Proof of Trinity

[smaller]

The council based their conclusions on what scripture taught and what the apostles taught.

But you didn't know that, did you? No, of course not

You just know all that nonsense you insist on dumping here.

iakov the fool

Let's get real about some of these things. Religious leaders were still arguing about these subjects for literally HUNDREDS of years after the early church, before they finally made a relatively common and acceptable determination in this matter. And the bickering resulted in "believers" having their tongues cut out and even killed.

Whatever their "final determinations" were, they were certainly done at the hands of very wicked (sincerely religious) men, in their actions against others.

Orthodoxy as we see it today was established with violence and oppression to others.

Let's also consider that the "victors" were the ones who were wealthy and well politically connected, so they could have their adversaries put to the axe or the stake by civil authorities.

The determinations are "one thing." The methods they used to derive them is a christian SHAM, as it was a period of constant violent conflicts.

Certainly nothing to be proud of imho.

And was it really ever settled between the still warring factions? uh, no. They're still fighting about all kinds of nitpicky issues, piling ever higher.

The nuclear heresy bombs went off in orthodoxy's warring factions hundreds of centuries ago, and they're still trying to pick up the pieces.

They couldn't love each others if their lives depended on it.

The "Trinity Doctrine" is, thankfully, a minor form of peace treaty.

 

[Free]

Where does it say one must believe the deity of Christ to be saved?

Theologically we have Romans 10:9-13:

9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
11 For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame."
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.
13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (ESV)

Notice that confessing with one's mouth that "Jesus is Lord" is necessary for salvation. Also notice verse 13, which is connected to verse 9 through the use of "For." And why is it that verse 13 uses quotations? Because it is a quote from Joel 2:32:

32 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls.

Notice here that it is upon the name of Yahweh that one calls on for salvation. Yet Paul equates this with confessing that Jesus is Lord. So what does this mean? It means that Paul is saying one must confess Jesus is Yahweh for salvation.

On the philosophical side, if Jesus was just a creature, as we are, then that means it is possible for someone who lives perfectly to die for their own sins. This means that Jesus' sacrifice is insufficient for all and only for himself.

 

[Free]

Let's get real about some of these things. Religious leaders were still arguing about these subjects for literally HUNDREDS of years after the early church, before they finally made a relatively common and acceptable determination in this matter. And the bickering resulted in "believers" having their tongues cut out and even killed.

Whatever their "final determinations" were, they were certainly done at the hands of very wicked (sincerely religious) men, in their actions against others.

Orthodoxy as we see it today was established with violence and oppression to others.

Let's also consider that the "victors" were the ones who were wealthy and well politically connected, so they could have their adversaries put to the axe or the stake by civil authorities.

The determinations are "one thing." The methods they used to derive them is a christian SHAM, as it was a period of constant violent conflicts.

Certainly nothing to be proud of imho.

And was it really ever settled between the still warring factions? uh, no. They're still fighting about all kinds of nitpicky issues, piling ever higher.

The nuclear heresy bombs went off in orthodoxy's warring factions hundreds of centuries ago, and they're still trying to pick up the pieces.

They couldn't love each others if their lives depended on it.

The "Trinity Doctrine" is, thankfully, a minor form of peace treaty.

This is quite misleading at points. Not to mention it is off-topic, so if you want to discuss this, please make a new thread.

 

[Free]

I believe muslims and mormans are outside of the faith.

On what basis do you say that?

I don't know about JW.

Why not?

Though if you witness to them I would recommend truth. Jesus uses truth. Likewise if one listens and learns from the FATHER they will go to the Son and Jesus will raise them up on the last day. That is also truth.

I always use truth in discussions with them.

 

[smaller]

This is quite misleading at points. Not to mention it is off-topic, so if you want to discuss this, please make a new thread.

The Apostles dedicated exactly zero "explicit formalized" constructs on the matters, though the determinations are all therein.

The teaching is contained in the text but not specified, taught or formalized as such in scriptures other than by bits and pieces to what we have today as the "formalized" construct.

Paul for example did not write down and teach "The Trinity" as an explicit, "formalized" position.

The "construct" is an understanding, but that understanding remains as A Mystery, nevertheless.

