Unitarianism (Anti-Trinity)

[Scotth1960]

No. I yield to the Word and the Spirit to receive the truth in prayer and fasting. I'm not talking about meals or a day or two. I'm talking about months at a time for many years, and nigh unto death. All I want is the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him (Eph. 1:17). I don't care about being right or winning a theological argument, though I contend earnestly for truth. I interpret nothing.



No. There are ties of succession for the GOC. The entire Apostolic oral tradition is lost, and the one holy aspostolic and catholic chuch went through many early transitions. There was widespread diversity and conflict over Godhead doctrine in the 1st century and beyond. Polycarp didn't teach Trinity, nor did Clement of Rome. Even though many/most affirmed the distinction of F-S, there was disagreement about Deity of the Son and dissent about HOW He was Deity, if He was. The HS was a secondary afterthought, though acknowledged. Much of the early emphasis was on the Divine attributes, the Son's representation, and the saints' righteous lifestyle after that example. These early designations of attributes is where the one truth regarding God's constitution and nature was inadvertantly asserted. Once the Council formulation was established, there was no going back; the lines were drawn, and the Arian controversy overshadowed all else; even the stamping out of Sabellianism, which ultimately refused to die.



None. But the church that most closely adheres to the Post-Nicene Church is the GOC. You should realize I mostly agree, or I wouldn't disaffirm Filioque, Original Sin, Calvi/Armi, etc. from Augustinian inflences and the like. The Ante-Nicene, however, was not so "orthodoxized" as you represent. My primary issue is with the representation of the Godhead teaching being handed down by the Apostles with no period of diverse formulations. That is simply untrue and is a "bridge" tradition that isn't authentic. Specifically, my primary single issue is with one Trinity tenet that is the substitutionary insertion of a single word to define God because a minor attribute formulation obscured the essential truth.



Bishop is an office position of Overseer for spiritual matters. I affirm Bishops, just not in the same way the GOC does. It's a side topic we can further discuss that I have questions for you about, actually. I'm unhappy with non-orthodox ecclesiology in several ways and would benefit from your practical insight.



No. The GOC was not obedient to evangelize, and many of us don't have connection to succession. That doesn't leave us outside the "true" church. Same Spirit. Same Savior. Same Word.



I may share it soon. For some reason, I am restrained by the Spirit. I fully intend to share it when unconstrained.



You apparently still misunderstand. There was no Trinity to deny; only six major variations being developed through the 1st century and into the mid-late 2nd century. I can post a few thousand quotes, but it's not necessary. You have not documented anything that supports your statements that Trinity was seamless doctrine from Matt. 28 through Nicea. It was not. There's no denial of Trinity, because Trinity wasn't fully formulated yet.



I've mostly left mine behind, and continue to do so arduously.

We mostly agree on things, and I feel you are close to finding the truth. Me, I just need to do more, not think more. In any case, I think what you are probably hinting at is the fact that it took until 325 AD and then 381 AD for the Church's understanding of the Trinity to be written down (in Greek). The Church believed everything in the Creed of 325 and 381 AD, they just had to wait until the meetings in the Christian Roman Empire. The early Church didn't have time or ability to meet in councils to talk about Christian doctrines. The early Christians were being killed by the Roman emperors as martyrs, and it took until St. Constantine the Great to come along and legalize the Christian religion, and freedom of religions for all. He made Christianity the favored religions, but all religions were tolerated, including Judaism. In any case, in every situation, people have believed differing religions. Of course the rulers of this new Roman empire were Christians, not Jews. Thus we have the 7 councils of the early GOC, from 325 to 787, and culminating in the great 8th ecumenical council of 879-80 AD, which is acknowledged by the GOC (EOC), but not today by the RCC. The RCC used to recognize this council, but Rome changed its mind and sanctioned the council of 869-70 as Rome's 8th ecumenical council. Go figure. Rome was rather schizophrenic in the years between 869 and 880 AD. Take care.

 

[Good-Ground]

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
[FONT=&quot]
He inherited it from the Father.[/FONT]

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Is 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Is 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

John 16:27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

John 17:21-25 21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. 24Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. 25O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do : for what things soever he doeth , these also doeth the Son likewise. 20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth : and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel . 21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will .

Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they

Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified , whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders , which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved .

Heb 1:5,8 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith , And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith , Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

[FONT=&quot]The Historic Translation of John 1:3-4[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Tyndale’s translation of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]John 1:3-4[/FONT][FONT=&quot] reads, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men.”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] As you can see, in reference to the “Word” of verse 1, Tyndale used [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“it”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] instead of “him.” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“It”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is the translation of the Greek “autou” meaning he or it. What this tells us is that Tyndale did not read Messiah into the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“logos”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] or [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“word”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of verse 1, as he was not influenced by the Latin Vulgate[/FONT][FONT=&quot] or Wycliffe[/FONT]

