-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Keeping in mind the oral tradition of God's revelation going all the way back to Adam,
who was given sacrifice for forgiveness of sin,
And Abraham's revelations from God 400 years before Israel, which were passed down orally.
The pagans had much to corrupt that was Biblical,
which the historical record shows that they did.
who was given sacrifice for forgiveness of sin,
And Abraham's revelations from God 400 years before Israel, which were passed down orally.
The pagans had much to corrupt that was Biblical,
which the historical record shows that they did.
D
Re: Google some more...
[SUP]1[/SUP]The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. [SUP]2 [/SUP]Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my Lord, do not pass your servant by. [SUP]4 [/SUP]Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree. [SUP]5 [/SUP]Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way—now that you have come to your servant.”
“Very well,” they answered, “do as you say.”
(Genesis 18: 1-5 / NIV)
[SUP]1[/SUP]The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. [SUP]2 [/SUP]Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my Lord, do not pass your servant by. [SUP]4 [/SUP]Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree. [SUP]5 [/SUP]Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way—now that you have come to your servant.”
“Very well,” they answered, “do as you say.”
(Genesis 18: 1-5 / NIV)
Revelation 4:6 Also in front of the throne there was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal.
In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back. 7 The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle. 8 Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying:
Ezekiel 1:10 As for the likeness of their faces, each had a human face. The four had the face of a lion on the right side, the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and the four had the face of an eagle. 11 Such were their faces.
There are creatures that are mentioned in these chapters. One says that they are separated individuals, and the other mentions them to be from the same body. We can't compare ourselves to the spiritual realm; if we can't press our bodies together and become one, that does means the spirits can't become one. We can only become one with another in spirit because of our physical limitations. And God doesn't have to use the toilet, but then where does it goes?
Romans 6:19 I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness.
John 3:34 For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.
John 3:12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?
In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back. 7 The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle. 8 Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying:
Ezekiel 1:10 As for the likeness of their faces, each had a human face. The four had the face of a lion on the right side, the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and the four had the face of an eagle. 11 Such were their faces.
There are creatures that are mentioned in these chapters. One says that they are separated individuals, and the other mentions them to be from the same body. We can't compare ourselves to the spiritual realm; if we can't press our bodies together and become one, that does means the spirits can't become one. We can only become one with another in spirit because of our physical limitations. And God doesn't have to use the toilet, but then where does it goes?
Romans 6:19 I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness.
John 3:34 For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.
John 3:12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?
Re: Google some more...
We have the Son proclaimed in Ezekiel:
We have the Spirit proclaimed in Ezekiel:
We have the Trinity proclaimed in Ezekiel:
Now...
Google where 'baal' was Triune in nature.
Good.
Luck.
We have the Son proclaimed in Ezekiel:
- The Word (Eze 1.3)
- Also called the Glory (Eze 1.28)
- The Glory has the appearance of a Man (Eze 1.26 – 28)
- Compare how the NT refers to the Son as the Glory & the Word (John 1.14; Heb 1.3)
- Ezekiel states that the Glory by the river (Eze 1.3, 28) is the same Glory as mentioned throughout the book (Eze 3.22 – 23; 10.18 – 20; 43.3)
We have the Spirit proclaimed in Ezekiel:
- The Man that is portrayed in (Eze 8.1 - 3) is also mentioned in (Eze 40.3)
- The Man is a representation of the Spirit (Eze 8.2 – 3; 43.5 – 6)
- The Hand of Yahweh is also the Spirit (Eze 3.14; 8.3; 37.1)
- The Man and the Glory are often associated with Yahweh
- We have the Man bringing Ezekiel back to the east gate (Eze 44.1)
- Prior to this, the Man was w/Ezekiel by the east gate (Eze 43.1)
We have the Trinity proclaimed in Ezekiel:
- The Spirit & the Glory are mentioned together – but at the same time, distinction is made between them (Eze 1.28 – 2.2; 3.12 – 14, 23 – 24; 8.3 – 4; 10.18 – 11.1, 22 – 23; 43.1 – 5)
- The Man quotes the Father (Yahweh) (Eze 44.6; 45.9, 18; 46.1, 16; 47.13)
- The Glory quotes the Father (Yahweh) (Eze 3.11 – 12; 11.5; 43.18, 19, 27)
- The Man (Eze 44.1) referred the Glory, and went through the east gate into the temple (Eze 43.2 – 5), as Yahweh the Father (Eze 44.2)
- Therefore, the Glory (the Word) is the Son
- The Man (The Hand of Yahweh) is the Spirit
- Yahweh is the Father
Now...
