God's Trinity

[Adamski]

All the early church councils defined basic Christian thought in 325 the trinity was defined at the council of nicea. It was a common belief before but this was a defense against heretical groups of the time. 1 Tim 3:15.

With out an apostolic church to guide us we don't even know what belongs in the bible

 

[Shermana]

All the early church councils defined basic Christian thought in 325 the trinity was defined at the council of nicea. It was a common belief before but this was a defense against heretical groups of the time. 1 Tim 3:15.

With out an apostolic church to guide us we don't even know what belongs in the bible

So why do you believe this "Apostolic Church" necessarily knows what belongs in the Bible.

The Trinity was a common belief about a century and a half after Jesus lived. It's still an invented doctrine.

As for "heretical" groups, everyone is a heretic to everyone else, right? Because majority opinion determines who is right and who is wrong of course.

 

[Adamski]

Jesus didn't leave us with a book he left us with 12 apostles and the churches they established
St Thomas of India
Eastern orthodox
Ethiopian apostolic church
Orential churches; Coptic
Eastern right catholic churches
Roman catholic

They all have very similar doctrine even though they had great separation through geographical challenges they can all recognize each other as valid apostolic churches with minor differences such as Matt 16:18 being infallible or the first among equals

 

[Shermana]

Jesus didn't leave us with a book he left us with 12 apostles and the churches they established
St Thomas of India
Eastern orthodox
Ethiopian apostolic church
Orential churches; Coptic
Eastern right catholic churches
Roman catholic

They all have very similar doctrine even though they had great separation through geographical challenges they can all recognize each other as valid apostolic churches with minor differences such as Matt 16:18 being infallible or the first among equals

The Ethiopian Church is vastly different, very similar to pre-"Jamna" Judaism in many regards, Beards, Friday sabbath, Book of Enoch heck they even partake of the Holy Qaneh Bos smoke from what I understand.

As for the other churches, they all developed out of the 2nd-4th century orthodox movements, with dispute on the Thomasine Churches of India, which is a whole thread's worth of discussion.

 

[Muffled]

John 14 is where Jesus explains that he is the representative of the Father, he is the "image" as Paul says, but He is still not the Father himself. "The Father is greater than I am", 14:28. And the word "Greater" here is like when Jesus says "None born of woman are greater than John the baptist".

I do not see this being mentioned anywhere in the text.

He may not say it here but He does say it elsewhere.

So what is your point?

 

[Muffled]

That's because Jesus is clearly not the Father, because he's the Son.

Essentially He is; technically He is not. There is a distinction. The Son is flesh and Spirit; the Father just Spirit. However it is the same spirit: Eph 4:4.

 

[Muffled]

Did u know islam is the only no christian religion that belives and respects Jesus Christ. No muslim is a muslim if he does not believe in Jesus Christ.
However we do not belive Jesus was god but he was snet by god as amessenger

Jesus never taugh trinty, it is nowhere to be found in the bible.
Why would god give u something u can't understand and then link it ur salvation

I know that mnay Muslims think so but the truth is that they are very far from it.

And for that reason you do not believe in the real Jesus but a fantasy Jesus that is conjured in the mind. A false image. An idol.

Both these statements are false.

It is easy to understand but people are dense. However the answer might lie in that which he stated to His disciples about parables. He gives it this way so that those who can hear will hear and those who can't will not.

Linkage is important. It is easier to proceed from what you know to what you don't know if there is a trail to follow. For example: If I am lost in the woods, I know that I am in the woods and that trails lead to somewhere. If I can find a trail, I may not know where it goes but I know that it will lead somewhere and that is better than being lost. It is even better if I find a sign along the trail that says where it leads.

 

[Shermana]

]I do not see this being mentioned anywhere in the text.

Depends on how you read into it, "Don't you see that I am in the Father and the Father is in me".

He may not say it here but He does say it elsewhere.

Oh really? Please show where he outright says it.

So what is your point?

So you're saying he says he's the Father, yet he says the Father is greater than him, in the same sense as John was "Greater' than all other men born on Earth. Does not compute.

 

[sojourner]

So why do you believe this "Apostolic Church" necessarily knows what belongs in the Bible.

The Trinity was a common belief about a century and a half after Jesus lived. It's still an invented doctrine.

As for "heretical" groups, everyone is a heretic to everyone else, right? Because majority opinion determines who is right and who is wrong of course.

