Trinitarianism: What Non-Trinitarians Believe

[WIP]

Trinity. Probably the most difficult concept to accept but not really once you stop thinking of God in human terms and start thinking about God in Supreme terms. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. All individuals AND all one. Nothing is impossible with God!

 

[Elijah674]

Non-Trinitarians also believe in the three, but with a different understanding. The term Holy Spirit is a name title for Yahwah, the only true Almighty God and Creator. Yahwah is a Holy Spirit, and is the Holy Spirit. In Judaism this has always been true. It was the Catholics who invented the Trinity doctrine and claimed the Holy Spirit is a third person. There are many gods, real or imagined. It is presumed that the people in heaven are all created beings without parents. The truth is that we just do not know.

Hi, are you absolutely sure that your [post] does not need to be in the 'false tongue' thread?;)

--Elijah

 

[JudaicChristian]

Hi, are you absolutely sure that your [post] does not need to be in the 'false tongue' thread?;)

--Elijah

If you have a point to make, then do not leave us guessing.

 

[Free]

Your sources are pure speculation on Clement of Alexandria. Quote of one source: "The terminus ad quem is to be set by the quotations from the Teaching in a Syrian church order called the Didascalia. This dates from the early third century.
That the Didache comes from Alexandria464464The Egyptian origin of the Didache was held by Byrennios, Zahn, and Harnack. is suggested by several factors. The "Two Ways" was in circulation there, for the Letter of Barnabas and the Apostolic Church Order come from that locality. It is possible, but not certain, that Clement of Alexandria knew our Didache."
If something in the writing dates from the 3rd century, then it can not be a 2nd century writing. Your sources are speculations. The Didache is established in the 3rd century. THE TWO WAYS IS A PRECHRISTIAN TEACHING.

A correction: if something in the writing dates from the 3rd century, then it could easily have been a later addition to an earlier text. That is what you have argued against the Bible and Matt 28:19 and the KJV of 1 John 5:7. So why couldn't that also apply here? You can't use that argument against the Trinity and ignore that it could also very well apply here.

The real problem is how Clement of Alexandria could have put an exact quote from the Didache in his 2nd century text.

 

[Drew]

Trinity was never taught by Jesus or the Apostles.

I disagree, at least in respect to Jesus seeing Himself as "divine".

Post 1 of 2 of an argument for the "divinity" of Jesus:

One Old Testament theme is often overlooked is the theme of the promised return of YHWH to Zion – that though God has abandoned His people through the exile, He will, one day, return to them. A wide range of Old Testament texts embody this hope. Here are just two:

Ezekiel 43:1-7:

Then he led me to the gate, the gate facing toward the east; 2and behold, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the way of the east[ And His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with His glory. 3And it was like the appearance of the vision which I saw, like the vision which I saw when He came to destroy the city And the visions were like the vision which I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell on my face. 4And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate facing toward the east. 5And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house. 6Then I heard one speaking to me from the house, while a man was standing beside me. 7He said to me, "Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever And the house of Israel will not again defile My holy name, neither they nor their kings, by their harlotry and by the corpses of their kings when they die,…

Remember the context. The Jews are in a state of exile. The temple had been abandoned by God and destroyed. This vision given to Ezekiel constitutes a promise that God will return to inhabit the “temple†once more.

Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts. 2"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.

This material, just like the Ezekiel text, was written during the time of exile. Once more we have a promised return of God to the temple.

These and other texts express a deep hope of the Jewish nation – the God that had abandoned them will one day return to them. When we forget such expectations, and reduce the discussion of Jesus’ divinity to technical matters about the boundaries between the concept of “man†and of “godâ€, we entirely overlook what really matters – the Jewish matrix of expectation into which Jesus was born. I suggest the Biblically literate 1st century Jew would be anticipating this return. If that Jew were being true to the Biblical tradition, he would at least be open to the possibility that YHWH might return to His people in the form of a “humanâ€. From the famous throne chariot vision of Ezekiel 1:

And there came a voice from above the expanse that was over their heads; whenever they stood still, they dropped their wings. 26Now above the expanse that was over their heads there was something resembling a throne, like lapis lazuli in appearance; and on that which resembled a throne, high up, was a figure with the appearance of a man.