Google where 'baal' was Triune in nature.
Good.
Luck.
C
Bowman, you're just reading your theology into the text. None of those verses explicitly state Yahweh is a triune God and none of them explain the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The "consubstantiation" idea didn't develop until the 3rd or 4th century. The "trinity" was clearly an idea that developed over time.
So no dice.
The concept of the "Trinity" took several hundred years to fully develop and so was not added by any single person in particular.
The three "persons" who make up the modern orthodox Christian version of the Trinity (there are still branches of Christianity which don't accept the orthodox formulation) are all mentioned in some way in the New Testament. What was bitterly disputed for centuries was whether they were connected as a Godhead at all and, if so, how. There were early forms of Christianity which wholly rejected the idea that Jesus was God at all and insisted on a more traditionally Jewish conception of the Messiah as simply a man ordained and anointed by God or perhaps as a heavenly or angelic being sent by God in human form. This form of Christianity, preached by the Ebionites, Nazoraeans and some others survived into at least the Fourth Century. Some were reverting to a more Jewish conception of the Messiah but it is believed by many modern scholars that the Ebionities' claim to be descended from relatives of Jesus and therefore to be the original form of the Jesus sect has merit.
By the Second Century, however, the idea that Jesus was in some sense divine had well and truly taken hold in gentile Christianity. The main disupute then became in what sense he was divine. Adoptionists believed that Jesus was divine but that he only became so at his baptism. So they accepted that he is God but believed that he was not always so and that he was therefore not fully equal with God. The fact that the Gospel of Mark indicates Jesus' baptism as the point where he became the Messiah and that several passages in Paul's epistles indicate Paul believed Jesus became God's anointed at his resurrection gave the proponents of this view some scriptural basis.
Over the next two centuries various forms of Modalism developed, arguing that God could only ever be one and so the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit could only be "aspects" or "masks" of the unity that is God as perceived by the observer/believer and not separate beings in any sense. Then there was Arianism, which accepted that the Son was divine but "proceeded from the Father" and so was not eternal and co-equal with him.
The poor relation in all versions of the Trinity and debates about it is the "Holy Spirit". In Judaism, the רוח הקודש or "ruach ha-kodesh" was the divine property of prophecy and wisdom and therefore the active element of Yahweh in the world. It's in this purely Jewish sense that most of the references to this "holy spirit" of Yahweh in the New Testament are meant - 2Corinthians 13:14 only looks like a Trinitarian formula now, no Jew of Paul's time would have interpreted it that way at all or would have even dreamed of doing so (ditto for Matt 28:19). Once Christianity drifted from its Jewish roots, however, the subtle distinction between an active aspect of God in the world and another form and then eventual a "person" of God quickly became blurry and was lost altogether.
By the Second Century the idea that there was, in some sense, a Trinity was dominant and other conceptions of Christianity were being marginalised and dismissed as "heresies". But there still followed several centuries of struggle over which of the competing conceptions of this Trinity was "correct". After Constantine legalised Christianity in 312 AD he was not pleased that his new faith was riven with divisions and called the Council of Nicea to settle the disputes over the nature of the Trinity. The Orthodox view won out over its then main rival, Arianism. But Arianism then got the support of several of Constantine's successors and staged a comeback. Even after Ariansim was finally marginalised, non-Arian Christianity was then divided again, this time over the question of whether Jesus had one divine nature (Monophysitism) or a human and divine nature at the same time (the Chalcedonian position). Disputes over this and similar variations on Trinitiarian doctrines continued for centuries and often resulted in schisms and, occasionally, persecutions.
