How to defend the trinity!

[Grailhunter]

@Jos

Again, a great post!

Josef I am defending the Trinity.....the true definition of it.

 

[GodsGrace]

Grailhunter

I don't understand your post no. 881 .
(The reply button won't function.sorry)

 

[Grailhunter]

Grailhunter

I don't understand your post no. 881 .
(The reply button won't function.sorry)

Joef said....Hey All,
In the original post, Bible asks "How do you defend the trinity from the Bible alone " To get us back on topic, I wrote this. Critique as you will.

And I was just saying I was defending the Trinity.....the true definition.

 

[GodsGrace]

Joef said....Hey All,
In the original post, Bible asks "How do you defend the trinity from the Bible alone " To get us back on topic, I wrote this. Critique as you will.

And I was just saying I was defending the Trinity.....the true definition.

But if YOU have the true definition....
Does that mean every theologian that doesn't agree with you is wrong??

IMHO, the true definition MUST be what the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers believed to be true.

I think post 879 hits it on the head.

You stated that the Trinity was not confirmed till the 500 or 600's, if I remember correctly.
Really it was discussed in the 100's and 200's and confirmed in 325AD.

Surely, knowing history, I don't have to tell you that it was not easy to communicate in those times.
Christians were being persecuted, killed, even leaders of the new movement called Christianity.
Churches were far away from each other, communication was difficult. There were other heresies that had to be dealt with. I think it's a wonder that it was done by 325AD, and all due to HERESIES that were circulating.

 

[GodsGrace]

Here are what some of the Early Church Fathers (theologians) believed about Jesus.
An effort was being made to try to understand who this Jesus person was exactly.
He was like no one ever before.
He seemed to be a man.
He seemed to be God.
He died for His belief.


Christians know God and His Logos.
They also know what type of oneness the Son has with the Father and what type of communion the Father has with the Son. Furthermore, they know what the Spirit is and what the unity is of these three; the Spirit, the Son and the Father.
They also knew what their distinction is in unity.
Athenagoras 175AD c.


We acknowledge a God and a Son, His Logos, and a Holy Spirit. These are united in essence - the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Now, the Son is the intelligence, reason, and wisdom of the Father. And the Spirit is an emanation, as light from fire.
Athenagoras 175AD c.

I have also largely demonstrated that the Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father. Now, that Wisdom also, who is the Spirit, was present with Him before all creation...
Irenaeus 180AD c.

It is protected by the power of God the Father, and the blood of God the Son, and the dew of the Holy Spirit.
Clement of Alexandria 195AD c.


There's much more. If one reads through the ECFs it becomes apparent that they were endeavoring to understand the Personhood of Jesus.

I should add that...
Iranaeus was taught by Polycarp.
Polycarp was taught by John.

Clement of Alexandria was taught by Tatian
Taught by Justin Martyr
Going back to John...

 

[Grailhunter]

But if YOU have the true definition....
Does that mean every theologian that doesn't agree with you is wrong??

Would you believe I have had people say that to me before? LOL
Yes they are wrong because I am smarter and better educated than they are. Bending to popular opition.....Not rocking the boat. It is very important when you need the acceptance of your peers.
On the other hand I was born without a fear bone....it has served me well.

In the biblical era the Christians were well out numbered, in number and power. If Christ and the Apostles went along with popuar opition, and didn't want to rock the boat, where would we be?

IMHO, the true definition MUST be what the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers believed to be true.

The history of the concepts of the Trinity
Christ showed in every action that there was a difference between Him and Yahweh.....God came up with the terms of their relationship....Father and Son, the “and” is a plus. And the Apostles usually made distinctions between the two, Yahweh as God and Yeshua as Lord. And actually Christ explained this concept that He and the Father are one and people will not accept what He said. And this is what I said about false beliefs....it is like rock solid mind control. It does not matter what the scriptures say they are going to cling to the false beliefs.

The first of the early Church Fathers to be recorded using the word "Trinity" was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late 2nd century but he did not explain his beliefs in detail.

Next was Tertullian and his beliefs in regard to the Trinity
Tertullian, was born around 150–160 AD. He defended his concepts of the Trinity and he explicitly "defined" the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and defended his theology against Praxeas, although he noted that the majority of the believers in his day found issue with his doctrine.

