Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

What on earth is the matter with you? The verses are available to be read if you click on each reference, and they are self-explanatory under each heading. He explains at the top of each list what aspect of the Trinity it is intended to demonstrate. If you think a particular verse does not demonstrate the point he claims it makes, then you should explain why it doesn't.Again, that is not a "blog," that is an official Bible website which is hosting that article because it is a faithful exposition of the Trinity.Best you're going to get from me with your cantankerous, obfuscating and ignorant attitude.

quote:

---

What on earth is the matter with you? The verses are available to be read if you click on each reference, and they are self-explanatory under each heading. He explains at the top of each list what aspect of the Trinity it is intended to demonstrate. If you think a particular verse does not demonstrate the point he claims it makes, then you should explain why it doesn't.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- FAITH:
For the third and last time: whenever I hover my mouse over the links for each scripture at the Trinitarian blog, all I'm seeing is an ordinary quotation with no mention of anything resembling trinity. The fact that other people have read those same scriptures and do not see trinity leads to one single conclusion: The Trinitarian blogger is telling everybody his/her personal philosophy.I asked you three different times to show the rest of us where you are seeing trinity in at least six of the cherry picked verses from the Trinitarian blog. Each time I ask you to do so, you come back with the same wash, rinse, and repeat, summarized below: "Just go to the Trinitarian website and look at all the scriptures posted there. Read the verses, and you will see what I and the Trinitarian author are seeing. If all else fails, read the Trinitarian author's personal interpretation. If he/she says the verses prove trinity, then it must be so. In fact, the sheer volume of scriptures posted there is proof of trinity." I heard that three times in a row. Back and forth we've been going on thatand then around in circles. So, guess what? Since you are not willing to defend the supposed "trinity" verses, I'm moving on. I will remain "moved on" until you start explaining why your "trinity" scriptures are saying what you believe they are saying.Edited by Alter2Ego, : No reason given.

Dear Alter:The reason so many separate scripture verses are needed is that there is NO single verse that fully expresses the Trinity, nor is the Trinity named anywhere in scripture. The concept is derived from many verses which depict God in ways that ADD UP to the Trinity formulation. You are not supposed "to see trinity" in any given verse and that ought to be clear from the presentation itself, but if not then at least consider how I'm explaining it here.He begins with verses that express that God is One. That's clear isn't it? When you hover over a reference under that heading don't you get a verse that expresses in one way or another that God is One?Then he gives verses that show that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are EACH separately described as having the attributes of God. When you hover over a reference under the heading saying that the Father is God you should see a verse that expresses the fact that the Father has the attributes of God.Same under the heading saying that the Son is God: each verse expresses the fact that the Son has the attributes of God.Same with the Holy Spirit, and then he goes on to show that each also acts independently from the others, demonstrating that they are each "persons" or individuals and not just manifestations of God.That is how the Trinity was first derived from scripture and that's what it takes to demonstrate that it is based on scripture, a verse by verse demonstration of all the facts that led the Church to formulate the concept.Look, this is pretty straightforward and obvious, and I HAVE explained it numerous times, that is why I keep putting it back in your court. If Dr. Adequate and Purpledawn could read the link and immediately get the point you ought to be able to as well.I know it takes time to go through the evidence and that's also partly why I'm not doing it, though the main reason is your stubborn refusal to do so. It's obvious to me that you have no clue about the Trinity and that website defeats your opinion against it and that's why you're digging in your heels. But if you are genuinely having a problem understanding the evidence I WILL try to make the effort to walk you through it at some point.However, I'm happy to move on myself, I don't feel any need to prove the obvious to you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This document shows the reasoning that the early church Fathers employed against the Heresy of the time.

quote:

---

These are the heresy trial proceedings from the Council of Aquileia in 381 AD against the heretics Palladius and Secundianus

---

This same heresy surfaces with disturbing regularity in our modern world.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

That's fascinating, Phat, thanks for posting it. I've only read up to page 41 but hope to read the rest later.

