Data On The Trinity

[Free]

It may be in translations, but it is not in the old Greek manuscripts.

That's because it isn't a Greek word.

What is important is that the Catholics invented this Trinity a good 400 years after the apostles died.

A study of the history of the Christian Church shows a definite development in the doctrine of the Trinity over the centuries. For example, the early form of the Apostles Creed (believed to date back to shortly after the time of the apostles themselves) does not mention the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ. The Nicene Creed that was written in 325 AD and modified later added the material about Jesus Christ being “eternally begotten” and the "true God” and about the Holy Spirit being “Lord.” But it was the Athanasian Creed that was most likely composed in the latter part of the 4th century or possibly even as early as the 5th century that was the first creed to explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity.

The doctrine of the Trinity wasn't invented, it was discovered. Yes, it took many years to fully develop, but that is for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that being persecuted doesn't really allow much time or opportunity to sit down and debate and discuss these things. Having said that, all the foundations are clearly stated in Scripture and in the writings of the early church.

It seems it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach. God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God. Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather just the opposite as all throughout their history they fiercely defended the fact that there was only one God

You're begging the question. The doctrine of the Trinity affirms monotheism; it is one of the foundations and very reasons for the doctrine. It is worth noting that nothing in Scripture precludes God from being triune.

As I've said many times on these forums, Jesus is the central figure of the entirety of Scripture, whose person and work is the basis of our salvation and in whom alone we have salvation. So, it stands to reason, then, that we cannot believe Jesus to be whom we want him to be and expect to be saved. If Jesus isn't truly and fully God, and also truly and fully man, if either one of those is missing, there is no salvation.

 

[Peterlag]

The Jewish religion denies that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. They are still waiting for Him. BTW, I am a Jew. Jesus healed me in 1977 in the hospital and immediately I accepted Him as the Messiah (as Scripture predicted some of us would).

Again, what are your translating qualifications? And when you write "We believe with a lot of data to back it up...", who is "we"?

You missed my point. I'm not talking about the Jews walking around not believing that Jesus was the Christ. I'm talking about the Old Testament Jews for thousands of years and their great Prophets that spoke for God never said a word about a Trinity. We are all the knowelable folks like me that can put the whole Bible together and make sense out of it and we are not like others who try to make a point by talking pieces of verses from a bunch of other places to try to teach a subject. There is no teaching in any Bible that lays out a Trinity.

 

[Peterlag]

That's because it isn't a Greek word.


The doctrine of the Trinity wasn't invented, it was discovered. Yes, it took many years to fully develop, but that is for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that being persecuted doesn't really allow much time or opportunity to sit down and debate and discuss these things. Having said that, all the foundations are clearly stated in Scripture and in the writings of the early church.


You're begging the question. The doctrine of the Trinity affirms monotheism; it is one of the foundations and very reasons for the doctrine. It is worth noting that nothing in Scripture precludes God from being triune.

As I've said many times on these forums, Jesus is the central figure of the entirety of Scripture, whose person and work is the basis of our salvation and in whom alone we have salvation. So, it stands to reason, then, that we cannot believe Jesus to be whom we want him to be and expect to be saved. If Jesus isn't truly and fully God, and also truly and fully man, if either one of those is missing, there is no salvation.

There are a number of other New Testament verses that state Jesus was a man and we can see them in places like Romans that says a man (Adam) caused sin to enter into the world, and also that a man would have to redeem it from sin. Romans 5:15 says “For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.” Some theologians teach that only God could pay for the sins of mankind, but the Bible specifically says that a man must do it. The book of Corinthians makes the same point Romans does when it says “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:21).

1 Timothy 2:5 says that it's the man Jesus, who was the mediator between God and men. “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” This verse calls Jesus Christ a “man” even after his resurrection. Trinitarian doctrine tries to explain the verses that say Jesus was a man by saying that he was a man, but he was also 100% God at the same time. But there are problems with that such as there is no single verse that says Jesus was both God and man and that's why the God-man doctrine is built from many verses.

Furthermore, scholars admit that there are only about eight verses in the entire New Testament that can be understood to say that Jesus is God, and every one of them can either be translated in a way that supports the Biblical Unitarian position, or disputed textually, or can be explained from the use of the word “God” in the culture. In contrast, the clear verses where Jesus is said to be a “man” such as when Peter or Paul taught their audiences that Jesus was a man appointed by God are not disputed and in the context there does not seem to be any good reason those men would not have said Jesus was a God-man if in fact that is what he is.

 

[jaybo]

You missed my point. I'm not talking about the Jews walking around not believing that Jesus was the Christ. I'm talking about the Old Testament Jews for thousands of years and their great Prophets that spoke for God never said a word about a Trinity. We are all the knowelable folks like me that can put the whole Bible together and make sense out of it and we are not like others who try to make a point by talking pieces of verses from a bunch of other places to try to teach a subject. There is no teaching in any Bible that lays out a Trinity.

"We are all the knowelable folks like me"?

If you read the Bible carefully, the trinity is described in the Old Testament.

Genesis 1:1-2, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water."

and Genesis 1:26, "Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”

So we have God and the Holy Spirit and "us" in Genesis 1. John 1 confirms who was the actual creator.

 

[Peterlag]

"We are all the knowelable folks like me"?

If you read the Bible carefully, the trinity is described in the Old Testament.

Genesis 1:1-2, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water."

and Genesis 1:26, "Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”

So we have God and the Holy Spirit and "us" in Genesis 1. John 1 confirms who was the actual creator.

You mention the Spirit of God above and so I thought it would be helpful to look at the word Spirit...

The words “HOLY SPIRIT” in the Bible are primarily used in two very different ways: One way is to refer to God Himself and the other is referring to God’s nature that He gives to people. God is holy and is spirit and therefore “the Holy Spirit” with a capital “H” and a capital “S” is one of the many “names” or designations for God. God gives His holy spirit nature to people as a gift and when HOLY SPIRIT is used that way it should be translated as the “holy spirit” with a lowercase “h” and a lowercase “s.” The Bible says there is one God, and one Lord, who is the man Jesus Christ; and one gift of the holy spirit. Most Christians are aware that the original manuscripts of the Bible were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. However, it's not well known that Hebrew and Aramaic do not have upper-case and lower-case letters, but rather they just have one form for their letters.

Greek does have upper and lower-case letters, but the early Greek manuscripts were all written with only upper-case letters. Therefore, the early manuscripts had no such thing as the “Holy Spirit” or the “holy spirit” because what was always written was the "HOLY SPIRIT." The capital or lower-case letters are always a translator’s interpretation whenever we read “Holy Spirit” or “holy spirit” or “Spirit” or “spirit” in the English Bible. The difference is usually due to the theology of the translator. The bottom line is we cannot know from the Hebrew or Greek texts whether the Author meant the “Holy Spirit” or the “holy spirit” because we must decide based on the context and scope of Scripture whether the reference being made is to God or God’s gift.