Against the common believers concerned with monotheism, Tertullian's beliefs gives little comfort because he argued that although the above process results in two more who could be called “Gods” it does not introduce two more Gods - not Gods in the sense that Yahweh is a God. His belief was that there is still, as there can only be, one ultimate source of all else, the Father.

From these words, one can deduce that Tertullian was an advocate of a hierarchical system in the Trinity, with the Father as the source and the Son and Holy Spirit as his emanations, being second and third. And he never expressed the “one person” concepts developed in the 4th century. In other words they did not call the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit God.

Although early Christian theologians speculated in many ways on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no one clearly and fully asserted the doctrine of the Trinity as being “one” until the 4th century with the Ecumenical Councils
Which makes it a Catholic doctrine and they did-do not have a good track record on their doctrines being true.....ergo the Protestant reform.

Did the Council of Nicaea create the Trinity?
The Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical debate held by the early Christian church, concludes with the establishment of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the formula being three “persons” being one God.

The following is the original creed as it was issued by the council at Nicaea.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God, light of light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made, both in heaven and in earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, descended, was incarnate, and was made man, and suffered, and rose again the third day; he ascended into heaven, and shall come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit.

Why was the “one person” concept so important?
The leaders of the early Christian churches (congregations) gathered in Nicaea to more or less standardize Christian beliefs. The driving force behind this was Emperor Constantine who ordered and financed the gathering. No surprise, standardization was the Roman way. And I want to mention that it took great courage for the Christian leaders to assemble because some came limping and had missing appendages from the Christian persecutions.

But they were not in agreement on many things and some of these arguments were strong enough that an answer had to be found. As it turns out the one God formula silenced a lot of the disagreements. Silenced, because the belief in this doctrine was mandatory upon pain of excommunication or death as a heretic which was handled by the empire as an enemy of the state. The Catholic Church still asserts that you cannot be a Christian unless you believe in the "one person/one God" aspect of the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity

So what is the Trinity really about?
I contend that the Trinity is three Gods in unity with Yahweh being the supreme God and no one like Him. Actually it is the construct of the unity that is the legitimate discussion, not the oneness. This discussion is speculative because the exact construct of this unity may be beyond our comprehension. And with that in mind I suggest that it is possible that part of the unity is because of the perfection of the intellect of all three Gods, in that they think alike, so consequently will never disagree with each other.

You stated that the Trinity was not confirmed till the 500 or 600's, if I remember correctly.
Really it was discussed in the 100's and 200's and confirmed in 325AD.

Welcome to the proud crowd of older people and memory. No I did not say that.
The doctrine of the Trinity as most people understand originated from the council of Nicaea in 325 + -.

 

[Grailhunter]

The doctrine of the Trinity as most people understand originated from the council of Nicaea in 325 + -.

as most people understand....is actually not that accurate in reality. What do people believe about the Trinity?

I usually define the popular belief of the Trinity as three God in one person. In the broadest sense it is functionally true. Most people refer to the Trinity as God, not Gods. But this definition is the middle of the road.

The first detailed definition of the Trinity came out of the council at Nicaea.
And then the following Ecumenical Councils had things to add and it gets pretty complex. The problem is the way they reasoned this and other concept doctrines out. They start with determining the nature and substance of God. Well they did not have a prayer of figuring that out. But they built on what they had determined. So the foundation of what they determined was faulty so like the tower of Pisa as they built on it, the errors multiplied. By the time they were done with their doctrine of the Trinity it had words and concepts that appeared nowhere in the scriptures and sounded like some mixture of Christianity and Wicca. The term klondike fits it very well.

Then we get to the protestants and they really do not have a prayer of defining the Trinity in detail. Over 30,000 Protestant denominations....which definition are we going to agree on. And then you add to that personal definitions and beliefs regarding the Trinity.

I have met people that think that 3 has nothing to do with the Trinity. And still have different renditions of that. Some believe that the Father and Son are one in some aspect but don't believe that the Holy Spirit is a God, but rather the Spirit of Yahweh or Yeshua or both.

You can look up the common definition of the Trinity, and there are several common definitions... you can look it up in books or on the internet and copy them in and they will still be different from each other.

It is easy to disagree with each other on this topic......but on what? Are we going to pick an exact definition and could most agree on a definition?

I literally have well over a hundred biblical reasons for not believing in the one God formula for the Trinity. Not only what they said but also how the storyline of the Gospels unfolded in relation to how Yahweh and Yeshua interacted with each other and how they referred to each other. It all points to more than one. Not to mention that Christ Himself explained the oneness concept Himself.

