The Trinity

[Randy]

Bible does not teach that ,the churches teach that.
which did not happen till 200-300 years after jesus died

The NT does state that Gods only like to like "begotten" Son shares His Fathers nature and that Son is called God.
Col 1:19 Col 1:15
Hebrews 1:3
John 1:1

Just as it teaches the only "unbegotten" God is the Father and He is the God and "Father" of ALL including His Son who we now call Jesus and Lord.
A distinction was made that is not captured in orthodox trinity statements
1 Corinthians 8:6
Ephesians 3:14-15
1 Corth 1:3

I disagree that Jesus is the only unbegotten, begotten Son of the Father.
I disagree in a 3rd distinct person known as God the Spirit. Though the "Fathers" Spirit would have His nature it's the person of the Father. When the Father pours out His Spirit in Jesus's name then that Spirit is in the persona of the Son living in those in the faith and in that context is the person of the Son and in that manner both the Father and Son make their home with those in the faith Paul spoke of.

I hold to this statement from the beginning.
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

And in regard to Jesus the Lord I hold to this statement in regard to nature of the Son.
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

So I agree in part.
Begotten of the Father before all things but not made.

Its God from true God for me, not true God from true God. Jesus is the first begotten of the Father. He is God the begotten. The Father is the only unbegotten God and the Father and God of all.
One God the Father; One Lord Jesus Christ who shares "His" Fathers nature they are ONE.

John 1:18 Greek Text Analysis

Its dishonest to call those who believe in true God from true God "false" Christians.

This is the test stated. (I pass this test)
Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?

 

[Milan Nikolic]

The Church Fathers concluded that the Persons of God are three distinct individuals, like three distinct torches, but always united into one, never separated, nor will they ever be.

The Persons of God, through the one and unique essence of God, make our existence possible. The problem is that we, as creatures, cannot know God within His one essence, except in the action of the three Divine Persons.

 

[7thMoon]

I'm not following. What does any of this have to do with the Trinity? Again, you need to be clear about how this ties in to the discussion, particularly what I've said.

In Origen's world, pre-existence before birth was given to everyone. Origenism and Arianism were the subject of Nicaea. Arianism is merely the next step on Origenism in that case.

 

[7thMoon]

The Church Fathers concluded that the Persons of God are three distinct individuals, like three distinct torches, but always united into one, never separated, nor will they ever be.

The Persons of God, through the one and unique essence of God, make our existence possible. The problem is that we, as creatures, cannot know God within His one essence, except in the action of the three Divine Persons.

And it took 300 years to get there.

 

[Free]

Constantine , the Roman emperor, from AD 306 to 337 had more to do with what you may believe than you may know.

No, it's the other way around--he most likely had much less to do with it than you think.

There are a number of early church fathers and figures from the 2nd century onward that either implicitly or explicitly stated that Jesus is God yet keep him distinct from the Father. For example, Ignatius (d. 107 AD), believed to be a disciple of John, said "Jesus Christ, our God" and "For our God, Jesus the Christ," in his letter to the Ephesians. In his letter to the Romans he said "Jesus Christ our God" and "For our God Jesus Christ." And in his letter to the Smyrneans, he states, "I glorify Jesus Christ the God, being in the Father."

From the Didache (50-120 A.D.): "7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;"

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-hoole.html

We also have Pliny the Younger's correspondence with emperor Trajan from the early 2nd century, in which he stated regarding Christians, "that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god."

https://earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

The foundations of the Trinity were laid in Scripture, but can be seen as early as the 2nd century. All the foundations of the Trinity--monotheism; three coequal, coeternal, divine persons--were being taught long before Constantine. It is worth noting that the doctrine wasn't fully developed until after Constantine legalized Christianity, ending Christian persecution. It's rather difficult, I would think, to have Christian leaders get together and discuss Christian doctrine, especially something as complex as the nature of God, when they were being persecuted for around 300 years.

