The Trinity

[Jordan St. Francis]

As I understand it, the New Testament usage of Kyrios for Jesus parallels its use for the LORD in the Greek Septuagint. Or do we have other examples of Greek Jews writing about their Rabbis in such a manner? Not that I am aware of...

 

[outhouse]

As I understand it, the New Testament usage of Kyrios for Jesus parallels its use for the LORD in the Greek Septuagint. Or do we have other examples of Greek Jews writing about their Rabbis in such a manner? Not that I am aware of...

since the gospels were written after decades of oral traditon and editing, you will have a hard time determining if kyrios was ment to be lord

also this has nothing to do with the trinity per say, but does have allot to do with how divine jesuswas thought to be at the time


Kyrios (biblical term) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Greek word Kyrios (κύριο&#962 may mean God, lord or master. It is used in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.[1]

 

[Pegg]

Sorry to disagree with you, but the Church has always held with continuing revelation. The closing of the canon has nothing to do with continuing or non-continuing revelation. Church councils were often called by rulers. Whitby, for example, was called by King Oswy. I disagree that Jesus "called his church to function within a specific organizational structure." None of your statements can stand up to historical scrutiny.

If you look purely at the NT writings, everything Katzpur has stated stands up.

Perhaps you are looking at historical data that comes from a source other then the apostles and writers of the NT.

 

[Pegg]

No ... At that time, the Composite Idea of the Trinity was not thought of... even up to the time of the writing of the synoptic gospels it had not been established, though it might have been a minority idea, but there is no evidence to confirm this.
The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit were still thought of as separate identities. The argument continues to this day.

Presented with any group of entities , be they tom, dick or harry. there is no reason to suppose they make up a single identity, nor would this have been the case for proto Christians. It is a novel Idea.

yes i agree

and evidence of that is seen by the fact that almost in all cases the holy spirit is an 'it' ... not a 'he'

 

[sojourner]

If you look purely at the NT writings, everything Katzpur has stated stands up.

Perhaps you are looking at historical data that comes from a source other then the apostles and writers of the NT.

I fail to see what the NT writings, themselves, have to do with continuing revelation. The writings, themselves, were not written to be particularly "revelatory." They were not written to be scripture. If you're going to predicate "revelation" upon "scripture," then none of the NT would be revelatory at all. Using your criterion, revelation would have ended during the intertestamental period, and Jesus would not have had anything noteworthy to say.

 

[sojourner]

yes i agree

and evidence of that is seen by the fact that almost in all cases the holy spirit is an 'it' ... not a 'he'

What in the world does gender have to do with the validity of the Trinity???

 

[Pegg]

Still, neither the idea nor the words would have been there if they hadn't had some sort of idea of a Trinity. Why baptize in the name of three persons, instead of just one? We can say without much doubt that the fully-formed doctrine was not conceived that early, but the idea was being tossed around that Jesus and the Holy Spirit had at least something special to do with God, and were, in some sense, Divine.

If someone represents another, they are said to come in the name of that on, ie 'i come in the name of her majesty the queen or in the name of the Prime minister.

just as being baptized in the name of someone can mean the same thing... its recognition of the authority to whom one represents. Christians have submitted to the Father, the Son and the holy spirit.

 

[Pegg]

What in the world does gender have to do with the validity of the Trinity???

in this instance, the holy spirit is believed to be the third 'person' of the trinity

But there is no third person.

The scriptures are clear that the holy spirit is a thing...not a person.

 

[sojourner]

If someone represents another, they are said to come in the name of that on, ie 'i come in the name of her majesty the queen or in the name of the Prime minister.

just as being baptized in the name of someone can mean the same thing... its recognition of the authority to whom one represents. Christians have submitted to the Father, the Son and the holy spirit.

So, what you're saying is that to be baptized in the Trinitarian formula is to subscribe to three gods: Father, in whose name you are baptized; Son, in whose name you are baptized; and Holy Spirit, in whose name you are baptized.

"Christians have submitted to [these three]." But I thought we were to submit to God alone. Therefore, in your view, Xy is polytheistic -- not monotheistic.

