question for trinitarians

[Georges]

How would they know what to question......?

I am only asking if they even had trinity theology, like Luther time.

I think Tertullian was officially credited with finally forming a trinity theology. Before him, the basics of The Trinity theology was developed by men who lived in areas that had pagan trinities for hundreds of years....As Christianity moved from Jerusalem to Rome, so to did the development of trinity theology began to grow. Draw a line from Jerusalem to Rome....the further you get from Jerusalem the more pagan the people and religion become. The further away from Jerusalem the Church center moved, the more pagan it became....that includes the formation of the trinity theology. The early Nazarenes and Ebionites didn't have a problem concerning a trinity, they stayed in the Judean area, or close to Israel anyway.

 

[thessalonian]

You folks are doing a good job of avoiding the real issue in all of this discussion by talking about history of the trinity. Let's talk about the history of the Church recognizing Jesus as God for a while. I have a thread started or we can do it here. This discussion of when the word trinity was started is a fasaud for the real issue. If the early Church believed Jesus was God (I can show evidence far sooner than tertullien) then the issue is that the went from tri-theists or modalists to trinitarians unless they held the trinitarian theory but didn't use the word. So let's have that discussion shall we.

By the way I noticed you who deny that Jesus is God are avoiding Buba's thread about the Holy Spirit. Do drop in.

Blessings

 

[Sothenes]

I don't know. But here are the words straight from the horses mouth:

You don't know if a 14 year old wrote the article from his bedroom. That is great.

 

[thessalonian]

I don't know. But here are the words straight from the horses mouth:

You don't know if a 14 year old wrote the article from his bedroom. That is great.

Ignore the wikipedia article if you like. I don't care. I offered further evidence after that with dear Martin's own words condemning those who did not see scripture as he did and in that same piece HE WROTE encouraging monarchs, even Catholic ones to kill them. He took a hard line view of Romans 13, nod doudt. It doesn't look like 14 year old work though. Well referenced.

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

I don't know. But here are the words straight from the horses mouth:

You don't know if a 14 year old wrote the article from his bedroom. That is great.

Ignore the wikipedia article if you like. I don't care. I offered further evidence after that with dear Martin's own words condemning those who did not see scripture as he did and in that same piece HE WROTE encouraging monarchs, even Catholic ones to kill them. He took a hard line view of Romans 13, nod doudt. It doesn't look like 14 year old work though. Well referenced.

Hmmm....I think he is refering to this:

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/louthan/R ... sants.html

As for the Wikipedia article, I don't know--check the sources found on the Wikepida page.

 

[gingercat]

How would they know what to question......?

I am only asking if they even had trinity theology, like Luther time.

I think Tertullian was officially credited with finally forming a trinity theology. Before him, the basics of The Trinity theology was developed by men who lived in areas that had pagan trinities for hundreds of years....As Christianity moved from Jerusalem to Rome, so to did the development of trinity theology began to grow. Draw a line from Jerusalem to Rome....the further you get from Jerusalem the more pagan the people and religion become. The further away from Jerusalem the Church center moved, the more pagan it became....that includes the formation of the trinity theology. The early Nazarenes and Ebionites didn't have a problem concerning a trinity, they stayed in the Judean area, or close to Israel anyway.

This one make more sense than than anything. It goes along with the rest of RCC.

 

[thessalonian]

How would they know what to question......?

I am only asking if they even had trinity theology, like Luther time.

I think Tertullian was officially credited with finally forming a trinity theology. Before him, the basics of The Trinity theology was developed by men who lived in areas that had pagan trinities for hundreds of years....As Christianity moved from Jerusalem to Rome, so to did the development of trinity theology began to grow. Draw a line from Jerusalem to Rome....the further you get from Jerusalem the more pagan the people and religion become. The further away from Jerusalem the Church center moved, the more pagan it became....that includes the formation of the trinity theology. The early Nazarenes and Ebionites didn't have a problem concerning a trinity, they stayed in the Judean area, or close to Israel anyway.

This one make more sense than than anything. It goes along with the rest of RCC.

Well when you don't use any critical thinking skills because you accept what a man says hook line and sinker, then I suppose it might make sense to you. He says Tertullian formulated trinitarian theolgy. Then he says the closer you get to Rome the more pagan you get. Well do you know where Carthage is. Hint: he contradicts himself. Nazarenes and Elbonites didn't have a problem concerning the trinity? On what basis do you make that determination? They didn't use the word? Did they believe Jesus was God? (Hint: yes.

 

[thessalonian]

Hmmm....I think he is refering to this:

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/louthan/R ... sants.html

As for the Wikipedia article, I don't know--check the sources found on the Wikepida page.