Since Alter2Ego has no counter argument to present concerning the Trinity, I'm going in. Sorry Faith. The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the TrinityI'm only addressing the section of the commentary entitled "Jesus is Jehovah/Yahweh" for right now. I feel the conclusion concerning the use of "kurios" is flawed. Our English word "lord" and the Greek word "kurios" were used in the OT translations to represent the name of the Hebrew God, YHWH, when the name was actually written in the text. They can also refer to humans. From what I've found the differentiation in the OT was supposedly, "my lord" for humans and "the lord" for YHWH. I'm sure there are exceptions. From what I can tell in the Greek we can't really just assume kurios means YHWH. Despotes was also used in the NT concerning God. I also found that YHWH was also rendered God in the OT. ListIn the Greek there isn't an article in front of Lord, but there is in front of God. InterlinearThe sentence is speaking of two beings, not one.The comment in the outline is that the Lord mentioned in 10:13 is the same as the Lord in 10:9 and 12.The point of Romans 10:9 is to acknowledge Jesus and believe that God raised him from the dead.Verse 10 is the faith in YHWH that Paul consistently preaches.Verse 11 the scripture referenced is from the OT, so the him is YHWH, not Jesus.Verse 12 YHWH is the same for everyone.Verse 13 is about calling on YHWH.The Talmud states that no passage loses its p'shat: I don't see that calling Jesus Lord, means he is YHWH simply because the passages referenced from the OT say Lord.I think Paul speaks of two divine beings, not one. I feel it was more of a title for Jesus, not a personal name.(This post may seem disjointed. I kept getting interrupted. Sorry.)

Faith, There is quite a bit to go through. The question I would have is how should the discussion move from here? Someone, and I'm not saying it should be you or that it should be Alter2Ego, preferably someone who has a well defined take on Trinity or not Trinity probably should take a first step at providing an argument in their own words.I know that Alter2Ego is a hostile audience, but this seems like an open invitation to spread the good Word. Surely that's not something a Christian finds easy to resist. This part of your request seems unfair though. Alter2Ego is saying that the Bible does not support the Trinity doctrine. If that is right, then there may well not be any verses to cite. Edited by NoNukes, : address looking for contrary verses.

Interesting. So when Jesus teaches something that contradicts the OT the you go with the OT and yet you call yourself Christian. This IMHO is the problem. Your whole understanding of God is based on an inerrant Bible as opposed to an inerrant Jesus. As I said before, it is Biblianity not Christianity. Again, you miss the point. He wanted to change the hearts of the Jewish people because they were to be His Kingdom builders in order to change the hearts of all nations including the Romans. Matthew 12

quote:

---

18 "Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations. 19 He will not quarrel or cry out; no one will hear his voice in the streets. 20 A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, till he leads justice to victory. 21 In his name the nations will put their hope."

---

Matthew 24

quote:

---

14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations,

---

Matthew 25

quote:

---

32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

---

Matthew 28

quote:

---

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations

---

Mark 11:17

quote:

---

And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written: " 'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations' ?

---

Mark 13:10

quote:

---

And the gospel must first be preached to all nations

---

.........and so on.I'd suggest this is on topic because in order to answer the questions in the OP we have to know how we are to understand the Scriptures.

I thought I already did that a number of times. But probably you mean by citing particular verses that make the point? I can do that but I may not be able to get to it for a while.Now I've got Purpledawn challenging a particular verse, and GDR continuing his line of thought, so I'm not sure where to go with this myself at this point. I may simply not be up to following out all these different lines. Well, since you've thought about this some, what do you think of the directions either GDR or Purpledawn want to take it? Should I pursue their lead or focus on making my own case for the Trinity or what do you suggest? The idea was that if I'm cherry-picking that means I'm selecting only those particular verses that make my point, meaning there must be others that contradict it, and I'd expect a Jehovah's Witness to be up on what those are if so. But that's probably an academic issue and I might as well drop it. Such a wealth of verses supporting the Trinity can't possibly be cherry-picking anyway.I would like your opinion, but I think I'm going to try to answer Purpledawn next. Maybe not for a while.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Purpledawn,
Before I investigate that particular verse, would you let me know what your position on the Trinity is? Do you dispute the Deity of Christ? I would assume you do from your remarks on this verse but you may just be making an academic point about this particular verse. Which is it?Also curious if you read what Phat posted about the heresy trial of a couple of Arians, which focuses on the question of Jesus as eternal, and what your position is. Do you agree with the Arians or the orthodox Church?Thanks.