I want to be clear: this and other texts such as Daniel 7 only hint at a possibility - there is no strong and pervasive theme in the Old Testament that clearly anticipates the notion of God incarnated in the form of man. But, and this is key, neither is such a possibility over-ruled, with texts like this one from Ezekiel and the one from Daniel 7 giving the hint of the possibility a divine human figure.

This is why arguments against Jesus’ divinity that are grounded in conceptual distinction entirely miss the point (e.g. Jesus is man, and a man cannot be God, Jesus is the “son†of God and therefore cannot be God, etc.). The real issue is the grand plan of covenantal redemption that we see woven through both testaments. If honouring the coherence of that story leads us to see Jesus as divine, so be it – the conceptual distinctions are derivative, not fundamental.

As I argue below, Jesus clearly sees Himself as fitting into the story in a specific way – it is His life’s work to embody the promised return of YHWH to Zion. And that makes Him “divineâ€, with divinity understood in the appropriate framework – not the framework of conceptual categories that have little connection to large Biblical narrative of covenantal redemption, but rather in the context of a God who promised to return to His people. In that framework, we have a young Jew named Jesus who saw Himself as called to the vocation of implementing that promised return.

 

[Drew]

Post 2 of 2 of an argument for the "divinity" of Jesus:

Much of the gospel of Luke is the story of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. Towards the end of that journey, Jesus tells the parable of the returning king – the story of a king who goes away and then returns to call his servants to account. This parable is found in Luke 19:11 and following.

This parable has almost universally been understood to constitute a statement by Jesus that He will go away, though crucifixion, resurrection, and then ascension, only to return in the future (i.e. in the 2nd coming). On such a reading, Jesus sets Himself, as He tells the parable, in the role of the king who is about to leave.

I suggest this is not the correct reading. Instead, we should understand that in telling the parable, Jesus is setting Himself in the role of the returning king, not the departing one. On such a reading, the departing king represents YHWH leaving his people by abandoning the temple and sending the Jews into exile, something that lies in the past of Jesus’ audience. If this interpretation is correct, Jesus can logically fill only one role in the parable: YHWH returning to Zion as promised. And this means, of course, that Jesus is the embodiment of Israel’s God.

Why should we read the parable this way? Well, for starters, the parable does not really work on its traditional reading. Note what happens to the third servant – all that he has is taken from him. This really cannot be reconciled with the notion that the returning King is Jesus at his 2nd coming, calling his people to account. Nowhere in the New Testament is there even the slightest suggestion that any of Jesus’ followers will be cast out and lose all at Jesus’ 2nd coming as the parable would seem to suggest on the traditional reading. It is clear from the scriptures that that believers who “build with hay and stubble” will still be saved. So it is very hard to make the parable work with Jesus as the King about to go away and return at a 2nd coming.

Besides, consideration of what happens next makes it clear that Jesus is setting himself in the role of the returning king. Note what happens after parable is told – Jesus rides on to Jerusalem and, upon seeing it, says the following:

"If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43"For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, 44and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation."

Clearly, Jesus sees Himself as the King returning in visitation, returning to judge Jerusalem who is set in the role of the unfaithful 3rd servant. If, as many believe, the returning King in the parable is Jesus at His second coming, then it would be deeply misleading for Jesus to give the parable then immediately ride into Jerusalem as He does, to palm branches waving no less, with all the imagery of a returning King that this action clearly evokes. No. Jesus clearly intends his listeners to understand that He is the returning King, not the departing one. In giving this parable and then riding into the royal city as a king, Jesus is clearly telling us that He, through this teaching and these actions, is embodying the fulfillment of the hoped for return of YHWH to his people. And what does Jesus do next?:

Then he entered the temple area and began driving out those who were selling. 46"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be a house of prayer'; but you have made it 'a den of robbers.'

