The Christian Faith - The Trinity

RevJP · Moderator Joined: 18 Apr 2003 Posts: 7005 Location: USA

The Christian Faith

An Introduction to Christian Thought
by
Dallas M. Roark, Ph.D.

"O Lord, one God, God the Trinity, whatsoever I have said in these Books that comes of thy prompting, may thy people acknowledge it: for what I have said that comes only of myself, I ask of thee and of thy people pardon."
Augustine,

The Trinity

To know Christ is to know His benefits, not as the Schoolmen teach, to know His natures and the modes of His incarnation. . . . There is no reason why we should spend much labour over these supreme topics of God, His Unity and Trinity, the mysteries of creation and the modes of the Incarnation. I ask you, what the scholastic theologians have achieved in so many ages by occupying themselves with these questions alone? Philip Melanchthon, Loci Theologici

The doctrine of the Trinity is a key article of the Christian faith, even though it is one of the most difficult to comprehend. The word "trinity," however, is not used in the Bible. Tertullian (ca. A.D. 160-240) was the first to use the Latin word trinitas.
In a discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity, there are certain preliminary things that need to be clarified.
First, we must admit the concept of mystery. This must not be the admission of the Trinitarian only. Even the Unitarian must acknowledge that he professes only a skimpy knowledge of the essential being of God. But mystery does not negate inquiry or revelation. We admit with Augustine that "enquiry concerning the incomprehensible is justified, and the enquirer has found something, if he has succeeded in finding out how far what he sought passes comprehension." 1 If the Trinity is a mystery, it is yet important, for it explains other mysteries. The doctrines of the Incarnation and indwelling of the Spirit would have little significance without a knowledge of the Trinity. Rather than being a burden to the intellect, the Trinitarian concept of God "illuminates, enriches, and elevates all our thought of God." 2
Second, we must, in a discussion of the Trinity, continue to remind ourselves that man is created in the image of God, and not God in the image of man. Man is thus only a faint image. Therefore, when dealing with the data of the biblical revelation we must remember that God is not the peculiarity, but man is. Man has a tendency to view God as suprapersonal, that is, to compare God with man by using man as the standard of being. In reality man is infra-personal, that is, God is the standard of comparison in relation to man, and man is the peculiar creature. If we wish to do justice to the person of God as far as we can understand him, we must not denounce God because of the simple, single personality of man. God cannot be reckoned a monstrosity because he is different from man.
Third, the doctrine of the Trinity is the expressed result of formulating the biblical information concerning the relation of the Father to the Son and the Spirit. If one asks, "How are the three persons related to one another?" the answer one receives is some doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine is not idle philosophy and metaphysics to which we may be indifferent.
In the early centuries of the church, when the issue of the Trinity was debated, the issue centered around the nature of Christ. Was he of the same nature as God, or was he of a like nature? In other words, was he God, or was he a great and majestic, but created, being? The difference was summed up by two very similar words. Was Christ homoiousion, that is, of a like nature to God, or was he homoousion, that is, of the same nature? The difference in the two words cannot be exaggerated even though a single letter, the iota or "i," makes the difference. Carlyle and Gibbon have epigrammed that the fate of the world hung on a single letter. In reality the difference is that significant. It is a question of tremendous importance.
Positively put, the Trinity means that God is incarnate in Jesus Christ. God has come himself to redeem man; he has not sent a second-rate envoy. Love gives personal attention to important matters.

Long ago, Anselm attempted to answer the question of why a lesser being than God could not have redeemed man. He reasoned that man would of necessity be the servant of whoever redeemed him. Thus anything less than God would involve man in idolatry. Although this is reasonable, it is preferable to answer the question from the standpoint of love's personal involvement.
Fourth, we must distinguish between the facts of the Trinity and the doctrine of the Trinity. The traditional formulation of the Trinity is a product of debate upon the meaning of the scriptural statements. The church must reflect upon the scriptural statements, but this does not elevate the doctrine to the level of the Scriptures. Indeed, we must not accept an ancient doctrine merely because it is ancient but because it is true. The formulation that has been traditionally accepted as orthodox from the Nicene Council on must stand or fall on the basis of the Scriptures. With these observations in mind, we will turn to study the data of the Trinity in the Scriptures.

