Historical development of the Trinity

[Pierac]

It seems this forum has many debates upon on the doctrine of the trinity... Perhaps one must start from the beginning to understand the issues/debate!

Most people who believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity claim that at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, all the church did was to officially declare a doctrine that had always been the teaching of the church. But if this is true, ask yourself why? Why would the church have to make any kind of official declaration about a doctrine that was supposed to be established from the beginning? There is no doctrine on whether Jesus resurrected or not. It was an established teaching. The idea that Jesus was God, was not. This is why the church required an official declaration to formally establish this as orthodox. It was a developing idea. It was not a teaching of the early church that had been established by the apostles. An important thing to note in support of this fact is that even at Nicaea when with Emperor Constantine’s help, they rammed this doctrine through as orthodox, they did not include the Holy Spirit as part of the formula. Again, why not? How could they forget that the trinity included the Holy Spirit? Because it was a developing idea, and at this point in time (Nicaea), all the church was willing to concede to was a binity. It would have to wait until the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD to include the Holy Spirit in their formula and thus complete the trinity.

An excellent proof that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not an established teaching of the early Christians is in a letter by one of the trinity’s greatest exponents, Tertullian of Carthage. Even though his understanding of it was that the Son was subordinate to the Father, which is contrary to today’s Doctrine of the Trinity, his writings were unfortunately, very influential in the development of this doctrine. He wrote about it profusely.

The fact that he believed the Son to be inferior to the Father can be easily seen in his letter Against Praxeas. In it, he states:

Chap. IX. "Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son."
Chap. VII. "And while I recognize the Son, I assert his distinction as second to the Father."
Again, ask yourself why was his view of the trinity different from today’s view if it has always been taught by the church? The reason is because it was a developing idea.

Tertullian himself gives us the greatest proof of the fact that it was a developing idea in the same letter. He states: Chap. III. vv. 1. "The majority of believers, are STARTLED at the Dispensation (of the Three in One)...They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods...While the Greeks actually REFUSE to understand the oikonomia, or Dispensation" (of the Three in One).

These are incredible statements! Tertullian is acknowledging that the majority of believers did not agree with the Doctrine of the Trinity. They accused him of being a polytheist. The Greeks (either Greek Christians or Christians that spoke Greek in different lands) refused altogether to believe him. These statements are probably the best proofs that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not taught by the Apostles. If it had been taught by them, the majority of believers would have known about the Dispensation and would not have been startled by it, neither would they have accused him of worshipping two gods. This doctrine was something new, it was not the established belief of Christianity as you can see. It was starting to work itself out and trying to gain popularity, especially with Hellenized Christians. But it was not in the majority. In fact, it was very much in the minority.

Now back to the subject of Nicaea. For those that think that Nicaea just formalized an already established teaching, think again. Let us now look to the events that followed after the Council of Nicaea. It will shed some light on the matter.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CHURCH AFTER NICAEA
325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the church. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that "the Father and the Son are of the same substance" (homoousios). Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council. "of one substance with the Father."

The American Academic Encyclopedia states:
"Although this was not Constantine’s first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement." At the end of this council, Constantine sided with Athanasius over Arius and exiled Arius to Illyria.

328 AD - Athanasius becomes bishop of Alexandria.
328 AD - Constantine recalls Arius from Illyria.
335 AD - Constantine now sides with Arius and exiles Athanasius to Trier.
337 AD - A new emperor, Contantius, orders the return of Athanasius to Alexandria.
339 AD - Athanasius flees Alexandria in anticipation of being expelled.
341 AD - Two councils are held in Antioch this year. During this council, the First, Second, and Third Arian Confessions are written, thereby beginning the attempt to produce a formal doctrine of faith to oppose the Nicene Creed.
343 AD - At the Council of Sardica, Eastern Bishops demand the removal of Athanasius.
346 AD - Athanasius is restored to Alexandria.
351 AD - A second anti - Nicene council is held in Sirmium.
353 AD - A council is held at Aries during Autumn that is directed against Athanasius.
355 AD - A council is held in Milan. Athanasius is again condemned.
356 AD - Athanasius is deposed on February 8th, beginning his third exile.
357 AD - Third Council of Sirmium is convened. Both homoousios and homoiousios are avoided as unbiblical, and it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son.
359 AD - The Synod of Seleucia is held which affirms that Christ is "like the Father," It does not however, specify how the Son is like the Father.
361 AD - A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius’ positions.
380 AD - Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity the official state religion of the empire.
381 AD - The First Council of Constantinople is held to review the controversy since Nicaea. Emperor Theodosius the Great establishes the creed of Nicaea as the standard for his realm. The Nicene Creed is re-evaluated and accepted with the addition of clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters.