Note how this maps perfectly to this prophecy about the return of YHWH to his people:

Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts. 2"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.

The overall picture is clear. As per an earlier post, we have the strong Biblical tradition of the promised return of YHWH to Zion (and his temple) after the time of the exile. Now here, in Luke, we have the journey of a young Jew named Jesus to Jerusalem. As He is about to enter, He tells a parable of a king who goes away and then returns. Next, He laments over Jerusalem and declares that she is not recognizing His mission as a “visitation”. In the context of Jews who saw themselves still in exile, and still awaiting the return of YHWH, Jesus’ intended meaning is clear. In saying that Jerusalem has not recognized her visitation, He is saying that she has failed to recognize that, in His very actions, the promised return of YHWH to Zion is being fulfilled. And then Jesus enters the temple and overturns the tables in judgement, fulfilling the Malach 3 promise that YHWH will come suddenly to the temple in judgement. The coherence of this picture is compelling. Jesus is embodying the return of YHWH to Zion. And that, of course, makes Him the embodiment of Israel’s God.

This is why arguments like “Jesus cannot be divine since Jesus was tempted and God cannot be tempted” are a spectacular exercise in missing the point. Such arguments assume a model for the nature of God-hood and human-ness and then leverage that assumption to make the case against Jesus’ divinity. Well, we should be getting our concepts of who YHWH is from the Old Testament, not from conceptual definitions with no connection to the Jewish worldview. And in the Old Testament, YHWH is the one who has left His people and promised to return. When Jesus, then, so obviously sees Himself as embodying that promised return, that, and not vague conceptual arguments, makes the case that Jesus sees Himself as the incarnation of Israel’s God. Again, the conceptual arguments you make are deeply misleading since they are built on a model of the “boundaries” between god and man that make no reference at all to the Scriptures.

 

[Free]

Trinity was never taught by Jesus or the Apostles. It is a doctrine created because the philosophers in the 3rd century were arguing that Christianity was a polytheist religion as Christians believed in three Gods, The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost. Because they needed to silence the philosophers, the leaders of the Christian world came up with the idea that there is only one person with three different "manifestations" but one substance.

That doctrine was advanced and finally accepted by the Council of Nicea called by Constantine who, by the way, was not even a Christian.
However, even after this had been forcibly agreed (the emperor forced them to agree, as there were many bishops that didn't accepted it), the doctrine took several hundred years to be universally accepted.

Not entirely accurate. That Jesus was considered God can be seen in writings by the early church fathers, long before the Council of Nicaea. The Council of Nicaea was convened in large part to deal with the teachings of Arius, who said that Jesus was a created being. However, with the belief that Jesus was God already accepted in the church, it was necessary to reach a consensus on which was biblically correct. They affirmed that the divinity of Jesus was that which was taught by the Apostles and alluded to by Jesus himself. This was a Christological issue only, not a Trinitarian one.

A common misconception about the Councils is that they formulated doctrine. In a sense that may be somewhat true, however, what they really did was affirm that which was already believed in by the Church.

As for your passages from Scripture, they are all taken out of the context of the entirety of Scripture. They are very selective and ignore several other passages that clearly teach Jesus is God.

 

[mamre]

Gen 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
The correct Hebrew word is "we," not "let us." It is known as the "Royal We." (imperfect)
For the English language it should have been translated as "I."

Hi,
The question here is: Should we just believe you? Why the translators chose to use "let us" and not "I"? Even, if it is the "royal we" it will not escape the fact that for God to use that form, He would have to use it inside the context of a "Royal Court" (more than one person present) as it is when a King addresses other people in his court for any official business. So, definitely, it would be some other people there.

