The Trinity = A Gnostic Concept???

[Pegg]

And do all of these agree in every detail to the Trinity?

they dont all agree in every way to each other, yet they are all triune gods

Paganism was always identified by Gods true worshipers as 'false religion'. God always told the Isrealites that they were not to join themselves to those nations who practiced forms of religion which were based on falsehoods. God fought with such nations and showed those nations that he was the only true God and never did he identify himself as a triune God.

so it should really be examined honestly and in line with the scriptures.

 

[Christina83]

According to the Bible itself, about 40 men from diverse walks of life shared in writing the rest of the Scriptures, resulting in the collection of the 66 books, or subdivisions, of the Bible. However, these men did not consider themselves to be the real authors of the Bible. One of them said: “All Scripture is inspired of God.”.....2 Timothy 3:16. Another wrote of Bible writers: “Men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.”......2 Peter 1:21.

This places the writers in the category of penmen, or secretaries, controlled, or guided, by God. According to the Bible, the writer was usually allowed to select his own words in expressing the divinely supplied information......Habakkuk 2:2. That is why there are many styles of writing throughout the Bible. But the writing was always guided by God.​

But the most convincing proof of the Bible’s divine inspiration, is found in the fulfillment of its prophecies concerning Jesus, as can be seen by comparing Zechariah 9:9 with Matthew 21:4, 5 and John 12:14-16; Zechariah 12:10 with John 19:34-37; and Zechariah 13:7 with Matthew 26:31 and Mark 14:27. Also, there are the similarities to be noted between Zechariah 8:16 and Ephesians 4:25; Zechariah 3:2 and Jude 9; and Zechariah 14:5 and Jude 14. The harmony found in God’s Word despite the time span between one book and another gives food for thought.

Consider this and let me know your honest opinion.

but we dont have limited human knowledge regarding certain times in history.


God didnt write the book. hebrews wrote the book all from different times and described their mythology, dreams, needs, and the theology they created.




To say what you are saying you do against more then just

science
geology
historians
scholars

but logic and reason as well.


You have to believe in magic and follow young earth creationism.

 

[outhouse]

According to the Bible itself, about 40 men from diverse walks of life shared in writing the rest of the Scriptures, resulting in the collection of the 66 books, or subdivisions, of the Bible. However, these men did not consider themselves to be the real authors of the Bible. One of them said: “All Scripture is inspired of God.”.....2 Timothy 3:16. Another wrote of Bible writers: “Men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.”......2 Peter 1:21.​

This places the writers in the category of penmen, or secretaries, controlled, or guided, by God. According to the Bible, the writer was usually allowed to select his own words in expressing the divinely supplied information......Habakkuk 2:2. That is why there are many styles of writing throughout the Bible. But the writing was always guided by God.​

But the most convincing proof of the Bible’s divine inspiration, is found in the fulfillment of its prophecies concerning Jesus, as can be seen by comparing Zechariah 9:9 with Matthew 21:4, 5 and John 12:14-16; Zechariah 12:10 with John 19:34-37; and Zechariah 13:7 with Matthew 26:31 and Mark 14:27. Also, there are the similarities to be noted between Zechariah 8:16 and Ephesians 4:25; Zechariah 3:2 and Jude 9; and Zechariah 14:5 and Jude 14. The harmony found in God’s Word despite the time span between one book and another gives food for thought.

Consider this and let me know your honest opinion.

Thank you Christina83 for a very civil reply. :clap


Ill start off with the number 40, in biblical times that was a number but not always literally 40, it ment quite a while or quite a bit. It is also known that over a 1300 ish year span of its evolution into todays form, the last author knew nothing of the first authors.

when it comes to the authors of the NT most are unknown authors at this point. Take John that was written over a period of time by 3 or 3 groups of authors. Mark Matthew and Luke all shared some of the same source material with mathew and Luke using much of Marks work, and some from Q a unknown source. Much of these stories were a product of oral tradition before the highly illiterate groups found a scribe who penned the stories of importance for said groups.

Almost every single author or groups of authors were well versed in everything the OT had to offer. The NT also had additions and redactions as the original scrolls deteriorated.

The OT is even harder to follow and the first 5 books attributed to Moses were not written by him but rather single authors and groups of authors over hundereds of years of compilation and redaction all from oral strories passed down through the ages.


Last, if god had been talking to people through divine inspriration there would not be so many mistakes and contradictions.