If you believe that Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then there really should not have been any more conflicts. Why should there be? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians.

It was mainly a theological power grab by certain factions of the church. The major complication throughout all this was that the emperors were involved. At Nicaea it was Constantine that decided the outcome. Then as you can see, we have the flip-flopping of opinion with the result that Athanasius is exiled and recalled depending on which emperor is in power. We even have in 357 AD the declaration that homoousios and homoiousios are unbiblical, and that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son. This is 180 degrees from Nicaea. It is definitely not the Trinitarian formula.
In 380 AD Emperor Thedosius declared Christianity to be the state religion. One can come to the conclusion that whichever way Theodosius favors, is the way in which it is going to end. This is exactly what happened next. In 381 AD the struggle was finally ended by the current emperor, Theodosius the Great, who favored the Nicene position. Just like at Nicaea, the EMPEROR again decided it. What is plainly obvious is that the emperors were dictating the theology of the church. The big difference now being was that there was not going to be any more changing of sides. It was now the state religion. You cannot make Christianity the state religion and then change its beliefs every few years, it would undermine its credibility as the true faith. The Trinity was now the orthodox position, and the state was willing to back it up. Yet, Conflicts and debates continued for centuries.

In 529 AD Emperor Justinian revamped the Roman Civil Law and heresy was big on his list of crimes. The two heresies that were now punishable by death were not accepting the Nicene Creed and rebaptism. It is quite interesting.


I have given historical dates and documents that are recorded in time... not opinion! As taken from the works of J Baixeras

Paul

[For_The_Kingdom]

The Trinity is one of my favor subjects to debate/discuss, so I'd love to weigh in on this..

Most people who believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity claim that at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, all the church did was to officially declare a doctrine that had always been the teaching of the church.

I guess that would depend on what is meant by "always been the teaching of the Church".

But if this is true, ask yourself why? Why would the church have to make any kind of official declaration about a doctrine that was supposed to be established from the beginning?

Should this be a surprise? The book of Acts (Acts 15) records the Council of Jerusalem, where certain things like whether or not Gentiles had to be circumcised in order to be accepted as Christ-followers was discussed.

There was always (for the most part) issues to be sorted out in the history of the Church.

There is no doctrine on whether Jesus resurrected or not. It was an established teaching. The idea that Jesus was God, was not.

Yeah, but then again, Jesus didn't come on earth proclaiming that he was God, either...in fact, Phil 2:5-9 sheds light as to why he didn't.

This is why the church required an official declaration to formally establish this as orthodox. It was a developing idea. It was not a teaching of the early church that had been established by the apostles.

Well, lets put history to the test, then:

The Council of Nicaea took place in 325AD, right? And if I am not mistaken, it is here that you claim the Church established the Trinity has an official declaration, correct?

Yet, in Pliny the Younger's letter to Emperor Trajan (dated around 117AD), he is writing to the Emperor about how to deal with Christians who are open about their Christianity (which was apparently illegal). A small excerpt of the letter is..

"They (Christians) asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god.

http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html

So, to paraphrase, Pliny is saying that when under question, the Christians are saying that "the only thing we do is meet together on a fixed day before dawn and sing hymns to Christ as to a god".

Now, this is either Pliny stating that Christians admit to singing hymns to Christ as to a god, or it means that this is Pliny's PERCEPTION of the Christians...as "they are singing hymns to this Christ fellow as if he is a god".

Either way, the implication seems to be that Christ is/was looked upon as a god. If that is the case, then Christ' alleged divinity was recognized over 2 centuries before Constantine and the Council of Nicaea.

, they did not include the Holy Spirit as part of the formula. Again, why not? How could they forget that the trinity included the Holy Spirit? Because it was a developing idea, and at this point in time (Nicaea), all the church was willing to concede to was a binity. It would have to wait until the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD to include the Holy Spirit in their formula and thus complete the trinity.

I have two things to say about this; first, admittedly, the divinity of the Holy Spirit doesn't exactly scream out at you as you are reading the New Testament. However, that doesn't mean that we (Trinitarians) don't have good reasons for accepting the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

Second, even if the whole entire Trinity concept/idea was one of later development, does it follow necessarily that the Trinity doctrine is false? I don't think so...I mean, just take Jesus, for example. The "person" of Jesus (as God's Son) was not revealed to the world until fairly recent (2,000 years ago). Ancient Judaism didn't know about Jesus...yet, Jesus' existence preceded his earthly manifestation.

