First 200 - 300 years - Jesus is God?

[thessalonian]

Imagican,

You being an expert on the time period before nicea and all can perhaps answer this. You have said that the trinity was not taught for 2-300 years after the Apostles I believe. Correct me if I am wrong. So did anyone in that time period believe that Jesus was God? If so how did they reconcile their theology of believing Jesus is God, the Father is God, the spirit is God?

Surely there are statements indicating that they believed in one God?

This thread can be a catch all for the constantine issues we were discussing as well.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

Seems they don't want to deal with this question.

 

[thessalonian]

Let me get this going.


"For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost." Igantius 98 to 117

"It is equally perilous, whether we deny that Christ Jesus was God the Spirit, or that He was flesh of our body" Hillary of Pointers


"But as for us, we are certain that Jesus is God, the Son of God, and through Him we know His Father, an (have) all of us(turned away) from all other worship" Araphatat -280-367

I'll post more latter.

The Saviour is God, Jesus is God, Christ is God. In all of this which you hear, though the titles used are many, yet they belong to one Person in power. For whereas the Saviour is God, and Jesus is God, and Christ is God, it is easy to see that all these, though different appellations, are united as regards the Majesty.

 

[Imagican]

Thess, my brother. Jesus NEVER claimed to BE God. His claim is EXACTLY WHO His IS. Why would He LIE to us, and leave it up to 'men' to 'discover' the 'truth'?

NO, I NEVER stated that there were NO people that believed that Jesus WAS God until the Nicean Creed. What I stated was that it took over 300 years for the RCC to 'create' this doctrine and then FORCE it upon the masses.

But, you have still failed to offer where ANY apostle offered 'trinity'. I am well aware that 'someone' created this doctrine. But show me where anyone that is to be 'trusted' had ANYTHING to do with 'trinity'. In other words, I trust God, I trust Christ, I trust the apostles and I trust the Holy Spirit. Now, since NONE of these EVER mentioned 'trinity', I have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to trust this doctrine. I know what 'they' stated, and I also know what was 'done' by those that 'created' this doctrine. Not a real good track record if you ask me.

Then, when one considers that the Romans knew a 'trinity' in the previous pagan religion, it becomes aparent 'where' this 'idea' came from and how it was introduced into the RCC. No different than 'Christmas' Halloween, Easter, carved statues, calling priests 'Father', insisting upon a 'confessional', etc, etc, etc,,,,,,,,

I suppose that the Spirit introduced indulgencies to the Pope too? Or the worship of Mary? Or other statues? And it was the Spirit that led to the inventions of the 'iron maiden', the 'rack', and inspired the church to BURN PEOPLE ALIVE? Now, you offer that the Spirit led the RCC to form the doctrine of 'trinity'. How can I believe that these were led by the Spirit in the creation of 'trinity' anymore than I can believe that the Spirit led them to murder those that wouldn't accept it?

 

[thessalonian]

Thess, my brother. Jesus NEVER claimed to BE God. His claim is EXACTLY WHO His IS. Why would He LIE to us, and leave it up to 'men' to 'discover' the 'truth'?

And I never said you did say that it took 2-300 years for someone to claim Jesus was God. You as usual are unable to grasp the significance of a point. You claimed that the Trinity was not formulated for 2-300 years. The significance of my point of when it was believed that Jesus was God has to do with how they reconciled him being God and the Father being God even though they didn't use the word trinity. But that went right over your head. Do you think people might ask the question, if Jesus is God, how are he and the father separate yet one? No, you say it took 300 years to set this all up. I say it was there from the very begining. That is clear.

You know what, I don't see him claiming to be a man anywhere either. Why should he. It was obvioius. It was also obvious that he didn't need to tell everyone he was God. He walked the walk so to speak. Tell me, why did Peter have to tell people he was a man when they bowed and worshipped him. Jesus just let em worship. Tell me something else. Do Monkeys beget kittens. Do Heanes beget jackels? How about ducks, platypusses? Well then how can God beget a man. Jesus is the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD! Jesus said many times he was the Son of God! There is enough proof in the Bible for all but the blind on this question. I could go on and on.