Truly,[FONT=&quot] “God [/FONT]WAS[FONT=&quot] manifest in the flesh.”[/FONT]Yet concerning the [FONT=&quot]“Word”[/FONT] in [FONT=&quot]John 1:14: [/FONT]That [FONT=&quot]“Word”[/FONT] did NOT become flesh at the birth of Yahshua (as commonly supposed); but rather, by keeping [FONT=&quot]v. 14[/FONT] in context with the surrounding passages that pertain to John the Baptist[FONT=&quot]v. 14[/FONT] can now be “rightly divided” as follows: [FONT=&quot]“… the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) …”[/FONT]when the heavens opened and Yahweh’s holy breath/wind/power/spirit descended upon Yahshua and [FONT=&quot]“abode upon Him … [/FONT]WITHOUT MEASURE[FONT=&quot]”[/FONT]at His baptism in the Jordan River by John the Baptist.It was ONLY THROUGH THAT ANOINTING with the almighty power of Yahweh’s holy breath/wind/power/spirit upon His Messiach/Christ, that God “became man.” It is critically important to recognize that Yahshua did not live & speak like God because He was God. The ONLY reason Yahshua lived like & spoke like & precisely represented God, was because God’s holy breath/wind/power/spirit (in other words, GOD’S UNRESTRAINED ANOINTING) came upon Yahshua at His baptism and [FONT=&quot]“abode upon Him[/FONT][FONT=&quot] … [/FONT]WITHOUT MEASURE[FONT=&quot].”[/FONT]

When examining the Trinitarian view, the questions that immediately come to my mind are: If the pre-resurrection Yahshua was “fully God and fully man,” then why would it be imperative that, before beginning His ministry, He first had to be equipped with God’s boundless & unrestrained holy breath/wind/power/spirit? Wouldn’t that have been part of who He was already? Even God cannot leave His character & nature — His very essence behind. That would make Him someone else.

Moreover, only this interpretation of [FONT=&quot]John 1:1-14[/FONT] is in conformity with the clear and inescapable biblical doctrines of Yahweh’s ETERNALITY and IMMORTALITY. Recognize that if you are believing/teaching that the pre-resurrection Yahshua was “fully God and fully man” (as asserted by Trinitarian doctrine), then you are unavoidably believing/teaching either:

1) that God utterly DIED at the cross — a truly preposterous and unscriptural tenet!
or …
2) that we still have further penalty to pay for our sins — a thoroughly twisted understanding of Yahshua’s finished redemptive and atoning sacrifice. In other words, if you reject option 1 … if Yahshua didn’t utterly die (both physically & and spiritually since that is man’s penalty for sin[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT]), then that conviction would be incompatible with the clear and inescapable biblical doctrine affirming that God’s atoning, sacrificial lamb/Lamb MUST UTTERLY DIE! That, in turn, would then indicate that Yahshua didn’t completely pay the penalty for our sins, thus necessitating that we ourselves must pay for some or all of them at some point in the future — in which case, your salvation theology is really twisted!

If you are a Trinitarian, then these are your ONLY options — AND THEY ARE BOTH THOROUGHLY UNSCRIPTURAL!

[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT]See [FONT=&quot]Acts 2:24-27: “… the pains of death”.[/FONT] Yahshua had to suffer everything that we would have had to suffer. He had to pay the whole penalty for sin.

 

[zackabba]

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

[FONT=&quot]He inherited it from the Father.[/FONT]

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Is 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Is 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

John 16:27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

John 17:21-25 21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. 24Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. 25O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do : for what things soever he doeth , these also doeth the Son likewise. 20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth : and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel . 21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will .

Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they

Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified , whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders , which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved .

Heb 1:5,8 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith , And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith , Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

[FONT=&quot]The Historic Translation of John 1:3-4[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Tyndale’s translation of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]John 1:3-4[/FONT][FONT=&quot] reads, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men.”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] As you can see, in reference to the “Word” of verse 1, Tyndale used [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“it”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] instead of “him.” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“It”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is the translation of the Greek “autou” meaning he or it. What this tells us is that Tyndale did not read Messiah into the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“logos”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] or [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“word”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of verse 1, as he was not influenced by the Latin Vulgate[/FONT][FONT=&quot] or Wycliffe[/FONT]

Truly,[FONT=&quot] “God [/FONT]WAS[FONT=&quot] manifest in the flesh.”[/FONT]Yet concerning the [FONT=&quot]“Word”[/FONT] in [FONT=&quot]John 1:14: [/FONT]That [FONT=&quot]“Word”[/FONT] did NOT become flesh at the birth of Yahshua (as commonly supposed); but rather, by keeping [FONT=&quot]v. 14[/FONT] in context with the surrounding passages that pertain to John the Baptist[FONT=&quot]v. 14[/FONT] can now be “rightly divided” as follows: [FONT=&quot]“… the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) …”[/FONT]when the heavens opened and Yahweh’s holy breath/wind/power/spirit descended upon Yahshua and [FONT=&quot]“abode upon Him … [/FONT]WITHOUT MEASURE[FONT=&quot]”[/FONT]at His baptism in the Jordan River by John the Baptist.It was ONLY THROUGH THAT ANOINTING with the almighty power of Yahweh’s holy breath/wind/power/spirit upon His Messiach/Christ, that God “became man.” It is critically important to recognize that Yahshua did not live & speak like God because He was God. The ONLY reason Yahshua lived like & spoke like & precisely represented God, was because God’s holy breath/wind/power/spirit (in other words, GOD’S UNRESTRAINED ANOINTING) came upon Yahshua at His baptism and [FONT=&quot]“abode upon Him[/FONT][FONT=&quot] … [/FONT]WITHOUT MEASURE[FONT=&quot].”[/FONT]

When examining the Trinitarian view, the questions that immediately come to my mind are: If the pre-resurrection Yahshua was “fully God and fully man,” then why would it be imperative that, before beginning His ministry, He first had to be equipped with God’s boundless & unrestrained holy breath/wind/power/spirit? Wouldn’t that have been part of who He was already? Even God cannot leave His character & nature — His very essence behind. That would make Him someone else.

