Ignatius instructs them to “[take] your pitch from God [so that] you may sing in unison with one voice through Jesus Christ to the Father, in order that he may both hear you and, on the basis of what you do well, acknowledge that you are members of his Son” (Letter to the Ephesians 4.2). Noting the trinitarian foundation of the church, Ignatius describes believers like “stones of a temple, prepared beforehand for the building of God the Father, hoisted up to the heights by the crane of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, using as a rope the Holy Spirit” (Letter to the Ephesians 9.1). A few years after Ignatius, Polycarp the bishop of Smyrna (69–156) also demonstrated his trinitarian consciousness before his martyrdom: “I glorify you, through the eternal and heavenly High Priest, Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom to you, with him and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and for the ages to come” (Martyrdom of Polycarp, 14).

Similar to Polycarp, early apologists for the Christian faith did not shy away from a trinitarian confession. Athenagoras of Athens (c. 133–190) remarked, “Who…would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?” (A Plea for the Christians, 10). Justin Martyr (100–165) described the typical baptismal routine for his readers: “In the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, [new converts] then receive the washing with water” (First Apology, 61). In defending the faith, apologists asserted that Christianity worshipped the one true God revealed as Father, Son, and Spirit. This was nothing new, as many detractors assumed, but was the revealed truth from the very beginning made crystal clear through the Word made flesh (cf. John 1:14).
3 in
Irenaeus of Lyons (c.130–c. 202) presented a thorough defense of the economic Trinity, that is, how the members of the Godhead relate to one another and the history of salvation. The cooperating of the three is expressed as “the Father planning everything well and giving his commands, the Son carrying these into execution and performing the work of creating, and the Spirit nourishing and increasing [what is made]” (Against Heresies 4.38.3).
Click to expand...
Hi Wondering,

I would encourage you to seek primary sources for the Early Church Fathers, rather than tertiary sources. What you've posted here is just someone's interpretation of what the writers said. He didn't quote a single writer who said that God is 3 in 1. He believes in the Trinity and sees, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, mentioned and assumes it supports his belief. Yeah, he mentioned, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So does the Bible and it doesn't teach that God is three in one. Paul said to the Corinthian Christians, 'to us there is one God, the Father'.

Seriously, reading what someone else thinks the ECF's believed only tells you what that person thinks. I doesn't tell you what the ECF's actually believed. Tertullian did argue that the Father and the Son were two different beings and we see that in Scripture. When the Lord went to Sodom and Gomorrah,

Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; (Gen. 19:24 KJV)

Notice what it says. The LORD here is Jehovah, He's on earth and He rains down brimstone and fire from the LORD in Heaven. We have Jehovah on earth and Jehovah in Heaven. That's two Jehovah's. One is on Earth and one in Heaven. This is exactly what Tertullian argued. In this excerpt Tertullian is arguing that the Father and Son are two different beings. This is from Terullian's actual writings

Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 12

Chapter 12.—Other Quotations from Holy Scripture Adduced in Proof of the Plurality of Persons in the Godhead.​


If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, “Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness; ” whereas He ought to have said, “Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness,” as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, “Behold the man is become as one of us,” He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word,that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, “Let us make; ”and, “in our image; ”and, “become as one of us.” For with whom did He make man? and to whom did He make him like? (The answer must be), the Son on the one hand, who was one day to put on human nature; and the Spirit on the other, who was to sanctify man. With these did He then speak, in the Unity of the Trinity, as with His ministers and witnesses In the following text also He distinguishes among the Persons: “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God created He him.” Why say “image of God? ”Why not “His own image” merely, if He was only one who was the Maker, and if there was not also One in whose image He made man? But there was One in whose image God was making man, that is to say, Christ’s image, who, being one day about to become Man (more surely and more truly so), had already caused the man to be called His image, who was then going to be formed of clay—the image and similitude of the true and perfect Man. But in respect of the previous works of the world what says the Scripture? Its first statement indeed is made, when the Son has not yet appeared: “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.” Immediately there appears the Word, “that true light, which lighteth man on his coming into the world,” and through Him also came light upon the world. From that moment God willed creation to be effected in the Word, Christ being present and ministering unto Him: and so God created. And God said, “Let there be a firmament, … and God made the firmament; ” and God also said. “Let there be lights (in the firmament); and so God made a greater and a lesser light.” But all the rest of the created things did He in like manner make, who made the former ones—I mean the Word of God. “through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made.” Now if He too is God, according to John, (who says.) “The Word was God,” then you have two Beings—One that commands that the thing be made. and the Other that executes the order and creates. In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to be another. I have already explained, on the ground of Personality, not of Substance—in the way of distinction, not of division. But although I must everywhere hold one only substance in three coherent and inseparable (Persons), yet I am bound to acknowledge, from the necessity of the case, that He who issues a command is different from Him who executes it. For, indeed, He would not be issuing a command if He were all the while doing the work Himself, while ordering it to be done by the second. But still He did issue the command, although He would not have intended to command Himself if He were only one; or else He must have worked without any command, because He would not have waited to command Himself.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

I think it's clear from this that Tertullian argued for two separate beings as the Father and Son. Yet, he spoke of the Trinity. As we see though, his idea of a trinity and the modern idea of a trinity are vastly different. The 5th century idea I spoke of is the idea of three coequal coeternal beings who are God. We find that in the Athanasian Creed, not the Nicene Creed and not the Early writers.
 
Butch5 said:
Hi Wondering,

I would encourage you to seek primary sources for the Early Church Fathers, rather than tertiary sources. What you've posted here is just someone's interpretation of what the writers said. He didn't quote a single writer who said that God is 3 in 1. He believes in the Trinity and sees, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, mentioned and assumes it supports his belief. Yeah, he mentioned, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So does the Bible and it doesn't teach that God is three in one. Paul said to the Corinthian Christians, 'to us there is one God, the Father'.

