Trinity

[Ross]

Where did this concept come from?

I would suggest it began with John 1:1

[Miles]

Where ever you like. GO!

Ok.

I'll keep it super simple.

Since the concept of the trinity exists nowhere in Scripture, post any verse, or passage, that you believe teaches the concept of the trinity and I will address it.

We can go from there.

See? This is fun.

Cooperative debate is where it's at.

All that arguing and belittling is nonsense. Cooperation is the goods.

GO!

Ah, no you don't. You don't get out of answering by shifting the responsibility. It's Still Yours to Go First

Where ever you like. GO!

Scripture 1 ____________________________________________________________________________________

Scripture 2 ____________________________________________________________________________________

Scripture 3 ____________________________________________________________________________________

Scripture 4 ____________________________________________________________________________________


Aaaannnddd, as I already pointed out "I posted quotes from one (1) author, not about the legitimacy of the trinity, but its origins in Christian theology. If you can't tell the difference you have my sympathy." And now you have me feeling sympathy².

.

[tigger 2]

Ross wrote:

1/ "There is no 'a' in the Greek text of John 1:1, and you have went [sic] to exhaustive lengths to defend the addition of this word."

.........................................
You need to read studies very carefully. Early on in the "Primer" study I wrote:

"Before we examine all of John's uses of the predicate noun before its verb, we may need to review some basic grammar: We are dealing exclusively with nouns as found in John 1:1c. That is, a word which is a person, place, or thing and which can be used with both an indefinite article ('a' or 'an' - in English only. Greek has no indefinite article) and a definite article ('the') and which can be properly changed into a recognizably plural form (these are sometimes called 'count nouns.')"

So, yes, there is no "a" anywhere in the Greek text of the NT. But translators add the indefinite article where it is needed in English. I have given you a batch of such examples. In fact, just open your Bible and look at the numerous nouns which do have the indefinite article. They do not exist in the Greek text, but are understood.

Trinitarian translators and NT grammarians know this, but in order to have a trinitarian 'proof,' they have invented their own rules on why "the" should be understood before theos in John 1:1c. This is the key for theos being understood to refer to God instead of a god. First it was Colwell who invented Colwell's Rule in 1933. When this was found wanting by many (some still use it), the Qualitative rule was invented by Harner in 1973.

Both Colwell and Harner used the word order of John 1:1c (anarthrous predicate noun [as a count noun] found before the verb) makes theos, somehow become definite, and, therefore, in the case of John 1:1c "the god" ("God"). Anyone can do what I did. Just take all of John's uses of parallel constructions of John 1:1c and see how all Bibles have translated them. If you actually read all of my study with any care, you should see that they all translate all 18 examples which are truly parallel (like "prophet is he" is translated "he is a prophet.")

Please read the study with some care. http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/ - See: "John 1:1c Primer"

Please don't say that is too difficult to understand. Or if you honestly don't understand, please ask - - one question at a time.

[bjs1]

Where did this concept come from?

I would suggest it began with John 1:1

I would suggest that it was established at the Nicene Council convened by the Roman emperor Constantine (beast with two horns like a lamb) in 325 A.D., and became authoritarian by the decree of the Roman emperor Theodosius in 380 A.D. .

Tertullian, in his Adversus Praxeas (c. 210 A.D.), defended the doctrine of the trinity, and described the doctrine as referring to one God who exists in the three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This means that the doctrine of the Trinity was established more than a century before the Nicene Council. More than that, Tertullian defend the doctrine; he did not create it. So by the start of the 3rd century the doctrine not only existed, but it was well established enough to have critics and to be defended by one of the most prominent writers of the day.

The idea that the doctrine of the Trinity was established at the Nicene Council cannot be considered historically accurate.

Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea because of the turmoil being raised, in his empire, between the different factions regarding the Trinity. Even during the process, the ruling went both ways, and finally ended with the Trinity doctrine, which was upheld by the power of Rome, and made authoritarian by the Theodosius in 380 A.D. So you see, the tare seed, the message of the "enemy"/"evil one"/"devil" (Matthew 13) is upheld by the "beast with two horns like a lamb", Constantine, whose power via his Roman church, will last until time, times, and half a time (Daniel 7:25), whereas it will then be "annihilated and destroyed forever". Your Tertullian, would no doubt be listed among the "shepherds", or "fat" shepherds, who did not feed, nor heal the sheep per Ezekiel 34:16, and will be judged accordingly. Whereas the "LORD" will then judge between "one sheep and another", and then "set" over them "one shepherd" "My servant David" (Ezekiel 34:23-24).