Moreover, only this interpretation of [FONT=&quot]John 1:1-14[/FONT] is in conformity with the clear and inescapable biblical doctrines of Yahweh’s ETERNALITY and IMMORTALITY. Recognize that if you are believing/teaching that the pre-resurrection Yahshua was “fully God and fully man” (as asserted by Trinitarian doctrine), then you are unavoidably believing/teaching either:

1) that God utterly DIED at the cross — a truly preposterous and unscriptural tenet!
or …
2) that we still have further penalty to pay for our sins — a thoroughly twisted understanding of Yahshua’s finished redemptive and atoning sacrifice. In other words, if you reject option 1 … if Yahshua didn’t utterly die (both physically & and spiritually since that is man’s penalty for sin[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT]), then that conviction would be incompatible with the clear and inescapable biblical doctrine affirming that God’s atoning, sacrificial lamb/Lamb MUST UTTERLY DIE! That, in turn, would then indicate that Yahshua didn’t completely pay the penalty for our sins, thus necessitating that we ourselves must pay for some or all of them at some point in the future — in which case, your salvation theology is really twisted!

If you are a Trinitarian, then these are your ONLY options — AND THEY ARE BOTH THOROUGHLY UNSCRIPTURAL!

[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT]See [FONT=&quot]Acts 2:24-27: “… the pains of death”.[/FONT] Yahshua had to suffer everything that we would have had to suffer. He had to pay the whole penalty for sin.

Hey, just a question: Do you believe animals have Spirits?

And besides that, how do you affirm your position that Spirits do indeed die?

God bless

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

We mostly agree on things, and I feel you are close to finding the truth. Me, I just need to do more, not think more. In any case, I think what you are probably hinting at is the fact that it took until 325 AD and then 381 AD for the Church's understanding of the Trinity to be written down (in Greek). The Church believed everything in the Creed of 325 and 381 AD, they just had to wait until the meetings in the Christian Roman Empire. The early Church didn't have time or ability to meet in councils to talk about Christian doctrines. The early Christians were being killed by the Roman emperors as martyrs, and it took until St. Constantine the Great to come along and legalize the Christian religion, and freedom of religions for all. He made Christianity the favored religions, but all religions were tolerated, including Judaism. In any case, in every situation, people have believed differing religions. Of course the rulers of this new Roman empire were Christians, not Jews. Thus we have the 7 councils of the early GOC, from 325 to 787, and culminating in the great 8th ecumenical council of 879-80 AD, which is acknowledged by the GOC (EOC), but not today by the RCC. The RCC used to recognize this council, but Rome changed its mind and sanctioned the council of 869-70 as Rome's 8th ecumenical council. Go figure. Rome was rather schizophrenic in the years between 869 and 880 AD. Take care.

I found the truth, and it's not Trinity. And... I'm not hinting at the pre-Council Ante-Nicene belief, I'm specifically stating it. I've repeatedly insisted on documentation for your claim that Trinity was formulated and intact during the early days of persecution and into the mid-late 2nd century. Provide a valid source quote to substantiate that. I'm simply holding your feet to the fire for what you have repeatedly said and continue to say.

Please document or recant that assertion, even if you continue to believe it personally. Do not represent historicity without substantiation. It undermines and impugns your credibility in all other matters.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
[FONT=&quot]
He inherited it from the Father.[/FONT]

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Is 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Is 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

John 16:27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

John 17:21-25 21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. 24Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. 25O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do : for what things soever he doeth , these also doeth the Son likewise. 20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth : and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel . 21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will .

Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they

Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified , whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders , which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved .

Heb 1:5,8 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith , And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith , Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

[FONT=&quot]The Historic Translation of John 1:3-4[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Tyndale’s translation of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]John 1:3-4[/FONT][FONT=&quot] reads, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men.”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] As you can see, in reference to the “Word” of verse 1, Tyndale used [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“it”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] instead of “him.” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“It”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is the translation of the Greek “autou” meaning he or it. What this tells us is that Tyndale did not read Messiah into the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“logos”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] or [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“word”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of verse 1, as he was not influenced by the Latin Vulgate[/FONT][FONT=&quot] or Wycliffe[/FONT]

Truly,[FONT=&quot] “God [/FONT]WAS[FONT=&quot] manifest in the flesh.”[/FONT]Yet concerning the [FONT=&quot]“Word”[/FONT] in [FONT=&quot]John 1:14: [/FONT]That [FONT=&quot]“Word”[/FONT] did NOT become flesh at the birth of Yahshua (as commonly supposed); but rather, by keeping [FONT=&quot]v. 14[/FONT] in context with the surrounding passages that pertain to John the Baptist[FONT=&quot]v. 14[/FONT] can now be “rightly divided” as follows: [FONT=&quot]“… the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) …”[/FONT]when the heavens opened and Yahweh’s holy breath/wind/power/spirit descended upon Yahshua and [FONT=&quot]“abode upon Him … [/FONT]WITHOUT MEASURE[FONT=&quot]”[/FONT]at His baptism in the Jordan River by John the Baptist.It was ONLY THROUGH THAT ANOINTING with the almighty power of Yahweh’s holy breath/wind/power/spirit upon His Messiach/Christ, that God “became man.” It is critically important to recognize that Yahshua did not live & speak like God because He was God. The ONLY reason Yahshua lived like & spoke like & precisely represented God, was because God’s holy breath/wind/power/spirit (in other words, GOD’S UNRESTRAINED ANOINTING) came upon Yahshua at His baptism and [FONT=&quot]“abode upon Him[/FONT][FONT=&quot] … [/FONT]WITHOUT MEASURE[FONT=&quot].”[/FONT]

When examining the Trinitarian view, the questions that immediately come to my mind are: If the pre-resurrection Yahshua was “fully God and fully man,” then why would it be imperative that, before beginning His ministry, He first had to be equipped with God’s boundless & unrestrained holy breath/wind/power/spirit? Wouldn’t that have been part of who He was already? Even God cannot leave His character & nature — His very essence behind. That would make Him someone else.