Revelations/understandings from God happens in due time..or rather, God's time.

An excellent proof that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not an established teaching of the early Christians is in a letter by one of the trinity’s greatest exponents, Tertullian of Carthage. Even though his understanding of it was that the Son was subordinate to the Father, which is contrary to today’s Doctrine of the Trinity, his writings were unfortunately, very influential in the development of this doctrine. He wrote about it profusely.

Actually, Trinitarians accept the fact that the Son is/was subordinate to the Father, which I refer back to Phil 2:5-9. We argue that the Son being subordinate to the Father does nothing to undermine his Divinity.

Second, Tertullian writings (after 150AD) came after Pliny's writings (112AD see above). So, as it goes...the earlier the writings, the closer you are to the truth value

The fact that he believed the Son to be inferior to the Father can be easily seen in his letter Against Praxeas. In it, he states:

Chap. IX. "Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son."
Chap. VII. "And while I recognize the Son, I assert his distinction as second to the Father."
Again, ask yourself why was his view of the trinity different from today’s view if it has always been taught by the church? The reason is because it was a developing idea.

But his view of the Trinity does nothing to undermine the Trinity doctrine. It should come as no surprise that he believes that the Father is greater than the Son, because after all, Jesus said so himself clear as day in John 14:28.

The question is, can the Father be greater than the Son and yet they both SHARE the same quality of being (divinity)...and the answer is, absolutely.

Tertullian himself gives us the greatest proof of the fact that it was a developing idea in the same letter. He states: Chap. III. vv. 1. "The majority of believers, are STARTLED at the Dispensation (of the Three in One)...They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods...While the Greeks actually REFUSE to understand the oikonomia, or Dispensation" (of the Three in One).

Well, the Trinity doctrine does not state that there are two gods, or three gods. The idea is that there are three persons under the same umbrella of "God". They are all co-equal, co-eternal.

These are incredible statements! Tertullian is acknowledging that the majority of believers did not agree with the Doctrine of the Trinity. They accused him of being a polytheist.

Anyone who understands the Trinity doctrine would know that it is not polytheistic.

The Greeks (either Greek Christians or Christians that spoke Greek in different lands) refused altogether to believe him. These statements are probably the best proofs that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not taught by the Apostles.

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

If it had been taught by them, the majority of believers would have known about the Dispensation and would not have been startled by it, neither would they have accused him of worshipping two gods. This doctrine was something new, it was not the established belief of Christianity as you can see. It was starting to work itself out and trying to gain popularity, especially with Hellenized Christians. But it was not in the majority. In fact, it was very much in the minority.

Constant misunderstandings of the Trinity doctrine is something that most Trinitarians have to deal with from time to time. Personally, in my every encounter with Jehovah's Witnesses, I have to constantly explain to them what the Trinity doctrine actually entails, which is contrary to what they've been taught by the Watch Tower & Tract Society.


But that aside, we have internal Biblical evidence which supports the viability of the Trinity doctrine...and we also have an earlier extra-Biblical source of Jesus' perceived divinity, which predates all Christian sources on the subject, including the Council of Nicaea. [/b]

[polonius]

For the Kingdom posted:

Constant misunderstandings of the Trinity doctrine is something that most Trinitarians have to deal with from time to time. Personally, in my every encounter with Jehovah's Witnesses, I have to constantly explain to them what the Trinity doctrine actually entails, which is contrary to what they've been taught by the Watch Tower & Tract Society.


But that aside, we have internal Biblical evidence which supports the viability of the Trinity doctrine...and we also have an earlier extra-Biblical source of Jesus' perceived divinity, which predates all Christian sources on the subject, including the Council of Nicaea. [/b]

RESPONSE: I am not a member of the JW. But I am interested in history, and I become uncomfortable when some historical claim is made which is not supported by the facts.


Therefore, would you precisely identify your references to an" earlier extra-Biblical source of Jesus' perceived divinity, which predates all Christian sources on the subject."

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 37 by onewithhim]

Feel the desire to share more... How many times have your heard Trinitarians claim that Jesus said he was the Great I AM!!!

There has been quite a bit of discussion on John 8:58. What happened to this verse as to confuse so many? Let's start in Exodus.

