The Trinity

[Bright Raven]

No, it doesn't; not in Holy Catholicism.

That was my point.

It came from without before it was within.

 

[Nihilo]

It came from without before it was within.

It's not within. Virtually no Catholic questions the Trinity. When one crosses oneself, one says, when touching the forehead, "In the name of the Father," and when touching the chest, "And the Son," and when touching the left and right shoulders, "And the Holy Spirit . . . "

. . . Amen.

 

[Bright Raven]

It's not within. Virtually no Catholic questions the Trinity. When one crosses oneself, one says, when touching the forehead, "In the name of the Father," and when touching the chest, "And the Son," and when touching the left and right shoulders, "And the Holy Spirit . . . "

. . . Amen.

Let's not derail the thread by turning into one on Catholic catechism.

 

[Nihilo]

Let's not derail the thread by turning into one on Catholic catechism.

All right. I just thought it germane to mention that disputes about the Trinity are a uniquely Protestant thing.

But aside from that: :carryon:

 

[Bright Raven]

All right. I just thought it germane to mention that disputes about the Trinity are a uniquely Protestant thing.

But aside from that: :carryon:

Thank You.

 

[csuguy]

All right. I just thought it germane to mention that disputes about the Trinity are a uniquely Protestant thing.

But aside from that: :carryon:

Because all those so called Arians and semi-Arians in the 4th century were Protestants Let's not forget the writings of the Church Fathers in the first three centuries who all maintained that Jesus was not God Almighty and that he was, at some point, born/came into being.

 

[Bright Raven]

Because all those so called Arians and semi-Arians in the 4th century were Protestants Let's not forget the writings of the Church Fathers in the first three centuries who all maintained that Jesus was not God Almighty and that he was, at some point, born/came into being.

Here are some who did.


From Carm.org

Early Trinitarian Quotes

It took a while for the Christian Church to finally figure out what the Trinity was. But, by God's grace, the Church has defined it. However, some say that the Trinity was never taught until the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Not so. Following are some samples of quotes taken from early church leaders regarding the plural nature of God.

Polycarp (70-155/160) - Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.
"O Lord God almighty...I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).

Justin Martyr (100?-165?) - He was a Christian apologist and martyr.
"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).

Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117) - Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).
"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)

Irenaeus (115-190) - As a boy, he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l)

Part of the reason that the Trinity doctrine was not "officially" taught until the time of the Council of Nicea, is because Christianity was illegal until shortly before the council. It wasn't really possible for official Christian groups to meet and discuss doctrine. For the most part, they were fearful of making public pronouncements concerning their faith.
Additionally, if a group had attacked the person of Adam, the early church would have responded with an official doctrine of who Adam was. As it was, the Person of Christ was attacked. When the Church defended the deity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity was further defined.
The early Church believed in the Trinity, as is evidenced by the quotes above, and it wasn't necessary to really make them official. It wasn't until errors started to creep in, that councils began to meet to discuss the Trinity, as well as other doctrines that came under fire.

 

[Nihilo]

Because all those so called Arians and semi-Arians in the 4th century were Protestants Let's not forget the writings of the Church Fathers in the first three centuries who all maintained that Jesus was not God Almighty and that he was, at some point, born/came into being.

Yeah, and let's also not forget that those Arians saw Jesus Christ as something like the Caped Crusader and less like what modern unitarians profess He was. Modern unitarianism is a brand new, never-heard-of before idea---certainly not in the fourth century, when the "non-Trins" believed something more like, rather, that our Lord's real name was "Kal-El."

 

[KingdomRose]

*BUMP*


You can't be the son of someone and not be of that person. This is the obvious folly of trinity deniers that never gets the attention it deserves. If Jesus is the direct Son of God, then he is not an angel or separate deity- he is God.

Rather....you can't be the son OF somebody and at the same time BE that somebody. That viewpoint is no "folly."

 

[KingdomRose]

Let me put it to you this way.

When two parents have a child, their body is of the parents but their soul comes from neither.

For Jesus, the body came from Mary and God, and the soul is literally of the Spirit. That means that Jesus is effectively 100% man and 100% God. This is what makes him the bridge between God and humanity.

It's not merely tradition. If you read the New Testament and compare verses between it and Isaiah, it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than he is God.
But you won't do that homework, because you've decided to be anti-Trinitarian and nothing else will get through to you.

No....what makes Jesus the bridge from God to humanity is his SINLESS NATURE. He doesn't have to be God to be the Redeemer. He just had to be ADAM'S EQUAL. As Adam condemned his descendants to death, Jesus (the "last Adam") will bring about humanity's salvation. (I Corinthians 15:22 & 45)

The only way you can get out of Isaiah & the N.T. that Jesus is God is if you already believe it, and you grasp at anything to "prove" it. The sad thing is, people who are not familiar with the Bible will think you are so smart (even though your "proof texts" are bogus) that they will take your word for it.

I have already done the homework, Crucible. For many years. I can turn over any argument you bring up.

 

[KingdomRose]

Many of them contradict the Trinity, and none of them teach it.

For instance:

1 Cor 15:20-28 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.​

This verse both distinguishes the Son from God (not simply "Father", but "God") and establishes a clear hierarchy between the two after his earthly life (so none of that "he was only temporarily made less than God" unbiblical non-sense will work here)

Excellent! The trinitarians haven't tried to explain that verse in I Corinthians. They just ignore it and continue on throwing out insults and saying how stupid non-trinis are. :blabla: That is the sum and substance of their defense.