Moreover, only this interpretation of [FONT=&quot]John 1:1-14[/FONT] is in conformity with the clear and inescapable biblical doctrines of Yahweh’s ETERNALITY and IMMORTALITY. Recognize that if you are believing/teaching that the pre-resurrection Yahshua was “fully God and fully man” (as asserted by Trinitarian doctrine), then you are unavoidably believing/teaching either:

1) that God utterly DIED at the cross — a truly preposterous and unscriptural tenet!
or …
2) that we still have further penalty to pay for our sins — a thoroughly twisted understanding of Yahshua’s finished redemptive and atoning sacrifice. In other words, if you reject option 1 … if Yahshua didn’t utterly die (both physically & and spiritually since that is man’s penalty for sin[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT]), then that conviction would be incompatible with the clear and inescapable biblical doctrine affirming that God’s atoning, sacrificial lamb/Lamb MUST UTTERLY DIE! That, in turn, would then indicate that Yahshua didn’t completely pay the penalty for our sins, thus necessitating that we ourselves must pay for some or all of them at some point in the future — in which case, your salvation theology is really twisted!

If you are a Trinitarian, then these are your ONLY options — AND THEY ARE BOTH THOROUGHLY UNSCRIPTURAL!

[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT]See [FONT=&quot]Acts 2:24-27: “… the pains of death”.[/FONT] Yahshua had to suffer everything that we would have had to suffer. He had to pay the whole penalty for sin.

Though your early English-only proof-texting is horrifically misapplied, the central core of what you're saying has A truth that Trinity leaves unresolved. That's why I affirm 95+% of Trinity, but leave off at where the problem is. All other mainline God-models have similar issues.

The truth resolves this Trinity failing-point and reconciles even Unitarianism. Everybody's dancing all around the truth.

Three Divine Persons
One Divinity with a Person Mode
One Divinity and One Divine Person
One Divinity and One Human Person
Three Divinities

All reconcilable with the simple truth of the Word.

 

[Scotth1960]

I found the truth, and it's not Trinity. And... I'm not hinting at the pre-Council Ante-Nicene belief, I'm specifically stating it. I've repeatedly insisted on documentation for your claim that Trinity was formulated and intact during the early days of persecution and into the mid-late 2nd century. Provide a valid source quote to substantiate that. I'm simply holding your feet to the fire for what you have repeatedly said and continue to say.

Please document or recant that assertion, even if you continue to believe it personally. Do not represent historicity without substantiation. It undermines and impugns your credibility in all other matters.

Does a belief have to be written down to be true? And if it is written down, is it true? There were some false writings between 100 and 200 AD. Just because a belief is from the period between 100 and 200 doesn't mean it is a Christian belief. Your argument seems to be that no one before the Council of Nicea in 325 AD believed in the Trinity. That is wrong. The Trinity is there from the time when Matthew was written, and Matthew was probably written sometime near 60 AD. I don't know when. It's a guess! Anyway, before 70 AD probably. The whole NT was probably written before 70 AD. When the temple was destroyed. You insist on documentation? How can there be written documentation for what the apostles and the bishops and successors of the apostles said? People were there and heard what they said. We were not. Were you there, and did you hear that they taught against the Trinity. We both have to take what we believe on faith. And on the testimony of someone. I believe the testimony of believers today who say the Church was not Sabellian, nor was the Church anti-Trinitarian. The Church believed in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that is belief in Trinity. Take care.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Does a belief have to be written down to be true? And if it is written down, is it true? There were some false writings between 100 and 200 AD. Just because a belief is from the period between 100 and 200 doesn't mean it is a Christian belief. Your argument seems to be that no one before the Council of Nicea in 325 AD believed in the Trinity. That is wrong. The Trinity is there from the time when Matthew was written, and Matthew was probably written sometime near 60 AD. I don't know when. It's a guess! Anyway, before 70 AD probably. The whole NT was probably written before 70 AD. When the temple was destroyed. You insist on documentation? How can there be written documentation for what the apostles and the bishops and successors of the apostles said? People were there and heard what they said. We were not. Were you there, and did you hear that they taught against the Trinity. We both have to take what we believe on faith. And on the testimony of someone. I believe the testimony of believers today who say the Church was not Sabellian, nor was the Church anti-Trinitarian. The Church believed in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that is belief in Trinity. Take care.

Which is all inference, just like Trinity persons. Then post valid documentation of something somebody said. Right now, it's all Scott1960.

Post the most thorough GOC documentation available of seamless already-formulated Trinity doctrine from circa 30AD-180AD. What is the testimony? From whom? At what time? If you don't have a writing, provide all the other documented evidence of whatever kind.

Ploycarp didn't teach Trinity or any formulation, and he was a Bishop and direct disciple of St. John the Revelator. Do something besides conjure with repeated declarations.

I've posted that Theophilus first mentioned Triad in 180AD. Between then and 212AD, Tertullian was using the term Trinitas. The Trinity doctrine was generally formulated by then, as was Monarchianism and the other formulations. I will gladly post those source quotes if necessary. Refute this with something, or recant.

If oral teachings can't be refuted, they can't be confirmed. Present your best source evidence, whatever it is, or recant. (And I don't mean recant your faith or belief; just that it's your opinion, not fact.)

