Early Christians Believed in the Trinity

[bruceq]

15 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I'd like to continue to have this discussion, but your constant evading and intent to take this down rabbit holes, just doesn't convince me that you are capable of intellectual honesty. Those who follow down this thread to this point will see exactly what I am talking about. If you choose to continue,and truly want to have this discussion, then please by all means make the attempt to try. 

Nice cop out but dosen't work. PLEASE show us where in the BIBLE that God is a Trinity {that is THREE not two in one }? It should not be THAT hard for you to do. You have read the Bible before. If not please do so then come back and have an intelligent discussion on the BIBLE and the identity of GOD from HIS own Book. "YOUR WORD IS TRUTH" John 17:17

[bruceq]

15 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

You cannot develop a conversation without first laying a foundation of what the topic is. You can try and throw out all of your ideas and thoughts to the other party, but most will just go over their head, 

So for you the word "trinity" needs to be there for you to accept the view is possible? Got it. 

Is Governing body in there? 

Not that it belongs in this topic but in the Greek which is what the New Testament was written has the word "governing""2232. hégemón for "taking the lead" in several Scriptures. Show me where the Greek word "triados" {No Strong's # identi] or the Latin word "trinitas"  is located in the New Testament manuscripts please?

Also ask yourself as to WHY is the word "Trinity" is not in the BIBLE since it is God's own Book?

Why is the word "Trinity" only used a couple hundred years after the Bible was written and was used by MEN not God. And God said that an apostasy would happen after that time when they would speak "twisted things" to draw away disciples. And  they have been "Drawn away" into over 2,000 sects all claim to believe in the same ONE God and most of them to a Trinity God.?

Why does the Catholic "Dictionary of the Bible" by Meckenzie a Jesuit like the Pope admit that "the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching"? The very Catholic faith that is the origin of your Trinity God.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Trinity This... Trinity that... John said this.. John said that .. blahahahahaaa ...

If you want to know what the Apostle John knew and said in Revelation it's VERY simple... in LESS than  the FIRST 11 words!

In vision he saw BOTH God and Jesus in Heaven, and they were not  joined at the hip !

Be a sport ... look it up ..... Revelation 1:1 .... shows that GOD and Jesus are NOT the same. They at this time are BOTH in Heaven, and  GOD... IS NOT JESUS.

AAAAnd ... Revelation 1:1 is SOooo easy to remember.

New Living Translation
This is a revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants the events that must soon take place. He sent an angel to present this revelation to his servant John,

English Standard Version
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

Berean Study Bible
This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants what must soon come to pass. He made it known by sending His angel to His servant John,

Berean Literal Bible
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants what things it behooves to take place in quickness. And He signified it through having sent His angel to His servant, John,

New American Standard Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

King James Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
The revelation of Jesus Christ that God gave Him to show His slaves what must quickly take place. He sent it and signified it through His angel to His slave John,

International Standard Version
This is the revelation of Jesus the Messiah, which God gave him to show his servants the things that must happen soon. He made it known by sending his messenger to his servant John,

NET Bible
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must happen very soon. He made it clear by sending his angel to his servant John,

New Heart English Bible
This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things which must happen soon, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, John,

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
The Revelation of Yeshua The Messiah, which God gave to him, to show his Servants what had been given to soon occur, and he symbolized it when he sent by his Angel to his Servant Yohannan,

GOD'S WORD® Translation
This is the revelation of Jesus Christ. God gave it to him to show his servants the things that must happen soon. He sent this revelation through his angel to his servant John.

New American Standard 1977
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

Jubilee Bible 2000
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his slaves things which are convenient to do quickly, and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his slave John,

King James 2000 Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and revealed it by his angel unto his servant John:

American King James Version
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show to his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel to his servant John:

American Standard Version
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;

Douay-Rheims Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to make known to his servants the things which must shortly come to pass: and signified, sending by his angel to his servant John,

Darby Bible Translation
Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to shew to his bondmen what must shortly take place; and he signified [it], sending by his angel, to his bondman John,

English Revised Version
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to shew unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;

Webster's Bible Translation
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show to his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel to his servant John:

Weymouth New Testament
The revelation given by Jesus Christ, which God granted Him, that He might make known to His servants certain events which must shortly come to pass: and He sent His angel and communicated it to His servant John.

World English Bible
This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things which must happen soon, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, John,

Young's Literal Translation
A revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him, to shew to his servants what things it behoveth to come to pass quickly; and he did signify it, having sent through his messenger to his servant John,

.

 

[Cos]

20 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Hello Cos

Hopefully your grasp of scriptural detail is a little firmer than your assessment of gender.

General principles can be drawn from Biblical passages, regardless of context.

 Opposition to the Trinity does not necessarily make one a friend of the Truth.

Could you quote 1stC examples at all, other than Ignatius of Antioch whose quoted reference from his Epistle to the Magnesians, is attributed to 2nd C and appears really...insubstantial (pardon the pun): "whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit;"

Hello Mister Joyce,

 

My deepest and sincere apology on referring to you as “Ms” I meant  “Mr” all I can say is that I for some reason pressed ‘s’ instead of ‘r’. Please accept my apology.

 

You say, “General principles can be drawn from Biblical passages, regardless of context.” I disagree. Who decided what the “general principles” are? In fact 2 Peter 3:16 is applicable in this instance. One must be careful to not read their own ideas into Scripture that is not the intent of the author.

 

I had asked you to explain what you were taught on the Trinity when you were growing up a Roman catholic but you say nothing on this, so I will ask again, can you tell me what you were taught?