Seriously, reading what someone else thinks the ECF's believed only tells you what that person thinks. I doesn't tell you what the ECF's actually believed. Tertullian did argue that the Father and the Son were two different beings and we see that in Scripture. When the Lord went to Sodom and Gomorrah,

Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; (Gen. 19:24 KJV)

Notice what it says. The LORD here is Jehovah, He's on earth and He rains down brimstone and fire from the LORD in Heaven. We have Jehovah on earth and Jehovah in Heaven. That's two Jehovah's. One is on Earth and one in Heaven. This is exactly what Tertullian argued. In this excerpt Tertullian is arguing that the Father and Son are two different beings. This is from Terullian's actual writings

Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 12

Chapter 12.—Other Quotations from Holy Scripture Adduced in Proof of the Plurality of Persons in the Godhead.​


If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, “Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness; ” whereas He ought to have said, “Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness,” as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, “Behold the man is become as one of us,” He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word,that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, “Let us make; ”and, “in our image; ”and, “become as one of us.” For with whom did He make man? and to whom did He make him like? (The answer must be), the Son on the one hand, who was one day to put on human nature; and the Spirit on the other, who was to sanctify man. With these did He then speak, in the Unity of the Trinity, as with His ministers and witnesses In the following text also He distinguishes among the Persons: “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God created He him.” Why say “image of God? ”Why not “His own image” merely, if He was only one who was the Maker, and if there was not also One in whose image He made man? But there was One in whose image God was making man, that is to say, Christ’s image, who, being one day about to become Man (more surely and more truly so), had already caused the man to be called His image, who was then going to be formed of clay—the image and similitude of the true and perfect Man. But in respect of the previous works of the world what says the Scripture? Its first statement indeed is made, when the Son has not yet appeared: “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.” Immediately there appears the Word, “that true light, which lighteth man on his coming into the world,” and through Him also came light upon the world. From that moment God willed creation to be effected in the Word, Christ being present and ministering unto Him: and so God created. And God said, “Let there be a firmament, … and God made the firmament; ” and God also said. “Let there be lights (in the firmament); and so God made a greater and a lesser light.” But all the rest of the created things did He in like manner make, who made the former ones—I mean the Word of God. “through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made.” Now if He too is God, according to John, (who says.) “The Word was God,” then you have two Beings—One that commands that the thing be made. and the Other that executes the order and creates. In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to be another. I have already explained, on the ground of Personality, not of Substance—in the way of distinction, not of division. But although I must everywhere hold one only substance in three coherent and inseparable (Persons), yet I am bound to acknowledge, from the necessity of the case, that He who issues a command is different from Him who executes it. For, indeed, He would not be issuing a command if He were all the while doing the work Himself, while ordering it to be done by the second. But still He did issue the command, although He would not have intended to command Himself if He were only one; or else He must have worked without any command, because He would not have waited to command Himself.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

I think it's clear from this that Tertullian argued for two separate beings as the Father and Son. Yet, he spoke of the Trinity. As we see though, his idea of a trinity and the modern idea of a trinity are vastly different. The 5th century idea I spoke of is the idea of three coequal coeternal beings who are God. We find that in the Athanasian Creed, not the Nicene Creed and not the Early writers.
Click to expand...
Hi Butch
I had asked you what Tertullian believed about the Trinity but you never replied.

When using the ECFs to make a point, I use quotes. However, I'm not going to study Tertullian since what he thinks of the Trinity does not interest me.

Here's what Jesus said:
"And baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

That sounds like the Trinity to me even though that word was not used.

What is the main difference between what you believe Jesus to be and what the Christian faith believes?
 
wondering said:
Hi Butch
I had asked you what Tertullian believed about the Trinity but you never replied.

When using the ECFs to make a point, I use quotes. However, I'm not going to study Tertullian since what he thinks of the Trinity does not interest me.

Here's what Jesus said:
"And baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

That sounds like the Trinity to me even though that word was not used.

What is the main difference between what you believe Jesus to be and what the Christian faith believes?
Click to expand...
Since Tertullian is the one who coined the term as it applies to Christianity, I think his understanding is important. After all, it is the original teaching on the Trinity. Anything that doesn't align with that is either wrong or an addition. The idea in the Athanasian Creed came some 150-200 years later. It wasn't held prior to that. That's why I said it is a 5th century idea. There is a 400 year period where that idea isn't in church history. That brings me to the question, why should we believe an idea from the 5th century that is found nowhere in Scripture?

Jesus, did say to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, He didn't say anything there about one God in three persons. What He said doesn't prove the idea from the 5th century.

You're question is:

What is the main difference between what you believe Jesus to be and what the Christian faith believes?

I would submit that what I believe is the Christian faith. It was first. You can't have error in a doctrine before the doctrine is established. Therefore that which is first is right. If teaching on the trinity differs in the 5th century from that which was taught in the beginning, it is the 5th century teaching that is wrong.

As we saw in Genesis 19, there was Jehovah on Earth and Jehovah in Heaven. That shows us from Scripture that there are two and that the modern idea cannot be correct. As I said earlier, This relationship isn't hard to understand if we just let the Scriptures speak and stop trying to force our ideas on it.
 
Butch5 said:
He's not.He's calling the Father the Lord God. The devil is trying to get Jesus to test God and Jesus said you shall not test the Lord your God. Jesus wouldn't test God to prove who He was.
Click to expand...
That's amazing .
So in your mind God failing to " prove who He was " was a real possibility in the mind of both the most magnificent angel God ever created & Jesus Christ ?
Really ?



" Thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God."

( Matthew 4:7 )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top