KJV Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Now we shall read the same verse from the Greek Septuagint

Septuagint Exo 3:14 και ειπεν ο θεος π�ος μωυσην [εγω ειμι ο ων] και ειπεν ουτως ε�εις τοις υιοις ισ�αηλ [ο ων] απεσταλκεν με π�ος υμας

Note the two separate Greek words used for 'am'

Concordant Literal Version Exo 3:14 Then Elohim spoke to Moses: I shall come to be just as I am coming to be. And He said: Thus shall you say to the sons of Israel, I-Shall-Come-to-Be has sent me to you.

Now when translated literally you get a whole different look. So what happened to the other I am's?

The Hebrew Bible uses the word (hâyâh H1961) in the place of "Am" which is a verb meaning to exist, to be. Check the Strongs' number.

Clearly Jesus did not say (εγω ειμι ο ων) nor did he state (ο ων), in John 8:58. Jesus spoke the words (εγω ειμι) just like other people in the bible who are not God. So just what was Jesus saying?


So what about the great "I Am him" statement of Jesus? Especially that classic one in John 8:58 where Jesus says, "Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born I am"? Surely here Jesus makes the same claim for himself that Jehovah God made back in Exodus 3 where the LORD says to Moses at the burning Bush "I Am Who I Am." Surely Jesus is claiming to be the I AM of the Old Testament as Trinitarian belief asserts?

Now here is something very obvious that they never told you in church. This expression from Jesus' lips "I am" (Greek ego eimi) occurs throughout the Gospel of John and in no other text in John can it mean I AM, the God of the Old Testament.

Go back to John 4:25-26 for instance. The woman at the well said to Jesus, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when that one comes, he will declare all things to us." And Jesus said to her, "I who speak with you am he." You will notice that in most Bibles that word he is in italics. This means that the translators have correctly supplied a word in English that is not in the Greek but that nevertheless makes the intended sense quite clear. Here Jesus says to the woman - in the context of her question about the Messiah - that he is the Messiah, the Christ. "I who speak to you am he." In the Greek it reads ego eimi. Jesus simply says I am he, the Messiah. Definitely not “I am is the one speaking to you!�

In John 9 Jesus heals the blind man. Is this really the beggar who used to sit groping in the dark? Some people said, "Yes, it's him all right." Other said, "No, he just looks like him." But the beggar says, "ego eimi!" And the translators have no problem writing, "I am the one." So why aren't the translators consistent? Why not capitalize what this man says as I AM? Because it is clear that he is not claiming to be the God of the Old Testament. Saying "I am" (ego eimi) does not make somebody God in the Bible!

What Jesus is saying is simply “Before Abraham was born, I am he,� that is, "I am the Messiah."

Notice the context in John 8:56 where Jesus says, "Abraham rejoiced to see my day." By faith Abraham looked forward and saw the coming Messiah before he came in history. He believed the promise that God would send the Promised One. On the other hand these Jews did not believe that Jesus was their Messiah. They were claiming to be Abraham's descendents. Jesus said that this was impossible for they did not recognize him as their Messiah. But Jesus asserts that even before Abraham was born, he is the One who was always in God's plan. This Abraham believe and saw. The Messiah preexisted in God's plan and therefore in Abraham's believing mind, because he trusted the promise of God. Jesus positively did not say, before Abraham was, I was." Also, Jesus did not say, “Before Abraham was, I AM WHAT I AM."

The conclusion is inevitable. Jesus’ claim "Before Abraham was born, I am he" is the straightforward claim that he is the long promised one, the Messiah, the One in question. Jesus is the Savior in God's promise even before Abraham was born.

The Jewish leaders were very well aware of what Jesus was saying about himself! Jesus Was not claiming to be God but the Son of God as Shown in John 19:6. They give the very reason they wanted Him dead!

John 19:6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him. 7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.


Jesus, NEVER claimed to be God!



Paul

Excellent, Pierac.


Here are a couple of links that you might be interested in (another slant on the subject):

http://robertangle.com/ruminations/2012 ... -say-i-am/

http://robertangle.com/ruminations/2012 ... ighty-god/


What are your thoughts?

[Pierac]

The Trinity is one of my favor subjects to debate/discuss, so I'd love to weigh in on this..

Most people who believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity claim that at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, all the church did was to officially declare a doctrine that had always been the teaching of the church[/color].

I guess that would depend on what is meant by "always been the teaching of the Church".

But if this is true, ask yourself why? Why would the church have to make any kind of official declaration about a doctrine that was supposed to be established from the beginning?