Even with the Council of Niacea, Constantine had little, if anything, to do with the conclusion of it. Christian theologians and leaders later developed, or rather discovered, the doctrine of the Trinity. Constantine merely brought bishops together to try and get them to come to a consensus about who Christ was and is, largely due to the division Arius was causing. Division in the Church meant a divided kingdom. He oversaw the proceedings and may have participated in discussions, but apparently didn't cast a vote. And, it was a Christological debate, not a Trinitarian one.

https://overviewbible.com/council-of-nicaea/

https://www.britannica.com/event/First-Council-of-Nicaea-325

 

[Free]

In Origen's world, pre-existence before birth was given to everyone. Origenism and Arianism were the subject of Nicaea. Arianism is merely the next step on Origenism in that case.

Okay, but again, how does that connect to this discussion? No one is arguing that everyone had preexistence. We are debating what Scripture says about the nature of God and his Son.

 

[Milan Nikolic]

And it took 300 years to get there.

You can't say something didn't exist until the Church recognized it. The Lord Himself stated that only the Holy Spirit will give us the knowledge we need.

I don't understand this fundamentalism about Christ, no matter what He said. And He spoke of His Father as God and of the Holy Spirit as a concrete being with the Father and the Son.

 

[7thMoon]

You can't say something didn't exist until the Church recognized it. The Lord Himself stated that only the Holy Spirit will give us the knowledge we need.

I don't understand this fundamentalism about Christ, no matter what He said. And He spoke of His Father as God and of the Holy Spirit as a concrete being with the Father and the Son.

Unitarianism is not fundamentalism.

 

[locust]

No, it's the other way around--he most likely had much less to do with it than you think.

There are a number of early church fathers and figures from the 2nd century onward that either implicitly or explicitly stated that Jesus is God yet keep him distinct from the Father. For example, Ignatius (d. 107 AD), believed to be a disciple of John, said "Jesus Christ, our God" and "For our God, Jesus the Christ," in his letter to the Ephesians. In his letter to the Romans he said "Jesus Christ our God" and "For our God Jesus Christ." And in his letter to the Smyrneans, he states, "I glorify Jesus Christ the God, being in the Father."

From the Didache (50-120 A.D.): "7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;"

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-hoole.html

We also have Pliny the Younger's correspondence with emperor Trajan from the early 2nd century, in which he stated regarding Christians, "that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god."

https://earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

The foundations of the Trinity were laid in Scripture, but can be seen as early as the 2nd century. All the foundations of the Trinity--monotheism; three coequal, coeternal, divine persons--were being taught long before Constantine. It is worth noting that the doctrine wasn't fully developed until after Constantine legalized Christianity, ending Christian persecution. It's rather difficult, I would think, to have Christian leaders get together and discuss Christian doctrine, especially something as complex as the nature of God, when they were being persecuted for around 300 years.

Even with the Council of Niacea, Constantine had little, if anything, to do with the conclusion of it. Christian theologians and leaders later developed, or rather discovered, the doctrine of the Trinity. Constantine merely brought bishops together to try and get them to come to a consensus about who Christ was and is, largely due to the division Arius was causing. Division in the Church meant a divided kingdom. He oversaw the proceedings and may have participated in discussions, but apparently didn't cast a vote. And, it was a Christological debate, not a Trinitarian one.

https://overviewbible.com/council-of-nicaea/

https://www.britannica.com/event/First-Council-of-Nicaea-325

Constantine made it legal to be a Christian

 

[Free]

Constantine made it legal to be a Christian

Yes, I mentioned that.

 

[Milan Nikolic]

Unitarianism is not fundamentalism.

Quite the opposite. Only with order we can have some sense, and unitarianism is like fundamentalism.

 

[7thMoon]

Quite the opposite. Only with order we can have some sense, and unitarianism is like fundamentalism.

Just because it is protestant and not catholic, Roman or other.

 

[Milan Nikolic]

Christ promised an order based on love, based on the equality of the Holy Trinity, and now it is becoming clear that the concept of Catholicism has a Trinitarian basis, which exposes many of the errors of the Roman Church and many of the inadequacies of the Orthodox Churches.

