Thank you.
This is another ‘when’.
I hope this helps you @tylerbones1313 along with what others have said.
When did the Trinitarian concept enter and disrupt the strict monotheistic religion of Judaism and early Christianity?
- Thread starter tylerbones1313
- 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.
Thank you.
This is another ‘when’.
I hope this helps you @tylerbones1313 along with what others have said.
The actual act of baptizing is what fulfilled all righteousness. Therefore the sign wouldn't appear until then.
You already answered who "Look" is directed toward. John wouldn't have known until the baptism.
Does this mean that John was pretty bad at his job or does this mean that some people interpret scripture with a lot of spices and wine?
We do have other “when-s” though. Mathew 28:19.
That‘s when Trinity happened officially.
The earliest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, as well as the earliest translations into other languages (such as Latin, Syriac, and Coptic), do not include 1 John 5:7. The verse does not appear in any Greek manuscript before the 14th century, and even then, it appears in only a handful of late medieval manuscripts.
The passage first emerges in Latin manuscripts. The earliest known instance of the Comma Johanneum in a Latin manuscript dates from the 8th century, though it was likely cited by Latin Church Fathers in a more indirect form as early as the 4th century. However, its absence in the majority of both Greek and Latin manuscripts suggests it was not part of the original text.
The verse may have initially arisen as a marginal note or gloss, added for theological clarification or emphasis on the concept of the Trinity. Over time, such notes could be mistakenly incorporated into the text itself by scribes.
Once 1 John 5:7 found its way into a few Latin manuscripts, it began to be copied into subsequent Latin manuscripts. Its presence in the influential Latin Vulgate translation solidified its place in the Western Christian tradition, despite its absence in the majority of earlier and authoritative Greek manuscripts.
With the rise of textual criticism in the early modern period, scholars began to evaluate the authenticity of biblical passages based on manuscript evidence. Erasmus, the Renaissance humanist and scholar, initially did not include the verse in his first editions of the Greek New Testament because he could not find it in any Greek manuscripts. He added it to his later editions after a Greek manuscript containing it was produced, likely under pressure from those who insisted on its inclusion due to its theological significance.
Most modern translations of the Bible, which rely on the best available manuscript evidence, either omit 1 John 5:7 or include it with a footnote indicating that it is not found in the earliest manuscripts. This reflects a commitment to presenting a text that is as close as possible to the original writings.
God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
That's the Father, the Word, and the Spirit saying "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"
This pretty much ends the controversy for those that believe God's Word.
The Book of Genesis, composed within the context of ancient Israelite religion and culture, does not explicitly articulate the concept of the Trinity, which was developed within early Christianity centuries later. The original audience of Genesis would have understood "God" (Hebrew: Elohim) in the context of the strict monotheism characteristic of Judaism.
The plural form "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" has been subject to various interpretations within Jewish and Christian traditions. Some Jewish interpretations suggest that God is speaking to the heavenly court of angels or using the "royal we" as a form of majestic plural. Early Christian interpreters, reading this passage in light of the New Testament, have seen in the plural language a hint of the Trinitarian nature of God, but this is a man-made interpretative lens applied retrospectively.
One common Jewish understanding of this plural language is that God is deliberating or consulting with His heavenly court, consisting of angels or celestial beings. This interpretation maintains strict monotheism by clarifying that the decision and act of creation are solely God's, with the heavenly court having no creative power of their own. They are, instead, participants in a divine council, reflecting the ancient Near Eastern motif of a supreme deity consulting with lesser beings, but adapted within a monotheistic framework to underscore the uniqueness and sovereignty of the one God. Another perspective within this strict monotheistic view suggests the use of the "royal we" or "majestic plural," a linguistic form where a singular sovereign refers to themselves with plural pronouns to denote dignity, majesty, or excellence. This usage would underscore the transcendence and majesty of God without implying the existence of multiple divine beings.
So you conclude that NT is a deep fake and Jesus is not Who He says that He is?
Supposed scholarly hypothesis aside, you still need to deal with this:
Jhn 5:45
“Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust.
Jhn 5:46
“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.
Jhn 8:24
I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
The Bible was written within the confines of traditional jewish thought. That is why I adhere to strict Monotheism. Saying we have 3 distinct separate persons does not make ONE God. I am not Jewish or subscribe to any one denomination, I only try and follow what scripture plainly points out.
Three.....
Isa 43:3
For I am the LORD your God,
The Holy One of Israel, your Savior;
I gave Egypt for your ransom,
Ethiopia and Seba in your place.
Three.....
Isa 48:16
“Come near to Me, hear this:
I have not spoken in secret from the beginning;
From the time that it was, I was there.
And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit
Have sent Me.”
Conclusive.
Isa 43:3
For I am the LORD your God,
The Holy One of Israel, your Savior;
I gave Egypt for your ransom,
Ethiopia and Seba in your place.
Three.....
Isa 48:16
“Come near to Me, hear this:
I have not spoken in secret from the beginning;
From the time that it was, I was there.
And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit
Have sent Me.”
Conclusive.
Right out of you own mouth.....
https://christianchat.com/threads/w...sm-and-early-christianity.214560/post-5269536
Jesus Christ is the YHVH of the OT. You might want to check that out.