The bible ALL of it was written by ancient men, for ancient men. Most of the first 5 books of the OT was written with influences from previous religions in the levant that ended up evolving actually mirroring the culture and people who wrote it.


please dont take me as anti-theist. Im not. Im more interested in the real history surrounding teh creation of the book and the culture who invented it.

 

[JacobEzra.]

they dont all agree in every way to each other, yet they are all triune gods

.

How Triune were they?

Were they three totally seperate 'god's?

Or were they three persons, one God?

 

[Mattweedhacker]

Specifically the concept of God as three persons (hypostases).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus of Ancyra

"Valentinus, the leader of a sect,


was the - ( first ) - to devise the notion of three subsistent entities (hypostases), in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures.


For, he devised the notion of three subsistent entities


- ( and ) - three - ( person-(s) ) - father, son, and holy spirit."

Quote:


...

Valentinus the heresiarch - ( first ) - invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'.

...

For he was the - ( first ) - to invent three hypostases

- ( and ) - three - ( person-(s) ) - of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,

- ( and ) - he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato.


Did Valentinus bring to Christendom the Trinity as it is currently understood?

(Quotes taken from this wikipedia article)



Regardless wether this work is an attack on the Arians or the "Orthodox" it is interesting to note what facts emerge when you break it down:

VALENTINUS THE GNOSTIC APOSTATE WAS - THE ( FIRST ) - TO INVENT OR DEVISE THE NOTION = OF WHAT ? ? ? :cover:

1.) Three subsistent entities
2.) Three person(S) - Father, Son, and holy spirit
3.) Filched the concept from Plato or Hermes

In regard to Valentinus, I have some questions to ask:

Can anyone actually show a so-called "Orthodox" Christian writer who is - ( not ) - part of some wacked out sect or excommunicated from the "Church" - ( before ) - Valentius actually preaching a "Trinity"?

Or actaully using the "hypostases" concept of the Father, Son, holy spirit to explain a the "Orthodox" Christian doctrine of the "Three-in-one-God-Trinity"?

Or can anyone show an "Orthodox" Christian writer in the 2nd Century preaching the specific doctrine of a "Trinity" or "Triad" or "three-in-one-un-created-co-equal-co-eternal-co-almight(ies)-same-substance-God" without taking the concept directly from or the doctrine being closely associated with the influence of Plato?

I qualify these questions with it being a clear and consice, explicit and un-mistakable reference to these doctrines.

I also qualify that as being from a genuine "Orthodox Christian" work that hasn't been forged for the purpose or had the sucessive copies edited or tampered with in some way?

It's interesting that neither Justin Martyr nor Irenaeus when countering and condemning Valentinus doctrines - ( never mention ) - the so-called, supposedly then existent "Orthodox Trinity" or use "hypostases" or "three-in-one" or "three-are-one" (1st John 5:7 = conterfeit text) to explain the hypothetical - ( correct ) - Christian doctrine of a "Holy Trinity".

Is there anyone here who is actually serious about the history of early Christian doctrine?

 

[Pegg]

How Triune were they?

Were they three totally seperate 'god's?

Or were they three persons, one God?

well they've got 3 heads and they all exist co-dependently

very very similar to the way some christians choose to explain the God of the Hebrew scriptures....even though in those scriptures he says he is only 'one'

 

[InChrist]

well they've got 3 heads and they all exist co-dependently

very very similar to the way some christians choose to explain the God of the Hebrew scriptures....even though in those scriptures he says he is only 'one'

[FONT=&quot]Christians do not believe the trinity means a three-headed god. The Trinity is NOT defined as three Gods in one, but instead three Persons in one God. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, nor is the Son the Father or the Holy Spirit. God is the NATURE of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, meaning that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have the same essence, qualities, characteristics and abilities. As men and women have human nature, Father, Son and Holy Spirit have GOD NATURE. There is only one true God by NATURE, revealed in three Persons through the scriptures.[/FONT]

 

[Mattweedhacker]

[FONT=&quot]Christians do not believe the trinity means a three-headed god. The Trinity is NOT defined as three Gods in one, but instead three Persons in one God. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, nor is the Son the Father or the Holy Spirit. God is the NATURE of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, meaning that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have the same essence, qualities, characteristics and abilities. As men and women have human nature, Father, Son and Holy Spirit have GOD NATURE. There is only one true God by NATURE, revealed in three Persons through the scriptures.[/FONT]

So "God" is reduced to just a divine "...NATURE..."

