Holy Trinity - The Devil's Doctrine

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1736305' date='Dec 27 2008, 02:16 PM']..., he writes novels. [/quote]

He's on track to be the next Dan Brown.

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1736305' date='Dec 27 2008, 02:16 PM']This has been an interesting thread...I'd contribute if I knew enough to do so.[/quote]

You needn't know anything to participate in this thread

[MithLuin]

[quote name='reyb' post='1735698' date='Dec 26 2008, 06:28 AM'][indent]If Apostle Paul said something like 'The Holy Trinity is God in mystery' then, this discussion will never even started and the entire Christianity will embrace the Holy Trinity as God or if he said something like 'Jesus is the Father himself but in human form' as in monotheistic view of oneness then there will be no Trinitarianism or any other theological views except monotheism of oneness Christians since all of you believe in this historical Jesus as the Christ. [/indent][/quote]

What you are missing is that all Christians [i]do[/i] believe God is Trinity. There is a consensus. The Bible may not use the word Trinity, but Jesus spoke of himself and his Father and the Holy Spirit in such a way that this doctrine became clear. Still a mystery, but clear, from Scripture. Church councils agreed on this. There are three Persons in One God. Christians are monotheists, but God was not lonely or in need of creatures in any way.

Groups that claim to believe in Jesus, but deny the Trinity, are generally considered to be destructive cults by other Christian groups. There are several groups that do not share mainstream Christian ideas on this topic. One are the Unitarians - while there are several branches of that church now, the name originally came from a denial of the Trinity. Another are the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Paul might not have addressed this in the passage you quoted (he spoke of many mysteries of faith in many different places), but that does not mean the New Testament is silent on the topic. The gospels, in particular, speak explicitly of the relationship between Jesus and his Father. Such as the beginning of the gospel of John:
[quote]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

John 1: 1-5[/quote]


I do not know the details of why you were banned from a Christian forum 3 years ago, but I can say that this idea you are proposing is not Christian, and would be considered blasphemy/heresy by most Christians. However, most forums have rules of behaviour, and it is failure to follow these rules (or the directions of the mods) that gets posters banned. So, in future, check out the rules if you want to avoid being banned.

[reyb]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1735623' date='Dec 25 2008, 11:42 PM']Sometimes authors don't mention things because they are too obvious, generally accepted, to bother repeating.[/quote]

[indent]If that thing which is too obvious is accepted to be true by the writer and the readers, like for example of today’s belief regarding the existence of historical Jesus then, you are correct - the author will not bother to repeat it. (Because they all know it anyway).

But definitely, a writer cannot make any comment about a particular issue if he is not aware of it.

And worst, if he missed it because of negligence just like here in our discussion, I did not respond to CatherineM’s comment on time because of my negligence and look what happen, it gives an idea that I am running away from the issue or it gives an impression that Apostle Paul did not bother to write anything regarding the doctrine of the Holy Trinity because it is a widely accepted belief among them including himself.

I hope, this will make it clear…

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity comes from an idea or belief that Jesus Christ is a historical Jesus meaning he already come in this world or ‘the day of the lord has already come’. And there are some teachers who teach that way even during the time of Apostle Paul (see 2 Thess 2:1-2:2) which he said ‘do not let anyone deceive you’.

As I have said, again and again, Apostle Paul is not preaching this historical Jesus but some teachers preach that way even during his time and they say it is according to them (Apostle Paul and prophets), in their letters, reports or prophecy - this is what Apostle Paul is saying in 2 Thess 2:1 ff.

This is the reason why I said, it is possible that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not yet in existence during his time’ but some teachers are already preaching this ‘historical Jesus’ and thus, Apostle Paul did give an issue and warn us about these false teachers but he did not give any comment regarding the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. (Because it is not yet been formed).[/indent]

Edited December 27, 2008 by reyb

[reyb]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1735274' date='Dec 25 2008, 01:40 PM'][i]It is possible.[/i] You're still working on the assumption that he is when there is no evidence that he is. He doesn't mention it at all, according to you, but you've picked out a line in one book in the entire Bible and since it happens to use the word 'mystery,' you pretend it has something to do with refuting the "new" idea of the Trinity.