We can not look at this construct and say "this construct is God," as it violates the terms of The Mystery.

It's the "best expression" we have to understand The Mystery of the Godhead, but the expression itself as a formalized construct is not and can not be The Mystery of God, expressed in Christ through His Spirit.

We do not worship geometric expressions. Nor do I expect we'll need 'Cliff Notes' on this matter to open the pearly gates, as if it's the magic "open sesame" secret to heaven.

View attachment 7664

 

[Free]

The Apostles dedicated exactly zero "explicit formalized" constructs on the matters, though the determinations are all therein.

The teaching is contained in the text but not specified, taught or formalized as such in scriptures other than by bits and pieces to what we have today as the "formalized" construct.

Paul for example did not write down and teach "The Trinity" as an explicit, "formalized" position.

The "construct" is an understanding, but that understanding remains as A Mystery, nevertheless.

We can not look at this construct and say "this construct is God," as it violates the terms of The Mystery.

It's the "best expression" we have to understand The Mystery of the Godhead, but the expression itself as a formalized construct is not and can not be The Mystery of God, expressed in Christ through His Spirit.

We do not worship geometric expressions. Nor do I expect we'll need 'Cliff Notes' on this matter to open the pearly gates, as if it's the magic "open sesame" secret to heaven.

View attachment 7664

Are you saying you disagree with the diagram?

 

[Jim Parker]

318 was the entire church?

Did I say "the entire church" or did I say "the entire church represented by 318 bishops."?

Jesus calls the Father the one true God.

Where in the scriptures did Jesus say that? Or did you just make that up?

If Jesus always was and always was God how then do you believe in ONE
God? For Jesus stated on the cross "Father into your hands I commit my spirit"

Jesus of Nazareth was not always God. The Word who became flesh as Jesus of Nazareth was always God. That's what John 1:1 and 1:14 tells you if you.

Is Jesus God?

---- Yes. John 1:1 and 1:14

He never dies

---- That's right. Rom 6:9

Yes He is all that the Father is.

---- Then He is eternally the ONE GOD.

No He has always been the Son.

---- No. John 1:14 and Luke 1:32, 35

I know my Lord and He knows me.

Yeah, sure. Good luck with that.

 

[smaller]

Are you saying you disagree with the diagram?

You know better than that. I've posted here for 12 years and never once disagreed with the construct or the teaching. I spent at least 10 years in studies of the position and it's counter's. There is no better understanding.

 

[Jim Parker]

You know better than that. I've posted here for 12 years and never once disagreed with the construct or the teaching. I spent at least 10 years in studies of the position and it's counter's. There is no better understanding.

I think that is the sum of the matter, "There is no better understanding." In that statement, we do not claim to have an exhaustive, detailed, and precise understanding of the Godhead. We can only say that, considering the available information, this is our best understanding and that every other variation has serious flaws. God is One in three Hypostases. (The word "persons" is, IMO, inadequate.)

God is not a creature that we can capture and study. God is beyond our ability to thoroughly know.

Scripture says as much: Deu 29:29 "The secret things belong to the LORD our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law."

iakov the fool

 

[jocor]

The council based their conclusions on what scripture taught and what the apostles taught.

But you didn't know that, did you? No, of course not

You just know all that nonsense you insist on dumping here.

iakov the fool

Of course they based their conclusions on Scripture (just as other Christians did with the doctrines of "transubstantiation",
Satan was Yahweh's wife, infant baptism, one cannot have the Holy Spirit unless you speak in tongues, and a host of other false doctrines derived from Scripture).

 

[jocor]

"Person" is just the best approximation we have in English when speaking of the Trinity.

Therein lies the problem; translating with a trinitarian bias. "Person" was chosen with the trinity doctrine in mind. The same bias occurs with capitalizing "God" when referring to the Son or "Word" in John 1:1.

So you admit that in both English, Hebrew, and Greek, that Jesus is called God. Why do you then deny that?