There are many descriptions, titles, and names for God in the Bible and I would like to add God’s proper name is “Yahweh” which occurs more than 6,000 times in the Hebrew Old Testament and is generally translated as “LORD.” But God is also referred to as Elohim, Adonai, El Shaddai, the Ancient of Days, the Holy One of Israel, Father, Shield, and by many more designations. Furthermore, God is holy (Leviticus 11:44), which is why He was called “the Holy One” (the Hebrew text uses the singular adjective “holy” to designate “the Holy One." He is also spirit (John 4:24). It makes perfect sense since God is holy and God is spirit that “Holy” and “Spirit” are sometimes combined and used as one of the many designations for God. Thus, the Hebrew or Greek words for the "HOLY SPIRIT" should be brought into English as the "Holy Spirit” when the subject of a verse is God.

 

[Peterlag]

Jesus never taught the Trinity even when he had good opportunities to do so, and we see this when Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:1-42) and told her he was the Messiah, but nothing more. Jesus did not take the opportunity to teach the Trinity when he asked the Apostles who they thought he was, and Peter said that Jesus was the Christ (Matthew 16:17-20). Also he said he was the Messiah, but did not say a word about the Trinity when he healed the man who had been born blind (John 9:35-38). Trinitarians also commonly say that Jesus claimed to be God, and for that reason the Jews hated him and tried to kill him, but that is not the case because Jesus had been stating in various ways that he was the Messiah, and that is what the Jews were upset about. The Jews all throughout their history made a clear distinction between “God” and the “Messiah” and they did not think the Messiah was going to be God or a “Person” in a triune God.

The Jews would not have considered Jesus a threat, but insane if he had walked around saying he was God. But it was a threat for Jesus to claim to be the Messiah of God and also walk around doing miracles. Jesus had not been claiming to be God in the flesh and this is why the Jews never asked him at his trial if he was God in the flesh, but instead they asked him about what he had been claiming to be, which was the Messiah. Mark 14:61-62 records the High Priest asking “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said "I am.” The High Priest tore his garments and said he deserved to be put to death when Jesus stated he was the Messiah. So we see that the Jews correctly assessed that Jesus had been claiming to be the Christ, and that Jesus indeed said he was the Christ, and also that the Jews thought his claim was worthy of the death penalty.

 

[jaybo]

Jesus never taught the Trinity even when he had good opportunities to do so, and we see this when Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:1-42) and told her he was the Messiah, but nothing more. Jesus did not take the opportunity to teach the Trinity when he asked the Apostles who they thought he was, and Peter said that Jesus was the Christ (Matthew 16:17-20). Also he said he was the Messiah, but did not say a word about the Trinity when he healed the man who had been born blind (John 9:35-38). Trinitarians also commonly say that Jesus claimed to be God, and for that reason the Jews hated him and tried to kill him, but that is not the case because Jesus had been stating in various ways that he was the Messiah, and that is what the Jews were upset about. The Jews all throughout their history made a clear distinction between “God” and the “Messiah” and they did not think the Messiah was going to be God or a “Person” in a triune God.

The Jews would not have considered Jesus a threat, but insane if he had walked around saying he was God. But it was a threat for Jesus to claim to be the Messiah of God and also walk around doing miracles. Jesus had not been claiming to be God in the flesh and this is why the Jews never asked him at his trial if he was God in the flesh, but instead they asked him about what he had been claiming to be, which was the Messiah. Mark 14:61-62 records the High Priest asking “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said "I am.” The High Priest tore his garments and said he deserved to be put to death when Jesus stated he was the Messiah. So we see that the Jews correctly assessed that Jesus had been claiming to be the Christ, and that Jesus indeed said he was the Christ, and also that the Jews thought his claim was worthy of the death penalty.

What are your qualifications as a translator of the ancient languages? Are you well-versed in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek?

Do you have access to the many ancient manuscripts, both Scriptural and not? Are you familiar with the ancient cultures and what Scripture meant to them? Do you realize that the meanings of nouns and adjectives, verb tenses, and idioms are very different in the source and destination languages? Have you served on Bible translation committees, comprised of people from various faiths and denominations?

Otherwise, I accept the work of the people who have those qualifications and that translation experience, not yours.

I have been a Christian for many years, have served as an elder of our local church, read the Bible (several translations) and commentaries daily, and pray (often in tongues) frequently. Therefore, my thoughts are well-grounded in my knowledge, experience, and guidance by the Holy Spirit.

In other words, I disagree with you theories.

John 14:15-17 describes the trinity perfectly: "If you love me, you will obey my commandments. Then I [Jesus] will ask the Father [God], and he will give you another Advocate to be with you forever— the [Holy] Spirit of truth, whom the world [you?] cannot accept, because it does not see him or know him. But you know him, because he resides with you and will be in you." So Jesus clearly did teach the Trinity.

John 4:10-14 teaches the same thing, but it is less obvious: " Jesus answered her, “If you had known the gift of God [the Father] and who it is who said to you, ‘Give me some water to drink,’ you would have asked him, and he [Jesus] would have given you living water.”[the Holy Spirit] “Sir,” the woman said to him, “you have no bucket and the well is deep; where then do you get this living water?[the Holy Spirit] Surely you’re not greater than our ancestor Jacob, are you? For he gave us this well and drank from it himself, along with his sons and his livestock.”

Jesus replied, “Everyone who drinks some of this water will be thirsty again. But whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him [the Holy Spirit] will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life. [clearly the Holy Spirit]”.

How can you say "nothing more" regarding the Trinity about this story??? God the Father is clearly mentioned and Jesus clearly tells the woman who He is. It is clear that the "living water" is the Holy Spirit which will be a "fountain" springing up to eternal life". What else could it possibly mean?

John 10:29-31, "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them from my Father’s hand. The Father and I are one. The Jewish leaders picked up rocks again to stone him to death." Why? For claiming that He and God are one, i.e., there is no spiritual difference between them. That is the reason they wanted to kill Him.

Meanwhile, carefully read these verses -- John 17:20-21, “I am not praying only on their behalf, but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their testimony, that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me. The glory you gave to me I have given to them, that they may be one just as we are one—"

 

[Peterlag]

What are your qualifications as a translator of the ancient languages? Are you well-versed in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek?

Do you have access to the many ancient manuscripts, both Scriptural and not? Are you familiar with the ancient cultures and what Scripture meant to them? Do you realize that the meanings of nouns and adjectives, verb tenses, and idioms are very different in the source and destination languages? Have you served on Bible translation committees, comprised of people from various faiths and denominations?

Otherwise, I accept the work of the people who have those qualifications and that translation experience, not yours.

I have been a Christian for many years, have served as an elder of our local church, read the Bible (several translations) and commentaries daily, and pray (often in tongues) frequently. Therefore, my thoughts are well-grounded in my knowledge, experience, and guidance by the Holy Spirit.

In other words, I disagree with you theories.