But, in the end of the day, it is your interpretation against the original translators. Who should a truth seeker believe? You, the original translators, or God?

On the other hand if you consider the other scriptures, there is no way to dismiss them other than come up with some interpretation that favors the trinity theory. However, the history of Christianity is becoming clearer and clearer with new archeological discoverings. There is no denying that the Council of Nicea is the turning point for Christianity to become the official religion of Rome. Constantine could not escape the fact that Christianism had become so pervasive that he needed to capture it and adapt it to his political aims. The way to do that was to put all the bishops in one room and make them come up with some sort of a "unified" word to represent Christianity and coalesce the followers. Constantine needed stability in order to govern. Christian up to that point had been all over the place in terms of doctrine.

It is a fact that many of the bishops in the council didn't agree with the definition of God as trinity. Just read history. The definition of God was arbitrary, because they didn't have any revelation from God as to who He really is. There was no prophets or apostles to lead them, they had been all killed long ago. All that remained was the intellect of learned men of the time.

So if one subscribes to that doctrine he/she will be subscribing to a centuries old interpretation, not necessarily to the truth.

have a great day,
mamre

 

[Free]

Hi,
The question here is: Should we just believe you?
.....
But, in the end of the day, it is your interpretation against the original translators. Who should a truth seeker believe? You, the original translators, or God?

And what knowledge do you possess to differentiate between JudaicChristian, the original translators and God? If you are a truth seeker, how are you going to determine who is right? How do you even know any of them are different? Perhaps all are in agreement.

So, should we just believe you?

The definition of God was arbitrary, because they didn't have any revelation from God as to who He really is. There was no prophets or apostles to lead them, they had been all killed long ago. All that remained was the intellect of learned men of the time.

Again, should we just believe you? How would their definition of God be any more arbitrary than yours? How do you know "they didn't have any revelation from God as to who He really is"? You are significantly further removed from the prophets and apostles than anyone at the Council of Nicaea.

Where do you get your definition of God? Why is your definition correct and theirs wrong? Are you being lead by apostles and prophets?

And, again, I must state that that Council was not about the Trinity but about the divinity of Christ.

 

[mamre]

Not entirely accurate. That Jesus was considered God can be seen in writings by the early church fathers, long before the Council of Nicaea. The Council of Nicaea was convened in large part to deal with the teachings of Arius, who said that Jesus was a created being. However, with the belief that Jesus was God already accepted in the church, it was necessary to reach a consensus on which was biblically correct. They affirmed that the divinity of Jesus was that which was taught by the Apostles and alluded to by Jesus himself. This was a Christological issue only, not a Trinitarian one.

A common misconception about the Councils is that they formulated doctrine. In a sense that may be somewhat true, however, what they really did was affirm that which was already believed in by the Church.

As for your passages from Scripture, they are all taken out of the context of the entirety of Scripture. They are very selective and ignore several other passages that clearly teach Jesus is God.

Hi,

First of all we are not discussing the divinity of Jesus Christ here, but whether the trinity theory is biblical or not.

There is no denying that Jesus was the God of the Old Testament, speaking and acting for the Father. He was the God that created everything. But He was not God the Most High, the Father, although He could speak that way as the Father gave Him everything.

All He did, before taking human form, was done under the direction of the Father. That is why in Genesis the Father says to Him, "let us" make man according to our image. This was God the Father talking to God the Son. Jesus is the son, and Eli, is the Father. They are two different people with one purpose.

Very easy for you to dismiss passages with the old "out of context" jargon. By 'out of context' your really mean the scriptures I presented don't agree with your interpretation.

But they are not out of context because you can easily link them to many, many other passages in the New as well as in Old Testaments. Evidence of this is that I have used Genesis, Psalms, and the New Testament. So it is not out of context at all.

You cannot escape the fact that one person cannot "abandon" (forsake) himself. That is the simple truth. Nothing out of context here. Try to abandon yourself. You cannot do it. And even if it was possible, that means you would cease to exist. Same with Jesus.