It just don't work that way!

 

[sojourner]

in this instance, the holy spirit is believed to be the third 'person' of the trinity

But there is no third person.

The scriptures are clear that the holy spirit is a thing...not a person.

The teachings of the Church Fathers are just as clear: The Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Trinity.
You forget: sola scriptura is a false treatment of the Tradition of the church -- always has been. You, of course, realize that, in the beginning, a stance of sola scriptura would have applied only to the OT. Follow the NT would have constituted ascribing authority to "non-scriptural" sources. For that reason alone, sola scriptura doesn't work.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

yes i agree

and evidence of that is seen by the fact that almost in all cases the holy spirit is an 'it' ... not a 'he'

I think it is equally appropriate to call the Holy spirit "he" as It tends to be a "Language" thing, rather than a description of sexuality.
In the main faiths, The holy spirit is said to emanate from the Father and the Son, or as far as the Eastern churches maintain, the Father alone. The Holy spirit is also seen as a "person".
The Unitarian beliefs are far less certain about the "nature" of the Holy Spirit" Whilst your JW followers have a rather unique reading of the Bible, that seems to get more from it than others can find.

I have little difficulty seeing the Trinity as three separate persons, and if that makes me polytheistic in other peoples eyes, then so be it.

 

[outhouse]

I have little difficulty seeing the Trinity as three separate persons, and if that makes me polytheistic in other peoples eyes, then so be it.

I dont think thats such a bad thing.

the abrahamic god started out in a polytheistic fashion and it was rather difficult to shake it

 

[Pegg]

I fail to see what the NT writings, themselves, have to do with continuing revelation.

what if there was not continuation of revelation? What evidence do later writings give that the writers were inspired by God or directed by him?

at least the apostles and first century disciples had miraculous powers to show they had Gods spirit upon them.

 

[Pegg]

What in the world does gender have to do with the validity of the Trinity???

its not about gender...its about personality.

New Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. 13, p. 575):
“The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God. When a quasi-personal activity is ascribed to God’s spirit, e.g., speaking, hindering, desiring, dwelling (Acts 8.29; 16.7; Rom 8.9), one is not justified in concluding immediately that in these passages God’s spirit is regarded as a Person; the same expressions are used also in regard to rhetorically personified things or abstract ideas (see Rom 8.6; 7.17). Thus, the context of the phrase ‘blasphemy against the spirit’ (Mt 12.31; cf. Mt 12.28; Lk 11.20), shows that reference is being made to the power of God.”

So just because some passages personify the holy spirit, does not offer proof that it is a person. There are other examples where the Bible speaks of sin as ‘ruling as a king,’ and wisdom is as having “children” and “works.” (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:35) But we dont say that sin or wisdom is a person.

 

[sojourner]

what if there was not continuation of revelation?

God would be dead, because God is always revealed in the world.

What evidence do later writings give that the writers were inspired by God or directed by him?

the same evidence as the earlier writings. Ask any Mormon.
The Canon is a rather arbitrary thing, and was never meant to be as rigid as it turned out to be. When it was set, it was merely "this is the stuff that's OK to read in church."

at least the apostles and first century disciples had miraculous powers to show they had Gods spirit upon them.

Would a heart transplant, an I Pad, putting men on the moon, taking HD photographs of your house from 22,000 up, eradicating smallpox and putting W in the White House be any less miraculous to ancient Semitic people?

So just because some passages personify the holy spirit, does not offer proof that it is a person. There are other examples where the Bible speaks of sin as ‘ruling as a king,’ and wisdom is as having “children” and “works.” (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:35) But we dont say that sin or wisdom is a person.

Except it's the third person of the Trinity...

 

[Pegg]

So, what you're saying is that to be baptized in the Trinitarian formula is to subscribe to three gods: Father, in whose name you are baptized; Son, in whose name you are baptized; and Holy Spirit, in whose name you are baptized.

"Christians have submitted to [these three]." But I thought we were to submit to God alone. Therefore, in your view, Xy is polytheistic -- not monotheistic.