"God" is no longer "God" but a "NATURE" spread among three individuals.

Where does it specifically say "God is ( three ) person(s)" or even "three person(s)" in the Bible?

Where does it even mention "three in one" or "three" in conection with God in the Bible?

Where is there a definite and clear - ( un-mistakible ) - truly Tri{3}nitarian verse?

Where does Jesus say "...I and the Father and the holy spirit are one God..."?

Not a "...maybe, sort of, but not quite, if you wrench or twist it this way, possibly..." type scripture or statement that is capable of other just as legitimate explanation.

Something that is explicit and clear!

Not a lego built snap lock amalgum of scriptures to custom create a montage - ( picture ) - of a supposed Tri{3}nity but something clear and indesputable.

Not a hidden code or formula ( similar ) to ( nearly - but not quite ) or ( out of context ) - scripture.

Something real, substantial!

You know like "...but to us [=Christians] there is one God the Father..." 1st Cor 8:6.

Or like "...the God - ( of ) - our - ( Lord ) - Jesus Christ, the Father..." Eph 1:17.

Scriptures like that!

 

[JacobEzra.]

well they've got 3 heads and they all exist co-dependently

very very similar to the way some christians choose to explain the God of the Hebrew scriptures....even though in those scriptures he says he is only 'one'

What do you mean 3 heads, and co-dependently? That they rely on each other? That makes no sense when you know what the trinity actually is.

Thouse pagan gods are three different gods independent on its own.

Trinity is three forms, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, who are the same God.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Thouse pagan gods are three different gods independent on its own.

Trinity is three forms, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, who are the same God.

Can anyone on this thread provide a link or a source to an earlier trinitarian reference that is assumed to be proto-Nicene?

As far as I can tell, there was no 'orthodoxy' so back then one hierarch's opinion was just as valid as the next. The only thing that separated them was how many people were in agreement.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Can anyone on this thread provide a link or a source to an earlier trinitarian reference that is assumed to be proto-Nicene?

As far as I can tell, there was no 'orthodoxy' so back then one hierarch's opinion was just as valid as the next. The only thing that separated them was how many people were in agreement.

I doubt there is any. I think the idea was floating around which is probably one of the things that prompted the meetings/debates at Nicea. It's moot because the biblical Yeshua explicitly shows that before his god sent him he existed in heaven having his own will. Additionally the "ascended" Yeshua, in the book of Revelation, explicitly says to John that he has a god.

Codex Sinaiticus (Oldest known Bible)
John 6:38
for I have come down from heaven, not that I might do my will, but the will of him that sent me.


Revelation 3:12
He that overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out no more, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven from my God, and my new name.

Also the book of John chapter 14 is an interesting one. In context the biblical Yeshua sees himself completely separate from his god. Take note of this verse here.....

Codex Sinaiticus (Oldest known Bible)
John 14:23
Jesus answered and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him.

 

[Mattweedhacker]

I doubt there is any. I think the idea was floating around which is probably one of the things that prompted the meetings/debates at Nicea. It's moot because the biblical Yeshua explicitly shows that before his god sent him he existed in heaven having his own will. Additionally the "ascended" Yeshua, in the book of Revelation, explicitly says to John that he has a god.

Codex Sinaiticus (Oldest known Bible)
John 6:38
for I have come down from heaven, not that I might do my will, but the will of him that sent me.


Revelation 3:12
He that overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out no more, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven from my God, and my new name.

Also the book of John chapter 14 is an interesting one. In context the biblical Yeshua sees himself completely separate from his god. Take note of this verse here.....

Codex Sinaiticus (Oldest known Bible)
John 14:23
Jesus answered and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him.

Sorry but no cigar for Tri{3}nitarians in this verse here!

"...Jesus answered ... me ... and ( my ) Father .... ( we ) ... our ..."

This is an example of what I was talking about in a previous post.

This is talking about the Father ( Jehovah ) and his Son ( Jesus ).

This can only be twisted to promote a possible BI{2}nity = TWO not THREE.

Now if Jesus said:

"...Jesus answered and said to him: "If any one love ( me ), he will keep ( my ) word, and ( my ) Father [and the holy spirit] will love him, and ( we ) will come to him, and make ( our ) abode with him..."