Also you cannot escape the fact that in Psalms 82 there are references to two persons. One the Most High, of which we are all children. And the other who is the God who would rise and inherit all nations, Jesus Christ (another evidence of the divinity of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, as David, the Psalmist, knew Him).

Ask yourself the question. Can you inherit something that belongs to you already?

You cannot escape the fact that the Council of Nicea was convened by a pagan (a non-Christian). Therefore, it was a political maneuver to capture the masses that at that point were mostly Christian one way or another, but were not unified in terms of doctrine. Like today, there were a plethora of theories about God, the resurrection, whether Jesus had been really real or not, whether Jesus was God, or not, etc., etc. Constatine needed at least a semblance of unity.


have a great day,
mamre

 

[Free]

First of all we are not discussing the divinity of Jesus Christ here, but whether the trinity theory is biblical or not.

In discussing the Trinity, the divinity of Christ is central.

There is no denying that Jesus was the God of the Old Testament, speaking and acting for the Father. He was the God that created everything. But He was not God the Most High, the Father, although He could speak that way as the Father gave Him everything.

Ah, you're Mormon.

This clarifies one of your previous comments, which I had missed: "Therefore, there is a God, the Father and another God the Son." This is absolutely incorrect. The Bible is clear that there is only one God, that there has ever only been one God, and that there will always be only one God:

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,

Isa 45:6 that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isa 45:21 Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.

Isa 45:22 "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

Isa 46:9 remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,

(All from the ESV)

There is only one God, and this the doctrine of the Trinity emphatically affirms.

All He did, before taking human form, was done under the direction of the Father. That is why in Genesis the Father says to Him, "let us" make man according to our image. This was God the Father talking to God the Son.

As the verses above show, this clearly cannot be the case.

Very easy for you to dismiss passages with the old "out of context" jargon. By 'out of context' your really mean the scriptures I presented don't agree with your interpretation.

No, I mean what I said in that you are sticking to very particular passages of Scripture which may appear to support your position, while ignoring others which show your position to be on very shaky ground.

But they are not out of context because you can easily link them to many, many other passages in the New as well as in Old Testaments. Evidence of this is that I have used Genesis, Psalms, and the New Testament. So it is not out of context at all.

But you are still ignoring many other passages. If a doctrine or theology that is to be believed, it should have the best explanatory power of all that Scripture reveals on a particular subject. In this case, the doctrine of the Trinity has the best explanatory power regarding all that is revealed in Scripture about God.

You cannot escape the fact that one person cannot "abandon" (forsake) himself. That is the simple truth. Nothing out of context here. Try to abandon yourself. You cannot do it. And even if it was possible, that means you would cease to exist. Same with Jesus.

But the doctrine of Trinity does not make such a claim. The Father and the Son are distinct persons. If you want to debate the Trinity, then please make arguments that apply to the Trinity. That would be an argument against Oneness/modalism theology and not trinitarianism.

Also you cannot escape the fact that in Psalms 82 there are references to two persons. One the Most High, of which we are all children. And the other who is the God who would rise and inherit all nations, Jesus Christ (another evidence of the divinity of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, as David, the Psalmist, knew Him).

Ask yourself the question. Can you inherit something that belongs to you already?

Again, not an argument against trinitarianism.

 

[JudaicChristian]

A correction: if something in the writing dates from the 3rd century, then it could easily have been a later addition to an earlier text. That is what you have argued against the Bible and Matt 28:19 and the KJV of 1 John 5:7. So why couldn't that also apply here? You can't use that argument against the Trinity and ignore that it could also very well apply here.

The real problem is how Clement of Alexandria could have put an exact quote from the Didache in his 2nd century text.