If it's newer than the quote in question, then Paul isn't refuting it. Thank you for making my argument.[/quote]


[quote name='Winchester' post='1736209' date='Dec 27 2008, 07:39 AM']You have still not answered my question. CatherineM said something. You want to go with that as your argument? Where did you get the idea? You posited it as an argument against. Your wording was a clear interpretation. Stop dancing and answer where you get your interpretation. Your use of the word [i]possible[/i] indicates less likelihood of it not being a refutation than being one, and it merely reuses your unsupported interpretation. Support or withdraw.

PS: You don't want to use CatherineM's argument.

Going out of town, might be a while.[/quote]

[indent]Apostle Paul is not refuting the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in all his letters because this doctrine is not yet in existence of formed but it does not mean he is for it or he is a trinitarian.[/indent]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='reyb' post='1736197' date='Dec 27 2008, 12:55 AM']Therefore, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is an original idea of Tertullian at around 160 – 220 AD that is, if the above writers/editors are correct.[/quote]
Theophilus of Antioch used the term "trias" to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit before Tertullian used the term "trinitas."

[reyb]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1736499' date='Dec 27 2008, 07:18 PM']Theophilus of Antioch used the term "trias" to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit before Tertullian used the term "trinitas."[/quote]
[indent]Where did you get it? I think, I already saw it but I cannot remember where. Anyway, thank you for the info. I will search for Theophilus.[/indent]

[reyb]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1736223' date='Dec 27 2008, 09:44 AM']Paul never said anything like that.



Another example of bad logic. Tertullian being the one who created the term "Trinity" and the first to explain it doesn't mean he created the doctrine. He was explaining a doctrine that already existed.

Read the first three verses of the Bible.



Reyb doesn't answer questions.[/quote]


[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1736305' date='Dec 27 2008, 12:16 PM']..., he writes novels.
This has been an interesting thread...I'd contribute if I knew enough to do so.[/quote]


[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1736308' date='Dec 27 2008, 12:18 PM']See this is exactly why I didn't engage in Reyb's new threads when he came back, his old ones were fatigueing enough.[/quote]


[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1736432' date='Dec 27 2008, 02:57 PM']He's on track to be the next Dan Brown.



You needn't know anything to participate in this thread [/quote]
[indent]
Sorry if it is late....
[/indent]
[quote name='reyb' post='1736479' date='Dec 27 2008, 05:24 PM'][indent]If that thing which is too obvious is accepted to be true by the writer and the readers, like for example of today’s belief regarding the existence of historical Jesus then, you are correct - the author will not bother to repeat it. (Because they all know it anyway).

But definitely, a writer cannot make any comment about a particular issue if he is not aware of it.

And worst, if he missed it because of negligence just like here in our discussion, I did not respond to CatherineM’s comment on time because of my negligence and look what happen, it gives an idea that I am running away from the issue or it gives an impression that Apostle Paul did not bother to write anything regarding the doctrine of the Holy Trinity because it is a widely accepted belief among them including himself.

I hope, this will make it clear…

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity comes from an idea or belief that Jesus Christ is a historical Jesus meaning he already come in this world or ‘the day of the lord has already come’. And there are some teachers who teach that way even during the time of Apostle Paul (see 2 Thess 2:1-2:2) which he said ‘do not let anyone deceive you’.

As I have said, again and again, Apostle Paul is not preaching this historical Jesus but some teachers preach that way even during his time and they say it is according to them (Apostle Paul and prophets), in their letters, reports or prophecy - this is what Apostle Paul is saying in 2 Thess 2:1 ff.