That's clearly a TRI-{3}-NITARIAN statement and not a possible BI-{2}-NITARIAN one.

Same goes for ( John 10:30 ): "...I and the Father are one..."

It's not: "...I and the Father and the holy spirit are one..."

Or: "...I and the Father and the holy spirit are one hypostasis..."

Or: "...I and the Father and the holy spirit are one ousia..."

Or: "...I and the Father and the holy spirit are one God..."

Or: "...I and the Father and the holy spirit are one God-head..."

Or: "...I and the Father and the holy spirit [Ltn., ( et hic tres unum sunt ) 1st John 5:7 counterfiet text] and we three are one..." :no:

John 10:30 is explained clearly explained as a unity of purpose etc., elsewhere, but not a tri{3}nitarian unity. In other word's it is legitamately cable of another better interpretation.

These are perfect examples of the:

"...sort-of, but not quite, possibly, but not really, kind-of, but na, nearly, but just not there, if you twist it or wrench it this way, if your wear these stain glass tinted specticles you'll see it my way, etc, etc..."

Type text's which are supposed to be clear and un-ambiguous proof of a ( THREE )-IN-ONE-GOD.

But in reality are not.:yes:

 

[outhouse]

Can anyone on this thread provide a link or a source to an earlier trinitarian reference that is assumed to be proto-Nicene?

As far as I can tell, there was no 'orthodoxy' so back then one hierarch's opinion was just as valid as the next. The only thing that separated them was how many people were in agreement.

I dont believe there is one. I know there isnt one that follows todays standards

the concept of the trinity wasnt even how it is now during the council of Nicea, in 325 there were still debating duality let alone the trinity.

Multiple deities were worshipped and beliefs varied in the early years depending on which sect and geographic location you belonged to. The theology evolved quite a bit during that time and the beliefs changed with the theology.

the trinity wasnt even an standard belief until 400AD

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Sorry but no cigar for Tri{3}nitarians in this verse here!

"...Jesus answered ... me ... and ( my ) Father .... ( we ) ... our ..."

This is an example of what I was talking about in a previous post.

This is talking about the Father ( Jehovah ) and his Son ( Jesus ).

This can only be twisted to promote a possible BI{2}nity = TWO not THREE.

Now if Jesus said:

"...Jesus answered and said to him: "If any one love ( me ), he will keep ( my ) word, and ( my ) Father [and the holy spirit] will love him, and ( we ) will come to him, and make ( our ) abode with him..."

That's clearly a TRI-{3}-NITARIAN statement and not a possible BI-{2}-NITARIAN one.

Same goes for ( John 10:30 ): "...I and the Father are one..."

It's not: "...I and the Father and the holy spirit are one..."

Or: "...I and the Father and the holy spirit are one hypostasis..."

Or: "...I and the Father and the holy spirit are one ousia..."

Or: "...I and the Father and the holy spirit are one God..."

Or: "...I and the Father and the holy spirit are one God-head..."

Or: "...I and the Father and the holy spirit [Ltn., ( et hic tres unum sunt ) 1st John 5:7 counterfiet text] and we three are one..." :no:

John 10:30 is explained clearly explained as a unity of purpose etc., elsewhere, but not a tri{3}nitarian unity. In other word's it is legitamately cable of another better interpretation.

These are perfect examples of the:

"...sort-of, but not quite, possibly, but not really, kind-of, but na, nearly, but just not there, if you twist it or wrench it this way, if your wear these stain glass tinted specticles you'll see it my way, etc, etc..."

Type text's which are supposed to be clear and un-ambiguous proof of a ( THREE )-IN-ONE-GOD.

But in reality are not.:yes:

No. I think you misunderstood me. Sorry. It was my fault.

I actually agree with you 100%. My agreement is reflected in the verses I cited. Those verses show the biblical Yeshua (did not) think or teach others he was "God".

 

[angellous_evangellous]

One thing that I don't think has been considered is the simple fact that it took more than 300 years for Christians to make up their minds about the doctrine. Christians had a number of different takes on the Trinity before then - usually by geographic area. But as the doctrine became dogma, it looks to me like all of the Gnosticism that might have been in there previously was thoroughly flushed out.

 

[Ami alinizy]

hi ,dirty penguin,i have all the answer that u need .but i'd like u 2 subscribe 2 my channel on youtube so i can share videos with u : )
peace.