Titus Flavius Clemens (150 - 215), known as Clement of Alexandria. That is not possible, because Clement of Alexandria only lived til 215 AD.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Hi,
The question here is: Should we just believe you? Why the translators chose to use "let us" and not "I"? Even, if it is the "royal we" it will not escape the fact that for God to use that form, He would have to use it inside the context of a "Royal Court" (more than one person present) as it is when a King addresses other people in his court for any official business. So, definitely, it would be some other people there.

But, in the end of the day, it is your interpretation against the original translators. Who should a truth seeker believe? You, the original translators, or God?

On the other hand if you consider the other scriptures, there is no way to dismiss them other than come up with some interpretation that favors the trinity theory. However, the history of Christianity is becoming clearer and clearer with new archeological discoverings. There is no denying that the Council of Nicea is the turning point for Christianity to become the official religion of Rome. Constantine could not escape the fact that Christianism had become so pervasive that he needed to capture it and adapt it to his political aims. The way to do that was to put all the bishops in one room and make them come up with some sort of a "unified" word to represent Christianity and coalesce the followers. Constantine needed stability in order to govern. Christian up to that point had been all over the place in terms of doctrine.

It is a fact that many of the bishops in the council didn't agree with the definition of God as trinity. Just read history. The definition of God was arbitrary, because they didn't have any revelation from God as to who He really is. There was no prophets or apostles to lead them, they had been all killed long ago. All that remained was the intellect of learned men of the time.

So if one subscribes to that doctrine he/she will be subscribing to a centuries old interpretation, not necessarily to the truth.

have a great day,
mamre

In Greek and Hebrew the "Royal We" is somewhat common. Not so for the English language. In fact it is considered improper English. Shouldn't a translation with the "Royal We" be translated as "I" for the English language?

 

[Free]

Titus Flavius Clemens (150 - 215), known as Clement of Alexandria. That is not possible, because Clement of Alexandria only lived til 215 AD.

But that's my argument: Clement quoted the Didache in 180-190 AD. Therefore, the Didache was very likely written earlier than 180 AD. You can't just say it's impossible on the presumption that the Didache was written much later. The fact that Clement quoted it shows that it is quite possible.

 

[Sparkey]

You know that God is One? That is good, do not tremble. Herein is found the wisdom of Solomon. The voice of the true church says, "The child is hers, do not split the child."

There is One Faith, One Baptism, One Spirit and One Truth. We are to continue to strive for the unity of the Faith and be of good cheer. Our Christ, the one anointed with the full measure of the Spirit, for in Him there was found no sin - has paid the price for us, that we may follow Him. He has gone before us, to prepare a place for us that those who continue to follow after him, and that we may be gathered unto our reward. We are the fruit of the earth. Let us then accept the peace that our Lord has given, "My peace I leave for you, not as the world gives, give I..."

"Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

In my Father's house are many mansions: if [it were] not [so], I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, [there] ye may be also.

And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know."

Thomas saith unto him, "Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?"

Jesus saith unto him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him."

Philip saith unto him, "Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us."

Jesus saith unto him, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I [am] in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do [it]. If ye love me, keep my commandments."

"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. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you."

"Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I [am] in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you."

"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."

Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, "Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

These things have I spoken unto you, being [yet] present with you. 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.

Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. ... But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence." - John 14:1-29, 31 KJV​

 

[JudaicChristian]

But that's my argument: Clement quoted the Didache in 180-190 AD. Therefore, the Didache was very likely written earlier than 180 AD. You can't just say it's impossible on the presumption that the Didache was written much later. The fact that Clement quoted it shows that it is quite possible.

Your missing my point. If there are elements that date to the 3rd or 4th century in the writings, then it was written after Clement. In other words, there is some kind of forgery going on with that teaching. That teaching is clearly dated to the 3rd century.

 

[4given]

In discussing the Trinity, the divinity of Christ is central.

Ah, you're Mormon.

This clarifies one of your previous comments, which I had missed: "Therefore, there is a God, the Father and another God the Son." This is absolutely incorrect. The Bible is clear that there is only one God, that there has ever only been one God, and that there will always be only one God:…..