Biblical Evidence for the Trinity

Although older theologians were accustomed to speak of the Trinity anticipated in the plural name for God (Elohim), the Trisagion of Isaiah 6, the Suffering Servant passages in Isaiah, and the personification of wisdom in the Old Testament, we are bound to base the doctrine on the New Testament. Gregory of Nazianzus (A.D. 329-89) posited that the Old Testament revelation established in the people of God the foundational fact of the unity of the Godhead. Thus the Trinity is not a certain fact of revelation until the Incarnation takes place.
One passing observation about the Shema, or the monotheistic statement of Deuteronomy is of interest. When the pious Jew recited, "Here, O Israel : The Lord our God is one Lord" (6:4), he used a word in that confession that can be understood in a latent Trinitarian sense. The phrase "our God is one" can be understood in the sense of unity, or community. The word "one" involves more than numerical meaning. It designates oneness-in accord, togetherness in the same place, or unity of mind. Centuries after the writing of Deuteronomy, the Dead Sea community designated itself as "the community" or the "oneness" with the same meaning of the word in the confession of Deuteronomy 6:4. As interesting as this may be, we must still confine ourselves to understanding it as latent anticipation of the New Testament.
The New Testament gives to us a unique set of data concerning the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There have been some, however, who have felt that the doctrine of the Trinity was imposed on, or imported to the New Testament. Adolph Harnack, for instance, deprecated the doctrine of the Trinity as the "Hellenizing of Christianity." Others have sought the source of the doctrine in Babylonian or Hindu ideology in which there are triads of gods. Such similarities are superficial. The Jews of the New Testament were rigidly monotheistic and held such polytheism in contempt.
The data of the doctrine of the Trinity did not evolve over centuries but is a fixed possession of the New Testament from the very beginning. The doctrine expresses the experience of the first eyewitnesses. The disciples had worshiped God the Father as Jews; in the man Jesus they came to know one who was the Son of God and to whom they accorded the title "Lord." Their experience on the day of Pentecost was the fulfillment of the promise of the Son before his ascension and that of the Father through the prophets.3
The data for the doctrine of the Trinity are of two types. First, there are statements that relate the three names together. The Great Commission (Mat_28:18-20 ) is an example of this. The Father, Son, and Spirit are mentioned together in the annunciation account in Luk_1:35 . The Holy Spirit is the power of the Most High, and the fruit of Mary's womb was to be the Son of God. In the baptismal scene of the Gospels (Luk_3:21-22; Mat_3:16-17; Mar_1:10-11; Joh_1:32-33), the Spirit descended on the Son with the pronouncement of the Father's good pleasure in him. The Fourth Gospel sets forth the promise of the Son concerning the indwelling Comforter sent from the Father (Joh_15:26). There are other statements4 in which a composite witness to the Father, Son, and Spirit are mentioned, but our attention must now be given to the second type of evidence.
The second type of evidence is that which speaks solely of the Deity of the Son or the Spirit without reference to the other two. For example, in John l:l reference is made to the divine nature of the Word, the Son, without mention of the Spirit. Thus evidence for the deity of Christ is evidence for the Trinity. The same principle holds true for the statements concerning the Spirit.
In considering this type of evidence it must be remembered that the first Christians were converted Jews with a strict monotheistic background. They had no bent toward polytheism, and it was not easy to ascribe deity to a human being. In addressing Jesus as Lord, they recognized in him the attribute of divinity. The simple statement that "Christ is Lord" (Rom_10:9) points up the early belief in the Trinity. In Christ the fulness of deity dwells bodily (Col_2:9) . The doubting heart of Thomas confessed Jesus as "Lord and God" (Joh_20:28), a confession that would be blasphemy concerning any other person. In the book of Titus, word is given concerning our hope and the appearing of the "great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (Tit_2:13 ) . The early confession of Peter was that Jesus is the Son of God (Mat_16:16 . In John's Gospel Jesus was accused of blasphemy (Joh_10:36) for making himself equal with God. In chapter 8, Jesus made an equation that the Pharisees could not overlook. He said, "Before Abraham was, I am" (v. 58 ) . He equated himself with the name of God in the Old Testament, "I am" (Ex. 3: 14).
Before concluding reference to the Son, we can note that the attributes or qualities that are generally designated to the Father are also attributed to the Son: holiness (2Co_5:21), omnipotence (Mat_28:18), eternity (Joh_1:1; Joh_17:5), life (Joh_1:4), immutability (Heb_1:11-12) , omniscience (Mat_9:4) , omnipresence (Mat_28:20), creation (Joh_1:3), judgment of all men (Mat_25:31-46), prayer and worship (Joh_14:12-14 ) .
The New Testament word on the Holy Spirit is not as prolific as that on the Son. The divine nature of the Holy Spirit is set forth in the Scriptures in a personal way. The Holy Spirit is not an impersonal "it" but a personal "he." In the apostolic rebuke of Peter to Ananias, the lie was told not to men but to God the Holy Spirit (Act_5:3-4). Philip was directed by the Holy Spirit to the eunuch (Act_8:29). The Holy Spirit directed the early church in its missionary activity (Act_10:19-20 Act_13:2) . The Spirit is the promise of the Son proceeding from the Father (Joh_14:16-17) . The Spirit helps the believer in prayer (Rom_8:26 , and we are warned against grieving the Holy Spirit of God (Eph_4:30) . Furthermore, the Spirit gives gifts for the service of God (1Co_12:4-11), he regenerates (Tit_3:5; Joh_3:5), teaches (Joh_16:13), and sanctifies the believer ( 1Pe_1:2 ). To conclude our thoughts about the Spirit, the so-called unpardonable sin emphasizes that the Spirit is holy and that sin cannot be committed against a more August person.
In discussing the biblical statements relating to the Trinity, there are certain principles that will help clear up some of the difficulties.
First, the principle of subordination in action. The principle of subordination in action must be clearly and carefully distinguished from subordination of nature. One form of false doctrine in the early church made the Son a subordinated creature in nature. The New Testament does not warrant such an assumption. There is, however, a subordination in action. This means that in order of activity and mode of action the Father is first, the Son is second, and the Spirit is third. B. B. Warfield has declared, "Whatever the Father does, he does through the Son, by the Spirit."5
Second, Augustine, following Athanasius, declared that texts implying subordination of the Son to the Father must refer to the Son as incarnate in the form of a servant and not in the form of God. The Son is inferior to the Father in his human nature only (cf.Joh_14:28 and Joh_10:30).
Third, the New Testament is primarily concerned with the work and action of the persons of the Trinity and not with their metaphysical relationship. Consequently a detailed doctrine is not elaborated in the Bible.
Fourth, we must not divide the Triune God into three Gods as though the Son alone has the work of redemption apart from the Father and the Spirit. The love of God the Father gives the motive for redemption; God the Son is the Redeemer; and God the Spirit inhabits the believer in application of redemption. Thus certain actions are attributed to one or another of the persons but that action involves no less than the entire being of God.
To conclude our remarks on the scriptural data and the Trinity, we must observe that the doctrine of the Trinity sums up a great deal of the gospel. Concerning God the Father, it embodies his promise of a "Christ to us." Of the Son, it is a word of "Christ for us." Of the Holy Spirit, it is a word of "Christ in us."

The Dogma of the Trinity

The distinction has been made between the facts and the doctrine or dogma of the Trinity. The doctrine involves the real problem of relating the facts. Does not a father imply a son and a son a father? From where and how does the Spirit proceed? The answers to these questions give us a doctrine or dogma.
Many were the problems and controversies in working out the doctrine of the Trinity. One of the great problems centered around language. The same terms were often used in totally different relations. After much debate, the doctrine was expressed in these orthodox terms :

"The Catholic Faith is this : that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance; for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one; the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so we are forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, There are Three Gods or three Lords." 6