Yes,

"Therefore, dear lords, here is a place where you can release, rescue, help. Have mercy on these poor people! Let whoever can stab, smite, slay. If you die in doing it, good for you! A more blessed death can never be yours, for you die while obeying the divine word and commandment in Romans 13 [:1, 2], and in lov­ing service of your neighbor, who you are rescuing from the bonds of hell and of the devil. And so I beg everyone who can to flee from the peasants as from the devil himself; those who do not flee, I pray that God will enlighten and convert. As for those who are not to be converted, God grant that they may have neither fortune nor success. To this let every pious Christian say, “Amen!†For this prayer is right and good, and pleases God; this I know. If anyone thinks this too harsh, let him remember that rebellion is in­tolerable and that the destruction of the world is to be expected every hour."

 

[Georges]

How would they know what to question......?

I am only asking if they even had trinity theology, like Luther time.

I think Tertullian was officially credited with finally forming a trinity theology. Before him, the basics of The Trinity theology was developed by men who lived in areas that had pagan trinities for hundreds of years....As Christianity moved from Jerusalem to Rome, so to did the development of trinity theology began to grow. Draw a line from Jerusalem to Rome....the further you get from Jerusalem the more pagan the people and religion become. The further away from Jerusalem the Church center moved, the more pagan it became....that includes the formation of the trinity theology. The early Nazarenes and Ebionites didn't have a problem concerning a trinity, they stayed in the Judean area, or close to Israel anyway.

This one make more sense than than anything. It goes along with the rest of RCC.

Well when you don't use any critical thinking skills because you accept what a man says hook line and sinker, then I suppose it might make sense to you. He says Tertullian formulated trinitarian theolgy. Then he says the closer you get to Rome the more pagan you get. Well do you know where Carthage is. Hint: he contradicts himself. Nazarenes and Elbonites didn't have a problem concerning the trinity? On what basis do you make that determination? They didn't use the word? Did they believe Jesus was God? (Hint: yes.

Thess,....you make me smile...I should have said Tertullian is usually credited for the finiishing touches on the trinity theology (or the understanding of the trinity as it is understood today). Of course it had been roughly formed with the help of others previous to him...Origen, et al....each adding a little bit of their Hellenist influence to the mix.

Perhaps you should tell us where Carthage is....Hmm, how about Tunisia due south of Rome....what's your point? :silly: Thess, do you know where Alpha Centuri is? Makes as much relevence as your post.

Thess you are a little spllnter aren't you...with all due respect of course.

Gingercat, The Nazarene's and Ebionites are groups descended from the Chruch of Jerusalem. Many of these individuals were descendents of Jesus' kin. This is easily researched...don't let Thess throw you off track, you should know by now his debate tactic.

In a nutshell, the Nazarenes and Ebionites practiced Judaism in the same way the Apostles of the Chruch did in Jerusalem. As Christians, the Nazarene Jews practiced Judaism (including sacrifices) at the Temple until it was destroyed. They then moved to Pella and from there spread around. They considered that Jesus was a man (and that he was the Messiah). Some of the group accepted a virgin birth, some did not. Both groups considered Paul and Apostate to the faith....They did not accept Jesus as being God, but rather the earthly Messiah that the Jews expected, therefore they rejected the trinity (if they ever heard of such a concept).


Nice try Thess, but no soup for you...... :P

 

[thessalonian]

I should have said Tertullian is usually credited for the finiishing touches on the trinity theology (or the understanding of the trinity as it is understood today).

No, actually Athanasius is. But I am sure you will find some way of arguing that as well. Guess your not the brightess kid on the board either.

As the crow flies, you are right about Carthage to be sure. But that is not how most people of the time got there so I think as the crow flies is rather irrelavent. Flight 343 leaving for Rome.

They did not accept Jesus as being God, but rather the earthly Messiah that the Jews expected, therefore they rejected the trinity (if they ever heard of such a concept).

Ah, I see you have provided us with pages and pages of quotes for this so we don't have to just take your word for it. Ginger will of course because she is easily deceived by anyone who is not Catholic.

 

[mutzrein]

C'mon trinitarians

What is your interpretation of this scripture from 1 Corinthians 15. I have mentioned it a number of times in different threads but so far no-one has been prepared to stick their head on the block.

(NIV)
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
27 For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+


Yes, Jesus will be subject to the Father in His human nature.

Christ has two natures

1.) One fully divine
2.) One fully human

In His divinity He is equal to the Father.

In His humanity he is subject to the Father. Which is why on earth Jesus is always placing His Father's will above His natural one.

"For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Philpians 2:6

 

[BradtheImpaler]

+JMJ+


Yes, Jesus will be subject to the Father in His human nature.

Christ has two natures

1.) One fully divine
2.) One fully human

In His divinity He is equal to the Father.