I do not believe in the one God formula for Yahweh, Yeshua, and the Holy Spirit, but I do believe in a unity. And like I said before, that is really the legitimate topic to discuss. The unity, what exactly is it? We can discuss it….speculation is good….but to make a doctrine out of it would be a mistake.

 

[Free]

I usually define the popular belief of the Trinity as three God in one person.

I know you don't want me replying to you, but with all due respect, that definition is one of the very reasons I have been persistent with you. That definition is of unitarianism (one person) not Trinitarianism (three persons). Trinitarianism, as I’ve stated many times, has historically been defined (very simply) as three persons within the one being that is God. Yet, all the "evidence" you have given against the Trinity has been against that false definition. You have soundly defeated Modalism, or some form of it, in all your posts but have actually left Trinitarianism unaddressed. It very much matters that we get that order correct--three whos, one what; not three whats, one who.

Maybe you have heard some Christians define the Trinity as three Gods in one person, but I never have. That isn't to say that some laypersons get it wrong, because they likely do (if all the research polls in recent years regarding what Christians believe are correct). But you would likely be very hard-pressed to find any legitimate scholar or theologian that would define the historic, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity as three Gods in one person. It has been consistent from before Nicaea up to the present day, although scholars have always debated certain nuances that they probably have no business trying to figure out. But, we are curious creatures and want answers.

Most people refer to the Trinity as God, not Gods. But this definition is the middle of the road..

The singular “God” is used because there is, was, and ever will be only one God, according to God himself. That is foundational to true Christianity.

 

[Grailhunter]

I know you don't want me replying to you, but with all due respect, that definition is one of the very reasons I have been persistent with you. That definition is of unitarianism (one person) not Trinitarianism (three persons). Trinitarianism, as I’ve stated many times, has historically been defined (very simply) as three persons within the one being that is God. Yet, all the "evidence" you have given against the Trinity has been against that false definition. You have soundly defeated Modalism, or some form of it, in all your posts but have actually left Trinitarianism unaddressed. It very much matters that we get that order correct--three whos, one what; not three whats, one who.

Maybe you have heard some Christians define the Trinity as three Gods in one person, but I never have. That isn't to say that some laypersons get it wrong, because they likely do (if all the research polls in recent years regarding what Christians believe are correct). But you would likely be very hard-pressed to find any legitimate scholar or theologian that would define the historic, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity as three Gods in one person. It has been consistent from before Nicaea up to the present day, although scholars have always debated certain nuances that they probably have no business trying to figure out. But, we are curious creatures and want answers.


The singular “God” is used because there is, was, and ever will be only one God, according to God himself. That is foundational to true Christianity.

Why do I not want to talk to you?
Because you have been trolling me ever since I have been here.
And how many times have I asked you to stop harassing me.
I have yet to see you be correct on anything.
And by the time I got done responding to you I would break every rule they have.
Now leave me alone!

 

[Josef]

Hey All,
Thanks wondering. Think about how hard it was to understand the Trinity before the completed Bible existed. This topic has 45 pages and we as a group of mostly believers (I hope) cannot agree on what the doctrine means. How do you believe the apostles would view this discussion?
Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[Hidden In Him]

Hey All,
Thanks wondering. Think about how hard it was to understand the Trinity before the completed Bible existed. This topic has 45 pages and we as a group of mostly believers (I hope) cannot agree on what the doctrine means. How do you believe the apostles would view this discussion?
Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

Yeah, that's an interesting question. It's obvious that they believed Jesus was God, but I think they were way to busy actually living for Jesus to be sitting around and bickering over the complexities of the Trinity. If the later church had done the same, maybe they could have continued in the same example as well.

 

[BeyondET]

So what is the Trinity really about?
I contend that the Trinity is three Gods in unity with Yahweh being the supreme God and no one like Him. Actually it is the construct of the unity that is the legitimate discussion, not the oneness. This discussion is speculative because the exact construct of this unity may be beyond our comprehension. And with that in mind I suggest that it is possible that part of the unity is because of the perfection of the intellect of all three Gods, in that they think alike, so consequently will never disagree with each other.


Welcome to the proud crowd of older people and memory. No I did not say that.
The doctrine of the Trinity as most people understand originated from the council of Nicaea in 325 + -.