 

[zackabba]

Which is all inference, just like Trinity persons. Then post valid documentation of something somebody said. Right now, it's all Scott1960.

Post the most thorough GOC documentation available of seamless already-formulated Trinity doctrine from circa 30AD-180AD. What is the testimony? From whom? At what time? If you don't have a writing, provide all the other documented evidence of whatever kind.

Ploycarp didn't teach Trinity or any formulation, and he was a Bishop and direct disciple of St. John the Revelator. Do something besides conjure with repeated declarations.

I've posted that Theophilus first mentioned Triad in 180AD. Between then and 212AD, Tertullian was using the term Trinitas. The Trinity doctrine was generally formulated by then, as was Monarchianism and the other formulations. I will gladly post those source quotes if necessary. Refute this with something, or recant.

If oral teachings can't be refuted, they can't be confirmed. Present your best source evidence, whatever it is, or recant. (And I don't mean recant your faith or belief; just that it's your opinion, not fact.)

Hey, I'm not trying to get into argument or anything, but Pneuma, if we have to have documents to affirm something like this...

...then where are the writings of the 500 witnesses to the Resurrected Jesus Paul talked about in His letters?

God Bless

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Hey, I'm not trying to get into argument or anything, but Pneuma, if we have to have documents to affirm something like this...

...then where are the writings of the 500 witnesses to the Resurrected Jesus Paul talked about in His letters?

God Bless

Scripture itself is that written record, is it not?

It doesn't have to be a document, but there needs to be authenic affirmation beyond simple modern assertion of perception. I've studied this history for 13 years with lsnguage knowledge. There was no intact Trinity teaching from the Apostles forward, whether written or oral.

Yes, it was well-developed at some point prior to 180AD, but so were other God-models. There is no Trinity "bridge" from Nicea back to the Apostles.

 

[Scotth1960]

You still misunderstand me. I do NOT affirm the contention of Sola Scriptura. It was a useful approach to contest such things as the doctrine of indulgences, but is not a precept of the Word itself.

I'm referring to the Trinitarian contention (which you personally asserted) that "persons" is substantiated and proven by certain passages when it is merely inferred from perceived implication. Even apart from Sola Scriptura, one cannot be so adamant about such implication and inference.

"Person" is inferred, not stated. It is doctrine derived from perceived implication. The most staunch but forthright Trinitarians can agree to this. Whether one agrees or not, it is a true and valid simple assertion.

Can you admit that "persons" is inference? Or do you still contend "persons" is substantiated and proven? Thank you, Brother.

Are you, then, inferring that the term person is "anti-biblical", just because it is extra-biblical, and the Word of God does not say (use) the word "person"? Are you then saying it is anathema, and that anyone who uses the term is preaching heresy and false doctrine? Or are you not going that far. (?) Your argument does seem predicated upon a scripture alone presupposition. You may think you are not going by Scripture alone, but if you are demanding the Bible use the word "person" before you will infer it from the Bible, well we are not going to find the term person in Scripture. But what do we do with the word Church? Is there not a Church that uses the term(s) person/ persons? Is not this early Church identifiable as the same Church as that of the NT? Did the Church go out of existence after 100 AD? Where did the Church go? John may have lived until around 90 AD or so, maybe, and then by 100 AD or so, there were no more original apostles of Christ left. Who took over from the 12 apostles after they died? And from them? Didn't the successors of the apostles use the term persons in God? Are we implying the Church went out of existence because they used the term persons? Were they false? Weren't they following apostolic traditions? Wasn't their reasoning guided by the Holy Spirit, as Christ promised (JOHN 16:13)? Didn't the Church fathers use the term persons relating the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit I have no specific quote from the church fathers, but I have just done enough reading of theology to know some of the Greek fathers used the term hypostasis and that means person in Latin. Would you accept the term hypostasis?

God in three hypostases? If you are going by Greek language. Is person too imprecise?
Or are you professing not to be sola scriptura, but objecting to the word persons because it is not sola scriptura?

 

[Scotth1960]

It's not. All the original God-models were formulated with variations of maintaining Monotheism while including the Lord Jesus Christ. This was a long and varied process that was largely to refute and contrast against various forms of Gnosticism and both ancient and newer forms of Polytheism and Henotheism, as well as Pantheism and Panentheism.

Unitarianism, Binitarianism, Trinitarianism, Tritheism, Arianism, and Sabellianism were all well-developed conceptual understandings of the Hebrew Echad in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. By the 3rd century, there was conflict that ultimately led to the First Ecumenical Council in the eatly 4th century in Nicea (325AD). Some held to the Deity of Christ as a procreative act within the Virgin, differing on various issues regarding such as the nature of each "person's" substance. Others considered the overshadowing by the Holy Ghost to be a creative act similar to Adam in Eden, making Jesus fully man as non-ontological Deity by identity rather than by nature. Unitarianism is one of the latter, obviously.

Unis believe the Holy Spirit is simply the Spirit of God, since they hold that God is a singular entity. Jesus is a special-creation man by Virgin Birth, and His identity perfectly represents God; but He is not Deity by any sharing of Divine substance in His nature. Jesus was born as a man and died as a man; and He is now transended to heaven in a glorified body, delegated all Divine authority by God. But He is not God.

That's why Unis refer to "Jesus' God". He is a (glorified) man, and God is His God.

(Modern American Unis are predominantly NOT what I described above. They are Universalists who believe in Conditional Immortality, Annihilationism, and many varied other non-biblical teachings. Many are very New Age and even Occultish. The above would be describing "Biblical" Unitarianism.)