NO, I NEVER stated that there were NO people that believed that Jesus WAS God until the Nicean Creed. What I stated was that it took over 300 years for the RCC to 'create' this doctrine and then FORCE it upon the masses.

What? That Jesus was God? You offer us no proof that the masses didn't believe Jesus was God? Force it? You speak with prejudice. I don't see Ignatius or Irenaus or Clement forcing anyone of anything. They taught. But you seem to have a problem with men teaching and refuse to learn. Instead thinking your wiser than God and do not have to follow his Church which is the pillar and support of the truth. That Church died out according to you and now we're supposed to go it alone. The gates of hell prevail you tell us.

But, you have still failed to offer where ANY apostle offered 'trinity'. I am well aware that 'someone' created this doctrine. But show me where anyone that is to be 'trusted' had ANYTHING to do with 'trinity'. In other words, I trust God, I trust Christ, I trust the apostles and I trust the Holy Spirit. Now, since NONE of these EVER mentioned 'trinity', I have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to trust this doctrine. I know what 'they' stated, and I also know what was 'done' by those that 'created' this doctrine. Not a real good track record if you ask me.

The word was not used but many have provided biblical exegesis which you simply say na-na boo boo I don't see the word trinity. You don't know the Holy Spirit. Sorry.

Then, when one considers that the Romans knew a 'trinity' in the previous pagan religion, it becomes aparent 'where' this 'idea' came from and how it was introduced into the RCC. No different than 'Christmas' Halloween, Easter, carved statues, calling priests 'Father', insisting upon a 'confessional', etc, etc, etc,,,,,,,,

Ah the expert at all of this. He tells us we cannot really know the truth of the Bible, yet he has it all figured out and all of his historical understandings are correct. "insisting upon a confessional"? What are you talking about. Quite clearly you don't know.

I suppose that the Spirit introduced indulgencies to the Pope too? Or the worship of Mary? Or other statues? And it was the Spirit that led to the inventions of the 'iron maiden', the 'rack', and inspired the church to BURN PEOPLE ALIVE? Now, you offer that the Spirit led the RCC to form the doctrine of 'trinity'. How can I believe that these were led by the Spirit in the creation of 'trinity' anymore than I can believe that the Spirit led them to murder those that wouldn't accept it?

More rhetoric. More chiding and ridicule. To be expected from the likes of you who seeth down inside for anyone who speaks of Catholicism. Who reject authority from God. Who want to wing it all by themselves.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

Here is the quote I refer to:

You offered NO teaching of 'trinity' among the first Christians that taught 'no trinity' for over two hundred years, (probably closer to three), before the 'center' of 'religion' of the time was centered in Rome, (through the 'golden rule', you know, the one that states that 'he who owns the gold, makes the rules. But in this case it wasn't just 'who owns the gold', it was also who has the power to 'force' the rules).

It seems like your changing your story now. (your post above) to it took them 2-300 years to force the trinity on others. That's not what you claimed here.

Now try to comprehend the significance of my question. Who are these that you claim didn't teach the trinity? My guess is they are the same ones who taught that Jesus was God because they are the ones who left the only writings of the time period in question. So once again if they taught that Jesus was God and the Father was God but that Jesus and the Father were one and there is one God they had to teach some form of trinitarian understanding in order to reconcile these things, regardless of whether they used the word or not. Or do you just think they left the question unanswered.

One more thing. You claim to be some sort of an expert on this time period. Well if you were you would know that in fact the Arians held a majority in the Christ believing (won't say Christian because they weren't) world and they persecuted trinitarians vigoursly. Constantinous had both Athanasius and Liberius exiled. Arians forced trinitarians to partake of their communion. There were beatings and murders as well. Gentle souls that they were. But you like to point fingers at Catholics and rub their noses and ignore the history of the non-trinitarians.

 

[Imagican]

Thess, my brother. Jesus NEVER claimed to BE God. His claim is EXACTLY WHO His IS. Why would He LIE to us, and leave it up to 'men' to 'discover' the 'truth'?