It just don't work that way!

no, thats not what i meant.

To represent the holy spirit, we should represent its ideals in the same way would represent the ideals of our King or Government. We are told what the fruits of Gods holy spirit is at Galatians 5:22 " On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, 23 mildness, self-control
So to be baptized in the name of, or as a representative of, the holy spirit, we should show that we have submitted to these qualities by our conduct.

 

[sojourner]

no, thats not what i meant.

To represent the holy spirit, we should represent its ideals in the same way would represent the ideals of our King or Government. We are told what the fruits of Gods holy spirit is at Galatians 5:22 " On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, 23 mildness, self-control
So to be baptized in the name of, or as a representative of, the holy spirit, we should show that we have submitted to these qualities by our conduct.

well, that's certainly not what you said earlier. I don't think you have any clearer idea about the nature of God than you accuse us of having.

 

[Muffled]

There are hundreds of ancient writings, Muffled, records of what was actually believed and taught by the Christians living during Jesus' day and in the first and second centuries. There is no mention of anything resembling the Trinity as defined at Ncea.

So what makes a man-made creed written in one century any more inspired than a man-made creed written the next? Neither creed was inspired by God nor approved of by Him. I will admit, though, that the Nicene Creed is more understandable and straightforward than the Athanasian Creed which reads like something someone at the IRS wrote.

Please pardon my lack of knowledge. I just looked up the Didache on Wikipedia. It is amazing how fast men set up ecclesiasitcal rules when at the time no single community had a complete Bible.

I wouldn't say that it is. My only comment is how close it comes to the scriptures. The Athanasian creed makes statements that are not supportable by scripture while the Nicene creed does make statements supportable by scripture. So although I can't vouch for the inspiration of creeds, I know that my inspiration is from God.

God has told me that He does approve of the Nicene creed but does not approve of the Athanasian creed.

 

[Muffled]

But the very instruction to baptize in the name (not names) of Father, Son, H.S. denotes that, although not condensed into a concise formula, the Trinity was conceived of very early on (Kloppenborg dates the Didache from the late 1st-early 2nd century.

Just because the eraly fathers were following the command of Jesus, does not intimate that they had an understanding of the Trinity as a theological concept.

 

[Muffled]

I definitely can't prove it, but that fact that the Church of that day claimed that revelation had ceased with the deaths of the Apostles seems to pretty much confirm what I'm saying. For starters, it wasn't even the head of the Church who called the council at Nicea in 325 A.D. I know it was supposed to have been called to put an end to the Arian controversy, but if it had been God's idea that a council be held for this purpose, it's highly unlikely that He would have directed a pagan emperor to convene it, as opposed to the Pope. Jesus Christ established His Church to function within a specific organizational structure, which included prophets and apostles, all of whom had been martyred more than two hundred years earlier. Nobody in 325 A.D. was claiming revelation from Heaven. (1) Since the council was presided over by a politician and not someone who held the authority the apostles had held, and (2) since that politician didn't care one way or the other what was decided, and (3) since the head of the Church was not even in attendance, it is pretty darned unlikely that any of the procedings took place with God's blessing.

With the idea in mind that revelation from God had long-since ceased by 325 A.D. what support can you provide for the idea that the council was called at God's request and that the final vote was what He would have wanted it to be?

If in fact the Pope wasn't invited, it would indicate that there was no central authority over the church. even if he were invited the fact that he didn't have a leading role suggest the same thing.

Jesus never made reference to an organization structure while He was with us but did through Paul and the Holy Spirit.

I think it is probable that God had a hand in it. He used Nebuchadnezzar who wasn't Jewish. God doesn't always choose high potentates to lead, sometimes He chooses sheepherders and fishermen. However the Bible says that with a number of counsellors there is safety. It isn't an absolute because Ahab had many prophets pointing him the wrong way but it seems more likely than the prospect of one man being right. Even so what was decided can only be viewed from what God tels us today since we can't ascertain the spirituality of any of the participants of the past.