Dear pneumapsuchesoma: You say in another one of your threads that you require an exact quote from one of the earlier church fathers of the ANF (Ante-Nicene Fathers) before you will accept the term Trinity or persons? Suppose they believed it, but did not use those terms? What is your point? Is understanding limited to words? Does not understanding grow over time? Perhaps it took until 325 AD and following before Christians were ready to use the words Trinity and three persons. Does that mean automatically that the ANF (Ante-Nicene Fathers) did not agree with the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers? Impossible! The Church is one Church. Understanding may grow, but the faith does not change. Just because an earlier father may have not been able to articulate in all the same words the things that later fathers did know how to articulate, does not mean their faith was different. Can you not understand what I am saying here? Verbal formulations may progress, but the truth does not progress. It is the same in every age of (in) the Church. Grace and the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ grows within the Church. Perhaps some day they will find the original NT manuscripts. Then we will have more perfect knowledge and proof of the NT, provided that they know how to translate the originals better than they are already translated in the various English language and other languages versions of the Greek NT. We have the original manuscripts in copies, and if we are to assume that God is sovereign and omniscient and would not hide or conceal or keep His true words from the Church, there is no substantial error in any of the manuscripts of the Greek NT that are in existence. There may be variant readings, but that is to be expected. It would be strange if they were all 100 percent identical in all 5000 some manuscripts of the Greek NT that exist. Take care.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Are you, then, inferring that the term person is "anti-biblical", just because it is extra-biblical, and the Word of God does not say (use) the word "person"? Are you then saying it is anathema, and that anyone who uses the term is preaching heresy and false doctrine? Or are you not going that far. (?)

Non-, extra-, un-, and anti- biblical are degrees of perception in semantics. I do not represent Trinity as heresy; nor do I represent Oneness as heresy. Other models that don't include Jesus' deity are more suspect, but God is the arbiter in regard to those and all other individual hearts. Trinity is incorrect by being incomplete. It's more about what's missing than about the wrong thing being present. It's like turning a mile too soon. Sooner or later, you've got to find the right street or you'll be circling around looking for the destination in the wrong location.

Your argument does seem predicated upon a scripture alone presupposition. You may think you are not going by Scripture alone, but if you are demanding the Bible use the word "person" before you will infer it from the Bible, well we are not going to find the term person in Scripture.

I'm not. It's the word AND the concept.

But what do we do with the word Church? Is there not a Church that uses the term(s) person/ persons? Is not this early Church identifiable as the same Church as that of the NT? Did the Church go out of existence after 100 AD? Where did the Church go?

This is a wrong perception. The Church is intact. They simply didn't refer to God as multiple persons, especially the HS, for quite some time. I can't seem to get you to understand the landscape of that period. As late as 175AD, Athenagoras referred to the HS as an emanation. Many others shared that understanding through the 3rd century, at least.

John may have lived until around 90 AD or so, maybe, and then by 100 AD or so, there were no more original apostles of Christ left. Who took over from the 12 apostles after they died? And from them? Didn't the successors of the apostles use the term persons in God?

Shouldn't you already have these answers? Doesn't the GOC have this information?

No. None of the Apostles or their immediate successors used the term "persons", nor did Ignatius and others after them. There was generally just a distinction between F-S and a mention also of the HS. Person as a descriptor/definer emerged shortly after Tertullian penned Trinitas in his 212AD refutation of Monarchianism, referring to them as "degrees, forms, and aspects". In 213AD, he referred to them as persons. Others began using the term, such as Justin Martyr and Hippolytus, etc. To say its usage preceeded circa ~200AD is erroneous supposition at best.

Are we implying the Church went out of existence because they used the term persons? Were they false? Weren't they following apostolic traditions? Wasn't their reasoning guided by the Holy Spirit, as Christ promised (JOHN 16:13)? Didn't the Church fathers use the term persons relating the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit I have no specific quote from the church fathers, but I have just done enough reading of theology to know some of the Greek fathers used the term hypostasis and that means person in Latin. Would you accept the term hypostasis?

There was no Apostolic tradition of such terminology. Only clear distinction. The rest emerged. Yes, they followed Apostolic tradition. That didn't include terminology.

Hupostasis is substance, not person. The Hebrews 1:3 rendering wasn't optimum translational choice.

God in three hypostases?

Okay, here we go. Hupostasis and ousia were used by Christians, Gnostics, and Philosophers to promote various distinctions of substance and essence, subtly differentiating their understandings and presenting models of both man's and God's composition and/or constitution. Within a few hundred years, the etymologies became nebulous and inverted, and are ultimately lost to us in all the confusion.

Three hupostases of one ousia didn't really mean three persons. It meant three substances of one essence or vice versa. It's more complicated to understand the interplay of the ancient Greek minds than you are representing.

If you are going by Greek language. Is person too imprecise?

Yes. It's the substance OF a person, and requires recognizing Greek mindsets.

It also contradicts scripture in that hupostasis is singular in its one scriptural reference to God. Further, ousia is not used at all in reference to God. One doesn't have to be Sola Scriptura to see the inequities.

Or are you professing not to be sola scriptura, but objecting to the word persons because it is not sola scriptura.