Should this be a surprise? The book of Acts (Acts 15) records the Council of Jerusalem, where certain things like whether or not Gentiles had to be circumcised in order to be accepted as Christ-followers was discussed.

There was always (for the most part) issues to be sorted out in the history of the Church.

There is no doctrine on whether Jesus resurrected or not. It was an established teaching. The idea that Jesus was God, was not.

Yeah, but then again, Jesus didn't come on earth proclaiming that he was God, either...in fact, Phil 2:5-9 sheds light as to why he didn't.

This is why the church required an official declaration to formally establish this as orthodox. It was a developing idea. It was not a teaching of the early church that had been established by the apostles.

Well, lets put history to the test, then:

The Council of Nicaea took place in 325AD, right? And if I am not mistaken, it is here that you claim the Church established the Trinity has an official declaration, correct?

Yet, in Pliny the Younger's letter to Emperor Trajan (dated around 117AD), he is writing to the Emperor about how to deal with Christians who are open about their Christianity (which was apparently illegal). A small excerpt of the letter is..

"They (Christians) asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god.

http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html

So, to paraphrase, Pliny is saying that when under question, the Christians are saying that "the only thing we do is meet together on a fixed day before dawn and sing hymns to Christ as to a god".

Now, this is either Pliny stating that Christians admit to singing hymns to Christ as to a god, or it means that this is Pliny's PERCEPTION of the Christians...as "they are singing hymns to this Christ fellow as if he is a god".

Either way, the implication seems to be that Christ is/was looked upon as a god. If that is the case, then Christ' alleged divinity was recognized over 2 centuries before Constantine and the Council of Nicaea.

, they did not include the Holy Spirit as part of the formula. Again, why not? How could they forget that the trinity included the Holy Spirit? Because it was a developing idea, and at this point in time (Nicaea), all the church was willing to concede to was a binity. It would have to wait until the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD to include the Holy Spirit in their formula and thus complete the trinity.

I have two things to say about this; first, admittedly, the divinity of the Holy Spirit doesn't exactly scream out at you as you are reading the New Testament. However, that doesn't mean that we (Trinitarians) don't have good reasons for accepting the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

Second, even if the whole entire Trinity concept/idea was one of later development, does it follow necessarily that the Trinity doctrine is false? I don't think so...I mean, just take Jesus, for example. The "person" of Jesus (as God's Son) was not revealed to the world until fairly recent (2,000 years ago). Ancient Judaism didn't know about Jesus...yet, Jesus' existence preceded his earthly manifestation.

Revelations/understandings from God happens in due time..or rather, God's time.

An excellent proof that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not an established teaching of the early Christians is in a letter by one of the trinity’s greatest exponents, Tertullian of Carthage. Even though his understanding of it was that the Son was subordinate to the Father, which is contrary to today’s Doctrine of the Trinity, his writings were unfortunately, very influential in the development of this doctrine. He wrote about it profusely.

Actually, Trinitarians accept the fact that the Son is/was subordinate to the Father, which I refer back to Phil 2:5-9. We argue that the Son being subordinate to the Father does nothing to undermine his Divinity.

Second, Tertullian writings (after 150AD) came after Pliny's writings (112AD see above). So, as it goes...the earlier the writings, the closer you are to the truth value

The fact that he believed the Son to be inferior to the Father can be easily seen in his letter Against Praxeas. In it, he states:

Chap. IX. "Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son."
Chap. VII. "And while I recognize the Son, I assert his distinction as second to the Father."
Again, ask yourself why was his view of the trinity different from today’s view if it has always been taught by the church? The reason is because it was a developing idea.

But his view of the Trinity does nothing to undermine the Trinity doctrine. It should come as no surprise that he believes that the Father is greater than the Son, because after all, Jesus said so himself clear as day in John 14:28.

The question is, can the Father be greater than the Son and yet they both SHARE the same quality of being (divinity)...and the answer is, absolutely.

Tertullian himself gives us the greatest proof of the fact that it was a developing idea in the same letter. He states: Chap. III. vv. 1. "The majority of believers, are STARTLED at the Dispensation (of the Three in One)...They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods...While the Greeks actually REFUSE to understand the oikonomia, or Dispensation" (of the Three in One).

Well, the Trinity doctrine does not state that there are two gods, or three gods. The idea is that there are three persons under the same umbrella of "God". They are all co-equal, co-eternal.