The creed is misleading for our generation in terms of language. The word "person" does not have the same meaning for us that it had for the writers of the creed. Its use in the creed indicated "a permanent, individual mode or manner of Divine existence."7 The meaning of the Latin persona (English person) was "mask," as used by an actor to portray different characters on the stage. On the other hand, the early Greek Christians used the word "hypostasis," which meant subsistence or substance, or referred to "something which has substantial existence in its own right and not as a mere quality or adjective of something else."8 The Greek fathers spoke of "three persons in one substance."
It becomes apparent that terminology was a real problem in the early church. It is not less a problem for the modern mind. If we do not speak of the Trinity in terms of "person" with the idea of self-consciousness, we run the danger of destroying the clear-cut personal distinctions spoken about in the biblical references to God, Christ, and the Spirit. If we speak of God in terms of person, with all its contemporary implications, then the Trinitarian concept seems to border on the side of tritheism. But if we do not use the term "person," we use less than our highest term and run the danger of speaking of God in impersonal terms, and if we do we stand to lose what is unique to the Christian concept of God.
Some theologians discarded the phrase "three distinct persons.” John of Damascus described the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as "being immanent in one another though there is no confusion or mixture." 9 Basil declared, "Everything that the Father is, is seen in the Son, and everything that the Son is belongs to the Father. The Son in his entirety abides in the Father, and in return possesses the Father in Himself. Thus, the hypostasis subsistence of the Son is, so to speak, the form and presentation by which the Father is known, and the Father's hypostasis (subsistence) is recognized in the form of the Son."10
Emil Brunner remarks that a problem arises when we place the Son alongside the Father rather than to see the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son.11 The Son is not separate from the Father, but distinct in the Father. Likewise, the Spirit is through the Son and not, alongside the Son. This accords with the phraseology of John's Gospel "Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me" (Joh_14:11; cf. Joh_14:20, Joh_17:21 ) .
Whatever objection one may have about the creedal statements of the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine itself must be seen against the attempt to guard against certain serious heresies. The formulators of the creedal statement were intent on rejecting the ideas : that God is too far removed to be concerned for man, that the creation is evil and only spirit is good, that man's redemption took place by a creature less than God.
Augustine presents his plea concerning the Trinity: "As for our present enquiry, let us believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, maker and ruler of the whole creation: that Father is not Son, nor Holy Spirit, Father or Son; but a Trinity of mutually related Persons, and a unity of equal essence." 12

Analogies of the Trinity

The doctrine of the Trinity presents such a deep mystery to the mind that it gropes for some analogy to increase its understanding. We shall catalog a number of analogies but not without the principle that analogies at best are quite inadequate.

Physical: Water has a trinity of three forms: liquid, vapor, and solid. In a drink of wine, water, and honey each element permeates the whole. An egg has the yolk, white, and shell. A rope has three strands, but they are woven together to form a unity. A triangle has three sides to show that the Father is not the Son or the Spirit, and vice versa, but one triangle. Relationships involve one man who is at the same time father, husband, and son. Humanity gives a picture of three persons: Peter, Paul, and John, but a single humanity. A tree has its root (Father), stem (Son), and fruit (Holy Spirit). The early Church Fathers used the sun, the ray and the point of the ray. Sonship offers an analogy suggesting the Trinity. If God has a Son, his Son would have the same nature as he. God was always a Father; other wise, he would be changeable and evolving. The Son is of an eternal nature as the Father. He was one with the Father from eternity. This analogy does not refer to the Spirit but does point up the relationship to the Father by the Son.
Psychological: The most profound psychological analogies come from Augustine who completed his work De Trinitate in AD. 417. If man is made in the image of God, said Augustine, then the best analogies should be found in man. There is, first, the analogy of love. If God is love, then a lover must have a beloved. The spirit of love unites the two together. Thus we have God the Father as lover, God the Son as beloved, and God the Spirit as the spirit of Love. The analogy of Augustine is incomplete after the first two steps. Later writers attempted to improve on the analogy by explaining how the third person is a necessity. Perfect love is without jealousy and requires a third with whom to share love.
In the trinity of mind, knowledge, and love, Augustine began with the mind, proceeded to its knowledge of itself as mind, and then the mind's love of itself. Of these he wrote, "These three are one, and if perfect they are equal."13
A third analogy set forth by Augustine is the trinity of memory, understanding, and will in the single life of a person.
The value of the last two analogies lies in their presenting three functions from a single essence. They also set forth a coexistent or coinherent factor. However, the analogies are weak in that they are in one person while God is three-personal. In attempting to set forth helpful analogies on the Trinity and the problem centering around the word "person," we sympathize with the statement of Augustine that we say three persons, not to express the Trinity, but in order not to keep silent.

The Trinity and Other Doctrines

The doctrine of the Trinity does have an important bearing on other doctrines. Consider first the doctrine of revelation. Where do we obtain our knowledge of God? The Bible declares that Christ is the final and most complete expression of God's revelation to us (Heb_1:1-13) . In the final analysis God only can reveal God. In the fourth century Athanasius rightly argued that if Jesus was not the true Son of God and God incarnate, then he could not communicate a "true knowledge of God, since He can neither see nor know His own Father accurately."
Without the revelation of Jesus Christ, we are thrown back upon our own resources for obtaining a knowledge of God. In all honesty we must confess that a god that can be discovered by human effort is hardly worth discovering. If my idea of God is really mine, then I could attach little significance to it at all. If Jesus Christ is not God incarnate, I must confess that I know nothing of God and am thrown back upon a theology based on nature and the nebulous God of reason.
When the Trinity is rejected, the alternatives are generally Unitarianism or some form of vague pantheism. Unitarianism rejects the incarnate self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ. While Jesus may have been a man of significant religious insight, he cannot be regarded as the God-man in the traditional sense of the term. Thus the Unitarian only knows of God by reason and not by revelation.

Pantheism obscures the distinctions between God and man, and in some senses all men are manifestations of the divine. This fusion of the divine and the human wipes out the unique significance of Jesus Christ. His cross and its meaning become transformed into a principle that is an example for all people. Self-sacrifice becomes the principle for men to live by and therein lies their salvation-not in Christ's death! At the same time the pantheist's god is not yet made, because the world, being a part of God, is always changing and progressing. Pantheism tends to break up into polytheism where, in its more refined form, the beautiful in nature, genius in man, and truth in the mind become objects of worship. Thus facts of the Trinity are intimately related to a thoroughgoing doctrine of revelation.
The doctrine is important also for its relation to salvation. Among other things implied is that God, the Creator, is also Redeemer. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. If Jesus Christ was not incarnate deity, then our salvation rests upon a creature little higher than ourselves. Redemption would not rest in the nature of God. There is no room for Christian joy over the firm foundation of redemption if salvation does not rest in God alone.
The concept of the Trinity is important for the believer's orientation toward an understanding of God. If we disparage the facts relating to God's self-disclosure we are disparaging God himself. One should not show a kind of callousness to God's love wherein he seeks to reveal to man his inner nature and essence. He was not under obligation to reveal himself, but the fact that he did sets forth the truth that the lover seeks to communicate to the beloved. Calvary is not the only expression of his love: the revelation of himself as Father, Son, and Spirit is another expression of love. To be indifferent to it is a kind of insensitiveness that is difficult to conceive in men who profess to love God. God has spoken, and if we would know his love we must seek to understand his nature.
The implication for doctrine can be carried further in its relation to almost any Christian doctrine. Without the implications of the Trinity, the church becomes transformed into a lecture club or mutual aid society without a definite kergyma for declaration. The Christian hope, the return of Christ, is watered down to a kingdom of man, and the range of doctrine beginning with justification by faith, regeneration, sanctification, the indwelling of the Spirit, and Christian life receive a totally different but humanistic treatment.

