Holy Trinity Discussion

[Orangeslice13]

It is incomprehensible because it is illogical. An unforced theological error. The more mainstream Christianity double downs on silly theological errors like the Trinity, the more market share they lose to non-believers, non-mainstream Christianity, and other religions (mainly Islam).

It’s unnecessary. Taking messiah at his word makes more sense and doesn’t diminish him, his message or the results of his actions in any way

 

[Orangeslice13]

Are you of the belief that the concept of the Trinity did not exist before Nicaea?

If we’re going by evidence….
(Copy pasta because I’m behind )
The first recorded reference to the Trinity concept is generally attributed to the early Christian theologian Tertullian, who used the term "Trinity" in his writings, particularly in his work "Against Praxeas", where he defended the distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one God; this occurred around the late 2nd century AD.

 

[bamawriter]

If we’re going by evidence….
(Copy pasta because I’m behind )
The first recorded reference to the Trinity concept is generally attributed to the early Christian theologian Tertullian, who used the term "Trinity" in his writings, particularly in his work "Against Praxeas", where he defended the distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one God; this occurred around the late 2nd century AD.

Well, in one reply we've gone from "300 years after the fact" to less than 200.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Hebrews 7-9 deals with the old law/new law in depth.

11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.

18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

8 Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.

7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said[b]:

“The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”[c]
13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

How and why did G-d dishonor himself by breaking his oath/promise?
How were people “saved” before Messiah?
Why will sacrifice and the temple system return in the 1000 years where Messiah returns and is king?
Does G-d have a G-d?
have a lot more but that’s a good start.


Remember,
-G-d declares the end from the beginning
-he is not a man that he would lie or change
-his words are the foundation of and established in heaven
-and Messiah says his words/law doesn’t pass away till heaven and earth pass away.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Well, in one reply we've gone from "300 years after the fact" to less than 200.

First guy to mention it doesn’t mean it’s acceptable doctrine.
There’s no newspaper and email. It was still in debate until the council. At that point the gonistics had just as large a presence.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Sooooo
200 years of my family brings us to the great great great great grandparents. I’m sure concepts changed in that time

 

[Orangeslice13]

I’m still wondering why Paul addressed the letters the way he did? If he thought Jesus was G-d then why did He send greetings from G-d and the (translated “Lord” but the word here translated lord is master/teacher and not Adoni like in Torah) Jesus?
If Paul thought that Jesus was the physical manifestation of G-d why doesn’t he say so?

 

[bamawriter]

First guy to mention it doesn’t mean it’s acceptable doctrine.

He coined a term to describe a belief system that had already formed. Tertullian didn't show up his buddy's house one day and say "I've got this cool idea called the Trinity. I think this could be huge!"

There’s no newspaper and email. It was still in debate until the council. At that point the gonistics had just as large a presence.

You should do more reading on Nicaea. The concept wasn't really debated. By that point Trinitarianism was nearly universal. The discussion was to give the Arianists a chance to adopt it or leave the Church. Out of 318 bishops, only 2 refused to sign. There was more debate over setting the date of Easter than there was over the Trinity.

 

[Orangeslice13]

He coined a term to describe a belief system that had already formed. Tertullian didn't show up his buddy's house one day and say "I've got this cool idea called the Trinity. I think this could be huge!"



You should do more reading on Nicaea. The concept wasn't really debated. By that point Trinitarianism was nearly universal. The discussion was to give the Arianists a chance to adopt it or leave the Church. Out of 318 bishops, only 2 refused to sign. There was more debate over setting the date of Easter than there was over the Trinity.

He coined a doctrine that he formed.

Nearly universal…..to the people at the council.
Don’t act like they’re the only people talking religion at that point. I’m sure the Gnostics were properly represented there.

 

[bamawriter]

He coined a doctrine that he formed.

No. You can't just rewrite the history of a concept with which you disagree. Even if you want to dismiss Trinitarianism in the scriptures, it's present in the writings of Ignatius, Theophilus, and Justin Martyr, all of which predate Tertullian.

Alan Freed popularized the term "rock and roll." He didn't invent rock and roll music.

Nearly universal…..to the people at the council.
Don’t act like they’re the only people talking religion at that point. I’m sure the Gnostics were properly represented there.

You can be "sure," but you'd be wrong. There is no evidence that gnosticism was addressed at Nicaea in any way, shape, or form. It would have been somewhere between difficult and impossible for a gnostic to become a bishop in the 4th century.

 

[me_grag53]

Yes. The priest we’re looking for any excuse they could find because he was a threat to their power. But ultimately the charge was claiming to be king of the Jews.
And ultimately it had to be that way. More than a few of the psalms were fulfilled because of it.

Luke says Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and she conceived. Who was Jesus father? Jesus said God was his father

 

[Orangeslice13]

No. You can't just rewrite the history of a concept with which you disagree. Even if you want to dismiss Trinitarianism in the scriptures, it's present in the writings of Ignatius, Theophilus, and Justin Martyr, all of which predate Tertullian.

Alan Freed popularized the term "rock and roll." He didn't invent rock and roll music.