And I never said you did say that it took 2-300 years for someone to claim Jesus was God. You as usual are unable to grasp the significance of a point. You claimed that the Trinity was not formulated for 2-300 years. The significance of my point of when it was believed that Jesus was God has to do with how they reconciled him being God and the Father being God even though they didn't use the word trinity. But that went right over your head. Do you think people might ask the question, if Jesus is God, how are he and the father separate yet one? No, you say it took 300 years to set this all up. I say it was there from the very begining. That is clear.

Thess,

Firstly, let me state for the record: "I am NO expert on ANYTHING!!! What I have stated and will openly admit to stating is that I have done extensive studying on the history of the RCC and Christianity in general. I have NEVER claimed to be ANY KIND of EXPERT.

Now, back to what I have stated. The 'first Christians' to which I referred were the apostles and those taught by 'them'. As far as we KNOW, Peter NEVER led Christians in Rome. Paul was the 'teacher' of the Romans and this we DO KNOW. So all that silly wishful thinking about Peter being the 'first Pope' is NOTHING more than that, wishful thinking.

So, Paul NEVER claimed that Jesus IS God. So he couldn't have taught the Romans this.

And Thess, there are still people today that claim that Jesus IS God. And there are people that worship ‘trees’ too. So, that there were those then that believed it and that there are those NOW that believe it offers NOTHING other than their beliefs. No proof what soever that what they believe is ‘truth’.

You know what, I don't see him claiming to be a man anywhere either. Why should he. It was obvioius. It was also obvious that he didn't need to tell everyone he was God. He walked the walk so to speak. Tell me, why did Peter have to tell people he was a man when they bowed and worshipped him. Jesus just let em worship. Tell me something else. Do Monkeys beget kittens. Do Heanes beget jackels? How about ducks, platypusses? Well then how can God beget a man. Jesus is the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD! Jesus said many times he was the Son of God! There is enough proof in the Bible for all but the blind on this question. I could go on and on.

You know, you're quite a 'funny guy'. You make a statement about Jesus NEVER claiming to be a 'man' and then in the same paragraph you answer your own question. You are absolutely right, for those that knew Him KNEW He was a man. But what Christ DID claim was that He IS the Son of God. And this I accept 100 percent.

Peter WAS ONLY a man. His brethren are simply that; his brothers. Christ on the other hand IS the Son of God. Now as to God begetting something other than God, come on my brother, God created EVERYTHING through Christ. So God CAN beget what He pleases. He was the creator of genetics and can therefore manipulate them at will. So, how difficult do you think that it would be for God to 'plant the seed' inside of Mary, Him being the one that created mankind to begin with?

NO, I NEVER stated that there were NO people that believed that Jesus WAS God until the Nicean Creed. What I stated was that it took over 300 years for the RCC to 'create' this doctrine and then FORCE it upon the masses.

What? That Jesus was God? You offer us no proof that the masses didn't believe Jesus was God? Force it? You speak with prejudice. I don't see Ignatius or Irenaus or Clement forcing anyone of anything. They taught. But you seem to have a problem with men teaching and refuse to learn. Instead thinking your wiser than God and do not have to follow his Church which is the pillar and support of the truth. That Church died out according to you and now we're supposed to go it alone. The gates of hell prevail you tell us.

The entire NEW TESTAMENT is all the proof I need to know that the masses DID NOT believe that Jesus was GOD. NO, by no means do I consider myself to be near as wise as the apostles. You claim that 'your' church is His Church. I don't believe this to be true. No, Thess, the CHURCH did NOT die out. It was subverted by a mean and nasty people that hungered for power more than anything else. It was in their nature to begin with and simply spilled over into their religion. And NO, I am NOT alone. The Church STILL exists. But it is NOT the church that you think it is. The temple is NOW WITHIN, not in your stained glass palaces full of carvings and gold. The temple is within ME. And I am NOT alone.


[quote:73990]But, you have still failed to offer where ANY apostle offered 'trinity'. I am well aware that 'someone' created this doctrine. But show me where anyone that is to be 'trusted' had ANYTHING to do with 'trinity'. In other words, I trust God, I trust Christ, I trust the apostles and I trust the Holy Spirit. Now, since NONE of these EVER mentioned 'trinity', I have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to trust this doctrine. I know what 'they' stated, and I also know what was 'done' by those that 'created' this doctrine. Not a real good track record if you ask me.