In His humanity he is subject to the Father. Which is why on earth Jesus is always placing His Father's will above His natural one.

"For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Philpians 2:6

Is Jesus God in his human nature?

 

[gingercat]

Trinitarians,

When is the last time you read the NT thoroghly from beggining to end without your theologeans help?

thanks. :D

 

[Georges]

Trinitarians,

When is the last time you read the NT thoroghly from beggining to end without your theologeans help?

thanks. :D

That's tough to do......not many people can do that objectively.

 

[mutzrein]

+JMJ+


Yes, Jesus will be subject to the Father in His human nature.

Christ has two natures

1.) One fully divine
2.) One fully human

In His divinity He is equal to the Father.

In His humanity he is subject to the Father. Which is why on earth Jesus is always placing His Father's will above His natural one.

"For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Philpians 2:6

So, in 1 Corinthians 15 as I have posted earlier, do you think it is speaking of Jesus in his divinity or humanity?

 

[Imagican]

Georges,

I admit that it is tough to put aside ones 'beliefs' to 'try' and discern the 'truth' offered in the Word. But, it is also difficult to 'pick up' ones 'corss' and follow Christ. A man too lazy to work doesn't diserve to 'eat' though.

Mutz, you continue to amaze in your offerings. I notice that you get 'few' responses. And that just goes to 'prove' how difficult it is to try and 'prove' the 'trinity' when forced to answer scripture rather than simply offer the tid bits that have been taught by others that insist that they 'prove' trinity.

I have a question for the 'trins': We'll first start with the scripture:

Colossians 1:1

1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,

2To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

3We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,

4Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints,

5For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;

6Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

7As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fellowservant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ;

8Who also declared unto us your love in the Spirit.

I hate to cut scripture short so a bit more was added than needed. This CAN'T hurt though for each of us should read as MUCH as we can as OFTEN as we can.

Now, here's my question: When one reads verses such as these, is there NEVER a question about the validity of 'trinity'? I mean, what does this mean to you: "....from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. NO, not, 'from God our Father who IS the Lord Jesus Christ', but, 'from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ'. Don't you get it? I mean how much would you have to 'twist' what this states plainly and openly to turn it into something other than it is?

And we're NOT done yet, what's the next verse say? '..........3We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you'. I mean one could certainly 'twist' this to say something other than what it does. But take the second verse into consideration and it then CANNOT be twisted. It is stating here that 'we give thanks to (our) God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". Guys, does this not make it perfectly CLEAR that there is a separation between the entities that ARE the Father, (God), and His Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ? I know how scripture is twisted to 'prove' 'trinity', now SHOW me or anyone reading this HOW I have 'twisted' scripture in what IS stated in the Word? Come on, I have done nothing but 'point out' what the Word states. 'Trinitarians' are forced to manipulate scripture and to make it 'lean' in their prefered direction. And the ONLY reason that one would do this to 'try and prove' something that had been 'taught' to them. For those that HAVEN'T been taught 'trinity', they know of NO such doctrine.

So PLEASE folks, by all means, PLEASE explain to me what this noted parts of scripture offered above mean to YOU. I will be anxiously awaiting your responses.

 

[Free]

+JMJ+


Yes, Jesus will be subject to the Father in His human nature.

Christ has two natures

1.) One fully divine
2.) One fully human

In His divinity He is equal to the Father.

In His humanity he is subject to the Father. Which is why on earth Jesus is always placing His Father's will above His natural one.

"For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Philpians 2:6

So, in 1 Corinthians 15 as I have posted earlier, do you think it is speaking of Jesus in his divinity or humanity?

It is speaking of Jesus. Period.

 

[Free]

Now, here's my question: When one reads verses such as these, is there NEVER a question about the validity of 'trinity'? I mean, what does this mean to you: "....from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. NO, not, 'from God our Father who IS the Lord Jesus Christ', but, 'from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ'. Don't you get it? I mean how much would you have to 'twist' what this states plainly and openly to turn it into something other than it is?

Oh come on Imagican, if you are going to argue against trinitarianism then argue against it. Don't set up a straw man and then think you have made a good argument.

 

[mutzrein]

+JMJ+


Yes, Jesus will be subject to the Father in His human nature.

Christ has two natures

1.) One fully divine
2.) One fully human

In His divinity He is equal to the Father.

In His humanity he is subject to the Father. Which is why on earth Jesus is always placing His Father's will above His natural one.

"For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Philpians 2:6

So, in 1 Corinthians 15 as I have posted earlier, do you think it is speaking of Jesus in his divinity or humanity?

It is speaking of Jesus. Period.

I was actually wanting FSW to respond. I would like to think he agrees with you though. Nevertheless since you have responded and you are a trinitarian what do you make of the scripture I referred to in that earlier post.

Thanks