This is the reason why I said, it is possible that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not yet in existence during his time’ but some teachers are already preaching this ‘historical Jesus’ and thus, Apostle Paul did give an issue and warn us about these false teachers but he did not give any comment regarding the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. (Because it is not yet been formed).[/indent][/quote]


[quote name='reyb' post='1736486' date='Dec 27 2008, 05:53 PM'][indent]Apostle Paul is not refuting the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in all his letters because this doctrine is not yet in existence of formed but it does not mean he is for it or he is a trinitarian.[/indent][/quote]

[reyb]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1736223' date='Dec 27 2008, 10:44 AM']Another example of bad logic. Tertullian being the one who created the term "Trinity" and the first to explain it doesn't mean he created the doctrine. He was explaining a doctrine that already existed.[/quote]

[indent]Your lips is too loose to judge me having bad logic. Are you sure I do not know what you mean? The word 'trinity' itself is not the weight of my inquiry but its essence - that is our subject of discussion. I do not care whether you call it trinity or triune God, it is the same. But prove to me that Prophets and Apostle Paul believe on your three- in- One God. And that's it. Don't you know that even these hypocrite teachers of Jews believe that the Son of God is God himself? (Just like your accepted belief). Now, if you want to remain there and do not want to seek for the truth - that is not my problem. Okay? [/indent]

[reyb]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1736447' date='Dec 27 2008, 03:55 PM']What you are missing is that all Christians [i]do[/i] believe God is Trinity. There is a consensus. The Bible may not use the word Trinity, but Jesus spoke of himself and his Father and the Holy Spirit in such a way that this doctrine became clear. Still a mystery, but clear, from Scripture. Church councils agreed on this. There are three Persons in One God. Christians are monotheists, but God was not lonely or in need of creatures in any way.[/quote]

[indent]You are correct on this. The best 'interpretation' a believer can get in reading the Holy Scripture is the doctine of the Holy Trinity. I should know it because I was once a Catholic and I read the Holy Scripture myself. But this 'interpretation' does not mean 'revelation' from God. You must see God thru his Christ himself and then you will realize these witnesses, including Apostle Paul is not referrring to this historical Jesus. Historical Jesus is just an 'interpretation' of a reader to the scripture but these witnessess is not referring to this historical Jesus because Christ is in you. He is in you and I am not playing words here. I am telling you literally. Christ is in you and you will see him as he is - the same way these witnesses saw him before. [/indent].

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='reyb' post='1734496' date='Dec 23 2008, 06:45 PM'][indent]Do you really believe this doctrine comes from God? [/indent][/quote]

I personally believe it's a conspiracy by the dove lobby-the Holy Spirit is usually portrayed as a dove, and having the Trinity gives them more screen time. -Katie

[reyb]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1736447' date='Dec 27 2008, 03:55 PM'][color="#0000FF"]What you are missing is that all Christians [i]do[/i] believe God is Trinity. There is a consensus[/color]. The Bible may not use the word Trinity, but Jesus spoke of himself and his Father and the Holy Spirit in such a way that this doctrine became clear. Still a mystery, but clear, from Scripture. Church councils agreed on this. There are three Persons in One God. Christians are monotheists, but God was not lonely or in need of creatures in any way.[/quote]

[indent]
I just want you to know that Holy Prophets and Apostle Paul are Christians (too),in its very meaning of the word 'Christians' which means, 'Christ disicples' or 'people or group of believers who belong to Christ or people or group of believers having the Spirit of Christ. And I am sure they are not 'trinitarians' because in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the historical Jesus is the core figure of faith and all of them are not referring to this 'historical Jesus' as the Christ.
[/indent]

Edited December 28, 2008 by reyb

[reyb]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1736209' date='Dec 27 2008, 07:39 AM']You have still not answered my question. CatherineM said something. You want to go with that as your argument? [color="#0000FF"]Where did you get the idea? [/color]You posited it as an argument against. Your wording was a clear interpretation. Stop dancing and answer where you get your interpretation. Your use of the word [i]possible[/i] indicates less likelihood of it not being a refutation than being one, and it merely reuses your unsupported interpretation. Support or withdraw.

PS: You don't want to use CatherineM's argument.