Chapter V. The Trinity

1 A. Augustine, The Trinity, trans. John Burnaby ("'The Library of Christian Classics,"(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955), VIII, 129.
2 B. B. Warfield, Biblical Foundations (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1958), p. 84.
3 Compare Charles W. Lowry, The Trinity and Christian Devotion (New York: Harper & Bros., 1946), p. 67; and John Mackintosh Shaw, Christian Doctrine (London: Lutterworth Press, 1953), pp. 90-91; and Warfield, op. cit., p. 89.
4 Cf. 1 Cor. 12:4-6; Rom. 8:9; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; Jude 20-21.
5 Op. cit., p. 110; compare Rom. 2:16; 3:22; 5:1; Eph. 1:5; 1 Thess. 5:18-19 Titus 3 : 5.
6 The Athanasian Creed. It is one of the later creeds but one of the fullest in expression. Its date and origin are uncertain.
7 Lowry, op. cit., pp. 80-81.
8 Shaw, op. cit., p. 95.
9 R. S. Franks, The Doctrine of the Trinity (London: Gerald Duckworth & Co., 1953), p. 120.
10 J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York: Harper & Bros., 1958), p. 264.
11 Christian Doctrine of God, pp. 229-30.
12 op, cit., p. 58.
13 ibid., p. 60
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog

TBax · King Kong Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 2131

JP,

Nice long cut and paste. Shocked

Are you up to discussing it? Specifically the scriptures he used?

LIKE

Rocket · House Cat Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 160

RevJP As I have already posted I have studied all these things for the last 20 years, so please don't bother to post these long resitations from some little man with a PhD o.k. Why don't you try sitting down and reading God's word the Bible, you see that wasn't just some Jewish man claiming God is one it was God Himself.
When you read John 1:1 you read" In the beginning was word, . You believe it is talking about Yeshua, I believe that it is talking about God's word, the Bible. So don't be so quick to tear it apart. The Old Testament is a history of God's dealing with His people, the Jewish people are His chosen people. Yeahua was prophsied in the Old Testament by that little Jewish man.For each thing you copy paste about your church, I have 10 others.
The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine

by Cher-El L. Hagensick

The Rabbi ‘s deep voice echoes through the dusk, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord’.{# De 6:4} What a far cry that is from Judaism’s offspring, Christianity, and its belief in the Trinity. While the majority of the Christian world considers the concept of the Trinity vital to Christianity, many historians and Bible scholars agree that the Trinity of Christianity owes more to Greek philosophy and pagan polytheism than to the monotheism of the Jew and the Jewish Jesus.

The search for the origins of the Trinity begins with the earliest writings of man. Records of early Mesopotamian and Mediterranean civilizations show polytheistic religions, though many scholars assert that earliest man believed in one god. The 19th century scholar and Protestant minister, Alexander Hislop, devotes several chapters of his book The Two Babylons to showing how this original belief in one god was replaced by the triads of paganism which were eventually absorbed into Catholic Church dogmas. A more recent Egyptologist, Erick Hornung, refutes the original monotheism of Egypt: ‘[Monotheism is] a phenomenon restricted to the wisdom texts,’ which were written between 2600 and 2530 BC (50-51); but there is no question that ancient man believed in ‘one infinite and Almighty Creator, supreme over all’ (Hislop 14); and in a multitude of gods at a later point. Nor is there any doubt that the most common grouping of gods was a triad.1

Most of ancient theology is lost under the sands of time. However, archaeological expeditions in ancient Mesopotamia have uncovered the fascinating culture of the Sumerians, which flourished over 4,000 years ago. Though Sumeria was overthrown first by Assyria, and then by Babylon, its gods lived on in the cultures of those who conquered. The historian S. H. Hooke tells in detail of the ancient Sumerian trinity: Anu was the primary god of heaven, the ‘Father’, and the ‘King of the Gods’; Enlil, the ‘wind-god’ was the god of the earth, and a creator god; and Enki was the god of waters and the ‘lord of wisdom’ (15-18). The historian, H. W. F. Saggs, explains that the Babylonian triad consisted of ‘three gods of roughly equal rank... whose inter-relationship is of the essence of their natures’ (316).

Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the ancient Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian triads? No. However, Hislop furthers the comparison, ‘In the unity of that one, Only God of the Babylonians there were three persons, and to symbolize [sic] that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed... the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day’ (16).

Egypt’s history is similar to Sumeria’s in antiquity. In his Egyptian Myths, George Hart, lecturer for the British Museum and professor of ancient Egyptian heiroglyphics at the University of London, shows how Egypt also believed in a ‘transcendental, above creation, and preexisting’ one, the god Amun. Amun was really three gods in one. Re was his face, Ptah his body, and Amun his hidden identity (24). The well-known historian Will Durant concurs that Ra, Amon, and Ptah were ‘combined as three embodiments or aspects of one supreme and triune deity’ (Oriental Heritage 201). Additionally, a hymn to Amun written in the 14th century BC defines the Egyptian trinity: ‘All Gods are three: Amun, Re, Ptah; they have no equal. His name is hidden as Amun, he is Re... before [men], and his body is Ptah’ (Hornung 219).

Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the ancient Egyptian triads? No. However, Durant submits that ‘from Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity...’ (Caesar 595). Dr. Gordon Laing, retired Dean of the Humanities Department at the University of Chicago, agrees that ‘the worship of the Egyptian triad Isis, Serapis, and the child Horus’ probably accustomed the early church theologians to the idea of a triune God, and was influential ‘in the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity as set forth in the Nicaean and Athanasian creeds’ (128-129).