 

[KingdomRose]

I think that it is problematic that you separate scriptures from the church that canonized them, assuming they make any sense apart from the confessions of the church.

It shouldn't be problematic. I have discussed at length these issues with a few Catholics, and they will admit that the Church teaches that their tradition outweighs "sola scriptura." There are many, many verses in the Bible that contradict Church teachings. But that is no object of contention with Catholics. Tradition is the thing to look at and believe in.

:Clete:

 

[KingdomRose]

None contradict The Trinity.

The Trinity comprehends ALL scripture.







An unfortunate NIV translation.

Theos is not in the Greek of verse 27, to begin with.







Nope.

You are the arch example of someone who is in DENIAL. You just can't see or hear anything but what you are intent on believing, whether it makes sense or not.

The NIV got the meaning right, even though it didn't stick to the exact text in Greek. "Theos" isn't in the Greek in that verse (27) because it didn't need to be. Another version is this:

"All things are subject to him [Jesus], undoubtedly He [that is, God] is excepted who has subjected all things to him." New Catholic Edition

So "God" is not in the verse in the Greek text, but it is plain that it is God who subjected all things TO Jesus. Now, what about the rest of the passage?

:think:

 

[KingdomRose]

God is a sacrifice for humanity.

What kind of sense does that make? Almighty God can't be a sacrifice. He can't die! If He did, everything would cease to exist. It is Jehovah who keeps all things running. It is Jehovah, the Father, who raised Jesus up from the dead.

:kookoo:

 

[KingdomRose]

Deuteronomy 32:39
“See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand.

Isaiah 44:8
Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

Isaiah 45:6
so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting people may know there is none besides me. I am the Lord, and there is no other.

If God was a trinity, wouldn't He speak of another; but what does He say, He says he knows of no other.

YES, CherubRam!!!! Excellent point!!!! Jehovah is God and there is no other God with Him. (Psalm 83:18, KJV; John 17:3)

 

[KingdomRose]

You still accept the existence of the Godhead. Definition (Dictionary.com)
Godhead
[god-hed]
Spell Syllables
Word Origin
noun
1.
the essential being of God; the Supreme Being.
the Holy Trinity of God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

The "Godhead" is not actually scriptural. That term is not used in many modern Bibles. "Godhead" is a term used by the KJV translators to twist the meaning of certain verses that speak of the SINGULAR God rather than three. "Godhead" suggests more than one person. It's a sly, subtle trick.

The KJV was produced in 1611. Romans 1:20 is rendered as thus:

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

The Douay-Rheims Version came out in 1610. Whereas the KJV uses the term "Godhead" in verse 20 of Romans 1, the Douay does not. It renders Romans 1:20 as:

"For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable."

"Godhead" is a fabrication of translators with a definite BIAS. I have quite a number of versions that do not say "Godhead" even at Colossians 2:9.

:nananana:

 

[Bright Raven]

The "Godhead" is not actually scriptural. That term is not used in many modern Bibles. "Godhead" is a term used by the KJV translators to twist the meaning of certain verses that speak of the SINGULAR God rather than three. "Godhead" suggests more than one person. It's a sly, subtle trick.

The KJV was produced in 1611. Romans 1:20 is rendered as thus:

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

The Douay-Rheims Version came out in 1610. Whereas the KJV uses the term "Godhead" in verse 20 of Romans 1, the Douay does not. It renders Romans 1:20 as:

"For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable."

"Godhead" is a fabrication of translators with a definite BIAS. I have quite a number of versions that do not say "Godhead" even at Colossians 2:9.

:nananana:

I take it you have a problem with the KJV? Do you you feel it to be an invalid translation?

 

[Mark M]

The "Godhead" is not actually scriptural. That term is not used in many modern Bibles. "Godhead" is a term used by the KJV translators to twist the meaning of certain verses that speak of the SINGULAR God rather than three. "Godhead" suggests more than one person. It's a sly, subtle trick.

The KJV was produced in 1611. Romans 1:20 is rendered as thus:

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

The Douay-Rheims Version came out in 1610. Whereas the KJV uses the term "Godhead" in verse 20 of Romans 1, the Douay does not. It renders Romans 1:20 as:

"For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable."

"Godhead" is a fabrication of translators with a definite BIAS. I have quite a number of versions that do not say "Godhead" even at Colossians 2:9.

:nananana:

God head is scriptural, in fact, my phone pulled up Godhead when I began to type it.

Colossians 2:9

 

[Nihilo]

The "Godhead" is not actually scriptural.

It doesn't matter. Your problem is the papacy; the Holy See; the continuation of Peter's office; the primary Apostle Matthew 16:16. Best regards.

 

[Apple7]

You are the arch example of someone who is in DENIAL. You just can't see or hear anything but what you are intent on believing, whether it makes sense or not.

The NIV got the meaning right, even though it didn't stick to the exact text in Greek. "Theos" isn't in the Greek in that verse (27) because it didn't need to be. Another version is this:

"All things are subject to him [Jesus], undoubtedly He [that is, God] is excepted who has subjected all things to him." New Catholic Edition

So "God" is not in the verse in the Greek text, but it is plain that it is God who subjected all things TO Jesus. Now, what about the rest of the passage?

:think:

Pandering for renderings that artificially insert words that do not appear in the original Greek, will not help your lame JW worldview.