The word was not used but many have provided biblical exegesis which you simply say na-na boo boo I don't see the word trinity. You don't know the Holy Spirit. Sorry.

I won't argue with you about what I do or don't know concerning God, Christ and the Spirit. Suffice is to say that the 'fruit will bear witness of what I follow'.

Then, when one considers that the Romans knew a 'trinity' in the previous pagan religion, it becomes aparent 'where' this 'idea' came from and how it was introduced into the RCC. No different than 'Christmas' Halloween, Easter, carved statues, calling priests 'Father', insisting upon a 'confessional', etc, etc, etc,,,,,,,,

Ah the expert at all of this. He tells us we cannot really know the truth of the Bible, yet he has it all figured out and all of his historical understandings are correct. "insisting upon a confessional"? What are you talking about. Quite clearly you don't know.

NO, the truth CAN be known. It can NOT simply be altered at will though. I cannot read it as a man nor change what I want in order to make my thoughts and ideas fit where I want them to. Let me alter the 'insisting upon a confessional' to this: Creating a doctrine that DEMANDS a confessional and accusing ANYONE that doesn't offer their confession of being an unfaithful Catholic. No, Thess, I do know and that's the problem here. You have those that don't know any better remain ignorant so you could claim to have a 'perfect' religion. The problem is that I would rather that they Do have the 'truth' and at that point be able to make an informed decision as to whether or not they will want to accept it. I am offering nothing that can't be proven to ANYONE that so chooses. i am doing nothing other than unlocking the gate. If they choose to enter, that is NOW their choice without being hoodwinked into acceptance without knowledge.

I suppose that the Spirit introduced indulgencies to the Pope too? Or the worship of Mary? Or other statues? And it was the Spirit that led to the inventions of the 'iron maiden', the 'rack', and inspired the church to BURN PEOPLE ALIVE? Now, you offer that the Spirit led the RCC to form the doctrine of 'trinity'. How can I believe that these were led by the Spirit in the creation of 'trinity' anymore than I can believe that the Spirit led them to murder those that wouldn't accept it?

More rhetoric. More chiding and ridicule. To be expected from the likes of you who seeth down inside for anyone who speaks of Catholicism. Who reject authority from God. Who want to wing it all by themselves.

But you didn't answer a single question that i proposed. Why is this. What offered to 'silly' to answer? Or are you simply afraid that by answering them those that read these posts will 'see' the truth? No, I have offered NO hate since I began posting on this forum. There are times that I become passionate about my beliefs and understanding I must admit, but seething anger or hate; hardly my friend. And I DO NOT want to 'wing it' at all. It is NOT a game to 'me'. I seek the 'truth' and offer what I believe I have found to others so that they may not have to work as hard to obtain it as I have so far. I Do NOT reject the authority of God and that's what matters. Please show me how you have the proof that 'your' church is anything other than man-made theology and doctrines. I would like for you to 'prove' to me that God has given 'your' church authority over ANYTHING.

And Thess, I like you brother, I really do. NO, REALLY. I have NO hate towards you PERIOD. I enjoy our little jaunts at times and always try my best to offer you the respect that I would ANYONE else. Our opinions and understanding are obviously 'light-years' apart, but that doesn't keep me from caring for you regardless. As a matter of fact, I probably pray for you more than anyone else on this forum. So, trust me when I tell you, my nay is nay and my yea is yea and I have NO animosity towards you whatsoever.

I do NOT 'hate' the Catholic church. I do NOT 'hate' Catholics period. I am to abhor evil though and some of their deeds have been 'almost' unforgivable. But, there are things impossible for man but NOT for God. And we should thank Him daily for this. For if He were to judge us as we judge each other, we would ALL burn in hell for eternity.

Blessings[/quote:73990]

Blessings to you too my brother. And please forgive me for any ill feelings that i may have caused inadvertently. I am not a very 'politically correct' fellow. I couldn't care less about being so. I am interested in ONE thing and that is The Truth. Any thing other than that MUST take a 'back-burner' to that which matters MOST. So, if I have offended you personally for my offerings concerning the religion that you follow, forgive me for I have NEVER meant a word of it personally.