These were not the only trinities early Christians were exposed to. The historical lecturer, Jesse Benedict Carter, tells us of the Etruscans. As they slowly passed from Babylon through Greece and went on to Rome (16-19), they brought with them their trinity of Tinia, Uni, and Menerva. This trinity was a ‘new idea to the Romans,’ and yet it became so ‘typical of Rome’ that it quickly spread throughout Italy (26). Even the names of the Roman trinity: Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, reflect the ancestry. That Christianity was not ashamed to borrow from pagan culture is amply shown by Durant: ‘Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it’ (Caesar 595).

Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the Etruscan and Roman triads? No. However, Laing convincingly devotes his entire book Survivals of the Roman Gods to the comparison of Roman paganism and the Roman Catholic Church. Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan, a Catholic scholar and professor at Yale, confirms the Church’s respect for pagan ideas when he states that the Apologists and other early church fathers used and cited the [pagan] Roman Sibylline Oracles so much that they were called ‘Sibyllists’ by the 2nd century critic, Celsus. There was even a medieval hymn, ‘Dies irae,’ which foretold the ‘coming of the day of wrath’ based on the ‘dual authority of ‘David and the Sibyl”(Emergence 64-65). The attitude of the Church toward paganism is best summed up in Pope Gregory the Great’s words to a missionary: ‘You must not interfere with any traditional belief or religious observance that can be harmonized with Christianity’ (qtd. in Laing 130).

In contrast, Judaism is strongly monotheistic with no hint of a trinity. The Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) is filled with scriptures such as ‘before Me there was no God formed, Neither shall any be after Me’ (#Isa 43:10 qtd. in Isaiah), and ‘there is no other God...I am the Lord and there is none else’ (#Isa 45:14,18 qtd. in Isaiah). A Jewish commentary affirms that ‘[no] other gods exist, for to declare this would be blasphemous...’ (Chumash 458). Even though ‘Word,’ ‘Spirit,’ ‘Presence,’ and ‘Wisdom’ are used as personifications of God, Biblical scholars agree that the Trinity is neither mentioned nor intended by the authors of the Old Testament (Lonergan 130; Fortman xv; Burns 2).

We can conclude without much difficulty that the concept of the Trinity did not come from Judaism. Nor did Jesus speak of a trinity. The message of Jesus was of the coming kingdom; it was a message of love and forgiveness. As for his relationship with the Father, Jesus said, ‘... I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me’,{# Joh 5:30} and in another place ‘my doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me’;{# Joh 7:16} and his words ‘my Father is greater than I’ {#Joh 14:28} leave no doubt as to their relationship.

The word ‘trinity’ was not coined until Tertullian, more than 100 years after Christ’s death, and the key words (meaning substance) from the Nicene debate, homousis and ousis, are not biblical, but from Stoic thought. Nowhere in the Bible is the Trinity mentioned. According to Pelikan, ‘One of the most widely accepted conclusions of the 19th century history of dogma was the thesis that the dogma of the Trinity was not an explicit doctrine of the New Testament, still less of the Old Testament, but had evolved from New Testament times to the 4th century. (Historical Theology 134)

If the Trinity did not originate with the Bible, where did it come from? To find the origins of the Trinity in Christianity, we need to take a look at the circumstances in which early Christians found themselves.

Even the Church of the Apostles’ day was far from unified. The Apostle Paul wrote to the Thessalonians that ‘the mystery of iniquity doth already work’.{# 2Th 2:7} Throughout his book Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, the German New Testament scholar, lexicographer, and early Church historian, Walter Bauer, effectively proves that many early Christians were influenced by gnosticism. He believes it possible that certain ‘[heresies recorded by early Christian Fathers] originally had not been such at all, but, at least here and there...were simply ‘Christianity”(xxii). Bauer goes even further, as he proves that early Christians in Edessa appear to have been followers of the Marcion’s beliefs (considered heretical today), with ‘orthodox’ views being so strongly in the minority that ‘Christian’ referred to one with Marcion’s beliefs, and ‘Palutian’ to one with ‘orthodox’ (by today’s standards) beliefs (21-38). In his work The Greek Fathers, James Marshall Campbell, a Greek professor, bears out the great fear of gnosticism prevalent in the early church.

With Gnosticism being so predominant in this early period, it behooves one to learn what they believed, for many early church writings were defenses against gnosticism. Gnosticism borrowed much of its philosophy and religion from Mithraism, oriental mysticism, astrology, magic, and Plato. It considered matter to be evil and in opposition to Deity, relied heavily on visions, and sought salvation through knowledge. The late Professor Arthur Cushman McGiffert interprets some of the early Christian fathers as believing the Gnosticism to be ‘identical to [sic] all intents and purposes with Greek polytheism’ (50). Gnosticism had a mixed influence on the early Christian writers: like the pendulum on a clock, some were influenced by Gnostic thought, while others swung to the opposite extreme.

Knowledge was also the desire of the Greek philosophers. We owe a lot to these sages of old. J. N. D. Kelly, lecturer and principal at St. Edward Hall, Oxford University, states that ‘[the concepts of philosophy] provided thinkers... with an intellectual framework for expressing their ideas’ (9) to the extent that it became the ‘deeper religion of most intelligent people’ (9). The eminent theologian Adolf Harnack considered Greek philosophy and culture to be factors in the formation of the ‘ecclesiastical mode of thought’ (1: 127). According to McGiffert, the concepts of philosophy prevalent during the time of the early church were Stoicism, which was ‘ethical in its interests and monistic in its ontology’ and Platonism, which was ‘dualistic and predominately religious’ (46).

That these philosophies affected Christianity is a historical fact. What did these philosophers teach about God? In Plato’s Timeus, ‘The Supreme Reality appears in the trinitarian form of the Good, the Intelligence, and the World-Soul’ (qtd. in Laing 129). Laing attributes elaborate trinitarian theories to the Neoplatonists, and considers Neoplatonic ideas as ‘one of the operative factors in the development of Christian theology’ (129).

Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from Greek philosophy? No. However, in a comparison between the church of the third century and that of 150-200 years before, the noted German theologian, Adolf Harnack, finds ‘few Jewish, but many Greco-Roman features, and... the philosophic spirit of the Greeks’ (1: 45). In addition, Durant ties in philosophy with Christianity when he states that the second century Alexandrian Church, from which both Clement and Origen came, ‘wedded Christianity to Greek philosophy’ (Caesar 613); and finally, Durant writes of the famed pagan philosopher, Plotinus, that ‘Christianity accepted nearly every line of him...’ (Caesar 611).

World conditions were hardly conducive to the foundation of a new and different religion. Pagan gods were still the gods of the state, and the Roman government was very superstitious. All calamities were considered the displeasure of the gods. When the dissolute Roman government began to crumble, it was not seen as a result of corruption within, but as the anger of the gods; and thus there were strong persecutions against Christians to placate these gods.

In such a time was Christianity born. On one side were persecutions; on the other the seduction of philosophy. To remain faithful to the belief of Jesus Christ meant hardship and ridicule. It was only for the simple poor and the rich in faith. It was a hard time to convert to Christianity from the relatively safer paganism. In the desire to grow, the Church compromised truth, which resulted in confusion as pagans became Christians and intermingled beliefs and traditions. In his Emergence of Catholic Tradition, Pelikan discusses the conflict in the Church after AD 70 and the decline of Judaic influence within Christianity. As more and more pagans came into Christianity, they found the Judaic influence offensive. Some even went so far as to reject the Old Testament (13-14).

With this background, the growth and evolution of the Trinity can be clearly seen. As previously stated, the Bible does not mention the Trinity. Harnack affirms that the early church view of Jesus was as Messiah, and after his resurrection he was ‘raised to the right hand of God’ but not considered as God (1: 78). Bernard Lonergan, a Roman Catholic priest and Bible scholar, concurs that the educated Christians of the early centuries believed in a single, supreme God (119). As for the holy Spirit, McGiffert tells us that early Christians considered the holy Spirit ‘not as an individual being or person but simply as the divine power working in the world and particularly in the church’ (111). Durant summarizes early Christianity thus: ‘In Christ and Peter, Christianity was Jewish; in Paul it became half Greek; in Catholicism it became half Roman’ (Caesar 579).

As the apostles died, various writers undertook the task of defending Christianity against the persecutions of the pagans. The writers of these ‘Apologies’ are known to us now as the ‘Apologists’. Pelikan states that ‘it was at least partly in response to pagan criticism of the stories in the Bible that the Christian apologists... took over and adapted the methods and even vocabulary of pagan allegorism’ (Emergence 30). Campbell agrees when he states that ‘the Apologists borrowed heavily, and at times inappropriately, from the pagan resources at hand’ (23). They began the ‘process of accommodation’ between Christianity and common philosophy, and used reason to ‘justify Christianity to the pagan world’ (22-23).

The most famous of these Apologists was Justin Martyr (c.107-166). He was born a pagan, became a pagan philosopher, then a Christian. He believed that Christianity and Greek philosophy were related. As for the Trinity, McGiffert asserts, ‘Justin insisted that Christ came from God; he did not identify him with God’ (107). Justin’s God was ‘a transcendent being, who could not possibly come into contact with the world of men and things’ (107).

Not only was the Church divided by Gnosticism, enticed by philosophy, and set upon by paganism, but there was a geographic division as well. The East (centered in Alexandria) and the West (centered in Rome) grew along two different lines. Kelly shows how the East was intellectually adventurous and speculative (4), a reflection of the surrounding Greek culture. The theological development of the East is best represented in Clement and Origen.

Clement of Alexandria (c.150-220) was from the ‘Catechetical School’ of Alexandria. His views were influenced by Gnosticism (Bauer 56-57), and McGiffert affirms, ‘Clement insists that philosophy came from God and was given to the Greeks as a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ as the law was a schoolmaster for the Hebrews’ (183). McGiffert further states that Clement considered ‘God the Father revealed in the Old Testament’ separate and distinct from the ‘Son of God incarnate in Christ,’ with whom he identified the Logos (206). Campbell summarizes that ‘[with Clement the] philosophic spirit enters frankly into the service of Christian doctrine, and with it begins... the theological science of the future’ (36). However, it was his student, Origen, who ‘achieved the union of Greek philosophy and Christianity’ (39).

Origen (c.185-253) is considered by Campbell to be the ‘founder of theology’ (41), the greatest scholar of the early church and the greatest theologian of the East (38). Durant adds that ‘with [Origen] Christianity ceased to be only a comforting faith; it became a full-fledged philosophy, buttressed with scripture but proudly resting on reason’ (Caesar 615). Origen was a brilliant man. At 18 he succeeded Clement as president of the Alexandrian school. Over 800 titles were attributed to him by Jerome. He traveled extensively and started a new school in Cesarea.

In Origen we find an important link in the changing view of God. According to Pelikan’s Historical Theology, Origen was the ‘teacher of such orthodox stalwarts as the Cappadocian Fathers’ (22) but also the ‘teacher of Arius’ (22) and the ‘originator of many heresies’ (22). Centuries after his death, he was condemned by councils at least five times; however, both Athanasius and Eusebius had great respect for him.

As he tried to reckon the ‘incomprehensible God’ with both Stoic and Platonic philosophy, Origen presented views that could support both sides of the Trinity argument. He believed the Father and Son were separate ‘in respect of hypostasis’ (substance), but ‘one by harmony and concord and identity of will’ (qtd. in Lonergan 56). He claimed the Son was the image of God.

In the way in which, according to the bible story, we say that Seth is the image of his father, Adam. For thus it is written: ‘And Adam begot Seth according to his own image and likeness.’ Image, in this sense, implies that the Father and the Son have the same nature and substance. (qtd. in Lonergan 58)

He also maintained that there was a difference between the God and God when he said ‘_ß _&hibar; 2, __is indeed the God [God himself].... Whatever else, other than him who is called _ß _&hibar; 2, __, is also God, is deified by participation, by sharing in his divinity, and is more properly to be called not the God but simply God’ (qtd. in Lonergan 61).

As Greek influence and Gnosticism became introduced into the Eastern church, it became more mystical and philosophical. The simple doctrines that Jesus taught to the uneducated gave way to the complex and sophisticated arguments of Origen.

As Clement and Origen represented theological development in the East, so Tertullian had tremendous influence in the West. Kelly explains that the West, centered in Rome, gave greater credence to the traditional role of faith than to philosophy, and was more apt to expound on scripture (4).