You are free to interpret apocalyptic literature any way you want, and I wasn’t particularly supporting Tertullian. It remains objectively true that neither Constantine the Great nor the Nicene Council established the doctrine of the Trinity. It was a well established doctrine more than a century before either of them came along.

[1213]

...If Jesus is NOT God, then God has a whole lotta explaining to do as the entire Bible supports the concept of Christ being God Almighty. The entire story falls apart if Christ is not God.

Sorry, I don't see any reason to believe that. Please explain why do you think so?

[2ndpillar2]

Where did this concept come from?

I would suggest it began with John 1:1

I would suggest that it was established at the Nicene Council convened by the Roman emperor Constantine (beast with two horns like a lamb) in 325 A.D., and became authoritarian by the decree of the Roman emperor Theodosius in 380 A.D. .

Tertullian, in his Adversus Praxeas (c. 210 A.D.), defended the doctrine of the trinity, and described the doctrine as referring to one God who exists in the three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This means that the doctrine of the Trinity was established more than a century before the Nicene Council. More than that, Tertullian defend the doctrine; he did not create it. So by the start of the 3rd century the doctrine not only existed, but it was well established enough to have critics and to be defended by one of the most prominent writers of the day.

The idea that the doctrine of the Trinity was established at the Nicene Council cannot be considered historically accurate.

Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea because of the turmoil being raised, in his empire, between the different factions regarding the Trinity. Even during the process, the ruling went both ways, and finally ended with the Trinity doctrine, which was upheld by the power of Rome, and made authoritarian by the Theodosius in 380 A.D. So you see, the tare seed, the message of the "enemy"/"evil one"/"devil" (Matthew 13) is upheld by the "beast with two horns like a lamb", Constantine, whose power via his Roman church, will last until time, times, and half a time (Daniel 7:25), whereas it will then be "annihilated and destroyed forever". Your Tertullian, would no doubt be listed among the "shepherds", or "fat" shepherds, who did not feed, nor heal the sheep per Ezekiel 34:16, and will be judged accordingly. Whereas the "LORD" will then judge between "one sheep and another", and then "set" over them "one shepherd" "My servant David" (Ezekiel 34:23-24).

You are free to interpret apocalyptic literature any way you want, and I wasn’t particularly supporting Tertullian. It remains objectively true that neither Constantine the Great nor the Nicene Council established the doctrine of the Trinity. It was a well established doctrine more than a century before either of them came along.

I am not sure what you mean by "apocalyptic literature". The literature about Har-Magedon that stands out is Revelation 16:16, which targets the "nations"/Gentiles (Revelation 16:19), and refers to the "beast", which according to Revelation 13 & 17, refers to the Roman emperors (Caesars) and their kingdoms, past and present such as the present day Kaiser/Caesar and Czar/Caesar, and the prominent one, which is to "deceive" those "who dwell on the earth" (Revelation 13:14), the "beast with two horns (Peter and Paul) like a lamb (Christ)", who would be the Roman emperor Constantine, in which anyone found with his mark, will drink from the cup of God's anger (Revelation 14:10) in "the presence of the "holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb", which sets apart God and his angels, and the Lamb, which would shatter your premise that God and the Lamb are the same entity. But once you drink the Kool Aide of the false prophet Paul and his associates and followers, such as Tertulian, black is white and white is black, good is evil, and evil is good, and the "many" follow the wide path to "destruction" (Matthew 7:13-15). The Council of Nicaean was convened by Constantine to determine which dogma was correct, so as to eliminate strive in Constantine's empire. It was Roman the emperor Theodosius in 380 A.D. who threw out the non-Nicene bishop and decreed that the Nicene Trinitarian Christianity as the only legitimate Imperial religion. It is a two chapter story.

[Ross]

Ross wrote:

1/ "There is no 'a' in the Greek text of John 1:1, and you have went to exhaustive lengths to defend the addition of this word."

.........................................
You need to read studies very carefully. Early on in the "Primer" study I wrote:

"Before we examine all of John's uses of the predicate noun before its verb, we may need to review some basic grammar: We are dealing exclusively with nouns as found in John 1:1c. That is, a word which is a person, place, or thing and which can be used with both an indefinite article ('a' or 'an' - in English only. Greek has no indefinite article) and a definite article ('the') and which can be properly changed into a recognizably plural form (these are sometimes called 'count nouns.')"