MEC

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

A consideration
Ignatius of Antioch, martyred during the reign of the Emperor Trajan (98AD-117AD) wrote in his letter to the Ephesians

Under the Divine dispensation, Jesus Christ our God was conceived by Mary of the seed of David and of the Spirit of God. (Paragraph 18)

The age-old empire of evil was overthrown, for God was now appearing in human form to bring in a new order, even life without end. (Paragraph 19)

Ignatius was a first century Bishop that died most likely in the beginning of the second century. His views are not alien or new, because he was writing to other towns such as Trallia, Magnesia (two seperate Magnesias) and Rome, among others. His writings were considered orthodox by the major Apostolic Sees. The first quote is trinitarian, but both see that Jesus was taught to be Divine.

The Didache is a document, basically a little guidebook for Christians and their leaders, written early in the second half of the first century, written before the final books of the Bible were written. So I will quote some from it.

The procedure for Baptism is as follows. After reading all that has been said, immerse in running water 'In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' (Paragraph 7)

This shows a trinitarian view expressed in the rite of baptism.

So I would say its a pretty early idea, not something that just popped up at Nicea.

 

[Imagican]

I don't agree with your interpretation of this statement. To baptize in the 'name of' the Father, Son and Holy Spirit DOES NOT show 'trinity' or even a 'triune' nature to any except those that 'choose' to 'see it' this way. And in this statement is NO indication that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ALL GOD. The Father IS God, the Son? His Son or course, and the Holy Spirit is the 'comforter' that has been 'left behind'. The Holy Spirit is the SAME Spirit that descended upon Christ at His Baptism. And when He departed this world, it was 'left behind' as 'our Comforter'.

So, what you have offered is nothing more than that the Christians 150 or more years after Christ was risen, teaching EXACTLY what He had commanded them to do; Baptize in the name of the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit. Nothing 'triune' or no 'trinity' here, yet.

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

Why is that we must baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?

Why not names? Why is the word 'name' singular?

 

[Imagican]

Fulton,

How about the consideration that what it is saying is: In the name of The Father, and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit. But instead of wasting words, it simply states: In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Kinda like someone stating that they went to school at Fern Creek Elementary, Howard Jr. High and Edgewater High School, and stating it like this: "I went to Fern Creek Elementary, Howard Jr High and Edgewater High School. I don't need to waste words by saying: I went to Fern Creek Elementary, and I went to Howard Jr High, and I went to Edgewater High School. Get it?

 

[Imagican]

Look guys, no matter how hard you try to show that the Bible speaks of a 'triune God' or a 'trinity', to even state this is misleading or even deceitful to the point of un-truth. For the Bible speaks of NO SUCH thing. Yes, the Catholics certainly 'saw' a 'triune' God or 'trinity' in the Word. There are slight indications of this. But, to them it was VERY familiar for they had worshiped a 'triune' god previous to their introduction to Christianity. No surprise that they 'saw' a 'trinity' in Christianity. The problem arises when one realizes that the Bible DOES NOT speak of 'trinity'. It even plainly states that there is ONLY ONE GOD. And Christ PLAINLY stated that HE IS THE SON OF GOD. God IS the Father Christ IS the Son. God is the God of Christ as much as He is OUR GOD. God is OUR FATHER as He is the Father of Christ. But there is NOTHING in the Word that states that Jesus IS GOD. Thomas may have stated this but as I have already offered, this comes as no surprise. The religious order of the time accused Jesus of being in league with Satan, was this true? Of course not. So, someone stating something that is written in the Word means little unless we KNOW that to be inspired of God. We have absolutely NO evidence that ANYTHING Thomas EVER said was inspired by God. So, take Thomas our of the mix, and there is NOTHING that states Christ IS God. One has to 'read this into the Word' to make it so.