Hmm, so what's the difference between a King and a Prince,

 

[BeyondET]

Who's delivering to Who

1 cor 15:25
Then the end comes, when he will deliver up the Kingdom to God, even the Father; when he will have abolished all rule and all authority and power.

 

[GodsGrace]

Why do I not want to talk to you?
Because you have been trolling me ever since I have been here.
And how many times have I asked you to stop harassing me.
I have yet to see you be correct on anything.
And by the time I got done responding to you I would break every rule they have.
Now leave me alone!

It would be nice, since you're in the Apologetics Forum, if you defended your position. This is what Apologetics is all about...defending one's faith and its beliefs.

If I may make a suggestion...
You would be better served if you responded to all members when asked since all will read the reply you give.

Instead most will not read long posts and your beliefs go unnoticed. Just a suggestion.

 

[GodsGrace]

Who's delivering to Who

1 cor 15:25
Then the end comes, when he will deliver up the Kingdom to God, even the Father; when he will have abolished all rule and all authority and power.

To whom is the above addressed?

 

[Randy]

Hmm, so what's the difference between a King and a Prince,

Those are man's words. A prince is usually a Son of a King. (Royality)

 

[Randy]

G,
If you notice in the above, it states that we Christians believe in ONE GOD.

There can only be one God.
One Lord Jesus Christ, who was determined to be God, or we're worshipping a man which contradicts the Shema.
Jesus is NOT MADE, He is begotten - the ONLY and UNIQUE one - cosubstantial with the Father, who was incarnated and became man.

We also believe in the Holy Spirit, but less is said about Him at this point in history.



The above is also correct.
The Trinity is ONE GOD, consisting of 3 Persons.
It's important to know what PERSONS means.
Sometimes I think that some of us do not. Not necessarily You.



The word PERSON is very important in understanding the Trinity.
Here are a couple of links some might like to see:

...the Bible also indicates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. For example, since the Father sent the Son into the world (John 3:16), He cannot be the same person as the Son. Likewise, after the Son returned to the Father (John 16:10), the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit into the world (John 14:26; Acts 2:33). Therefore, the Holy Spirit must be distinct from the Father and the Son.

In the baptism of Jesus, we see the Father speaking from heaven and the Spirit descending from heaven in the form of a dove as Jesus comes out of the water (Mark 1:10-11). In John 1:1 it is affirmed that Jesus is God and, at the same time, that He was “with God”- thereby indicating that Jesus is a distinct Person from God the Father (cf. also 1:18). And in John 16:13-15 we see that although there is a close unity between them all, the Holy Spirit is also distinct from the Father and the Son.

The fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons means, in other words, that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Jesus is God, but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, but He is not the Son or the Father. They are different Persons, not three different ways of looking at God.
source: https://www.cru.org/us/en/train-and-grow/spiritual-growth/core-christian-beliefs/understanding-the-trinity.html#:~:text=The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one,essence and three in person.


"Three separate Gods united in the Godhead"
Why not make it THREE SEPARATE PERSONS united in the Godhead?
Then it would be right ... otherwise you're creating 3 GODS, and there is only One God.

Would you consider the Godhead to be God Almighty, The Great I Am, Yahweh?
And the other two would be PART of the Godhead?
Maybe this is close. I wonder what Free would have to say about this...

(I know you don't want to post to him, but I do have to say that in this particular Forum, we should answer other member's questions unless you report them for being nasty and breaking the TOS rules. We consider this to be a very serious forum and we ask that the rules be adhered to. I write this also for the benefit of others that might be reading along.
)


The are co-equal in nature and substance.
How could there be a Big God and a Little God?


That's only when Jesus was on earth.

As to the minds, the 3 Persons have their own will and mind,
but they are UNITED in mind in every way (for instance in their goal for humans).


This link has to do with Personhood:

Nerdfighteria Wiki - Personhood: Crash Course Philosophy #21

Personhood: Crash Course Philosophy #21

nerdfighteria.info

You are a person and you have your own mind, will and "spirit".

It's clear that revelation was given after Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God had risen that the nature found in the Son is all the fullness of God.
It's stated "in him the fullness was pleased to dwell" From the will of another.
Who is him? The firstborn of all creation, one who is before all things. A firstborn Son of the Father.