John 14:15-17 describes the trinity perfectly: "If you love me, you will obey my commandments. Then I [Jesus] will ask the Father [God], and he will give you another Advocate to be with you forever— the [Holy] Spirit of truth, whom the world [you?] cannot accept, because it does not see him or know him. But you know him, because he resides with you and will be in you." So Jesus clearly did teach the Trinity.

John 4:10-14 teaches the same thing, but it is less obvious: " Jesus answered her, “If you had known the gift of God [the Father] and who it is who said to you, ‘Give me some water to drink,’ you would have asked him, and he [Jesus] would have given you living water.”[the Holy Spirit] “Sir,” the woman said to him, “you have no bucket and the well is deep; where then do you get this living water?[the Holy Spirit] Surely you’re not greater than our ancestor Jacob, are you? For he gave us this well and drank from it himself, along with his sons and his livestock.”

Jesus replied, “Everyone who drinks some of this water will be thirsty again. But whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him [the Holy Spirit] will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life. [clearly the Holy Spirit]”.

How can you say "nothing more" regarding the Trinity about this story??? God the Father is clearly mentioned and Jesus clearly tells the woman who He is. It is clear that the "living water" is the Holy Spirit which will be a "fountain" springing up to eternal life". What else could it possibly mean?

John 10:29-31, "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them from my Father’s hand. The Father and I are one. The Jewish leaders picked up rocks again to stone him to death." Why? For claiming that He and God are one, i.e., there is no spiritual difference between them. That is the reason they wanted to kill Him.

Meanwhile, carefully read these verses -- John 17:20-21, “I am not praying only on their behalf, but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their testimony, that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me. The glory you gave to me I have given to them, that they may be one just as we are one—"

You don't have a word to say about what I post. So you turn it to look at me. I don't matter. But I must know a little to be able to post such great understanding of the Scriptures. Here's more...

The pronouns in the Bible that refer to “God” are singular and there are lots of them. “The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament contain well over twenty thousand pronouns and verbs describing the One God” (Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-inflicted Wound, International Scholars Publications, New York, 1998, p. 17). Singular pronouns include “I” “my” and “he.” We would expect it to say “For God so loved the world that they gave the Father’s only begotten Son….” if “God” were composed of three co-equal beings who each had their own mind and together agreed to send Christ. The fact that the pronouns in the Bible refer to “God” as a singular being is also evidence that there is no Trinity.

The Old Testament prophecies about the coming Messiah foretold that he would be a human being who would be the offspring of Eve (Genesis 3:15); a descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18); a descendant of Judah (Genesis 49:10; a prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15); a son of David (2 Samuel 7:12-13; Isaiah 11:1); a king ruling under Yahweh (Psalm 110:1); and a ruler from among the people of Israel (Jeremiah 30:21). That explains why the people were all expecting a human Messiah. Psalm 110:1 merits special attention because it's especially clear but has been misunderstood and misrepresented by most English versions that read “The LORD says to my Lord….” The word “LORD” is Yahweh, but many Trinitarian commentators argue that “my Lord” in this verse is the Hebrew word "adonai" that is another name for God, and that would provide proof of the divinity of the Messiah. But the Hebrew text does not use "adonai" but rather "adoni" which is always used in Scripture to describe human masters and lords, but never God.

The Old Testament refers to the Messiah as “one like a son of man” and the phrase “son of man” was a Semitic idiom for a human being and it's used that way throughout the Old Testament. The phrase “son of man” also became a title of the Messiah when Daniel referred to him as “one like a son of man” (Daniel 7:13) and that explains why Jesus called himself “the son of man” many times. The use of the “son of man” in reference to the Messiah is one more piece of evidence that Jesus was fully human and one more reason that people were expecting the Messiah to be human. The New Testament teaches Jesus was a man and Jesus himself said he was “a man who has told you the truth” John 8:40. Jesus was not being disingenuous and hiding his “divine nature” but rather was making a factual statement that reinforced what the Jews were expecting of the Messiah—that he would be a fully human man.

 

[pierac]

You are not taking all into account. For example, look at Phil 2:5-8:

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

Some important points to make about this passage:

1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1--"the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The NIV has a clearer rendering of what is meant in verse 6: "being in very nature God." The Expositor's Greek Testament and M. R. Vincent (Word Studies in the New Testament) agree. That Paul is referring to the divinity of Christ is without question.

2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]." The meaning is that anything to do with the appearance of his glory as God had to be let go of in order for the completion of his humiliation, which was necessary for man's salvation. Again, the NIV brings out the meaning a bit better: "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."

3. He, being Jesus, emptied himself--not only was it he who did the emptying, he emptied himself of something. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind. Whatever Paul means here, and we must always be careful to not say more or less than what the Bible says, Jesus, as God Incarnate, still maintains his full deity in becoming truly and fully human.

4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant," "being born in the likeness of men"--this is what John 1:14 is speaking of. Paul is contrasting Jesus's "being born in the likeness of men" with being in the "form of God."

5. Being found in "human form"--again, as opposed to his having been in "the form of God"--he "humbled himself by becoming obedient."

Paul's purpose is to show us the greatest example of humility, the humility of Christ, that we would follow that example. And what greater example of humility could there be than God coming to us as a human, becoming one of us?

You just rejected your own beliefs in your post... and are so clueless you don't even know why!!!
Now to the second phrase in Philippians 2 that causes a difficulty. It is the one that says Jesus Christ "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself (v. 6-7). It is unfortunate that the Old King James version of the Bible translated this verse completely wrong. It reads that Jesus "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" and gives the impression that as the preexistent God, Jesus did not think there was anything wrong in being considered equal with God.

It ought to be clear by now that this is the exact opposite of what is meant. The whole context of the passage is about being humble, putting God's will and glory first, and serving others’ interest above one's own interest. Although he was in "the form of God" Jesus did not reckon his God-given status as something to be exploited.

This meaning contrast well with the conduct of Adam who unfortunately did consider equality with God anything to be grasped at. Adam wanted to be like God as Genesis 3:5 teaches. Adam tried to grasp at equality with God. But Jesus would not usurp God's authority for selfish advantage. He said, "I came to serve" (Matt. 20:28), not to snatch! At his arrest in the garden, he said, "Do you not think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than 12 legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53). As the Messiah, God's appointed King, he had every right to call for divine protection. He "emptied himself" of all such Messianic privileges.

Therefore, it can be categorically stated that Philippians 2: 5-11 has nothing to do with Jesus Christ being God in a preexistence state. The importance is really very simple and very practical: how are Christians to conduct themselves in this world? Not by imitating the man Adam who forfeited everything by a grab for power and glory, but by imitating Jesus the Messiah (v.5) who through humility and obedience to God gained it all and more. After all, if Jesus was already God, then verses 9 to 11 are nonsensical. There is no "Therefore also God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth." If he was already God, he had this before his birth! No. It is clear that God has given him a new position, a new name (authority), and a new rank that he did not previously possess.