So, I have YET to get an answer to this one and it's SO obvious that I can't believe that 'trins' don't immediately state upon realizing the 'truth of it' that they too see the fallacy of 'trinity'. Here it is:

I get stranded on a deserted island. I am walking along one day and I stumble upon a Bible that has washed ashore also. I start reading the Word and through it find Christ and develope a relationship with God. Now, since NO ONE is there to 'teach' me 'trinity', do I receive salvation or NOT? Now, if the answer is that I can accept Jesus into my heart and receive Salvation WITHOUT an understanding of 'trinity', why would 'trinitarians' state the opposite to be true? And HOW could I possibly learn 'trinity' without SOMEONE to teach it to me? For this Word IS NOT IN THE BIBLE. Therefore the ONLY way in which I could learn and follow this doctrine is if SOME MAN teaches it to me. Don't you get it? If this doctrine was as important as many that accept it insist that it is, then HOW could it NOT BE IN THE WORD?

My God is NOT the kind of God that would 'trick' people like this. But, the evidence shows that those that created 'trinity' are exactly the kind of people that would 'trick' people thus. Just as they created the confessional to use against their followers, And JUST as they were at one time selling indulgences that they indicated were a 'part' of Christianity. Just as they instituted the worshiping of Mary and the Saints, and just as they created purgatory to get relatives of the dead to PAY for their prayers, they would 'trick' the followers in any way they thought they could amass power and gain. So, does it come as a surprise to learn that these'created' 'trinity' too? And NOT because it is in the Word, at the time they added it to their 'doctrine' this word 'trinity' didn't exist in the Bible any more than it does RIGHT NOW.

Any one that has any desire to understand the truth of 'trinity' only need do a minor amount of research to find the 'truth'. But, there will certainly be those that will choose instead to insist upon their beliefs REGARDLESS of whether they are right or wrong for the SAME reason the Catholic Church LOCKED UP Galileo, they were NOT willing to admit that they made a mistake for they felt that if their followers realized that they made a mistake in their understanding of the planets and the Sun, WHAT ELSE MUST THEY HAVE BEEN WRONG ABOUT? So, there are many that would die following a 'wrong' belief before recanting and 'changing' because their 'false pride' simply will NOT allow them to 'see' the truth.

Do the studying yourself. Many of you WILL be amazed to find that this doctrine was 'created' by men and has little to do with the Word. And to find that those that 'created it' and added it into Christianity ALREADY had a 'triune god' in their previous pagan religion only adds MORE proof to how easy it was for them to add this into Christianity. The word 'trinity' itself is of pagan origins. It is NOT EVEN IN THE BIBLE. Yet goes back to ancient Babylon and Egypt. Check it out for yourselves. Instead of simply defending this doctrine because that's what you have been taught of men, check it out and see how easy it is to find the information that I am offering. Then read the Bible and see if it doesn't become obvious how the words are twisted to 'prove' this doctrine.

And don't forget my little island scenario. Figure that one out and see if it doesn't become obvious that this is NOT something as important as 'trinitarians' make it to be. If what I offer is 'true', then WHY do they SO INSIST that EVERYONE MUST accept 'trinity' or they CANNOT be saved? That TOO will become obvious once one understands the 'nature' of this doctrine to begin with.

 

[Sothenes]

Look guys, no matter how hard you try to show that the Bible speaks of a 'triune God' or a 'trinity', to even state this is misleading or even deceitful to the point of un-truth. For the Bible speaks of NO SUCH thing. Yes, the Catholics certainly 'saw' a 'triune' God or 'trinity' in the Word. There are slight indications of this. But, to them it was VERY familiar for they had worshiped a 'triune' god previous to their introduction to Christianity. No surprise that they 'saw' a 'trinity' in Christianity. The problem arises when one realizes that the Bible DOES NOT speak of 'trinity'. It even plainly states that there is ONLY ONE GOD. And Christ PLAINLY stated that HE IS THE SON OF GOD. God IS the Father Christ IS the Son. God is the God of Christ as much as He is OUR GOD. God is OUR FATHER as He is the Father of Christ. But there is NOTHING in the Word that states that Jesus IS GOD. Thomas may have stated this but as I have already offered, this comes as no surprise. The religious order of the time accused Jesus of being in league with Satan, was this true? Of course not. So, someone stating something that is written in the Word means little unless we KNOW that to be inspired of God. We have absolutely NO evidence that ANYTHING Thomas EVER said was inspired by God. So, take Thomas our of the mix, and there is NOTHING that states Christ IS God. One has to 'read this into the Word' to make it so.