These are incredible statements! Tertullian is acknowledging that the majority of believers did not agree with the Doctrine of the Trinity. They accused him of being a polytheist.

Anyone who understands the Trinity doctrine would know that it is not polytheistic.

The Greeks (either Greek Christians or Christians that spoke Greek in different lands) refused altogether to believe him. These statements are probably the best proofs that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not taught by the Apostles.

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

If it had been taught by them, the majority of believers would have known about the Dispensation and would not have been startled by it, neither would they have accused him of worshipping two gods. This doctrine was something new, it was not the established belief of Christianity as you can see. It was starting to work itself out and trying to gain popularity, especially with Hellenized Christians. But it was not in the majority. In fact, it was very much in the minority.

Constant misunderstandings of the Trinity doctrine is something that most Trinitarians have to deal with from time to time. Personally, in my every encounter with Jehovah's Witnesses, I have to constantly explain to them what the Trinity doctrine actually entails, which is contrary to what they've been taught by the Watch Tower & Tract Society.


But that aside, we have internal Biblical evidence which supports the viability of the Trinity doctrine...and we also have an earlier extra-Biblical source of Jesus' perceived divinity, which predates all Christian sources on the subject, including the Council of Nicaea. [/b]

You posted/asked me to answer way to many questions in a single post. My reply to a single question could take pages to properly explain. so let's start here...

1st question ... As to the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, you have to start with the original creators. My point is to show how so very much it changed in time much like Obama and Trump in our day.

Now to the 2nd... point you attempt to make and I bolded in Red in your post...

Now to Philippians 2 that causes such a difficulty for many to understand. It is the one that says Jesus Christ "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself (v. 6-7). It is unfortunate that the Old King James version of the Bible translated this verse completely wrong. It reads that Jesus "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" and gives the impression that as the preexistent God, Jesus did not think there was anything wrong in being considered equal with God. It ought to be clear by now that this is the exact opposite of what is meant. The whole context of the passage is about being humble, putting God's will and glory first, and serving others’ interest above one's own interest. Although he was in "the form of God" Jesus did not reckon his God-given status as something to be exploited.

This meaning contrast well with the conduct of Adam who unfortunately did consider equality with God anything to be grasped at. Adam wanted to be like God as Genesis 3:5 teaches. Adam tried to grasp at equality with God. But Jesus would not usurp God's authority for selfish advantage. He said, "I came to serve" (Matt. 20:28), not to snatch! At his arrest in the garden, he said, "Do you not think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than 12 legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53). As the Messiah, God's appointed King, he had every right to call for divine protection. He "emptied himself" of all such Messianic privileges.

Therefore, it can be categorically stated that Philippians 2: 5-11 has nothing to do with Jesus Christ being God in a preexistence state. The importance is really very simple and very practical: how are Christians to conduct themselves in this world? Not by imitating the man Adam who forfeited everything by a grab for power and glory, but by imitating Jesus the Messiah (v.5) who through humility and obedience to God gained it all and more. After all, if Jesus was already God, then verses 9 to 11 are nonsensical. There is no "Therefore also God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth." If he was already God, he had this before his birth! No. It is clear that God has given him a new position, a new name (authority), and a new rank that he did not previously possess.

The Greek is very clear here: dio kai means (as in Luke 1:35) "for this reason precisely." Why has God exalted Jesus to His right hand? "Therefore, God has highly exalted him and given him the name above every other name because he is back where he was before as God"? Not at all! He is given the status as a reward for the precise reason that he humbled himself and died. His exalted status is a reward. If we follow the last Adam's pattern, we too will be exalted by God when Christ returns. It is evident, then, that "this hymn does not contained what numerous interpreters seek and find in it: an independent statement about preexistence or even a Christology preexistence… No preexistence of Christ before the world with an independent significance can be recognized even in Philippians 2.


This is the creed of ALL Orthodox Christian Beliefs! All of them!

DEFINITION OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451 AD)

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

So pay close attention.... The Kenotic Doctrine claims that Jesus emptied himself of his deity. Well, you can simply read in the Chalcedon Creed that it defines Jesus’ nature as fully God and fully man at all times, without division, without separation. You cannot say that you believe in the Trinity and use this excuse. If you subscribe to the Kenotic Doctrine, then you have already rejected the Trinity. You cannot be both.

Please feel free to post scripture one or two at a time... It takes time and space to expose historical lies of history. I'm not a pastor or part of any group... No one would have me anyway! I'm a seeker of the truth... no matter whom it agrees or disagrees!