So, yes, there is no "a" anywhere in the Greek text of the NT. But translators add the indefinite article where it is needed in English. I have given you a batch of such examples. In fact, just open your Bible and look at the numerous nouns which do have the indefinite article. They do not exist in the Greek text, but are understood.

Trinitarian translators and NT grammarians know this, but in order to have a trinitarian 'proof,' they have invented their own rules on why "the" should be understood before theos in John 1:1c. This is the key for theos being understood to refer to God instead of a god. First it was Colwell who invented Colwell's Rule in 1933. When this was found wanting by many (some still use it), the Qualitative rule was invented by Harner in 1973.

Both Colwell and Harner used the word order of John 1:1c (anarthrous predicate noun [as a count noun] found before the verb) makes theos, somehow become definite, and, therefore, in the case of John 1:1c "the god" ("God"). Anyone can do what I did. Just take all of John's uses of parallel constructions of John 1:1c and see how all Bibles have translated them. If you actually read all of my study with any care, you should see that they all translate all 18 examples which are truly parallel (like "prophet is he" is translated "he is a prophet.")

Please read the study with some care. http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/ - See: "John 1:1c Primer"

Please don't say that is too difficult to understand. Or if you honestly don't understand, please ask - - one question at a time.

Tigger, with respect, I don't need or wish to read your exhaustive blog or studies with care as I understand basically without all of the grammatical jargon, what you are concluding. The Watchtower literature does exactly the same thing; makes relative simplicity appear overly complicated.

When you say: "one question at a time," you yourself have posted a blog of a very large deal of information expecting me to hand my thread over to your blog. It would have been more polite and appropriate for you to post here your own "0ne point or question at a time".

So here briefly and in easy to understand language is my answer to what I consider to be your and the Jehovah's Witnesses erroneous adaptation of John 1:1 c:

JOHN 1:1 literal translation to English:

(a) IN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD
(b) AND THE WORD WAS FACE TO FACE WITH THE GOD
(C) AND GOD WAS THE WORD

For those who may not understand, the definite article that Tigger is referring to is 'THE'.

(a) THE WORD
(b) THE WORD, THE GOD
(c) THE WORD

J.W.ORG and from what I can gather also Tigger, conclude that because there is a definite article applied to GOD in (b) but not to GOD in (c), then this must indicate that THE GOD of (b) is THE only Almighty God, and that the mere GOD of (c) is a lesser GOD, an inferior GOD, a subordinate lower in rank Godlike one; 'a god.'

This however misses the whole glorious message of the Prologue of John.

It must not be overlooked that THE WORD is the subject and central character of the verse and the chapter, that he is referenced with the definite article three times in the verse, and THE GOD ( I think all would agree, being The Father) once.

If John had said " AND THE WORD WAS THE GOD" this would have meant that the Word was the Father and the Father was THE WORD."

The carefully constructed (c) "AND GOD WAS THE WORD" or with grammar corrected into English: "AND THE WORD WAS GOD" was never meant to convey a meaning that there was two Gods, or an Almighty and a lesser ' a god.'

The obvious and correct understanding of the text, is that "GOD" in John 1:1 c is referring to THE WORD'S nature, being, quality, divine essence. THE WORD is also GOD, absolute deity. "THE WORD WAS GOD"

[tigger 2]

[Replying to Ross in post #46]

Ross wrote (post #18): "Hi Tigger,
I would very much like to discuss these matters with you, but not if you simply ask me to read J.W.ORG propaganda.
Are you able to put these points or even one of them into your own words please?"

Obviously, you don't wish to discuss John 1:1c with me. I not only told you that my studies are in my own words, but I gave you a very clear, understandable, brief rephrasing of an important aspect of my study of John 1:1c (PRIMER) in my last post. You have ignored it entirely.

If anyone else wishes to actually discuss it with me, please reply to my last post (#42). Or actually read my study:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... er_21.html

OR,

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... 11c-a.html

[onewithhim]

...If Jesus is NOT God, then God has a whole lotta explaining to do as the entire Bible supports the concept of Christ being God Almighty. The entire story falls apart if Christ is not God.

Sorry, I don't see any reason to believe that. Please explain why do you think so?

I don't believe that either. The entire story has fallen apart with the contention that Jesus is God. It doesn't make sense when hundreds of verses are assessed. See the thread "Jesus is not God" to see many verses that show that Jesus could not be God.