The problem is that the early Christians spoke Greek and Hebrew and you speak English and maybe a second language.

The Hebrew referred to God as elohim which is plural and Deuteronomy 6:4 says that the plurality is one Lord. The New Testament uses the word "Godhead" which is defined as deity.

I'll probably be sorry I asked but what do you make of Colossians 2:9?

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

The word "Godhead" is Theotes which is "deity" or "the state of being God".
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/ ... -5073.html

If the Son and Holy Spirit were not God, I'm sure you would make an argument that they don't do the same things that God does but it is a given that I'm capable of posting that they do the same things that God does.

 

[Sothenes]

Do the studying yourself. Many of you WILL be amazed to find that this doctrine was 'created' by men and has little to do with the Word. And to find that those that 'created it' and added it into Christianity ALREADY had a 'triune god' in their previous pagan religion only adds MORE proof to how easy it was for them to add this into Christianity. The word 'trinity' itself is of pagan origins. It is NOT EVEN IN THE BIBLE. Yet goes back to ancient Babylon and Egypt. Check it out for yourselves. Instead of simply defending this doctrine because that's what you have been taught of men, check it out and see how easy it is to find the information that I am offering. Then read the Bible and see if it doesn't become obvious how the words are twisted to 'prove' this doctrine.

You are offering us myth on Christianity because there is no historical or geographical evidence from respected scholars about what you are teaching.

"...it is critical to recognize that the Babylonians and Assyrians believed in triads of gods who headed up a pantheon of many other gods.20 But these triads constituted three separate gods (polytheism), which is utterly diferent from the doctrine of the Trinity-which maintains that there is only one God (monotheism) with three persons within the one Godhead. Moreover, it has been pointed out that such pagan ideas predate Christianity by some two thousand years and were far removed from the part of the world where Christianity developed.21 From a historical and geographical perspective, then, the suggestion that Christianity borrowed the Trinitarian concept from pagans is quite infeasible."-"Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses" by Dr. Ron Rhodes

20 Paul G. Weathers,"Answering the Arguments of Jehovah's Witnesses Against the Trinity," Contend for the Faith, ed. Eric Pement (Chicago: EMNR, 1992), pp. 132, 136.
21 Robert M. Bowman, Why You Should Believe in the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989), p. 43.

 

[English]

I think the issue is not that God doesn't exist as a trinity but that you don't have to believe in the doctrine of the trinity to be saved. In other words justification comes through believing the gospel, the good news, "and this word is the good news that was preached to you".

1Pe 1:20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for your sake,
1Pe 1:21 who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

1Pe 1:22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart,
1Pe 1:23 since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;
1Pe 1:24 for "All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls,
1Pe 1:25 but the word of the Lord remains forever." And this word is the good news that was preached to you.

The idea that you must believe the doctrine of the trinity is one of the outcomes of the councils of Nicea and is first seen "formally" in the Athanasian Creed which follows the Apostle's and Nicean Creed, which emerged from the second council at constantinople at I think 523. AD.

What influenced them to make that decision by that time.. don't know. Would be interesting to look into more. But it is interesting how the goalposts have moved so to speak and the creeds have "evolved" over time. You would expect it to be the case that the truth is the truth and therefore would remain unaltered.

 

[mutzrein]

My response in red

I think the issue is not that God doesn't exist as a trinity but that you don't have to believe in the doctrine of the trinity to be saved. In other words justification comes through believing the gospel, the good news, "and this word is the good news that was preached to you".
Yep - but tell that to a catholic.

1Pe 1:20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for your sake,
1Pe 1:21 who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

1Pe 1:22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart,
1Pe 1:23 since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;
1Pe 1:24 for "All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls,
1Pe 1:25 but the word of the Lord remains forever." And this word is the good news that was preached to you.

The idea that you must believe the doctrine of the trinity is one of the outcomes of the councils of Nicea and is first seen "formally" in the Athanasian Creed which follows the Apostle's and Nicean Creed, which emerged from the second council at constantinople at I think 523. AD.