The Greek is very clear here: dio kai means (as in Luke 1:35) "for this reason precisely." Why has God exalted Jesus to His right hand? "Therefore, God has highly exalted him and given him the name above every other name because he is back where he was before as God"? Not at all! He is given the status as a reward for the precise reason that he humbled himself and died. His exalted status is a reward. If we follow the last Adam's pattern, we too will be exalted by God when Christ returns. It is evident, then, that "this hymn does not contained what numerous interpreters seek and find in it: an independent statement about preexistence or even a Christology preexistence… No preexistence of Christ before the world with an independent significance can be recognized even in Philippians 2.

This is the creed of ALL Orthodox Christian Beliefs! All of them!


DEFINITION OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451 AD)

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.


So pay close attention.... The Kenotic Doctrine claims that Jesus emptied himself of his deity. Well, you can simply read in the Chalcedon Creed that it defines Jesus’ nature as fully God and fully man at all times, without division, without separation. You cannot say that you believe in the Trinity and use this excuse. If you subscribe to the Kenotic Doctrine, then you have already rejected the Trinity. You cannot be both.

You just denied the Trinity Mr Free!!! In Spades!!!

Shameful.... you should go to your pastor and repent and beg for forgivness for posting something that goes against your Church doctrine!!! Shameful... You don't even know your own docterine!!!

Paul

 

[pierac]

"We are all the knowelable folks like me"?

If you read the Bible carefully, the trinity is described in the Old Testament.

Genesis 1:1-2, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water."

and Genesis 1:26, "Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”

So we have God and the Holy Spirit and "us" in Genesis 1. John 1 confirms who was the actual creator.

Sooo you saying... when God says "let us make man in our image" are we being taught that the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit are together creating human beings? How is it that when some read this statement their minds immediately think of "let us three"? The verse says nothing about God speaking to the Son or to the Holy Spirit. It simply says that God addressed someone else or some others than Himself. The “us” could refer to just one other, or to many others. But who is this someone or who are these others to whom God speaks here?

The Hebrews understood that God addressed His heavenly court, the angelic host and that He allowed them to watch his master-work in creating mankind unfold. This is quite reasonable, for there are other times when God involves the angels in His work. In Isaiah 6, God is seen in His Heavenly temple with the cherubs and all the heavenly court. There God asks, "Whom shall I send, and whom will go for us?" (v.8). It is certainly the case in 1 Kings 22:19-20 where the Lord is seen "sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left" and he asked the heavenly court ‘“who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-Gilead?’ And one said this while the other said that."

Let’s return to Genesis 1:26. It is reasonable to suggest then that God in some way took the angels into confidence with Himself when he created Adam? This is collaborated in Job 38:4, 7 where God says that when He laid the foundations of the earth "all the sons of God shouted for joy." The sons of God are of course the angels as Job 1:6 and 2:1 confirm. God's own testimony is that the work of creation, "the heavens," "the earth" and "all things" were His work alone. This fact is established right away at the very outset of Genesis 1 where we are first introduced to God (elohim) the Creator. It is also clear that when he came to create Adam and Eve he told the angels to watch in awe. In this way the heavenly hosts participated as spectators of the miracle of man's creation.

Now if you're still not convinced that the God of creation is one God and not three in one, here is our Lord Jesus own commentary on Genesis 1:26. He will settle this issue for us.

In Matthew 19:4 and Mark 13:19 Jesus tells us…

Mat 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he (God) who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

Mark 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be.


According to Jesus himself the creator God was not "We who made them from the beginning" but a single person He! Jesus does not include himself in the Genesis 1 creation of Adam, and He is also telling us that God (Father) Created all from the beginning.

Perhaps you should learn from Jesus in Mat 19:4... It would serve you well!!!
Paul

 

[pierac]

That's because it isn't a Greek word.


The doctrine of the Trinity wasn't invented, it was discovered. Yes, it took many years to fully develop, but that is for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that being persecuted doesn't really allow much time or opportunity to sit down and debate and discuss these things. Having said that, all the foundations are clearly stated in Scripture and in the writings of the early church.

Really? It was discovered???

When Christianity started spreading, the leaders of the churches were now Gentiles who had converted to Christianity. These people, for the most part, had been educated in Greek philosophies in their schools and universities. As educated persons, they of course wanted to find a place for their new religious beliefs within the philosophical framework they had already acquired. So when they read Hebrew Scriptures, they could not help injecting Greek philosophical meanings into them. The Encyclopedia Britannica says concerning Christian Platonist:

"They did not believe that truth could conflict with truth and were confident that all that was rationally certain in Platonic speculation would prove to be in perfect accordance with the Christian revelation. Their unhistorical approach and unscholarly methods of exegesis of texts, both pagan and Christian, facilitated this confidence."

There was also the felt need of some Christians with Greek philosophical training to express Christianity in those terms, both for their own intellectual satisfaction and in order to convert educated pagans.

What is needed today is to remove all the Greek influence from what is called modern day Christianity, and return to the Christianity that was preached by Jesus and his Apostles.

The Council of Nicaea, in 325 AD., made "Jesus of the same substance as God." This is not the Trinitarian doctrine we know of today, but it was a start. Fifty-six years later, at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD., the Holy Spirit was added to the formula, bringing to life the modern day Trinity. One can easily see that even at Nicaea the Trinity was not an established doctrine by the absence of the Holy Spirit. Trinitarians will argue that the belief in a triune God was there from the Apostles, and that it was formalized as dogma at Nicaea and Constantinople. But the fact is that the New Testament does not anywhere teach the doctrine of the Trinity. The Doctrine of the Trinity, was not an established doctrine from Apostolic times, but a slowly developing idea that took over three hundred years to formalize.

325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the church. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that "the Father and the Son are of the same substance" (homoousios). Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council. "of one substance with the Father."

The American Academic Encyclopedia states:

"Although this was not Constantine’s first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement."

At the end of this council, Constantine sided with Athanasius over Arius and exiled Arius to Illyria.

328 AD - Athanasius becomes bishop of Alexandria.

328 AD - Constantine recalls Arius from Illyria.

335 AD - Constantine now sides with Arius and exiles Athanasius to Trier.

337 AD - A new emperor, Contantius, orders the return of Athanasius to Alexandria.

339 AD - Athanasius flees Alexandria in anticipation of being expelled.

341 AD - Two councils are held in Antioch this year. During this council, the First, Second, and Third Arian Confessions are written, thereby beginning the attempt to produce a formal doctrine of faith to oppose the Nicene Creed.

343 AD - At the Council of Sardica, Eastern Bishops demand the removal of Athanasius.

346 AD - Athanasius is restored to Alexandria.

351 AD - A second anti - Nicene council is held in Sirmium.

353 AD - A council is held at Aries during Autumn that is directed against Athanasius.

355 AD - A council is held in Milan. Athanasius is again condemned.

356 AD - Athanasius is deposed on February 8th, beginning his third exile.

357 AD - Third Council of Sirmium is convened. Both homoousios and homoiousios are avoided as unbiblical, and it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son.