What is perfectly clear is that the whole idea of a Trinity evolved over centuries and what has emerged as the "orthodox" position held by most Christian churches today did so more as a result of luck, violent debate, Imperial power and occiasionally violence, conflict and torture. Claims made by modern conservative Christians that the orthodox position is somehow "clearly" the right one are undermined by this history of conflict and violence - it it was so "clear" there would not have been this whelter of disputes and conflicting positions.
For a good introduction to the varied forms of early Christianity and the earlier Trinitarian positions see Bart Ehrman Lost Christanities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew and for the later disputes see Richard E. Rubenstein When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity in the Last Days of Rome.
I'd say the reason the whole concept has such a history of conflict and dispute and is so theologically incoherent is that it evolved out of a jumble of inconsistent ideas and traditions to begin with. It seems incoherent because it is.
When and by whom was the concept of the Holy Trinity added to Christianity? - Quora
So no dice.
The concept of the "Trinity" took several hundred years to fully develop and so was not added by any single person in particular.
The three "persons" who make up the modern orthodox Christian version of the Trinity (there are still branches of Christianity which don't accept the orthodox formulation) are all mentioned in some way in the New Testament. What was bitterly disputed for centuries was whether they were connected as a Godhead at all and, if so, how. There were early forms of Christianity which wholly rejected the idea that Jesus was God at all and insisted on a more traditionally Jewish conception of the Messiah as simply a man ordained and anointed by God or perhaps as a heavenly or angelic being sent by God in human form. This form of Christianity, preached by the Ebionites, Nazoraeans and some others survived into at least the Fourth Century. Some were reverting to a more Jewish conception of the Messiah but it is believed by many modern scholars that the Ebionities' claim to be descended from relatives of Jesus and therefore to be the original form of the Jesus sect has merit.
By the Second Century, however, the idea that Jesus was in some sense divine had well and truly taken hold in gentile Christianity. The main disupute then became in what sense he was divine. Adoptionists believed that Jesus was divine but that he only became so at his baptism. So they accepted that he is God but believed that he was not always so and that he was therefore not fully equal with God. The fact that the Gospel of Mark indicates Jesus' baptism as the point where he became the Messiah and that several passages in Paul's epistles indicate Paul believed Jesus became God's anointed at his resurrection gave the proponents of this view some scriptural basis.
Over the next two centuries various forms of Modalism developed, arguing that God could only ever be one and so the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit could only be "aspects" or "masks" of the unity that is God as perceived by the observer/believer and not separate beings in any sense. Then there was Arianism, which accepted that the Son was divine but "proceeded from the Father" and so was not eternal and co-equal with him.
The poor relation in all versions of the Trinity and debates about it is the "Holy Spirit". In Judaism, the רוח הקודש or "ruach ha-kodesh" was the divine property of prophecy and wisdom and therefore the active element of Yahweh in the world. It's in this purely Jewish sense that most of the references to this "holy spirit" of Yahweh in the New Testament are meant - 2Corinthians 13:14 only looks like a Trinitarian formula now, no Jew of Paul's time would have interpreted it that way at all or would have even dreamed of doing so (ditto for Matt 28:19). Once Christianity drifted from its Jewish roots, however, the subtle distinction between an active aspect of God in the world and another form and then eventual a "person" of God quickly became blurry and was lost altogether.