Jhn 8:58
Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
If I understand your purposefully vague posts, you DO believe Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.
That's a pretty good start for most who deny the Trinty. I believe you are advocating some type of modalism, which is heresy.
But let me ask you this.
There are many passages that speak of Jesus sitting NEXT TO His Father. how can this be if both He, and His Father are not separate?
Romans 8:34
New King James Version
34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
OT types of this kind are everywhere and unmistakable.
Divine watermarks obviously.
Abraham - God the Father
Issac - God the Son
Eliezer - Son the Spirit
Rebekah - the Church
Regarding Jesus sitting next to the Father, He Himself told us about His future exaltation. For instance, in Matthew 26:64, Jesus says to the high priest, "From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." This position at the right hand of God signifies a place of honor and authority, not separation in essence. It's a fulfillment of the scriptures and a testament to His victory over sin and death, granting Him all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18).
The idea of Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father also speaks to His intercessory role for us as believers. He is our mediator (1 Timothy 2:5), advocating on our behalf (1 John 2:1). This doesn't mean He is separate from God in His divine nature; rather, it highlights His unique role in God's redemptive plan.
In our Lord's teachings and His prayers, particularly the prayer He offered on our behalf before His crucifixion, He spoke of the unity He shared with the Father—a unity He desired for us, His followers, to share in as well (John 17:21-23). This profound unity, which encompasses the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, was something He revealed to us over time, helping us understand the depth of God's love and the mystery of our salvation.
So, in light of what Jesus taught us and what we witnessed in His life, death, and resurrection, we see no contradiction in speaking of Jesus sitting next to the Father. It's a statement about His role, authority, and the fulfillment of His mission, all within the unity of the one God whom we worship and serve.
What exactly this distinctiveness may be in the Trinity no one can possibly define.
The infinite God is only known by what He reveals to us. The fullness will probably never be known by any created being.
Probably the same thing most do. How can you 3 separate persons and still maintain they are absolutely ONE.
From a monotheistic viewpoint, the paramount emphasis is on the absolute, indivisible oneness of God. This perspective is rooted in passages such as the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4, which declares, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." The understanding here is that God's unity is singular and uncompounded, not allowing for any division or plurality within the divine essence. The concept of the Trinity, which describes one God in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), can be seen as challenging this strict understanding of divine oneness by introducing a complexity that seems to conflict with the idea of God's singular unity.
Strict monotheist point to the development of the Trinity doctrine as not explicitly articulated in the scriptures but as a theological construction that emerged several centuries after the biblical texts were written. They may argue that key passages used to support the Trinity are subject to interpretation or, like the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8 in some translations), not present in the earliest manuscript traditions, suggesting that the doctrine was developed in the context of later theological debates rather than directly from Jesus’ teachings or the apostolic message.
Maintaining the absolute oneness of God is not only a matter of scriptural fidelity but also of theological clarity and coherence. The introduction of the Trinity, with its distinction of persons within the unity of the Godhead, can be viewed as complicating the straightforward monotheistic message of the Hebrew Bible and the teachings of Jesus.
Another point of concern may involve the historical development of the Trinity doctrine, which was formalized through the ecumenical councils of the early Church centuries after the New Testament period. Strict monotheists might question the legitimacy of doctrinal formulations that were the result of ecclesiastical debates and decisions, rather than being clearly delineated in the biblical texts themselves.
concerns with the Trinity revolve around the implications for understanding the oneness of God, the basis and development of the doctrine in scripture and early Christian history, and the theological implications for the relationship between God and humanity. These concerns are rooted in a desire to maintain a clear and uncomplicated affirmation of God’s singular unity.
Your whole explanation is a contrivance to fit a heretical view.
A past poster talked about Jesus' Baptism, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were Present, at the same time, as separate entities.
I think I should point out, that although this site does allow some discussion on this subject, it views modalism as heresy and will only allow a non trinitarian preaching position for a limited time.
I suspect you may know this, and that could account for you not just directly coming out and saying that the Trinity is a false doctrine.
Even IF this were actually true...
Ever notice all the scriptures about the Father?
Ever notice all the scriptures about the Jesus?
Ever notice all the scriptures about the Holy Spirit?
You'll need to explain away all these scriptures too.
Mankind was created in God's likeness and man is spirit, soul, and body as ONE
You cannot explain this fact away. Sorry about you having a bad day unable to explain this way.
True, but Inseparably One. Where as the Trinity is taking the ONE God and making Him separate persons. That is not ONE God.
You need to read God's Word sometime.
Jesus said He only does what the Father does and only says what the Father says clearly indicating He and the Father are two but at the same time Jesus said He and His Father were one.
When Jesus was baptized, the Father said this is my beloved Sin in Whom I am well pleased but these two are one because they agree perfectly.
Jesus said the Holy Spirit would not speak on His own and would only speak what He hears clearly indicating He and the Holy Spirit are two and yet at the same time they agree perfectly with one another so they are one.
The Truth of the matter is God is One and Three all at the same time.
The problem comes in when some people try to wrap their little peanut brain around this and they go bonkers