What influenced them to make that decision by that time.. don't know. Would be interesting to look into more. But it is interesting how the goalposts have moved so to speak and the creeds have "evolved" over time. You would expect it to be the case that the truth is the truth and therefore would remain unaltered.

The reason for the creed is simple. When you have a creed you have no need of the Spirit. You cannot control the Spirit of God which is given as a gift without human decision. But you can control a salvation that comes through adherance to a creed.

 

[Sothenes]

The reason for the creed is simple. When you have a creed you have no need of the Spirit. You cannot control the Spirit of God which is given as a gift without human decision. But you can control a salvation that comes through adherance to a creed.

"But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God."-1 Corinthians 14:28

“Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but have power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.â€Â-I Cor. 7:37

The word for “Power†is “Exousiaâ€Â. Exousia is Strong’s # 1849 which means,â€Âforce, capacity, competency, freedom, mastery, magistrate, superhuman, potentate, authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, or strength.†Paul is saying that Christians have authority over their own will.

"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye."-Acts 7:51

"Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;"-Proverbs 1:24

"He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy."-Proverbs 29:1

"And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man,.."-Genesis 6:3

"..it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."-Acts 9:5

"..thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God."-Acts 5:4

"...To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation."-Hebrews 3:15

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition."-1 Thessalonians 2:3

 

[mutzrein]

Sothenes - what has that got to do with my response to English? Can you please explain the connection.

Thanks

 

[Sothenes]

Sothenes - what has that got to do with my response to English? Can you please explain the connection.

Thanks

You wrote that you have no control over the spirit and I posted verses which show that you do.

You wrote,"When you have a creed you have no need of the Spirit."

If you knew the history of the creeds, they started out with scripture being quoted. If we go back earlier than that, we have Jesus quoting scripture:

"But he (Jesus) answered (Satan) and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."-Matthew 4:4

That is a spiritual value being vocalized in a creed and it is no different between that and the Apostle's doctrine which we are to follow.

"And they continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."-Acts 2:42

"Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine."-1 Timothy 4:13

"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not in [your] house, neither bid him God speed:"-2 John 1:10

We can easily call doctrine a "creed" but if they don't have the doctrine which means teaching, we're not supposed to let the person have a platform to teach in our church. It is a rule just like creeds are rules. Are you going to tell the spirit that the inspired word of God is not 'spiritual' because you are confined to the word of God? Any departure from the word of God in favor of the spirit is a departure from the foundation of the church in favor of the doctrines of demons because the doctrines were "once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3) and I can't believe every spirit (1 John 4:1) so anyone wanting to leave the Bible for spirits is going to leave the teaching that was 'once delivered' and accept lying spirits who are delivering something that God hasn't said in His word.

 

[mutzrein]

Sothenes - what has that got to do with my response to English? Can you please explain the connection.

Thanks

You wrote that you have no control over the spirit and I posted verses which show that you do.

You wrote,"When you have a creed you have no need of the Spirit."

If you knew the history of the creeds, they started out with scripture being quoted. If we go back earlier than that, we have Jesus quoting scripture:

"But he (Jesus) answered (Satan) and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."-Matthew 4:4

That is a spiritual value being vocalized in a creed and it is no different between that and the Apostle's doctrine which we are to follow.

"And they continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."-Acts 2:42

"Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine."-1 Timothy 4:13

"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not in [your] house, neither bid him God speed:"-2 John 1:10

We can easily call doctrine a "creed" but if they don't have the doctrine which means teaching, we're not supposed to let the person have a platform to teach in our church. It is a rule just like creeds are rules. Are you going to tell the spirit that the inspired word of God is not 'spiritual' because you are confined to the word of God? Any departure from the word of God in favor of the spirit is a departure from the foundation of the church in favor of the doctrines of demons because the doctrines were "once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3) and I can't believe every spirit (1 John 4:1) so anyone wanting to leave the Bible for spirits is going to leave the teaching that was 'once delivered' and accept lying spirits who are delivering something that God hasn't said in His word.

My statement, 'You cannot control the Spirit of God . . .’ is in regard to our spiritual birth. Jesus made it plain that being born again is not a matter of human decision. However there are many who say the opposite, that you must agree with a particular creed in order to be born again. I reject this utterly.