Is jesus a trinity?
- Thread starter Lifeinyushua
- Start date
-
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.
If you don't know the trinity you don't know God. To say God is only Christ, or only the Father, or only the Holy Ghost is a distortion of who God is. It is not of scripture but of something a man has made up just like they made up what they said was God but wasn't out of metal. God consists of, as the bible tells us, all three.
The trinity is saying, God, his son Jesus, and Gods acting force are all the same person...this is not true. Cut it any way you want, and it still is not true in Gods word. It is a catholic thing…one of the billion things they have made up… like the three wise men…You can run over me with a big truck loaded with big rocks if you find that one in the Bible…it don’t say three, or any other number.
You are right the number three is not given. But manifestations of God are given. Some say there are many manifestations of God given in scripture. That may or may not be so, but scripture is clear that the Holy Spirit, God the Father, and God the Son are manifestations of God. Did you want scripture to say that we number it to three? It doesn't. We can count. Three.
[SUP]Colossians 1: 15-20
15 [/SUP]The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. [SUP]16 [/SUP]For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. [SUP]17 [/SUP]He is before all things,and in him all things hold together. [SUP]18 [/SUP]And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. [SUP]19 [/SUP]For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, [SUP]20 [/SUP]and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
niv version
Hope that helps. I don't know much on this issue tho, still learning
.
15 [/SUP]The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. [SUP]16 [/SUP]For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. [SUP]17 [/SUP]He is before all things,and in him all things hold together. [SUP]18 [/SUP]And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. [SUP]19 [/SUP]For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, [SUP]20 [/SUP]and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
niv version
Hope that helps. I don't know much on this issue tho, still learning
.But what about you? Jesus asked
Who do you say that I am?
Simon Peter replied
You are the Christ, the Son of the living God
Jesus sighed deeply
No Peter, that is not enough. Cults will appear who will say they believe that. You have to understand I am a member of an equal Trinity, and have existed as such for all ages past. In the ontological sense of Trinity I cannot be subject to the Father, but in the economic sense I am. And you have to believe I am the one true God in order to be saved, but you needn't tell people that in the letters you write about me, there's no need , for scholars and theologians will come along and study your letters and realise that is what you meant, and they can then tell others.
Peter scratches his head, he doesn't understand
Who do you say that I am?
Simon Peter replied
You are the Christ, the Son of the living God
Jesus sighed deeply
No Peter, that is not enough. Cults will appear who will say they believe that. You have to understand I am a member of an equal Trinity, and have existed as such for all ages past. In the ontological sense of Trinity I cannot be subject to the Father, but in the economic sense I am. And you have to believe I am the one true God in order to be saved, but you needn't tell people that in the letters you write about me, there's no need , for scholars and theologians will come along and study your letters and realise that is what you meant, and they can then tell others.
Peter scratches his head, he doesn't understand
Actually the most popular belief was not that of the Trinity. It was popular but Arius and Athanasius had roughly 50% of opinion. That is why the church switched it's position several times. In fact Arius died (in suspicious circumstances) the day before Constantine was to accept him back, as opinion swung his way again.
Arius and Athanasius were both Alexandrian bishops, having been taught in the school started by Clement of Alexandria. The works of Clement of Alexandria are as much about the writings and beliefs of Plato and Socrates as they are about the Bible. That is probably why such differing beliefs started within the church.
The phrase you used crossnote "a belief already held by most before 325AD" is simply not true.
Of course after about 380AD the church was 'nice' enough to settle the disagreement in other ways - if you didn't think as you were told you would be kicked out of the church, tortured, or murdered. That is why it remained a central part of doctrine, not because it is necessarily true.
This is not a comment upon the doctrine.
It is a comment on the history of the doctrine.
I am not a believer in the opinions of Athanasius or Arius.
Arius and Athanasius were both Alexandrian bishops, having been taught in the school started by Clement of Alexandria. The works of Clement of Alexandria are as much about the writings and beliefs of Plato and Socrates as they are about the Bible. That is probably why such differing beliefs started within the church.
The phrase you used crossnote "a belief already held by most before 325AD" is simply not true.
Of course after about 380AD the church was 'nice' enough to settle the disagreement in other ways - if you didn't think as you were told you would be kicked out of the church, tortured, or murdered. That is why it remained a central part of doctrine, not because it is necessarily true.
This is not a comment upon the doctrine.
It is a comment on the history of the doctrine.
I am not a believer in the opinions of Athanasius or Arius.
Like many third-century Christian scholars, Arius was influenced by the writings of Origen, widely regarded as the first great theologian of Christianity.[SUP][14][/SUP] However, while he drew support from Origen's theories on the Logos, the two did not agree on everything. Arius clearly argued that the Logos had a beginning and that the Son, therefore, was not eternal. By way of contrast, Origen taught that the relation of the Son to the Father had no beginning, and that the Son was "eternally generated".[SUP][15][/SUP]
Arius objected to Origen's doctrine, complaining about it in his letter to the Nicomedian Eusebius, who had also studied under Lucian. Nevertheless, despite disagreeing with Origen on this point, Arius found solace in his writings, which used expressions that favored Arius's contention that the Logos was of a different substance than the Father, and owed his existence to his Father's will. However, because Origen's theological speculations were often proffered to stimulate further inquiry rather than to put an end to any given dispute, both Arius and his opponents were able to invoke the authority of this revered (at the time) theologian during their debate.[SUP][16][/SUP]
[edit] Initial responses
At first, Bishop Alexander seemed unsure of what to do about Arius. The question that Arius was raising had been left unsettled two generations previously; if in any sense it could be said to have been decided, it had been settled in favor of opponents of the homoousion (the idea that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are of the same exact substance and are co-equally God; the position adopted by the Athanasians and Trinitarians who opposed Arius). Therefore, Alexander allowed the controversy to continue until he ultimately came to believe that it had become dangerous to the peace of the Church. Once he reached this conclusion, he called a local council of bishops and sought their advice. This council decided against Arius and Alexander deposed Arius from his office, excommunicating him and his supporters. Later, Alexander would be criticized for his slow reaction to Arius and the perceived threat posed by his teach(Wikki)
It would seem bookreader you are correct
Arius objected to Origen's doctrine, complaining about it in his letter to the Nicomedian Eusebius, who had also studied under Lucian. Nevertheless, despite disagreeing with Origen on this point, Arius found solace in his writings, which used expressions that favored Arius's contention that the Logos was of a different substance than the Father, and owed his existence to his Father's will. However, because Origen's theological speculations were often proffered to stimulate further inquiry rather than to put an end to any given dispute, both Arius and his opponents were able to invoke the authority of this revered (at the time) theologian during their debate.[SUP][16][/SUP]
[edit] Initial responses
At first, Bishop Alexander seemed unsure of what to do about Arius. The question that Arius was raising had been left unsettled two generations previously; if in any sense it could be said to have been decided, it had been settled in favor of opponents of the homoousion (the idea that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are of the same exact substance and are co-equally God; the position adopted by the Athanasians and Trinitarians who opposed Arius). Therefore, Alexander allowed the controversy to continue until he ultimately came to believe that it had become dangerous to the peace of the Church. Once he reached this conclusion, he called a local council of bishops and sought their advice. This council decided against Arius and Alexander deposed Arius from his office, excommunicating him and his supporters. Later, Alexander would be criticized for his slow reaction to Arius and the perceived threat posed by his teach(Wikki)
It would seem bookreader you are correct