... And stop following what men tell you to believe!
Paul

[Pierac]

The Trinity is one of my favor subjects to debate/discuss, so I'd love to weigh in on this..

Psalms 110:1

Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."

Psalms 110:1 is a unusual verse. It is referred to in the New Testament 23 times and is thus quoted much more often than any other verse from the Old Testament. It’s importance must not be overlooked. It is a psalm that tells us the relationship between God and Jesus.

Psalms 110:1 is a divine utterance although poorly translated if your version leaves out the original word "oracle". It is “the oracle of Yahweh� (the One God of the Hebrew Bible, of Judaism and New Testament Christianity) to David's lord who is the Messiah, spoken of here 1000 years before he came into existence in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

I want to bring attention to the fact that David's lord is not David's Lord. There should be no capital on the word "lord." The Revised Version of the Bible (1881) corrected the misleading error of other translations which put (and still wrongly put) a capitol L on lord in that verse.
He is not Lord God, because the word in the inspired text is not the word for Deity, but the word for human superior- a human lord, not a Lord who is himself God, but a lord who is the supremely exalted, unique agent of the one God.

The Hebrew word for the status of the son of God and Psalms 110:1 is adoni. This word occurs 195 times in the Hebrew Bible and never refers to God. When God is described as "the Lord" (capital L) a different word, Adonai, appears. Thus the Bible makes a careful distinction between God and man. God is the Lord God (Adonai), or when his personal name is used, Yahweh, and Jesus is his unique, sinless, virginally conceived human son (adoni, my lord, Luke 1:43; 2:11). Adonai is found 449 times in the Old Testament and distinguishes the One God from all others. Adonai is not the word describing the son of God, Jesus, and Psalms 110:1. adoni appears 195 times and refers only to a human (or occasionally an angelic) lord, that is, someone who is not God. This should cut through a lot of complicated post Biblical argumentation and create a making which in subtle ways that secures the simple and most basic Biblical truth, that God is a single person and that the Messiah is the second Adam, "the Man Messiah" (1 Tim. 2:5).

Let's have a look at a few Old Testament verses that show us the clear distinction alluded to here. In Genesis 15:2, Abraham prays to God and says, "O LORD, God [Adonai Yahweh], what will you give me, since I am childless?" In another prayer Abraham's servant addresses God: "O LORD, God of my lord Abraham, please grant me success today" (Gen. 24:12). The second word for "my lord" here is adoni which according to any standard Hebrew lexicon means "Lord," "Master," or "owner." Another example is found in David's speech to his men after he had cut off the hem of King Saul's robe and his conscience bothered him: "So he said to his men, far be it from me because of the Lord [here the word is Yahweh, Lord God] that I should do this thing to my lord [adoni].�

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 157. states… "The form Adoni (‘my lord’), a royal title (Sam. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title Adonai (‘Lord’) used of Yahweh. Adonai the special plural form [the divine title] distinguishes it from adoni [with short vowel] = ‘my lords.’� Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, page 137. States… “lord in the Old Testament is used to translate Adonai when applied to the Divine Being. The [Hebrew] word… has a suffix [with a special pointing] presumably for the sake of distinction... between divine and human appellative.� Wigram, The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament, p. 22. states… “The form ‘to my lord,’ I’adoni, is never used in the Old Testament as a divine reference… the general excepted fact is that the masoretic pointing distinguishes divine reference (adonai) from human references (adoni).�

“The Hebrew Adonai exclusively denotes the God of Israel. It is attested about 450 times in the Old Testament…Adoni [is] addressed to human beings (Gen 44:7; Num 32:25; 2 Kings 2:19, etc.). We have to assume that the word Adonai received it’s special form to distinguish it from the secular use of adon [i.e. adoni]. The reason why [God is addressed] as Adonai [with long vowel] instead of the normal adon, adoni or adonai [short vowel] may have been to distinguish Yahweh from other gods and from other human Lord's.� from
Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible, p. 531.

If David the Psalmist had expected the Messiah to be the Lord God he would not have used "my lord" (adoni), but the term used exclusively for the one God, Jehovah- Adonai. Unfortunately, though, many English translations which faithfully preserved this distinction elsewhere capitalize the second "lord" only in Psalms 110:1. This gives a misleading impression that the word is a divine title.