Well, since you asked...It looks like purpledawn is taking a lead on this. I'd be more inclined to respond to her than to someone with no "skin" in the game. GDR and purpledawn also seem more willing to pick up on things without requiring a lot of exposition on your part. Maybe Alter2Ego will pick up on the idea of doing some homework if he/she is serious about the discussion.Or just give your own favorite arguments.Just suggestions.I don't have a well formed take on this issue. The churches I have attended have all been critical of denominations that rejected the Trinity, but I've always considered other aspects of Christianity to be more vital. If I had some doubts whether someone who claimed to be Christian was not, I don't think that persons views on the Trinity would be among the top ten things I'd investigate.But I am interested in the topic.

Thanks for your thoughts.The central reason the Trinity is important is the question whether Jesus is God or not. That's really crucial.

I've always been skeptical of the Trinity doctrine. I've felt like it was a doctrine that was created after the canonized Bible was already complete and was a "theory" about the relationship between God and Jesus.I tend to lean towards modalism, I think of God as a singular being who assumes "roles" as Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The Old Testament seems to be very clear in many places about God's "oneness" and never implies a trinitarian nature. Jesus' divinity is obviously important for a Christian to accept, but I don't think the "three in one" concept is the only possibility. If you're counting all of God's appearances, why isn't the Angel of the LORD the fourth member, since He refers to God in the first person in His appearances?

Well, if you base your beliefs on what you've "felt like" you can come up with anything. Have you followed this discussion at all? Read any of the scripture verses at the link I posted in Message 20? Try scripture instead of your feelings. The link I provided gives the whole picture starting with the oneness of God and building on that the Deity of Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit plus the individuality or personhood of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The early Church fathers based all their theology on the scripture, they didn't make stuff up as so many like to do these days.It continues to amaze me that people who know NOTHING about the history of these things just casually make stuff up according to their own feelings. Oh well. If you knew any of the history involved or even a smidgen of orthodox theology, you would know that the appearances of the Angel of the LORD are regarded as Theophanies, or pre-incarnate appearances of Christ.

I was going to try to address your points here but I may not after all. I'm no Greek scholar, and I'm sure you aren't either, so what you "feel" about the Greek term kurios means zip. To answer you could require that I take a course in Greek which I'm not up to for purposes of a forum debate, and I prefer to trust my betters on these points anyway.So if the consensus of the orthodox scholars is that kurios refers to Jehovah in that verse, that's the end of it for me.But here are a few comments. God the Father and God the Son are two separate PERSONS, but together with the Holy Spirit ONE "being" or God. The verse is definitely speaking of two PERSONS, the Lord Jesus and God, which in such constructions is generally understood to be God the Father, the First Person of the Trinity. There are other verses where the Holy Spirit is said to have raised Christ (Romans 8:11), and where He Himself says He raised Himself (John 10:17-18). All three Persons raised Him. All three are God. Well, if you don't think these verses identify Jesus as Jehovah then other verses do from which we can conclude that these have to as well.As for your Talmudic reference, I don't take Talmudic references as definitive of anything. Sometimes in spite of themselves the rabbis do say things that confirm the orthodox Christian understanding of the gospel and that's a fascinating study in itself but otherwise they are enemies of the gospel and why pay any attention to them at all? If you like Jewish writings you might be interested in the book The Messianic Hope by Jewish Christian scholar Michael Rydelnik. Great study of all the Messianic passages in the Old Testament. Fine, but if that's the orthodox understanding of what it means who are you to disagree with them? I'm with them and not you. How can there be TWO "divine beings" when God is the ONLY "divine being" according to scripture? Paul IS referring to TWO Persons, and if they are both divine they are both God and that supports the traditional understanding of the Trinity as One God in Three Persons.You are of course free to disagree with the entirety of Christian history if you want, but what you "feel" about any of this is really inconsequential in that context.Sorry, I guess I'm too impatient with such stuff.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : to add scripture references for who raised Jesus from the deadEdited by Faith, : No reason given.