I guess you haven't been reading me with the intent to understand, but to refute. Hebrew and Greek does not call him "God". It uses "elohim" or "theos", words that were used of mere men. Were those men "Gods"? Of course not. Neither is the Son simply because those words were used of him. There is ONLY one God, Yeshua's Father. Yeshua is the SON of God. Therefore, anytime those words were applied to someone other than the Father of Yeshua, the word "God" should not be the translation.

Not three Gods. Again, the wording is specific to avoid three Gods and three beings.

The semantic gymnastics used for the trinity does not change the fact that you have three Gods. The Father inspired words like "Father" and "Son" to make it perfectly clear that they are two separate beings/persons and the Word was inspired to teach that there is only one true God, Yeshua's Father (John 17:3). Also;

Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?​

Mar 12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
Rom 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Master Yeshua Messiah, through whom are all things, and we through him.
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Messiah Yeshua;

And again, you have failed to show that only the Father is Yahweh. That the Son and Holy Spirit are also God is what Scripture reveals, so your problem then lies with the mystery given by Scripture. And that despite the fact that Scripture states Jesus is God, something you have even given evidence of.

What verses teach the Holy Spirit as God?
As for the Father being the only Yahweh, I would have to go through thousands of verses to show that. You, however, need only present a few to show there are others Yahwehs. Please proceed.

 

[jocor]

Theologically we have Romans 10:9-13:

9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
11 For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame."
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.
13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (ESV)

Notice that confessing with one's mouth that "Jesus is Lord" is necessary for salvation. Also notice verse 13, which is connected to verse 9 through the use of "For." And why is it that verse 13 uses quotations? Because it is a quote from Joel 2:32:

32 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls.

Notice here that it is upon the name of Yahweh that one calls on for salvation. Yet Paul equates this with confessing that Jesus is Lord. So what does this mean? It means that Paul is saying one must confess Jesus is Yahweh for salvation.

First, in verse 9, we have Yeshua who was dead and God (Yeshua's Father, Yahweh) resurrecting him. Two beings; one dead, one alive, one God and the other the "Lord" (not YHWH, but "kurios"). Since there is only one God (the one who resurrected a dead man), that means the one resurrected was not "God".

Second, in Acts 2:21, Peter makes it clear he is quoting Joel who was referring to Father Yahweh. Paul, however, who usually prefaces an OT quote by saying something like, “It is written” or “Isaiah said” etc., didn’t do so in Romans 10:13. He may or may not be alluding to Joel 2:32, but if he was, he wasn’t doing so to prove Yeshua’s identity as YHWH, but his role as the Savior of the world as appointed by YHWH. Prior to Yeshua, men where to look to Yahweh alone for salvation. Now that Yahweh has given Yeshua all authority and appointed him as Savior, we are to look to Yeshua for salvation. This does not exclude Yahweh (Yeshua’s Father) from being the ultimate Savior. It simply redirects our attention to where Yahweh wants it to be; on Yeshua for salvation.

This can be seen in the type of the life of Joseph. The people were always looking to Pharaoh to save them. After Pharaoh appointed Joseph as second in command over Egypt and famine came, he told the people to “Go to Joseph” (Gen.41:55) to be saved. Joseph then provided salvation for the people. Pharaoh is a type of YHWH and Joseph is a type of Yeshua. Yet, they were two different beings as are Yahweh and Yeshua.

Acts 2:36 - Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God [Yahweh] has made that same Yeshua, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Messiah.​

Yeshua was not always “the Lord”. He was made “Lord” by his Father Yahweh. Now that he has been made “Lord” to us, we call upon the “Lord” for salvation. Many Christians have been taught that Yahweh in the Old Testament was Jesus Christ. So, instead of seeing Yahweh in Joel and “Lord” in Romans, and then realizing that the Lord Jesus is now doing what Yahweh did, they erroneously believe the same person is acting in both places.

On the philosophical side, if Jesus was just a creature, as we are, then that means it is possible for someone who lives perfectly to die for their own sins. This means that Jesus' sacrifice is insufficient for all and only for himself.

If someone lived perfectly they would be sinless and wouldn't need to die for their own sins. All have sinned and all need Yeshua's sacrifice. They need the sacrifice of a sinless man who is mortal, not a God who is immortal.