359 AD - The Synod of Seleucia is held which affirms that Christ is "like the Father," It does not however, specify how the Son is like the Father.

361 AD - A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius’ positions.

380 AD - Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity the official state religion of the empire.

381 AD - The First Council of Constantinople is held to review the controversy since Nicaea. Emperor Theodosius the Great establishes the creed of Nicaea as the standard for his realm. The Nicene Creed is re-evaluated and accepted with the addition of clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters. (History of Arian Controversy)

If you believe that Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then there really should not have been any conflicts. Why should there be? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians. It would be like me being a member of the Communist Party. I would join it knowing that they do not believe in the ownership of private property, no conflict. But now, say after I have been a member of the party for a few years, someone decides to introduce a proposal that we allow the ownership of private property, not everyone in the party is going to agree, the result is conflict. This is similar to what happened in the church. It was not the established teaching, and when some faction of the church tried to make it official, the result was major conflict.

It was mainly a theological power grab by certain factions of the church. The major complication throughout all this was that the emperors were involved. At Nicaea it was Constantine that decided the outcome. Then as you can see, we have the flip-flopping of opinion with the result that Athanasius is exiled and recalled depending on who is in power. We even have in 357 AD the declaration that homoousios and homoiousios are unbiblical, and that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son. This is 180 degrees from Nicaea. It is definitely not the Trinitarian formula.

In 380 AD Emperor Thedosius declares Christianity the state religion. One can come to the conclusion that whichever way Theodosius favors, is the way in which it is going to end. This is exactly what happened next. In 381 AD the struggle was finally ended by the current emperor, Theodosius the Great, who favored the Nicene position. Just like at Nicaea, the EMPEROR again decided it. The emperors were dictating the theology of the church. The big difference now was that there was not going to be any more changing sides. It was now the state religion. You cannot make Christianity the state religion and then change its beliefs every few years, it would undermine its credibility as the true faith. The Trinity was now the orthodox position, and the state was willing to back it up by killing non believers. (Does this sound like the teaching of Jesus? ) Debates however, would continue for years to come.

 

[pierac]

Psalms 110:1

Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."

Psalms 110:1 is a unusual verse. It is referred to in the New Testament 23 times and is thus quoted much more often than any other verse from the Old Testament. It’s importance must not be overlooked. It is a psalm that tells us the relationship between God and Jesus.

Psalms 110:1 is a divine utterance although poorly translated if your version leaves out the original word "oracle". It is “the oracle of Yahweh” (the One God of the Hebrew Bible, of Judaism and New Testament Christianity) to David's lord who is the Messiah, spoken of here 1000 years before he came into existence in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

I want to bring attention to the fact that David's lord is not David's Lord. There should be no capital on the word "lord." The Revised Version of the Bible (1881) corrected the misleading error of other translations which put (and still wrongly put) a capitol L on lord in that verse.

He is not Lord God, because the word in the inspired text is not the word for Deity, but the word for human superior- a human lord, not a Lord who is himself God, but a lord who is the supremely exalted, unique agent of the one God.

The Hebrew word for the status of the son of God and Psalms 110:1 is adoni. This word occurs 195 times in the Hebrew Bible and never refers to God. When God is described as "the Lord" (capital L) a different word, Adonai, appears. Thus the Bible makes a careful distinction between God and man. God is the Lord God (Adonai), or when his personal name is used, Yahweh, and Jesus is his unique, sinless, virginally conceived human son (adoni, my lord, Luke 1:43; 2:11). Adonai is found 449 times in the Old Testament and distinguishes the One God from all others. Adonai is not the word describing the son of God, Jesus, and Psalms 110:1. adoni appears 195 times and refers only to a human (or occasionally an angelic) lord, that is, someone who is not God. This should cut through a lot of complicated post Biblical argumentation and create a making which in subtle ways that secures the simple and most basic Biblical truth, that God is a single person and that the Messiah is the second Adam, "the Man Messiah" (1 Tim. 2:5).

Let's have a look at a few Old Testament verses that show us the clear distinction alluded to here. In Genesis 15:2, Abraham prays to God and says, "O LORD, God [Adonai Yahweh], what will you give me, since I am childless?" In another prayer Abraham's servant addresses God: "O LORD, God of my lord Abraham, please grant me success today" (Gen. 24:12). The second word for "my lord" here is adoni which according to any standard Hebrew lexicon means "Lord," "Master," or "owner." Another example is found in David's speech to his men after he had cut off the hem of King Saul's robe and his conscience bothered him: "So he said to his men, far be it from me because of the Lord [here the word is Yahweh, Lord God] that I should do this thing to my lord [adoni].”

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 157. states… "The form Adoni (‘my lord’), a royal title (Sam. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title Adonai (‘Lord’) used of Yahweh. Adonai the special plural form [the divine title] distinguishes it from adoni [with short vowel] = ‘my lords.’” Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, page 137. States… “lord in the Old Testament is used to translate Adonai when applied to the Divine Being. The [Hebrew] word… has a suffix [with a special pointing] presumably for the sake of distinction... between divine and human appellative.” Wigram, The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament, p. 22. states…

“The form ‘to my lord,’ I’adoni, is never used in the Old Testament as a divine reference… the general excepted fact is that the masoretic pointing distinguishes divine reference (adonai) from human references (adoni).”

“The Hebrew Adonai exclusively denotes the God of Israel. It is attested about 450 times in the Old Testament…Adoni [is] addressed to human beings (Gen 44:7; Num 32:25; 2 Kings 2:19, etc.). We have to assume that the word Adonai received it’s special form to distinguish it from the secular use of adon [i.e. adoni]. The reason why [God is addressed] as Adonai [with long vowel] instead of the normal adon, adoni or adonai [short vowel] may have been to distinguish Yahweh from other gods and from other human Lord's.” from

Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible, p. 531.

If David the Psalmist had expected the Messiah to be the Lord God he would not have used "my lord" (adoni), but the term used exclusively for the one God, Jehovah- Adonai. Unfortunately, though, many English translations which faithfully preserved this distinction elsewhere capitalize the second "lord" only in Psalms 110:1. This gives a misleading impression that the word is a divine title.


Occasionally, it will be objected that this distinction between Adonai and adoni was a late addition to the Hebrew text by the Mesorites around 600 to 700 AD and therefore is not reliable. This objection needs to be considered in the light of the fact that the Hebrew translators of the Septuagint (the LXX) around 250 B.C. recognize and carefully maintained this Hebrew distinction in their work. They never translated the second “lord” of Psalm 110:1 (“my lord,” kyrios mou) to mean the Deity. The first LORD of Psalm 110:1 (the LORD, Ho Kyrios) they always reserve for the one God, Jehovah.