 

You ask if I can quote first century examples from the early Christians, you do know that the first century is counted from the year 1 to the year 100 AD? The second century begins from 101 to 200 and so forth. You know we are living in the 21st century don’t you? The last book of the NT was written in the early 90’s of the first century.

 

Anyway, at the turn of the century, that is 100 AD, a person called Clement, believed to be the Clement mentioned in Phil. 4:3, wrote a letter to the church in Corinth, in that letter he said;

 

“For as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect.... Amen.” (Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, 58:2)

 

The three are coordinated in this oath. This faith and hope by “the elect” (those, WHO BELIEVE the truth) is straight forward and is reliant on the three together.

 

Let me know if you require more proof on the Trinitarian belief of the first Christians. <><

[bruceq]

   Strange you have to go outside the BIBLE to prove God is Trinity even though he didn't even say it. Why was that?

   The Bible clearly shows what you believe to be true about Church Fathers that AFTER the Bible was written false doctrines wound spring up. So your very "proof" is proof that the Trinity came AFTER the Bible was written and is not in the Bible for if it was no men afterward would have needed to make statements or creeds to formulate a teaching that is already in the Bible in the first place.

 "I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you  and will not treat the flock with tenderness, ³⁰  and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves." Acts 20:29,30.

[bruceq]

Why do you use idolatry at  the end of all your sentences?

Deut 4:15-18 : 15 “Therefore, watch yourselves closely—since you did not see any form on the day Jehovah spoke to you in Hoʹreb out of the middle of the fire— 16 that you may not act corruptly by making for yourselves any carved image having the form of any symbol, the representation of male or female, 17 the representation of any animal on the earth or the representation of any bird that flies in the sky, 18 the representation of anything creeping on the ground or the representation of any fish in the waters under the earth"

[Cos]

20 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

JWs already believe that God is not triune. The argument is a rhetoric device used by JWs on those they are evangelizing. But there are some Christians who have come to the conclusion, based on Scripture, that God is not a Trinity. One notable example is Patrick Navas - https://truthmattersradio.wordpress.com/tag/patrick-navas/

As I say, the doctrine was a work-in-progress. Certainly before Tertullian, the ANFs tended to be Binitarian. The whole debate centered on the divinity of Christ, his ontological relationship with and his derivation from the Father. The reason I asked was because you seemed to be asserting something without giving anything in support and I wondered what you had in mind.

 

Hello Ms O’Maly,

 

You claim that the ANF “before Tertullian” tendered to be  “Binitarian” is not quite correct, those that put this idea forward are themselves Binitarian. See my resent post to Eoin Joyce.

 

JWs are not the only group that reject the Trinity, there are others such as Binitarians and Unitarians. What gets me is the JW “rhetoric device” you mention is a deception if you asked me, just a ploy to stop people reading the Bible and instead read JW publications. <><

[bruceq]

I am trying to get you to read JUST the Bible but you bring up things outside the Bible such as Church Fathers. Why the blatant hypocrisy"

Why not just go to the BIBLE ALONE to prove your Trinity? Is it perhaps because you already know it is not there and cannot be proven in Scripture?

[Evacuated]

10 hours ago, Cos said:

“For as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect.... Amen.” (Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, 58:2)

Interesting quote from Clement, Dated between 80 and 140 so rather flimsy in that respect.

However, I do not see the word Trinity here, or anything that would suggest the doctrine in the list of God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit. At any rate, there is cause for general skepticism regarding anything other than a mild historical interest in this writing in view of the assertions made 25:2-5 regarding the phoenix as a testimony to the resurrection.

I find any attempt to draw a trinitarian view from 58:2 objectively to be futile although I can quite accept that anyone completely convinced in the doctorine from other sources first would see trintarian shadows in any 3-part construction. This has been presented as proof of trinity in another forum posting.

Other points you raise I will respond to separately.

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Cos said:

My deepest and sincere apology on referring to you as “Ms” I meant  “Mr” all I can say is that I for some reason pressed ‘s’ instead of ‘r’. Please accept my apology.

No problem. Easily done. 

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Cos said:

You say, “General principles can be drawn from Biblical passages, regardless of context.” I disagree. Who decided what the “general principles” are? In fact 2 Peter 3:16 is applicable in this instance. One must be careful to not read their own ideas into Scripture that is not the intent of the author.

If you really think your disagreement with my statement on "general principles" is supported by your reference to 2 Pet 3:16, then I think you are in the wrong end of the pool.

Understanding how principle can be discerned in scriptural statements is a fundamental element of Bible study. My reference to Paul's words at 1 Cor 14:9 on the need for speech which is understood by the listener has validity, regardless of the immediate context in respect of inappropriate use of foreign tongues despite the Holy Spirit's empowerment. If I use language which my hearer cannot understand, then it is indeed a foreign language to them, regardless of it's origin.

[Evacuated]

On 5/10/2017 at 11:03 AM, Cos said:

Can I ask, what were you taught on the Trinity when you were growing up as a Roman catholic? I would like to know.

We had to learn and recite this:

"The Catholic faith is this: that we honor one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor separating the Substance. For one is the Person of the Father, another that of the Son, another that of the Holy Ghost. But of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost the Divinity is one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, such the Holy Ghost. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Ghost is uncreated. . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God; . . . and yet there are not three Gods, but there is one God. . . . The Father is not made by any one, nor created, nor born. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but born. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and the Son, not made, nor created, nor born, but proceeding."