We currently have a struggle within the Orthodox, perhaps the last attempt to justify a kind of papism, based not only on the Apostle Peter, but also on God the Father himself. However, just as the Church is indestructible, so is theology.

 

[locust]

Christ promised an order based on love, based on the equality of the Holy Trinity, and now it is becoming clear that the concept of Catholicism has a Trinitarian basis, which exposes many of the errors of the Roman Church and many of the inadequacies of the Orthodox Churches.

We currently have a struggle within the Orthodox, perhaps the last attempt to justify a kind of papism, based not only on the Apostle Peter, but also on God the Father himself. However, just as the Church is indestructible, so is theology.

hmmm I wounder if maybe we should get away from using the word church.
what first comes to mind when you here the word church?

 

[Milan Nikolic]

I don't understand how you can ask such a thing. After all, it was Christ who did everything and suffered to establish the Church.

 

[locust]

you are wanting church to mean organization?

 

[Randy]

The Church Fathers concluded that the Persons of God are three distinct individuals, like three distinct torches, but always united into one, never separated, nor will they ever be.

Its clear Jesus is not the Father and the Father is not the Son. It should be clear Jesus shares "His Fathers" nature and they are one. Col 1:19-"from the will of another" It should be clear the Father is the only "unbegotten" God and Jesus is the only like to like "begotten" Son of the Father. If He was not the Father's Son in the beginning then whose Son was He? Hence as the Lord states this truth, "My God and your God, My Father and your Father."

The church fathers should have read in the NT. No 3rd person; One God identified as the Father and one Lord identified as Jesus, and as written elsewhere the Son of the Father who shares the fullness of His Fathers nature not His own nature. And it is stated they are ONE in that sharing. The Father in the Son. And it's the unbegotten Father Himself, from whom all things came, that has placed all things in Jesus's hands.
You think Paul forgot to honor the person of the Spirit? OR Rather He know the Spirit of the Father is the person of the Father and the Fathers Spirit would have the Fathers nature. The Spirit OF the Sovereign Lord. Jesus was kept hidden until He was revealed in these last days but the Spirit of God was known by the prophets, wise men, and teachers of the law for 1000's of years. Did they ever state/teach that Spirit was a 2nd person of the Godhead? No and neither did Paul nor the Son.
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

The Persons of God, through the one and unique essence of God, make our existence possible. The problem is that we, as creatures, cannot know God within His one essence, except in the action of the three Divine Persons.

I can and do know my Lord and understand the oneness between the Father and Himself that "He" taught.
That they are one as "we" are one.
There is only one Divine Spirit as there is only one unbegotten God, the Father and God of all including the Son.

They didn't forget to honor a 3rd person either as there is no distinct 3rd person.
Those who listen and learn from the "Father" go to His Son.

One God and one Lord Jesus Christ who shares the fullness of His God and Father in Him. They are one.

No 3rd person.
Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying:

“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power,
for ever and ever!”

 

[Randy]

I don't understand how you can ask such a thing. After all, it was Christ who did everything and suffered to establish the Church.

At the will and command of His God and Father. He came to do the Fathers will NOT His own will. He delivered the Fathers message NOT His own message.
The Father reconciled to "Himself" all things through Jesus's blood on the cross. "His will and plan" God so loved the world that He gave...
Yes, Jesus submitted Himself to His Fathers will and purchased us for God by His blood. And the Father then placed all things in His hands. Jesus has a place on His Fathers throne forever. The Sovereign authority of the living God.
Col 1:120
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

 

[Milan Nikolic]

locust

The Church is an organization of one body, where each of us is a special part of that body, the body of Christ.
We must not forget Christ's prayer to his Father, that there may be unity among Christians.

 

[locust]

locust

The Church is an organization of one body, where each of us is a special part of that body, the body of Christ.
We must not forget Christ's prayer to his Father, that there may be unity among Christians.

oh i know where you are coming from . how ever ,the word you are looking for is congregation