Both the Pharisees and Jesus knew that this inspired verse was crucial in the understanding of the identity of the promised Messiah. Jesus quoted it to show the Messiah would be both the son (descendent) of King David and David's “lord” (see Matt. 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44). This key verse, then, quoted more than any other in the New Testament, authorizes the title "lord" for Jesus. Failure to understand this distinction has led to the erroneous idea that whenever the New Testament calls Jesus "Lord" it means he is the Lord God of the Old Testament.

Paul

 

[pierac]

Hebrew understanding of the Spirit.

One of the biggest problem for those holding that Holy Spirit is the third member of the Godhead is the Old Testament itself. The Old Testament is the foundation of our Bibles, the first 75% of the book. And an incontrovertible fact is that the Hebrew Bible does not support the idea that the Spirit of God is a distinct member of the Godhead at all. Even committed Trinitarians like George Ladd admit in his book, A Theology of the New Testament “The ruach Yahweh (Spirit of the Lord) in the Old Testament is not a separate, distinct entity; it is God's power-the personal activity in God's will achieving a moral and religious objective. God's ruach is the source of all that is alive, of all physical life. The Spirit of God is the active principle that proceeds from God and gives life to the physical world (Genesis 2:7).

Dunn, in his book Christology in the Making adds, “The continuity of thought between Hebraic and Christian understanding of the Spirit is generally recognized…There can be little doubt that from the earliest stages of pre-Christian Judaism "spirit” (ruach) denoted power - the awful, mysterious force of the wind (ruach), of the breath (ruach) of life, of ecstatic inspiration (induced by divine ruach)… in particular, "Spirit of God" denotes effective divine power… In other words, on this understanding, Spirit of God is in no sense distinct from God, but is simply the power of God, God himself acting powerfully in nature and upon men.”

It makes a big difference to our Western minds at least - right at the start of the Bible, whether we translate "this Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters or "a wind [breath] from God swept over the face of the waters" (Gen 1:2). The first possibility conveys to our modern minds the impression that the Spirit is an individual in “his” own right. Many Trinitarians read it that way. The second possibility suggest that God's energetic and creative presence was active.

Psalms 139 expresses this Hebrew parallelism beautifully: "where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?" (v.7). Thus, the Spirit of God is a synonym for God's personal presence with us. N.H. Snaith in his book The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament explains, “The ruach-adonai [Spirit of the Lord] is the manifestation in human experience of the life-giving, energy-creating power of God. And, The Spirit of the Lord is the medium through which God exerts his controlling power."

A brief look at a few more Old Testament verses will show this Hebrew parallelism, where the Spirit of God (Heb. ruach) can mean the breath, life, Spirit, presence, and most particularly - a word of Yahweh: (Job 26:4) (Job 27:3-4) (Job 32-8) (2Sam.23:2) (Prov.1:23) and,

Isa 40:7 The grass withers, the flower fades when the breath of the LORD blows on it; surely the people are grass. 8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.

It is vital not to rush over this. Many other Old Testament examples could be cited to show that spirit and breath are interchangeable. The fact that the ‘spirit’ and ‘breath’ are translations of the same Hebrew and Greek words points to the root meaning of spirit as God's creative power, the energy behind his utterance.

Another world-renowned known Anglican, J.I. Packer in his book Keep in Step with the Spirit (also a committed believer in the Trinity) acknowledges that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit's “distinct personhood is not expressed by the Old Testament writers.”

So then, by what reason then do these learned commentators come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead? They admit that they stepped outside the boundaries of the Old Testament. They would have us believe that it is a doctrine newly revealed only in the New Testament. The New Testament does not alter the Hebrew concept of “spirit” as we will now see. The distinguished Bible scholar N. H. Snaith states that: “The New Testament pneuma (spirit) is used in all the ways in which the Hebrew ruach ( breath, wind, spirit) is used. It is used of the wind (John 3:8), of human breath, both ordinarily

(2 Thessalonians 2:8) and of the breath which means life (Rev. 11:11). It is used of the vital principle in man (Luke 8:55, etc.), as opposed to ‘flesh.’”

Luke writes concerning the Ministry of John the Baptist that: "It is he who will go as a forerunner before him and the Spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous; so as to make ready a people prepared for Lord" (Luke 1:17). The Virgin Mary is told that "[the] Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadowed you" (Luke 1:35). And concerning the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit the risen Jesus predicts that the disciples are to wait in Jerusalem where they "shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you" (Acts 1:18). In these three Lukan passages we observe the interplay of the concepts of "power" and "spirit" precisely as found in the Old Testament.

Another passage of interest in this vein is 1 Corinthians 2:10-12.

1Co 2:10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who [Greek neuter “which”] is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.

Here "the spirit of the man which is in him" is paralleled with "the Spirit of God" which is from God. It is quite clear that a person's spirit is not a separate person from himself, but is rather his/her own mind and inner thoughts. Just so, "the Spirit of God" refers to God's inner and personal centre, His mind and word, even His self-consciousness.

Yet, When reading in Exodus awhile back, I came upon the phrase "the finger of God." I was aware that the same phrase was used in the book of Luke regarding the method Jesus uses to cast out demons. I decided to do a phrase study using e-Sword. The following information is from my latest research.

Exo 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
Exo 31:18 And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

Luk 11:14 Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke, and the people marveled. 15 But some of them said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons," 16 while others, to test him, kept seeking from him a sign from heaven…
Luk 11:20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
I had also come upon Scriptures that says Jesus cast out demons by the Spirit of God. This would strongly lead to the conclusion that the finger of God is the Spirit of God the Father.


Mat 12:22 Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, "Can this be the Son of David?" 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons."
Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.


When you connect Luke 11:20 with Matthew 12:28 then you get the understanding of what the finger of God is.
Luk 11:20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.


Now the same is true with the Holy Spirit. We also have in the Bible two parallel teachings of the same subject one Matthew and one in Luke.
Luk 12:11 And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious about how you should defend yourself or what you should say, 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."

Mat 10:19 When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. 20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

Likewise, when you connect to Matthew 10:20 with Luke 12:12 you get an understanding of what the Holy Spirit is. It is the Spirit of the Father. There is no separate being called the Holy Spirit. Again that's why the Holy Spirit is never worshiped, prayed to, or has a seat on a throne.

Paul

 

[Peterlag]

You just rejected your own beliefs in your post... and are so clueless you don't even know why!!!
Now to the second phrase in Philippians 2 that causes a difficulty. It is the one that says Jesus Christ "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself (v. 6-7). It is unfortunate that the Old King James version of the Bible translated this verse completely wrong. It reads that Jesus "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" and gives the impression that as the preexistent God, Jesus did not think there was anything wrong in being considered equal with God.

It ought to be clear by now that this is the exact opposite of what is meant. The whole context of the passage is about being humble, putting God's will and glory first, and serving others’ interest above one's own interest. Although he was in "the form of God" Jesus did not reckon his God-given status as something to be exploited.