It should be clear it's not merely an issue of Sola Scriptura.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Dear pneumapsuchesoma: You say in another one of your threads that you require an exact quote from one of the earlier church fathers of the ANF (Ante-Nicene Fathers) before you will accept the term Trinity or persons? Suppose they believed it, but did not use those terms? What is your point? Is understanding limited to words? Does not understanding grow over time? Perhaps it took until 325 AD and following before Christians were ready to use the words Trinity and three persons. Does that mean automatically that the ANF (Ante-Nicene Fathers) did not agree with the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers? Impossible! The Church is one Church. Understanding may grow, but the faith does not change. Just because an earlier father may have not been able to articulate in all the same words the things that later fathers did know how to articulate, does not mean their faith was different. Can you not understand what I am saying here? Verbal formulations may progress, but the truth does not progress. It is the same in every age of (in) the Church. Grace and the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ grows within the Church. Perhaps some day they will find the original NT manuscripts. Then we will have more perfect knowledge and proof of the NT, provided that they know how to translate the originals better than they are already translated in the various English language and other languages versions of the Greek NT. We have the original manuscripts in copies, and if we are to assume that God is sovereign and omniscient and would not hide or conceal or keep His true words from the Church, there is no substantial error in any of the manuscripts of the Greek NT that are in existence. There may be variant readings, but that is to be expected. It would be strange if they were all 100 percent identical in all 5000 some manuscripts of the Greek NT that exist. Take care.

That was a response to your claim of Apostolic passage of Trinity and persons from 30AD forward in a formulated doctrine. Your claimed "bridge" from Resurrection to Nicea. It is not so, whether written OR oral.

See my above post. Tertullian first penned Trinitas in 213AD (RESPONDING to Monarchianism) and used the terms "degrees, forms, and aspects". Later in 213AD, he used persons, and others gradually followed. The term person had been used by some between 180AD and 213AD, but never as three persons, and only gradually.

Goodness, gracious, Brother! I'm giving you names and dates. Here... look these up:

Theophilus (180AD) 2.101
Tertullian (213AD) 3.598, 3.599
Tertullian (213AD) 3.621

Hippolytus spoke of two persons and a third economy (the grace of the Holy Spirit) in 205AD.
Hippolytus (205AD) 5.228

(All from Bercott's 10-volume "Ante-Nicene Fathers".)

 

[PBUH]

Interesting how different people approach the problem of reconciling three Gods to fit the statements in the bible that there is only one God.

 

[Scotth1960]

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
[FONT=&quot]
He inherited it from the Father.[/FONT]

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Is 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Is 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

John 16:27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

John 17:21-25 21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. 24Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. 25O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do : for what things soever he doeth , these also doeth the Son likewise. 20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth : and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel . 21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will .

Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they

Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified , whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders , which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved .

Heb 1:5,8 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith , And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith , Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

[FONT=&quot]The Historic Translation of John 1:3-4[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Tyndale’s translation of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]John 1:3-4[/FONT][FONT=&quot] reads, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men.”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] As you can see, in reference to the “Word” of verse 1, Tyndale used [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“it”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] instead of “him.” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“It”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is the translation of the Greek “autou” meaning he or it. What this tells us is that Tyndale did not read Messiah into the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“logos”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] or [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“word”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of verse 1, as he was not influenced by the Latin Vulgate[/FONT][FONT=&quot] or Wycliffe[/FONT]

Truly,[FONT=&quot] “God [/FONT]WAS[FONT=&quot] manifest in the flesh.”[/FONT]Yet concerning the [FONT=&quot]“Word”[/FONT] in [FONT=&quot]John 1:14: [/FONT]That [FONT=&quot]“Word”[/FONT] did NOT become flesh at the birth of Yahshua (as commonly supposed); but rather, by keeping [FONT=&quot]v. 14[/FONT] in context with the surrounding passages that pertain to John the Baptist[FONT=&quot]v. 14[/FONT] can now be “rightly divided” as follows: [FONT=&quot]“… the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) …”[/FONT]when the heavens opened and Yahweh’s holy breath/wind/power/spirit descended upon Yahshua and [FONT=&quot]“abode upon Him … [/FONT]WITHOUT MEASURE[FONT=&quot]”[/FONT]at His baptism in the Jordan River by John the Baptist.It was ONLY THROUGH THAT ANOINTING with the almighty power of Yahweh’s holy breath/wind/power/spirit upon His Messiach/Christ, that God “became man.” It is critically important to recognize that Yahshua did not live & speak like God because He was God. The ONLY reason Yahshua lived like & spoke like & precisely represented God, was because God’s holy breath/wind/power/spirit (in other words, GOD’S UNRESTRAINED ANOINTING) came upon Yahshua at His baptism and [FONT=&quot]“abode upon Him[/FONT][FONT=&quot] … [/FONT]WITHOUT MEASURE[FONT=&quot].”[/FONT]

When examining the Trinitarian view, the questions that immediately come to my mind are: If the pre-resurrection Yahshua was “fully God and fully man,” then why would it be imperative that, before beginning His ministry, He first had to be equipped with God’s boundless & unrestrained holy breath/wind/power/spirit? Wouldn’t that have been part of who He was already? Even God cannot leave His character & nature — His very essence behind. That would make Him someone else.

Moreover, only this interpretation of [FONT=&quot]John 1:1-14[/FONT] is in conformity with the clear and inescapable biblical doctrines of Yahweh’s ETERNALITY and IMMORTALITY. Recognize that if you are believing/teaching that the pre-resurrection Yahshua was “fully God and fully man” (as asserted by Trinitarian doctrine), then you are unavoidably believing/teaching either:

1) that God utterly DIED at the cross — a truly preposterous and unscriptural tenet!
or …
2) that we still have further penalty to pay for our sins — a thoroughly twisted understanding of Yahshua’s finished redemptive and atoning sacrifice. In other words, if you reject option 1 … if Yahshua didn’t utterly die (both physically & and spiritually since that is man’s penalty for sin[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT]), then that conviction would be incompatible with the clear and inescapable biblical doctrine affirming that God’s atoning, sacrificial lamb/Lamb MUST UTTERLY DIE! That, in turn, would then indicate that Yahshua didn’t completely pay the penalty for our sins, thus necessitating that we ourselves must pay for some or all of them at some point in the future — in which case, your salvation theology is really twisted!