 

[Jim Parker]

Of course they based their conclusions on Scripture (just as other Christians did with the doctrines of "transubstantiation",

Wrong again. But you are consistent.

Transubstantiation is the conclusion to which the Frankish Scholastics came by applying Aristotelian logic to the question of how the bread and wine are changed to the body and blood of the Lord. (That, for some reason, became an important question for them.) It was their infatuation with Aristotelian logic that led them to come up with what they believed to be a "reasonable" explanation for what scripture and the apostolic teaching did not mention.

But, you didn't know that either, did you? No. Of course you didn't.

The early church never attempted to figure that out precisely because it was NOT explained anywhere in scripture and the apostles taught nothing about it other than the bread and wine become the body and blood of the Lord. So the eastern churches, which were not effected by scholasticism or an infatuation with Aristotelian logic, just accepted that it is mystery and we apparently don't have a need to know.

Satan was Yahweh's wife,

Who teaches that nonsense? That's not a Christian teaching. God has no wife.

[QUOTE ]infant baptism, [/QUOTE]

was the practice of the ancient church since the first century based on what the apostles taught.

one cannot have the Holy Spirit unless you speak in tongues,

That is incorrect. The teaching is that one does not have the filling of the Holy Spirit without the evidence of speaking in tongues. It is the teaching of a number of the Pentecostal churches and is an artifact of the early 20th century.

and a host of other false doctrines derived from Scripture).

Well, you have successfully demonstrated that you have memorized a whole lot of absolutely useless prattle and are able to parrot it on cue like Pavlov's dog.

And, by the way, you never answered the question as to why you use one of God's Hebrew names, "Yahweh", and "Yeshuah" for Jesus. Are you under the impression that saying "Yahweh" and Yeshuah" makes you appear more spiritual or something? To me it just seems a affectation of someone who doesn't know what he's talking about and is trying to impress gullible people with the "deep knowledge" he pretends to possess.

But I could be wrong.

Why don't you use modern English?

Trust me; God isn't offended if you address Him as "God" or refer to His only begotten as "Jesus" and absolutely nobody's impressed by your using it. (It actually makes you appear a bit silly. Just to let you know. No offense intended. Someone should tell you. It's like walking around with one black sock and one red sock; someone should tell you so you won't embarrass yourself. That's all I'm saying.)

 

[jocor]

The early church never attempted to figure that out precisely because it was NOT explained anywhere in scripture and the apostles taught nothing about it ...

The exact same thing is true of the trinity doctrine.

And, by the way, you never answered the question as to why you use one of God's Hebrew names, "Yahweh", and "Yeshuah" for Jesus. Are you under the impression that saying "Yahweh" and Yeshuah" makes you appear more spiritual or something? To me it just seems a affectation of someone who doesn't know what he's talking about and is trying to impress gullible people with the "deep knowledge" he pretends to possess.

But I could be wrong.

Yes, you could be wrong and you are wrong. I use what I believe to be the true names of the Father and Son because Yeshua said those that worship the Father must worship Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). If it is your desire to mock the truth and those who walk in it, so be it.

Why don't you use modern English?

Trust me; God isn't offended if you address Him as "God" or refer to His only begotten as "Jesus" and absolutely nobody's impressed by your using it. (It actually makes you appear a bit silly. Just to let you know. No offense intended. Someone should tell you. It's like walking around with one black sock and one red sock; someone should tell you so you won't embarrass yourself. That's all I'm saying.)

"The LORD" is not modern English. It is a man-made substitute title put in place of the inspired name YHWH. "Jesus" is not modern English. It is a conglomeration of Hebrew, Greek, Latin and English. The Son's name went from Yeshua to Iesous to Iesus to Jesus (the final form invented when the letter "J" was invented). If someone invents a new letter next year that changes the Son's name again, would you use it? You probably would and then tell people that "God isn't offended if you refer to His Son by this new name."

I am not interested in impressing anyone and I could care less what you think about me or my use of the true names. My Father knows my heart and it is His opinion of me that I care about.

 

[reba]

enough too many insults

 

[reba]

one just might think those who pride themselves on being teachers and smarter then the next guy.. Would know how to talk/type in a polite fashion.. instead of throwing insults like a kid in Junior High School admin