[bjs1]

Where did this concept come from?

I would suggest it began with John 1:1

I would suggest that it was established at the Nicene Council convened by the Roman emperor Constantine (beast with two horns like a lamb) in 325 A.D., and became authoritarian by the decree of the Roman emperor Theodosius in 380 A.D. .

Tertullian, in his Adversus Praxeas (c. 210 A.D.), defended the doctrine of the trinity, and described the doctrine as referring to one God who exists in the three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This means that the doctrine of the Trinity was established more than a century before the Nicene Council. More than that, Tertullian defend the doctrine; he did not create it. So by the start of the 3rd century the doctrine not only existed, but it was well established enough to have critics and to be defended by one of the most prominent writers of the day.

The idea that the doctrine of the Trinity was established at the Nicene Council cannot be considered historically accurate.

Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea because of the turmoil being raised, in his empire, between the different factions regarding the Trinity. Even during the process, the ruling went both ways, and finally ended with the Trinity doctrine, which was upheld by the power of Rome, and made authoritarian by the Theodosius in 380 A.D. So you see, the tare seed, the message of the "enemy"/"evil one"/"devil" (Matthew 13) is upheld by the "beast with two horns like a lamb", Constantine, whose power via his Roman church, will last until time, times, and half a time (Daniel 7:25), whereas it will then be "annihilated and destroyed forever". Your Tertullian, would no doubt be listed among the "shepherds", or "fat" shepherds, who did not feed, nor heal the sheep per Ezekiel 34:16, and will be judged accordingly. Whereas the "LORD" will then judge between "one sheep and another", and then "set" over them "one shepherd" "My servant David" (Ezekiel 34:23-24).

You are free to interpret apocalyptic literature any way you want, and I wasn’t particularly supporting Tertullian. It remains objectively true that neither Constantine the Great nor the Nicene Council established the doctrine of the Trinity. It was a well established doctrine more than a century before either of them came along.

I am not sure what you mean by "apocalyptic literature". The literature about Har-Magedon that stands out is Revelation 16:16, which targets the "nations"/Gentiles (Revelation 16:19), and refers to the "beast", which according to Revelation 13 & 17, refers to the Roman emperors (Caesars) and their kingdoms, past and present such as the present day Kaiser/Caesar and Czar/Caesar, and the prominent one, which is to "deceive" those "who dwell on the earth" (Revelation 13:14), the "beast with two horns (Peter and Paul) like a lamb (Christ)", who would be the Roman emperor Constantine, in which anyone found with his mark, will drink from the cup of God's anger (Revelation 14:10) in "the presence of the "holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb", which sets apart God and his angels, and the Lamb, which would shatter your premise that God and the Lamb are the same entity. But once you drink the Kool Aide of the false prophet Paul and his associates and followers, such as Tertulian, black is white and white is black, good is evil, and evil is good, and the "many" follow the wide path to "destruction" (Matthew 7:13-15). The Council of Nicaean was convened by Constantine to determine which dogma was correct, so as to eliminate strive in Constantine's empire. It was Roman the emperor Theodosius in 380 A.D. who threw out the non-Nicene bishop and decreed that the Nicene Trinitarian Christianity as the only legitimate Imperial religion. It is a two chapter story.

Apocalyptic comes from the Greek word meaning “to reveal” or “to pull back the curtain.” Apocalyptic literature is a literature that uses symbolic images as prophetic descriptions of the future. Daniel and Revelation are the models for all other apocalyptic literature. These books are inherently open to interpretation, which is why interpreters are able to talk about Paul and Peter and Constantine the Great when interpreting Revelation. (I admit that this particular interpretation is an uncomfortable fit that has to be shoehorned onto the text, which is why it is almost non-existent outside of the Jehovah’s Witness tradition.)

None of this changes the historical fact that neither Constantine the Great nor the council of Nicaea established the doctrine of the Trinity. That doctrine was established more than a century earlier.

[2ndpillar2]

Where did this concept come from?

I would suggest it began with John 1:1

I would suggest that it was established at the Nicene Council convened by the Roman emperor Constantine (beast with two horns like a lamb) in 325 A.D., and became authoritarian by the decree of the Roman emperor Theodosius in 380 A.D. .