It was Tertullian (c.160-230) who first coined the term trinitas from which the English word ‘trinity’ is derived. He clarifies thus the ‘mystery of the divine economy... which of the unity makes a trinity, placing the three in order not of quality but of sequence, different not in substance but in aspect, not in power but in manifestation’ (qtd. in Lonergan 46). At other times he used other images to show his point, such as the monarchy: ‘... If he who is the monarch has a son, and if the son is given a share in the monarchy, this does not mean that the monarchy is automatically divided, ceasing to be a monarchy’ (qtd. in Lonergan 47). Again, Tertullian explains the concept of being brought forth: ‘As the root brings forth the shoot, as the spring brings forth the stream, as the sun brings forth the beam’ (qtd. in Lonergan 45).

Tertullian did not consider the Father and Son co-eternal: ‘There was a time when there was neither sin to make God a judge, nor a son to make God a Father’ (qtd. in Lonergan 48); nor did he consider them co-equal: ‘For the Father is the whole substance, whereas the Son is something derived from it’ (qtd. in Lonergan 48). In Tertullian we find a groundwork upon which a trinity concept can be founded, but it has not yet evolved into that trinity of the Nicene Creed.

The world around the early Church was changing. The Roman empire began to crumble and Constantine came to power. He wished to unify the Empire, and chose Christianity to do so. But Christianity was far from unified.

Constantine invited the bishops from East and West to join him in the small seaside village of Nicea for a council to unify the church. McGiffert summarizes the council: three main groups were present at this council: Eusebius of Nicomedia presenting the Arian view of the Trinity, Alexander of Alexandria presenting the Athanasian version, and a very large ‘middle party’ led by Eusebius of Cesarea whose various theological opinions did not interfere with their desire for peace (259). Eusebius of Nicomedia submitted the Arian creed first and it was rejected. Then Eusebius of Cesarea submitted the Cesarean baptismal creed. Instead of submitting a creed of their own, the anti-Arians modified Eusebius’, thereby compelling him to sign it and completely shutting the Arians out. Those Arians who did not sign were deposed and exiled (261-263).

Thus Constantine had his unified Church which was not very unified. McGiffert asserts that Eusebius of Cesarea was not altogether satisfied with the creed because it was too close to Sabellianism (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three aspects of one God). Eusebius was uncomfortable enough with the Nicene creed that he felt it expedient to justify himself to his own people in a long letter in which he states that he ‘resisted even to the last minute’ until the words were examined and it was explained that the words ‘did not mean all they seemed to mean but were intended simply to assert the real deity of the Son...’ (264-265). McGiffert goes on to show that a ‘double interpretation [was authorized by the leaders] in order to win Eusebius and his followers.’ (266).

Lonergan shows just how much of the creed Eusebius took exception to as the words were explained. ‘Out of the Father’s substance’ was now interpreted to show that the Son is ‘out of the Father’, but ‘not part of the Father’s substance.’ ‘Born not made’ because ‘made’ refers to all other creatures ‘which come into being through the Son’, and ‘consubstantial’ really means that the Son comes out of the Father and is like him (75). It is clear that the council strongly lacked unity of thought. Lonergan goes on to explain that the language of debate on the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son has made many people think that the ‘Church at Nicea had abandoned the genuine Christian doctrine, which was religious through and through, in order to embrace some sort of hellenistic ontology’ (128). He concludes that the Nicene dogma marked the ‘transition from the prophetic Oracle of Yahweh... to Catholic dogma’ (136-7).

The end result was far less than Constantine had hoped. That he personally was never truly swayed to Athanasius’ views is amply shown by Durant: Constantine invited Arius to a conference six years later; did not interfere with Athanasius’ expulsion by the Eastern bishops; had an Arian bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia, baptize him; and had his son and successor, Constantius, raised as an Arian (Age 7-8).

The Nicene was not a popular creed when it was signed. Durant affirms that the majority of Eastern bishops sided with Arius in that they believed Christ was the Son of God ‘neither consubstantial nor co-eternal’ with his Father (Age 7). Arianism has never been truly quenched. While the West accepted the Athanasian view of the Trinity, and the East accepted the Trinity of the Cappadocian fathers, Arianism lives on in the Unitarian Church, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and in many smaller religions.

There is an unfortunate side to the whole Athanasian/Arian debate. Campbell could find no parallel in medieval nor modern times in the intensity of debate (49). Historically, this ‘doctrine of God’ has proved to be a bloody doctrine that has no relation to the true God of love, nor His Son Jesus Christ. Durant details the problems that arose from the Council at Nicea and summarizes that period with a dreadful verdict: ‘Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years (342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome’ (Age 8). Thus they perverted the teachings of Christ: ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’,{# Mt 19:19} and of his apostles: ‘If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and His love is perfected in us’.{# 1Jo 4:12}

The evolution of the Trinity can be well seen in the words of the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.2 As each of the creeds became more wordy and convoluted, the simple, pure faith of the Apostolic church became lost in a haze. Even more interesting is the fact that as the creeds became more specific (and less scriptural) the adherence to them became stricter, and the penalty for disbelief harsher.

In summary, the common culture of the day was one filled with triune gods. From ancient Sumeria’s Anu, Enlil, and Enki and Egypt’s dual trinities of Amun-Re-Ptah and Isis, Osiris, and Horus to Rome’s Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva the whole concept of paganism revolved around the magic number of three. In Greek philosophy, also, we have seen how the number three was used as an unspecified trinity of intelligence, mind, and reason.

In stark contrast, is the simple oneness of the Hebrew God. Jesus was a Jew from the tribe of Judah. He claimed to be sent to the ‘lost sheep of the house of Israel’.{# Mt 15:24} His apostles were all Jews. His god was the Jewish God. He called himself the Son of God and acknowledged his role as the Christ, {#Mt 16:15-17} and the Messiah. {#Joh 4:25-26} His message was one of love, righteousness, and salvation, and he despised the religious dogma of tradition. What a contrast from the proceedings of the Council of Nicea and the murders that followed! He gave the good news of his coming kingdom to the poor and meek: the lowly of this world. He did not require dogmatic creeds that had to be believed to the word, but rather said, ‘Follow me’.{# Mt 9:9}

There can be no doubt: Jesus was a stranger to all sides of the political proceedings in Nicea. He never claimed to be God, but was content to be God’s son. His creed was not of words that must be followed to the letter, but rather of spirit: ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God’.{# Mt 4:8} He did not require wealthy and learned bishops to mingle philosophy and pagan polytheism with his simple truth, but blessed the ‘poor’ and the ‘meek’.{# Mt 4:1-12} No, it was not from Jesus that the dogma of the Trinity came.