If you are a Trinitarian, then these are your ONLY options — AND THEY ARE BOTH THOROUGHLY UNSCRIPTURAL!

[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT]See [FONT=&quot]Acts 2:24-27: “… the pains of death”.[/FONT] Yahshua had to suffer everything that we would have had to suffer. He had to pay the whole penalty for sin.

Tyndale's translation of John 1, etc., using the word "it", is just an error. The Logos (Word of God), is Christ, and Christ is a "he", not an "it". So Tyndale was fallible. Otherwise, much of the KJV (King James Version) Bible was taken directly from Tyndale's Bible, OT, and NT. Take care.

 

[Scotth1960]

That was a response to your claim of Apostolic passage of Trinity and persons from 30AD forward in a formulated doctrine. Your claimed "bridge" from Resurrection to Nicea. It is not so, whether written OR oral.

See my above post. Tertullian first penned Trinitas in 213AD (RESPONDING to Monarchianism) and used the terms "degrees, forms, and aspects". Later in 213AD, he used persons, and others gradually followed. The term person had been used by some between 180AD and 213AD, but never as three persons, and only gradually.

Goodness, gracious, Brother! I'm giving you names and dates. Here... look these up:

Theophilus (180AD) 2.101
Tertullian (213AD) 3.598, 3.599
Tertullian (213AD) 3.621

Hippolytus spoke of two persons and a third economy (the grace of the Holy Spirit) in 205AD.
Hippolytus (205AD) 5.228

(All from Bercott's 10-volume "Ante-Nicene Fathers".)

We also need to remember that each teacher in the church is fallible. So not everyone teaches everything from the whole truth. But since we were not there, we don't know for sure what the Church fathers taught. We have their writings. To know the oral traditions of the apostles and the bishops and fathers of the church, we have to rely on oral tradition in the Church today. So it depends on whether or not we are in contact with Christ's Church. It is indeed possible that the early church around 100 or 200 AD was using the term persons. To argue from silence that they did not cuts both ways. We really have to find teachers today who know the whole truth. Perhaps they can pass down the oral traditions and tell us some of the church teachers did say three persons in one God. In any case, we know that there are three persons in one God, the Trinity. This is so, even if it can't be found specifically in the ANF. And even if the word persons isn't written down in the NT, that doesn't mean it isn't the meaning of the Father Son and Holy Spirit mentioned in Matthew 28:19. Take care!

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Interesting how different people approach the problem of reconciling three Gods to fit the statements in the bible that there is only one God.

There aren't three Gods, even for Trinitarians. Your criticism is moot, since you're essentially a Divinity-identity kleptomaniac. Anything is superior to your non-existent imaginary god piggy-backed onto God. You promote a zero-god masquerading as the One God. Idolatry is idolatry, no matter how one dresses it up.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

We also need to remember that each teacher in the church is fallible. So not everyone teaches everything from the whole truth. But since we were not there, we don't know for sure what the Church fathers taught. We have their writings. To know the oral traditions of the apostles and the bishops and fathers of the church, we have to rely on oral tradition in the Church today. So it depends on whether or not we are in contact with Christ's Church. It is indeed possible that the early church around 100 or 200 AD was using the term persons. To argue from silence that they did not cuts both ways. We really have to find teachers today who know the whole truth. Perhaps they can pass down the oral traditions and tell us some of the church teachers did say three persons in one God. In any case, we know that there are three persons in one God, the Trinity. This is so, even if it can't be found specifically in the ANF. And even if the word persons isn't written down in the NT, that doesn't mean it isn't the meaning of the Father Son and Holy Spirit mentioned in Matthew 28:19. Take care!

Unfortunately, this line of vague reasoning leaves your conclusions as reactionary denial, and wholly impugns your credibility. I have posted no opinion or speculation. On the contrary, I've shared information that represents all the oral and written traditions that were passed on from the succession to the Apostles and through the Ante-Nicene Fathers and forward toward Nicea.

I gave specific name/date record of one of the most prolific writers of that period (Tertullian), and the written documentation that he was referring to God in other terms and then began using person (213AD). I included the slightly earlier usage by Hippolytus, but it showed the HS as a third economy.

To make reference to some false hope of other potentially-existent opposing oral tradition is to deny the actual evidence presented. There's no need to continue if you blythely ignore documentation and declare a baseless view of blind assent to unsubstantiated perception. It should be obvious by now that I'm not presenting unfounded opinion and am no novice.

I'm left with a familiar sense of futility after much effort to provide documentation beyond speculation. It reminds me of when my son was 2 and answered every question with "Just because". I could present MP3s and electronic books with recordings of Apostles' teachings devoid of person God-terminology, and you'd still adamantly declare personal belief instead. People believe what they know, not vice versa. It's called indoctrination, and it's a blight on the Church.

All faith is not pistis (G4102).

 

[PBUH]

There aren't three Gods, even for Trinitarians. Your criticism is moot, since you're essentially a Divinity-identity kleptomaniac. Anything is superior to your non-existent imaginary god piggy-backed onto God. You promote a zero-god masquerading as the One God. Idolatry is idolatry, no matter how one dresses it up.

Must be inconvenient carrying around that log in your eye. lol

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Must be inconvenient carrying around that log in your eye. lol

Judgement from a deceitful idolator... Splendid!