By the Second Century the idea that there was, in some sense, a Trinity was dominant and other conceptions of Christianity were being marginalised and dismissed as "heresies". But there still followed several centuries of struggle over which of the competing conceptions of this Trinity was "correct". After Constantine legalised Christianity in 312 AD he was not pleased that his new faith was riven with divisions and called the Council of Nicea to settle the disputes over the nature of the Trinity. The Orthodox view won out over its then main rival, Arianism. But Arianism then got the support of several of Constantine's successors and staged a comeback. Even after Ariansim was finally marginalised, non-Arian Christianity was then divided again, this time over the question of whether Jesus had one divine nature (Monophysitism) or a human and divine nature at the same time (the Chalcedonian position). Disputes over this and similar variations on Trinitiarian doctrines continued for centuries and often resulted in schisms and, occasionally, persecutions.
What is perfectly clear is that the whole idea of a Trinity evolved over centuries and what has emerged as the "orthodox" position held by most Christian churches today did so more as a result of luck, violent debate, Imperial power and occiasionally violence, conflict and torture. Claims made by modern conservative Christians that the orthodox position is somehow "clearly" the right one are undermined by this history of conflict and violence - it it was so "clear" there would not have been this whelter of disputes and conflicting positions.
For a good introduction to the varied forms of early Christianity and the earlier Trinitarian positions see Bart Ehrman Lost Christanities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew and for the later disputes see Richard E. Rubenstein When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity in the Last Days of Rome.
I'd say the reason the whole concept has such a history of conflict and dispute and is so theologically incoherent is that it evolved out of a jumble of inconsistent ideas and traditions to begin with. It seems incoherent because it is.
When and by whom was the concept of the Holy Trinity added to Christianity? - Quora
C
I think you ignored the majority of that post. It explains the manmade origins of the Trinity.
You don't have a verse that explicitly explains the Trinity in the Old Testament. Wouldn't you
expect to find something pertaining to God with the word "three" in it? The reality is there is
nothing. Explicit | Define Explicit at Dictionary.com
Telling me to find a verse that thwarts is nothing more than a shifting of the burden of proof.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
I've already demonstrated the the Trinity is a manmade concept that developed over centuries
and you've done nothing to refute that.
You don't have a verse that explicitly explains the Trinity in the Old Testament. Wouldn't you
expect to find something pertaining to God with the word "three" in it? The reality is there is
nothing. Explicit | Define Explicit at Dictionary.com
Telling me to find a verse that thwarts is nothing more than a shifting of the burden of proof.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
I've already demonstrated the the Trinity is a manmade concept that developed over centuries
and you've done nothing to refute that.
C
How about 100?
100 Scriptural Arguments | BiblicalUnitarian.com
100 Scriptural Arguments | BiblicalUnitarian.com
C
Refer here for a tutorial on how to correctly use Wikipedia in this modern day and age (Complete with sources): http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...irst-reveal-himself-humans-4.html#post1698213
The term 'Trinity' was coined as an epithet to accurately describe the God of the Holy Bible.
There are numerous OT passages which describe Yahweh as Triune.
I remember learning about fallacies back in junior college.
How about this one which you are now committing...'appealing to authority'.
Now that sounds like a great fit...
Let's see...
What should be 'refuted' exactly...?
That the term was derived from the sum total of scripture to accurately depict the Biblical God as He has revealed Himself...?
You have nothing.
There are numerous OT passages which describe Yahweh as Triune.
I remember learning about fallacies back in junior college.
How about this one which you are now committing...'appealing to authority'.
Now that sounds like a great fit...
Let's see...
What should be 'refuted' exactly...?
That the term was derived from the sum total of scripture to accurately depict the Biblical God as He has revealed Himself...?
You have nothing.
There you go....committing the fallacy of appealing to authority for YOUR reply.
Why don't you pick the very BEST example from your pathetic googled 'research' and actually exegetically defend it in YOUR very own words...?
That way we will know if you can support what you posit...
Good.
Luck.
Chuck.
Why don't you pick the very BEST example from your pathetic googled 'research' and actually exegetically defend it in YOUR very own words...?
That way we will know if you can support what you posit...
Good.
Luck.
Chuck.