Is this positive proof that the Trinity owes it origins to paganism and philosophy? The evidences of history leave little doubt. The concept of the Trinity finds its roots in Pagan theology and Greek philosophy: it is a stranger to the Jewish Jesus and the Hebrew people from which he spran.

It is interesting to note that the Gnostics considered the Holy Spirit to be the ‘motherly mystery of God,’ based on its attributes. It is also interesting to note that a modern controversy wants to bring back the feminine side of the Trinity by making the Holy Spirit feminine. (This is a very weak argument based on the attributes of the Holy Spirit as Paraklete (comforter) and the fact that, in Hebrew grammar, the word for spirit, Ruach, is feminine.)

2. The three most famous Christian creeds are the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian (or Trinitarian). The words of these three creeds show us a lot about the evolution of the Trinitarian theology. The creeds are printed below as translated in the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England, and quoted in pages 18-20 of an unpublished work by Bible Scholar, Eugene Burns.

The Apostles’ or Unitarian Creed was the creed used during the first two centuries AD. It was not written by the Apostles, though it bears their name:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

apocatastasis · King of the Jungle Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 1827

TBax · King Kong Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 2131

Rocket,

Hi, Very Happy

I appreciate your extensive research, but oidily smoidily do you think such long posts are beneficial? Do you think JP will even read that or do you think he will give his patented "blaa blaa blaa..."responce. I don't know, maybe he will read it. Smile

There is one thing you said that I believe you should explain.

knuckle · Young Wolf Joined: 18 Sep 2006 Posts: 501

Hi T----------

oidily smoidily? Now that has to be the next big catch phrase!

much love---------knuckle

RevJP · Moderator Joined: 18 Apr 2003 Posts: 7005 Location: USA

Rocket, why is it that you ignore every response I've given you?
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog

Rocket · House Cat Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 160

TBax, Yes I know I'm in a trinity discussion forum, and yes you read my post correctly. John1:1 is used to try to claim it condones the trinity. John was just a person, he was not a prophet or a seer, he was an man chosen to follow the Messiah and sat down to write what he witnessed. He began his book with the first three words of Genesis. So to him the Bible would have been the inspired word of God.

Rev JP, Yes I read your post, and probably 100 others just like it. I am not an athiest, I am not Jewish, I just don't believe there is truth in a man made thealogy that is not inspired by God. You called the great commandment words written by a little Jewish man. There was another Jewish man who inspired me and His name was Yeshua. His life has been made a mockery by the church and I resent it. I'm sorry. There is no mystery in what God has done. None. Yeshua is not God incarnate or the second person of a pagan trinity. He is exactly what God fortold He would be in the prophecies of the Old Testament. The same Holy words that Yeshua would have read and believed when He walked the earth. You see Yeshua as some mysterious God/man, I see Him as a person whose faith and love was so strong that He allowed Himself to be given a mock trial, serverely whipped, and nailed to a cross, this is no mystery this is big time pain. Can't you see Him as a child listening to His mother tell Him about His birth, telling Him about the angel that visited her. Can't you see Him as a young man whose father had just died and knew He had to take over the support of His family according to Jewish law. Can't you see the mental and physical pain He suffered because He thought no one believed Him. Lastly it was not the Jewish people who put Him to death, it was the priests in the great temple who knew He knew their hearts and feared Him. Many Jews followed Yeshua's teachings.
I asked you to research the history of the church, you gave me it's theology. A theology created over time by the yearly council of Biships and Cardinals.
By the way, Pope Benedicts put many of the ancient fresnos on line at the Vatican site. They are magnificent.

RevJP · Moderator Joined: 18 Apr 2003 Posts: 7005 Location: USA

Rocket, apparently you have not read what I have posted to you, as you continue in your assumptions about me, and others, in regards to what you think we know, have studied , have not studied, etc. You make absolutely no effort to consider the idea that those who believe in the One True Triune God do so from an educated and considered POV.

From your last post, I see that you apparently have serious doubts as to the veracity of scripture, thus I wonder what point is there in discussing anything concerning the nature of God with you, if you are not going to trust in His Holy Inspired Word as the basis for your beliefs.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog

apocatastasis · King of the Jungle Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 1827

TBax · King Kong Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 2131

Rocket,

Hi, Very Happy

TBax · King Kong Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 2131

Rocket · House Cat Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 160

You make absolutely no effort to consider the idea that those who believe in the One True Triune God do so from an educated and considered

I beg to differ with you Rev JP, I understand you truly believe in this pagen triune God. I also realize that you are educated. The question I have, as I read your posts, where does your education come from. I read in your posts that you have blinders on when it comes to reading anything other then church doctrine.

I posted for you one of the most beautiful writings written about the triune God. Did you happen to read it? No! It started with the word Rabbi, a Jewish word so immediately you stopped reading. In the Bible Yeshua is also called Rabbi. The word simply means 'teacher'.

You also do not read or understand the Old Testament. Why? It's in your Bible, and it's put there for a reason. Without it you cannot understand 'the whole story'.

TBax, if you don't mind, I really do not want to rehash John l:l. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe. You also did not read the post on the trinity. Why?

RevJP, Sir, respect goes both ways. I once believed that the church taught true doctrine. I once recited words that said 'Holy trinity'. I'm sorry my posts make you unhappy. It makes me unhappy to know so many people will live and die without knowing the true Yeshua.

When Yeshua returns, do you actually believe He will return to Rome? Rome is not the Holy city, Jerusalem is. I can't post something I do not believe. I believe in a Jewish man called Yeshua. I believe He is real and walked the earth and is the greatest man who ever lived, bar none. I also believe in God, the creator of all things and I believe they are two separate beings. Many years ago, the Holy Spirit entered my life and my soul and changed me completely. After I was able to read the whole Bible and it made complete sense to me. You may not believe what I'm telling you, all I can say is search and find the truth.

apocatastasis · King of the Jungle Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 1827