Tertullian, in his Adversus Praxeas (c. 210 A.D.), defended the doctrine of the trinity, and described the doctrine as referring to one God who exists in the three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This means that the doctrine of the Trinity was established more than a century before the Nicene Council. More than that, Tertullian defend the doctrine; he did not create it. So by the start of the 3rd century the doctrine not only existed, but it was well established enough to have critics and to be defended by one of the most prominent writers of the day.

The idea that the doctrine of the Trinity was established at the Nicene Council cannot be considered historically accurate.

Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea because of the turmoil being raised, in his empire, between the different factions regarding the Trinity. Even during the process, the ruling went both ways, and finally ended with the Trinity doctrine, which was upheld by the power of Rome, and made authoritarian by the Theodosius in 380 A.D. So you see, the tare seed, the message of the "enemy"/"evil one"/"devil" (Matthew 13) is upheld by the "beast with two horns like a lamb", Constantine, whose power via his Roman church, will last until time, times, and half a time (Daniel 7:25), whereas it will then be "annihilated and destroyed forever". Your Tertullian, would no doubt be listed among the "shepherds", or "fat" shepherds, who did not feed, nor heal the sheep per Ezekiel 34:16, and will be judged accordingly. Whereas the "LORD" will then judge between "one sheep and another", and then "set" over them "one shepherd" "My servant David" (Ezekiel 34:23-24).

You are free to interpret apocalyptic literature any way you want, and I wasn’t particularly supporting Tertullian. It remains objectively true that neither Constantine the Great nor the Nicene Council established the doctrine of the Trinity. It was a well established doctrine more than a century before either of them came along.

I am not sure what you mean by "apocalyptic literature". The literature about Har-Magedon that stands out is Revelation 16:16, which targets the "nations"/Gentiles (Revelation 16:19), and refers to the "beast", which according to Revelation 13 & 17, refers to the Roman emperors (Caesars) and their kingdoms, past and present such as the present day Kaiser/Caesar and Czar/Caesar, and the prominent one, which is to "deceive" those "who dwell on the earth" (Revelation 13:14), the "beast with two horns (Peter and Paul) like a lamb (Christ)", who would be the Roman emperor Constantine, in which anyone found with his mark, will drink from the cup of God's anger (Revelation 14:10) in "the presence of the "holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb", which sets apart God and his angels, and the Lamb, which would shatter your premise that God and the Lamb are the same entity. But once you drink the Kool Aide of the false prophet Paul and his associates and followers, such as Tertulian, black is white and white is black, good is evil, and evil is good, and the "many" follow the wide path to "destruction" (Matthew 7:13-15). The Council of Nicaean was convened by Constantine to determine which dogma was correct, so as to eliminate strive in Constantine's empire. It was Roman the emperor Theodosius in 380 A.D. who threw out the non-Nicene bishop and decreed that the Nicene Trinitarian Christianity as the only legitimate Imperial religion. It is a two chapter story.

Apocalyptic comes from the Greek word meaning “to reveal” or “to pull back the curtain.” Apocalyptic literature is a literature that uses symbolic images as prophetic descriptions of the future. Daniel and Revelation are the models for all other apocalyptic literature. These books are inherently open to interpretation, which is why interpreters are able to talk about Paul and Peter and Constantine the Great when interpreting Revelation. (I admit that this particular interpretation is an uncomfortable fit that has to be shoehorned onto the text, which is why it is almost non-existent outside of the Jehovah’s Witness tradition.)

None of this changes the historical fact that neither Constantine the Great nor the council of Nicaea established the doctrine of the Trinity. That doctrine was established more than a century earlier.

If it was established a century earlier, then why was the Council of Nicaea convened? Introducing a point of view is not the same as "establishing" a view, which was antithetical to other church "leaders" such as Eusebius, who was an original leader of the Arian faction. As for the JW's they apparently love Paul as well as Peter, and apparently, except for minor editing, they love the NT canon produced by the "daughter of Babylon". There was no "shoe horning", Yeshua quoted Zechariah 11:12-13 in Matthew 27:9-10 with respect to Judas Iscariot, and quoted Zechariah 13:7, with respect to Peter in Matthew 26:31. As for the "lawlessness" of Paul, Yehsua mimics Psalms 6:8 & Revelation 2:14 in Matthew 7:23 & Matthew 13:41. Revelation 2:14 also includes the "stumbling block" with regards to Peter in Matthew 16:23. Matthew 7:21-23 would be an exact fit for the "false prophets" (Matthew 7:15) Paul, as Paul calls on the name of the "Lord", supposedly "cast out demons", and supposedly "did miracles".