This meaning contrast well with the conduct of Adam who unfortunately did consider equality with God anything to be grasped at. Adam wanted to be like God as Genesis 3:5 teaches. Adam tried to grasp at equality with God. But Jesus would not usurp God's authority for selfish advantage. He said, "I came to serve" (Matt. 20:28), not to snatch! At his arrest in the garden, he said, "Do you not think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than 12 legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53). As the Messiah, God's appointed King, he had every right to call for divine protection. He "emptied himself" of all such Messianic privileges.

Therefore, it can be categorically stated that Philippians 2: 5-11 has nothing to do with Jesus Christ being God in a preexistence state. The importance is really very simple and very practical: how are Christians to conduct themselves in this world? Not by imitating the man Adam who forfeited everything by a grab for power and glory, but by imitating Jesus the Messiah (v.5) who through humility and obedience to God gained it all and more. After all, if Jesus was already God, then verses 9 to 11 are nonsensical. There is no "Therefore also God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth." If he was already God, he had this before his birth! No. It is clear that God has given him a new position, a new name (authority), and a new rank that he did not previously possess.

The Greek is very clear here: dio kai means (as in Luke 1:35) "for this reason precisely." Why has God exalted Jesus to His right hand? "Therefore, God has highly exalted him and given him the name above every other name because he is back where he was before as God"? Not at all! He is given the status as a reward for the precise reason that he humbled himself and died. His exalted status is a reward. If we follow the last Adam's pattern, we too will be exalted by God when Christ returns. It is evident, then, that "this hymn does not contained what numerous interpreters seek and find in it: an independent statement about preexistence or even a Christology preexistence… No preexistence of Christ before the world with an independent significance can be recognized even in Philippians 2.

This is the creed of ALL Orthodox Christian Beliefs! All of them!


DEFINITION OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451 AD)

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.


So pay close attention.... The Kenotic Doctrine claims that Jesus emptied himself of his deity. Well, you can simply read in the Chalcedon Creed that it defines Jesus’ nature as fully God and fully man at all times, without division, without separation. You cannot say that you believe in the Trinity and use this excuse. If you subscribe to the Kenotic Doctrine, then you have already rejected the Trinity. You cannot be both.

You just denied the Trinity Mr Free!!! In Spades!!!

Shameful.... you should go to your pastor and repent and beg for forgivness for posting something that goes against your Church doctrine!!! Shameful... You don't even know your own docterine!!!

Paul

Well written. The only thing I could add to this is it was more like Lucifer that wanted to be like God and not so much with Adam. Was it not Lucifer that tried to grasp at equality with God?

 

[gordon777]

The Spirit of the Father is also the Spirit of Christ, there is ONE SPIRIT.


Read these verses carefully, if you do not, they are the reason you condemn yourselves. ( for not honouring the Son even as we honour the Father.)





Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Philippians 1:19 For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,

1 Peter 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

1 John 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

Ephesians 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Ephesians 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Colossians 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.



Philippians 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

[Randy]

Really? It was discovered???

When Christianity started spreading, the leaders of the churches were now Gentiles who had converted to Christianity. These people, for the most part, had been educated in Greek philosophies in their schools and universities. As educated persons, they of course wanted to find a place for their new religious beliefs within the philosophical framework they had already acquired. So when they read Hebrew Scriptures, they could not help injecting Greek philosophical meanings into them. The Encyclopedia Britannica says concerning Christian Platonist:

"They did not believe that truth could conflict with truth and were confident that all that was rationally certain in Platonic speculation would prove to be in perfect accordance with the Christian revelation. Their unhistorical approach and unscholarly methods of exegesis of texts, both pagan and Christian, facilitated this confidence."

There was also the felt need of some Christians with Greek philosophical training to express Christianity in those terms, both for their own intellectual satisfaction and in order to convert educated pagans.

What is needed today is to remove all the Greek influence from what is called modern day Christianity, and return to the Christianity that was preached by Jesus and his Apostles.

The Council of Nicaea, in 325 AD., made "Jesus of the same substance as God." This is not the Trinitarian doctrine we know of today, but it was a start. Fifty-six years later, at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD., the Holy Spirit was added to the formula, bringing to life the modern day Trinity. One can easily see that even at Nicaea the Trinity was not an established doctrine by the absence of the Holy Spirit. Trinitarians will argue that the belief in a triune God was there from the Apostles, and that it was formalized as dogma at Nicaea and Constantinople. But the fact is that the New Testament does not anywhere teach the doctrine of the Trinity. The Doctrine of the Trinity, was not an established doctrine from Apostolic times, but a slowly developing idea that took over three hundred years to formalize.

325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the church. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that "the Father and the Son are of the same substance" (homoousios). Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council. "of one substance with the Father."

The American Academic Encyclopedia states:

"Although this was not Constantine’s first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement."

At the end of this council, Constantine sided with Athanasius over Arius and exiled Arius to Illyria.

328 AD - Athanasius becomes bishop of Alexandria.

328 AD - Constantine recalls Arius from Illyria.

335 AD - Constantine now sides with Arius and exiles Athanasius to Trier.

337 AD - A new emperor, Contantius, orders the return of Athanasius to Alexandria.

339 AD - Athanasius flees Alexandria in anticipation of being expelled.

341 AD - Two councils are held in Antioch this year. During this council, the First, Second, and Third Arian Confessions are written, thereby beginning the attempt to produce a formal doctrine of faith to oppose the Nicene Creed.

343 AD - At the Council of Sardica, Eastern Bishops demand the removal of Athanasius.

346 AD - Athanasius is restored to Alexandria.

351 AD - A second anti - Nicene council is held in Sirmium.

353 AD - A council is held at Aries during Autumn that is directed against Athanasius.

355 AD - A council is held in Milan. Athanasius is again condemned.

356 AD - Athanasius is deposed on February 8th, beginning his third exile.

357 AD - Third Council of Sirmium is convened. Both homoousios and homoiousios are avoided as unbiblical, and it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son.

359 AD - The Synod of Seleucia is held which affirms that Christ is "like the Father," It does not however, specify how the Son is like the Father.

361 AD - A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius’ positions.

380 AD - Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity the official state religion of the empire.

381 AD - The First Council of Constantinople is held to review the controversy since Nicaea. Emperor Theodosius the Great establishes the creed of Nicaea as the standard for his realm. The Nicene Creed is re-evaluated and accepted with the addition of clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters. (History of Arian Controversy)

If you believe that Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then there really should not have been any conflicts. Why should there be? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians. It would be like me being a member of the Communist Party. I would join it knowing that they do not believe in the ownership of private property, no conflict. But now, say after I have been a member of the party for a few years, someone decides to introduce a proposal that we allow the ownership of private property, not everyone in the party is going to agree, the result is conflict. This is similar to what happened in the church. It was not the established teaching, and when some faction of the church tried to make it official, the result was major conflict.