I would say that it's a developed doctrine, but not "invented." It's not something that was formed out of whole cloth. It is based upon scripture and Tradition, and formulated from thinking that had remained amorphous from the beginning. The doctrine attempted to solidify the thinking.

 

[Shermana]

I would say that it's a developed doctrine, but not "invented." It's not something that was formed out of whole cloth. It is based upon scripture and Tradition, and formulated from thinking that had remained amorphous from the beginning. The doctrine attempted to solidify the thinking.

An invented "Tradition" that was "Developed" a century after the texts were finalized that is "based" on "interpretations" that were ultimately unknown before Tertullian's time, to "solidify thinking" that was based on an invented interpretation of a developed later tradition which by all means is 'invented".

Now if you'd like to show that the Trinity was "Amorphous from the beginning", by all means feel free to demonstrate any kind of evidence which indicates such. And before you use the Trinitarian translations of Justin Martyr, be aware that they have the same issues with the Anarthrous Theos, and they seem to slide over the fact that he referred to Jesus as an Angel.

 

[sojourner]

The texts, themselves point to the Three working in concert, with a single purpose. I'd say that's pretty good evidence. Good enough, it seems, for many of the best exegetes and theologians.

 

[Shermana]

The texts, themselves point to the Three working in concert, with a single purpose. I'd say that's pretty good evidence.

Evidence of them being totally separate beings (not just separate "persons" whatever "persons" means) working in concert. If you see that as evidence as they are the same being,well thank you for demonstrating Trinity logic at its finest.

 

[sojourner]

Evidence of them being totally separate beings (not just separate "persons" whatever "persons" means) working in concert. If you see that as evidence as they are the same being,well thank you for demonstrating Trinity logic at its finest.

That's quite a leap you've made there, to determine them to be separate beings.
Thank you for demonstrating an untenable leap of logic.

 

[Shermana]

That's quite a leap you've made there, to determine them to be separate beings.
Thank you for demonstrating an untenable leap of logic.

Huh ? I don't understand. I guess I lost track or something, but please explain why I've made a leap here and why you haven't.

 

[sojourner]

Huh ? I don't understand. I guess I lost track or something, but please explain why I've made a leap here and why you haven't.

You've determined them to be separate beings without adequate evidence to that effect.

 

[Shermana]

You've determined them to be separate beings without adequate evidence to that effect.

Ahem...

"The Father is greater than I"

"I did not write these teachings but the One who sent me"

"Let your will be done not mine".



You'll have to explain why verses like those don't count as evidence.




And you'll have to explain what evidence you have for your own position.

 

[sojourner]

You'll have to explain why verses like those don't count as evidence.




And you'll have to explain what evidence you have for your own position.

You'll have to explain why it's impossible for God to be fully present in a human being.

 

[Shermana]

You'll have to explain why it's impossible for God to be fully present in a human being.

I hear the grinding of shifting goal posts towards logical fallacies. I also hear the crickets of intentionally unanswered questions.

It's not impossible. It's also not impossible for Him to demand believers to do the hokey pokey and a series of Cartwheels in order to achieve salvation and secretly taught this but it was edited out of the Bible by anti-hokey-pokey factionists, requiring 2000 years before the hokey-pokey was rediscovered (without its originally hidden mystical meaning nonetheless).. It's also not impossible that Paul was really a transvestite on weekends and secretly taught his followers to dress in drag for the holy communion. It's also not impossible for Him to have reincarnated as a sacrificial dog afterwards and that all men must believe in the blood of Fido to be saved but this too was edited out by anti-Fidoists. It's also not impossible that He also reincarnated as 10 human beings afterwards.

Now I don't know what logic class you had, if any, but I don't know how you derived that I said it would be impossible for him to do this, and why whether it's impossible for Him to do so has any bearing whatsoever on how to properly interpret not only the text but the historical development of this invented interpretation of the text as well as the Jewish Philosophical tradition of the Logos being the incarnation of His Wisdom, personified, as a separate being, as the Firstborn of Creation which Philo kept record of.

I assume then that you forfeit your contention. Now perhaps you'd at least like to save some face and admit that I did in fact demonstrate evidence for my position and against yours while you did in fact only present evidence towards my view.

 

[sojourner]

It's not impossible.

Thank you. That's all I required from you.

 

[Shermana]

Thank you. That's all I required from you.

Okay, so your argument is that if it's not impossible it must be what you say it is? By that logic, is it impossible that God incarnated as Krishna and told the Indians to go slay Atheists as the Bhagavad Gita says (Part of why Russia is banning it)? If not, it MUST be true. Right?