The understanding I have from above is that the Son who was, (His spirit), was in the body prepared for Him. As we read the Father was living in Him doing His work. And the Fathers works Jesus preformed testified to this truth as Jesus stated if you can't believe Him then believe in the works He preformed that the Father is in Him and they are one.

"Father into your hands I commit My spirit"

 

[Grailhunter]

Hmm, so what's the difference between a King and a Prince,

Not sure what you mean.

 

[Randy]

Jesus cast out demons by the Spirit of God not by the person of the Spirit.
Jesus was anointed by the Spirit of the Sovereign Lord, (english), the Spirit of the one who sent Him. Its clear the Father sent Him.
Jesus calls the Father alone the one true God. He did not state anything in regard to a "person" of the Spirit.

Paul stated one God the Father and one Lord Jesus. He gave no honor to a perceived distinct person of the Spirit.
The Host of heaven stated to the one who sits on the throne, (the Father), and to the lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever” No mention to a perceived distinct person of the Spirit.

What does God alone state in regard to that Spirit? As Jesus speaks of that Spirit as another.
In the last days I will pour out My Spirit...

“Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations.

Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says the LORD Almighty.

Those who listen and learn from the "Father" as Jesus stated, "come to me" -

Jesus does not call the Spirit of God His Father nor His God.


So why would I call the Spirit of the only true unbegotten God a person rather than the Spirit of God?

 

[Josef]

Hey All,
Here is an interesting thought. Does anyone other than God have the power to give life?
We would agree that only God has this ability, correct? Therefore only God has the power to raise a person from the dead. So here is a simple question. Who raised Jesus from the dead. God, right? Well given our agreement, this should be easy to prove.

Acts 2:23-24 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

So that's it. It was easy. God raised Jesus from the dead. But wait! What's this?

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

The father raised Jesus. OK , still easy. So the Father has that power. So the Father is God. So that's it. But wait! There's more!

John 2:19-21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
But he spake of the temple of his body.

John 10:17-18 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

What's this you say? We agreed that only God had the power to raise a person from the dead. How does Jesus as a man have God's power? Are you following me? This is not so easy.
Only God had the power to raise a person from the dead. That was our agreement.
Jesus says He can raise Himself from the dead.
So, by our agreement, Jesus is God.
The Father is God.
Jesus is God.
So now we are done.
Not so fast grasshopper. (Anybody get the old Kung Fu TV show reference.)
There's still more!

Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

QUICKEN, quik'n.
1. Primarily, to make alive to vivify to revive or resuscitate, as from death or an inanimate state. Romans 4 .
(Also, of him is an identifier of "the Spirit" so we know this isn't some random spirit. This is the Spirit that dwells in us. This Holy Spirit will also raise us up from the dead. Don't get tripped up on "of him.")

John 14:16-17. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
26. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

This last reference is just for clarity. There is only one Spirit, or Ghost that is Holy. This is the same as in Romans 8, that will dwell in us, and will raise us up "from the dead."

Now you are telling me that the Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost, whatever you choose to call Him, the one that Jesus asked the Father to send to live with me, and be in me, the one who teaches me all things, that Spirit, who raised Jesus from the dead, and will raise us from the dead as well, right? Is that what you are saying?

YOU ARE BLOWING MY MIND!!!!

Only God had the power to raise a person from the dead. That was our agreement.
So, by our agreement, the Holy Spirit is God.

This just got way complicated.
We know the Bible doesn't lie.
For all of this to be true. we must conclude:
The Father is God.
Jesus is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
All are God because all have the power of life.
Only God has that power. So now we are done.
Oh you think this is over?
"Nothing is over until we decide it is!" (Anybody know what movie this is from?")
We have one more fact to deal with.

1 Timothy 2:5 — For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

There are at least 28 references in the Bible to there being one God. You can look them up. Let's conclude what we know, solely from Scripture.

There is only one God.
Jesus is/was a person, an individual, a man who died on the cross. (The Roman centurion made sure of it.)
Only God had the power to raise a person from the dead.
For this to be true;
The Father must be God.
Jesus must be God.
The Holy Spirit must be God.

And they must all somehow be themselves as individuals, but coequally fit into, and coequally be the One and Only God.

Given the Scripture I have set before you, how do you recile who has the Godly ability to raise a person from the dead?

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

PS: I am also going to post this in Bible Study forum so others too scared to come can read and comment on it. I am looking for feedback. Thanks.