You can be "sure," but you'd be wrong. There is no evidence that gnosticism was addressed at Nicaea in any way, shape, or form. It would have been somewhere between difficult and impossible for a gnostic to become a bishop in the 4th century.

I gotta be honest my friend, and I think I told you this before, I do these conversations for me. The topic of when the Trinity creeps in is settled in my mind. And it’s too far after the fact to be a factor in my thinking. I’m more interested in the thinking of Messiah, the 12 and how they practice their service of G-d. It’s ok if you disagree.
I guess the other thing I should say is…and I can explain why from the teachings of Messiah….I believe that my opinion of you is irrelevant at your judgement and your opinion of mine is the same, irrelevant. We will be judged on our own. You clearly have researched this and drawn your conclusions. That’s a win in my book.

I say all of that to say this. I’ve only briefly studied Ethiopia cannon vs the Protestant and the catholic. I believe I could benefit from that comparison and conversation if you’d like to have it.
Just say the word and we’ll figure it out. You can start or I will.

Gotta be up early tomorrow so I’m out in a couple of minutes.
Shalom friend

 

[Orangeslice13]

Luke says Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and she conceived. Who was Jesus father? Jesus said God was his father

That’s an interesting opening to going in a new direction.
I have 2 questions.
What flight of ideas took you there from my post?
And
Can you elaborate on the point you’re making?

Keep in mind that I differ from you in that I see messiah as Begotten of G-d and G-d is spirit. So one G-d and one begotten son of G-d.

To make sure my position is clear, it’s like saying G-d is fire. G-d is the only fire. There is no fire that isn’t G-d. Yeshua is an ember of that fire. The unique and only begotten ember. The very DNA of the fire…..but not the fire. He can do nothing without the fire. All power comes from the fire. Is one in purpose with the fire. But not the fire.

 

[bamawriter]

I gotta be honest my friend, and I think I told you this before, I do these conversations for me. The topic of when the Trinity creeps in is settled in my mind. And it’s too far after the fact to be a factor in my thinking. I’m more interested in the thinking of Messiah, the 12 and how they practice their service of G-d. It’s ok if you disagree.
I guess the other thing I should say is…and I can explain why from the teachings of Messiah….I believe that my opinion of you is irrelevant at your judgement and your opinion of mine is the same, irrelevant. We will be judged on our own. You clearly have researched this and drawn your conclusions. That’s a win in my book.

I say all of that to say this. I’ve only briefly studied Ethiopia cannon vs the Protestant and the catholic. I believe I could benefit from that comparison and conversation if you’d like to have it.
Just say the word and we’ll figure it out. You can start or I will.

Gotta be up early tomorrow so I’m out in a couple of minutes.
Shalom friend

I honestly don't know much about the Ethiopian canon. That's genuinely why I asked for clarifiication when you brought it up. All I honestly know is that all 27 books of the traditional New Testament are included. If there are textual differences, I would have to rely on you to point them out.

 

[Orangeslice13]

I honestly don't know much about the Ethiopian canon. That's genuinely why I asked for clarifiication when you brought it up. All I honestly know is that all 27 books of the traditional New Testament are included. If there are textual differences, I would have to rely on you to point them out.

You got me before I left for the night.
There are additional books included in their canon and the translations can be wildly different.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church

www.ethiopianorthodox.org

 

[OrangeTsar]

It is incomprehensible because it is illogical. An unforced theological error. The more mainstream Christianity double downs on silly theological errors like the Trinity, the more market share they lose to non-believers, non-mainstream Christianity, and other religions (mainly Islam).

Market share? What, you think this is some sort of popularity contest? I don’t care if only a handful of people believe it. The Truth is the Truth.
And what you call a „silly theological error“ is one of the earliest and most important tenets of the faith.
Jesus Himself said that the path is narrow and there will be few who find it.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Important point. The ruling class Jews may have carried out the act out of fear of him, but the sins of all mankind (past/present/future) killed him in the Garden of Eden in order that he might have salvation to give us all. The fact that Jews specifically called for the crucifixion is merely a fulfillment of OT prophecy. The inception of that prophecy was bred in the Garden.

Good point but I would go back even further. The Lamb who was slain BEFORE the foundation of the world.
God already knew the cost before the first protons formed. He accepted it because of His great love.
Satan thought he was pulling a fast one over on God in the Garden but everything was already in motion for a Redeemer.

 

[LouderVol]

Sooooo
200 years of my family brings us to the great great great great grandparents. I’m sure concepts changed in that time

I thought you were jews and could keep things perfectly for thousands of years just via verbal tradition.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Good point but I would go back even further. The Lamb who was slain BEFORE the foundation of the world.
God already knew the cost before the first protons formed. He accepted it because of His great love.
Satan thought he was pulling a fast one over on God in the Garden but everything was already in motion for a Redeemer.

“the lamb who was Slain….”
What was the Passover lamb for?

Point of reference.
“Satan” isn’t a name. It simply means “opposition” or “Opposer”. When Yeshua said “behind me Satan” he wasn’t calling his disciple Lucifer. He was saying your in opposition to my goals.