....................

But the doctrine of Trinity does not make such a claim. The Father and the Son are distinct persons. If you want to debate the Trinity, then please make arguments that apply to the Trinity. That would be an argument against Oneness/modalism theology and not trinitarianism.

Again, not an argument against trinitarianism.

First off, are “DISTINCT” and “SEPARATE” the same? I don’t think so and I don’t believe that you will agree either that they are the same. Your concept of Trinity says that the three persons are DISTINCT from each other but NOT SEPARATE.

So the bottom-line is that the Apologetics group here believes that God is one in Number. It’s a belief that even the Oneness people and the Unitarians could relate to. Whereas, I honestly believe that God is one in Unity. The Elohim (The plural of Eloah, God), who is one in Unity.

Deuteronomy 6:4 attests to this fact:

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD (YHVH) our God (Elohim, plural referring to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who were all individually called God), is ONE (united) LORD.

The use of “ECHAD” of Genesis 2:24 best explains the “ECHAD” of Deuteronomy 6:4. Therefore, when Moses said that the husband and wife (TWO BEINGS) would become one (“ECHAD”)…., that is a “collective one” of two beings.”

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one [ECHAD] flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

ONE IN UNITY is used in the case of Gen. 2:24, when the husband and wife were called ONE by God. How can the two in number, be One? This is possible only in the sense of UNITY.

We can understand John 10:30 in this sense, “I and my Father are one.” One in Unity not in number. It is also in this sense that the thousands can be one like the builders of the tower of Babel in Gen 11:6. Even the millions of Christians can be one in this sense according to John 17:21.

But that's just based on my own biblical opinion, therefore, there is no need to get excited.

God Bless

 

[westtexas]

But that's my argument: Clement quoted the Didache in 180-190 AD. Therefore, the Didache was very likely written earlier than 180 AD. You can't just say it's impossible on the presumption that the Didache was written much later. The fact that Clement quoted it shows that it is quite possible.

JudaicChristian, I didn't read the whole thread, so I may have missed your thoughts, but I'm not sure I understand your answer to Free in regards to this question. If Clement quoted the Didache, what makes you feel that it's a 3rd or 4th century writing? Some scholars place the Didache as early as 60 A.D. and the vast majority place it in the late 1st or early 2nd century.
Please forgive me if you are having to repeat yourself but I'm curious to the thoughts and logic behind your answer.
Westtexas

 

[JudaicChristian]

JudaicChristian, I didn't read the whole thread, so I may have missed your thoughts, but I'm not sure I understand your answer to Free in regards to this question. If Clement quoted the Didache, what makes you feel that it's a 3rd or 4th century writing? Some scholars place the Didache as early as 60 A.D. and the vast majority place it in the late 1st or early 2nd century.
Please forgive me if you are having to repeat yourself but I'm curious to the thoughts and logic behind your answer.
Westtexas

Free earlier provided scholarly links about the document. What I have been saying is that those scholars do not confirm the document and its age, but are speculating. Link: Trinitarianism: What Non-Trinitarians Believe.
Judaic Christian Forum - Trinitarianism: What Non-Trinitarians Believe

 

[westtexas]

Free earlier provided scholarly links about the document. What I have been saying is that those scholars do not confirm the document and its age, but are speculating. Link: Trinitarianism: What Non-Trinitarians Believe.
Judaic Christian Forum - Trinitarianism: What Non-Trinitarians Believe

I'll agree in part. It's speculation as to the exact age which is why there is the difference between some scholars putting a date as early as the middle of the first century and some as late as the middle of the 2nd century. I can't speak for Free, but I assume his point is, How can Clement quote from a writing which you say is not in existence yet? I'm not really clear why you need this writing to be written in the 3rd or 4th century either. Do you feel a later date gives more validity to a non-trinitarian point of view?

Westtexas