It was mainly a theological power grab by certain factions of the church. The major complication throughout all this was that the emperors were involved. At Nicaea it was Constantine that decided the outcome. Then as you can see, we have the flip-flopping of opinion with the result that Athanasius is exiled and recalled depending on who is in power. We even have in 357 AD the declaration that homoousios and homoiousios are unbiblical, and that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son. This is 180 degrees from Nicaea. It is definitely not the Trinitarian formula.

In 380 AD Emperor Thedosius declares Christianity the state religion. One can come to the conclusion that whichever way Theodosius favors, is the way in which it is going to end. This is exactly what happened next. In 381 AD the struggle was finally ended by the current emperor, Theodosius the Great, who favored the Nicene position. Just like at Nicaea, the EMPEROR again decided it. The emperors were dictating the theology of the church. The big difference now was that there was not going to be any more changing sides. It was now the state religion. You cannot make Christianity the state religion and then change its beliefs every few years, it would undermine its credibility as the true faith. The Trinity was now the orthodox position, and the state was willing to back it up by killing non believers. (Does this sound like the teaching of Jesus? ) Debates however, would continue for years to come.

But not one of those counsels believed as you do. (either side) So that doesn't help YOUR cause.

 

[jaybo]

You don't have a word to say about what I post. So you turn it to look at me. I don't matter. But I must know a little to be able to post such great understanding of the Scriptures. Here's more...

The pronouns in the Bible that refer to “God” are singular and there are lots of them. “The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament contain well over twenty thousand pronouns and verbs describing the One God” (Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-inflicted Wound, International Scholars Publications, New York, 1998, p. 17). Singular pronouns include “I” “my” and “he.” We would expect it to say “For God so loved the world that they gave the Father’s only begotten Son….” if “God” were composed of three co-equal beings who each had their own mind and together agreed to send Christ. The fact that the pronouns in the Bible refer to “God” as a singular being is also evidence that there is no Trinity.

The Old Testament prophecies about the coming Messiah foretold that he would be a human being who would be the offspring of Eve (Genesis 3:15); a descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18); a descendant of Judah (Genesis 49:10; a prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15); a son of David (2 Samuel 7:12-13; Isaiah 11:1); a king ruling under Yahweh (Psalm 110:1); and a ruler from among the people of Israel (Jeremiah 30:21). That explains why the people were all expecting a human Messiah. Psalm 110:1 merits special attention because it's especially clear but has been misunderstood and misrepresented by most English versions that read “The LORD says to my Lord….” The word “LORD” is Yahweh, but many Trinitarian commentators argue that “my Lord” in this verse is the Hebrew word "adonai" that is another name for God, and that would provide proof of the divinity of the Messiah. But the Hebrew text does not use "adonai" but rather "adoni" which is always used in Scripture to describe human masters and lords, but never God.

The Old Testament refers to the Messiah as “one like a son of man” and the phrase “son of man” was a Semitic idiom for a human being and it's used that way throughout the Old Testament. The phrase “son of man” also became a title of the Messiah when Daniel referred to him as “one like a son of man” (Daniel 7:13) and that explains why Jesus called himself “the son of man” many times. The use of the “son of man” in reference to the Messiah is one more piece of evidence that Jesus was fully human and one more reason that people were expecting the Messiah to be human. The New Testament teaches Jesus was a man and Jesus himself said he was “a man who has told you the truth” John 8:40. Jesus was not being disingenuous and hiding his “divine nature” but rather was making a factual statement that reinforced what the Jews were expecting of the Messiah—that he would be a fully human man.

Anybody can cut-and-paste. That doesn't mean what they cut-and-paste is valid. That includes the above.

 

[gordon777]

Anybody can ignore the testimony of Christ, just as they will be ignored..


Matthew 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

 

[jaybo]

You don't have a word to say about what I post. So you turn it to look at me. I don't matter. But I must know a little to be able to post such great understanding of the Scriptures. Here's more...

The pronouns in the Bible that refer to “God” are singular and there are lots of them. “The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament contain well over twenty thousand pronouns and verbs describing the One God” (Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-inflicted Wound, International Scholars Publications, New York, 1998, p. 17). Singular pronouns include “I” “my” and “he.” We would expect it to say “For God so loved the world that they gave the Father’s only begotten Son….” if “God” were composed of three co-equal beings who each had their own mind and together agreed to send Christ. The fact that the pronouns in the Bible refer to “God” as a singular being is also evidence that there is no Trinity.

The Old Testament prophecies about the coming Messiah foretold that he would be a human being who would be the offspring of Eve (Genesis 3:15); a descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18); a descendant of Judah (Genesis 49:10; a prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15); a son of David (2 Samuel 7:12-13; Isaiah 11:1); a king ruling under Yahweh (Psalm 110:1); and a ruler from among the people of Israel (Jeremiah 30:21). That explains why the people were all expecting a human Messiah. Psalm 110:1 merits special attention because it's especially clear but has been misunderstood and misrepresented by most English versions that read “The LORD says to my Lord….” The word “LORD” is Yahweh, but many Trinitarian commentators argue that “my Lord” in this verse is the Hebrew word "adonai" that is another name for God, and that would provide proof of the divinity of the Messiah. But the Hebrew text does not use "adonai" but rather "adoni" which is always used in Scripture to describe human masters and lords, but never God.

The Old Testament refers to the Messiah as “one like a son of man” and the phrase “son of man” was a Semitic idiom for a human being and it's used that way throughout the Old Testament. The phrase “son of man” also became a title of the Messiah when Daniel referred to him as “one like a son of man” (Daniel 7:13) and that explains why Jesus called himself “the son of man” many times. The use of the “son of man” in reference to the Messiah is one more piece of evidence that Jesus was fully human and one more reason that people were expecting the Messiah to be human. The New Testament teaches Jesus was a man and Jesus himself said he was “a man who has told you the truth” John 8:40. Jesus was not being disingenuous and hiding his “divine nature” but rather was making a factual statement that reinforced what the Jews were expecting of the Messiah—that he would be a fully human man.

a) You must know a little to be able to post such great understanding of the Scriptures? It's only your opinion of yourself, which doesn't mean much.
b) Your lengthy posts have all the flavor of cut-and-paste from an external source. I don't believe that you are the author.

 

[Randy]

How so.... Randy... I'm going to make you get off your spitural butt... and do some research!

NOW TELL EVERYONE HOW NOT ONE OF THOSE COUNSELS... Believe as I do.... Yet they TOTALLY believe as YOU DO!!!

Oh, Randy.... the work now is set before you.... Some how I see you going the way of a Spirtual Karen.... It's all about you, and no need to support your view with actual Scripture!!!

So Karen... I mean Randy...show us what those counsels believe....

Silly child Randy...
Show us what your made of...
Paul

Funny how your head is SO BIG everyone else is silly or getting a spanking. The early church did not believe Jesus's life began in Mary. None of those counsels you state had that on any agenda. When then did YOUR theology begin?