Going out of town, might be a while.[/quote]

[indent]Where did I get the idea? (That the doctrine of Holy Trinity is not from God?) As I have already said ‘[post="1730124"]By God’s Grace – I saw it[/post].’ I mean the truth, and I also said that ‘[post="1729770"]the spirit of Christ guides me’[/post]. Now, whether you believe me or not is immaterial to me. I am just informing you and the rest is for your own judgment - whether you will seek the truth or you will remain where you are. My concern is just to tell you because I do not like to leave this world with guilt of being too coward and dumb. [/indent]

[Aloysius]

God is love. 1 John 4:8
"He that loveth not, knoweth not God: for God is love"

Love is selfless. 1 Corinthians 13:5
"[Love] Is not ambitious, [b]seeketh not its own[/b], is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil"

God exists apart from time and from the world. Genesis 1:1, John 1:1, Psalm 90:2 (89:2 in some Catholic versions of the numbering)
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"
"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God"
"Before the mountains were made, or the earth and the world was formed; from eternity and to eternity thou art God."

Only God is eternal 1 Timothy 6:15-16, Revelation 4:9, Exodus 3:14
"Which in his times he shall show who is the Blessed and only Mighty, the King of kings, and Lord of lords Who [b]only[/b] hath immortality, and inhabiteth light inaccessible, whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and empire everlasting. Amen."
"And when those living creatures gave glory, and honour, and benediction to [b]the one[/b] that sitteth on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever"
"God said to Moses: [b]I AM WHO AM.[/b]" (that is His name, His identity, anyone who "is who is" is God, anyone who is eternal is God)

Therefore, God existed before the world existed, before the universe existed, before the angels existed, before anything [b]Psalm 90:2[/b]

God as love must always love something which exists.

Because love is selfless (1 Corinthians 13:5), loving oneself does not cut it.

He must love something eternal which is not Him so that His love is selfless; but only God is eternal and therefore that thing which is not Him must be God.

if you cannot solve this conundrum, the only logical answer would be to either cease to believe in God because God is an illogical idea and it would be stupid to continue believing, or find some traditional doctrine dating from Apostolic times which is in line with scripture.

[reyb]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1736727' date='Dec 28 2008, 02:22 AM']He must love something eternal which is not Him so that His love is selfless; but only God is eternal and therefore that thing which is not Him must be God.

if you cannot solve this conundrum, the only logical answer would be to either cease to believe in God because God is an illogical idea and it would be stupid to continue believing, or find some traditional doctrine dating from Apostolic times which is in line with scripture.[/quote]

[indent]First, I belive in God.

Second, I am not the one who made this 'puzzle' regarding God needs another self which is not himself but also himself in order to prove and show his love to himself. I think it is better you solve it yourself because I am not the one who believe in this doctrine. (joke only )

Third, Thank you Aloysius for the info. [/indent]

[Aloysius]

:-) I didn't make the riddle, it's a necessary conclusion of those biblical facts: 1, God is love, 2. Love is selfless (it is not self seeking), 3. God existed before and outside the creation of anything else.

God cannot BE love if He has nothing to love. but He IS love, it is His nature. if there is a time when He was not love, He would not have been God, and then God wouldn't have been there before the beginning to create everything in the beginning. God would have changed to become love when there was something to love, for love cannot exist unless it loves something (not itself, as true love is not self seeking according to St. Paul); and of course, God changing would contradict the scriptures:

Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord, I change not"

and of course, the only other figure to be said to never change is Jesus: Hebrews 13:8 says Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever

this is not a riddle I have fashioned, but a riddle the biblical facts themselves create... if God is love, He must love; if love is selfless, he must love something other than Him; if He is eternal, He must love something eternal; but only God is eternal, and God does not change... and Jesus Christ is eternal and Jesus Christ does not change... and Jesus Christ said He spoke only that which He heard from His Father through the Holy Ghost, and Jesus Christ commanded baptism in the name of the Trinity; and all these things point to a conclusion to the riddle created by the Biblical facts... the only way it works is if God eternally loves an eternal other who is both not Him (not the Father) and is God; and Christ revealed that there is a third person through which this eternal love goes who is also God and not the Son and not the Father so that the three can selflessly love each other.