 

[Orangeslice13]

I thought you were jews and could keep things perfectly for thousands of years just via verbal tradition.

Negative. Oral tradition is very flawed. However the scribes who kept the scrolls were meticulous about preventing errors.
It’s an interesting study if you want to look into it. The smallest errors meant that they destroyed/burned the scroll. The writings of the New Testament had no such oversight. That’s how we wound up with (my favorite addition) snake handlers and poison drinkers in the end of the book of Mark.

It’s interesting that one of Yeshua’s biggest complaints to the Pharisees was their equating the oral tradition to the word of G-d.

Good question

 

[me_grag53]

That’s an interesting opening to going in a new direction.
I have 2 questions.
What flight of ideas took you there from my post?
And
Can you elaborate on the point you’re making?

Keep in mind that I differ from you in that I see messiah as Begotten of G-d and G-d is spirit. So one G-d and one begotten son of G-d.

To make sure my position is clear, it’s like saying G-d is fire. G-d is the only fire. There is no fire that isn’t G-d. Yeshua is an ember of that fire. The unique and only begotten ember. The very DNA of the fire…..but not the fire. He can do nothing without the fire. All power comes from the fire. Is one in purpose with the fire. But not the fire.

Isaiah 9:6For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
1Timothy:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

[GVF]

How and why did G-d dishonor himself by breaking his oath/promise?
How were people “saved” before Messiah?
Why will sacrifice and the temple system return in the 1000 years where Messiah returns and is king?
Does G-d have a G-d?
have a lot more but that’s a good start.


Remember,
-G-d declares the end from the beginning
-he is not a man that he would lie or change
-his words are the foundation of and established in heaven
-and Messiah says his words/law doesn’t pass away till heaven and earth pass away.

Before Messiah, salvation came through the sacrifices of the priests to roll sins forward. The crucifixion of Messiah was to erase sins of man eternal and provided a direct path of belief and acceptance for salvation through grace, with the heavenly sacrifical Lamb as the intermediary, not the earthly priesthood.

God did not lie. He said hte Israel of that time left him. Therefore, he sent another to form a new covenant. The Messiah.

Totally agree that Messiah said his words will not pass away. And they won't. But, as seen in Hebrews 7-9, God did replace the path to him with a new order. It is a very detailed and specific study and delineates between old law and new law. Or OT and NT. Or Levitical/Moses Law. Whatever term you use.

All of this was prophesied in the OT and came to fruition.

 

[LouderVol]

Negative. Oral tradition is very flawed. However the scribes who kept the scrolls were meticulous about preventing errors.
It’s an interesting study if you want to look into it. The smallest errors meant that they destroyed/burned the scroll. The writings of the New Testament had no such oversight. That’s how we wound up with (my favorite addition) snake handlers and poison drinkers in the end of the book of Mark.

It’s interesting that one of Yeshua’s biggest complaints to the Pharisees was their equating the oral tradition to the word of G-d.

Good question

abraham kept scrolls?

 

[GVF]

I don’t consider Hebrews to be worthy of being in the Bible. Way too many errors and written by a 3rd hand source. To me it’s like Talmud. Interesting to read their thoughts but closer to trash than inspiration.

My first question to your rejection of Hebrews is do you accept and acknowledge the Four Gospels.

 

[GVF]

2 points.
How long was it between “in the beginning “ and “Now”.
And
You know for 3000 years the Jews have taught that G-d was speaking to the heavenly court. Angels and whatnot.
Not once has G-d ever said they were in error

And a 3rd
I’ve found the garden of Eden location interesting too.
A big part of the Jew in me says it’s allegory. But an actual boundary is listed for a real place. It is interesting

Personally, I think that is impossible to establish. A day is a thousand years, and a thousand years a day. I don't discredit that the human time system is quite good. However, I've never been convinced that in God's eyes during creation, he was on a 24/7/365 clock. I think we have alot of info in hte geneologies to estimate years of human existance, but I've never seen an indication as to how long Adam & Eve had in the Garden to begin with.

And I also have trouble tying in their exit to the fruition of making babies and populating. Seemd awful quick in Genesis for Cain to be marked for protection from others. Where did they come from all of a sudden? We don't really have indication of how long they were expelled from Eden and populating and when Cain killed Abel. Otherwise, who did CAin need protecting from?

I just feel it's futile in the earliest existances of earth and man to geo tag a modern calendar to it past what we can trace in the geneologies. Kind o lends credence to the basis of what faith is. All that is well and good for satisfying curiosities, but it doesn't sway or affect my faith and salvation as offered to me.

There have been many discoveries in science and archeology that validate scritpures. However, Carbon dating the age of the earth is the one thing that doesn't jive with biblical timelines. Unless you can accept that time in God's creation and early expansion of man is on a timeline we cannot fathom. Then you can bridge the age of biblical existance to carbon dating saying the earth is X years old. Then I am more comfortable that the geneologies only provide us the necessary info that we need, and we need not bother with how long it took God to get to the point that he fed us some beginner data.


Not sure what the in error thing is referencing. Unless I had a typo.