Occasionally, it will be objected that this distinction between Adonai and adoni was a late addition to the Hebrew text by the Mesorites around 600 to 700 AD and therefore is not reliable. This objection needs to be considered in the light of the fact that the Hebrew translators of the Septuagint (the LXX) around 250 B.C. recognize and carefully maintained this Hebrew distinction in their work. They never translated the second “lord� of Psalm 110:1 (“my lord,� kyrios mou) to mean the Deity. The first LORD of Psalm 110:1 (the LORD, Ho Kyrios) they always reserve for the one God, Jehovah.

Both the Pharisees and Jesus knew that this inspired verse was crucial in the understanding of the identity of the promised Messiah. Jesus quoted it to show the Messiah would be both the son (descendent) of King David and David's “lord� (see Matt. 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44). This key verse, then, quoted more than any other in the New Testament, authorizes the title "lord" for Jesus. Failure to understand this distinction has led to the erroneous idea that whenever the New Testament calls Jesus "Lord" it means he is the Lord God of the Old Testament.

So... For_The_Kingdom... weigh in on this ... after of course you weigh in on my last theological spanking I gave you on the the Kenotic Doctrine you claimed to support... only to be exposed it rejects the documented teachings of the Trinity! You can't support both! So after you hear back from your pastor on what to say.... please post!

I look forward to your reply on as you said was ... your favorite subjects to debate/discuss!


Paul

[postroad]

My question in all this would be, how could Jesus being entirely conceived from the Holy Spirit be considered a physical descendant of David? David was promised an eternal successor from his own body.

[Pierac]

My question in all this would be, how could Jesus being entirely conceived from the Holy Spirit be considered a physical descendant of David? David was promised an eternal successor from his own body.

read the thread...

Christ the First-born of all the creation

The word “first-born� comes to the New Testament with a rich Hebrew heritage. The Hebrews had a custom of conferring special birthright privileges on their oldest sons. The eldest son of a father would receive the double portion of the family's inheritance. The well-known story of Jacob tricking his father Isaac into conferring on him - rather than on the first-born-Esau all the family blessing is typical of this culture (Gen 27:32). There is a deeper nuance to the meaning of this word “first-born.� The Greek word for “first� can mean either a first in time or first in status, regardless of birth position. The “first-born� may designate one who is given the honor of chief rank, that is, the first place. This usage can also be found in the Hebrew Bible, as when Jacob summons his son to bequeath his patriarchal blessing on them, he designates Reuben as “my first-born�… preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power. (Gen 49:3)

Although Reubin is “first-born� in time, the prominent idea is his status in dignity. This is clearly the meaning in Jeremiah 31:9 where God calls Ephraim his “first-born� even though Ephraim’s brother, Manasseh, was the elder of the two. Or when God calls Israel his first-born son in Exodus 4:22 and commands Pharaoh to “let my son go that he may worship me.� (v.23) The concept has to do with Israel's precedence in importance over Egypt as far as God's plans were concerned. The classic instance of this idea of pre-eminence of rank is in the Messianic Psalms 89 where God, in glowing words, speaks of the coming promise Davidic king, the Lord Messiah:

Psa 89:26 He shall cry to me, 'You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my
salvation.' 27 And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. 28 My steadfast love I will keep for him forever, and my covenant will stand firm for him. 29 I will establish his offspring forever and his throne as the days of the heavens.

In the spirit of prophecy, God announces that this king’s superior position is a matter of appointment, not the time of birth. Furthermore, God makes his appointed king "the highest [in status and rank] of the kings of the earth." Thus, when the apostle applies the term “first-born� to the son of God in Colossians 1, he is using a well-known OT Messianic description. In fact, the expression is repeated a few verses later, where Paul writes, “He is also head of the body, the church; and he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead� (v.18). The different qualifier here is noteworthy. Whereas in verse 15 the Son is the “first-born� of all creation,� here the Son is the "first-born from the dead.� If we take into account the Hebrew literary style of parallelism, where the same idea is repeated but in slightly modified form, it is quite reasonable to suggest that the qualifiers "of all creation" and "from the dead" means the same thing.

The thought is clearly that Jesus the son of God is the first man of God's new creation, because he is the first man ever to be raised to immortality. Christ returned is the beginning of the eschatological resurrection. His resurrection is the promise and the guarantee that God's new order of reality has begun. The church is that new community in prospect. This confirms that the subject matter under discussion is not the Genesis creation of the heavens and the earth, but rather the creation of the church, the body of believers who constitute God's new humanity, the New Man(kind). For this reason, he is the beginning (arche which has an ambivalence, and can mean either the ruler or chief, or origin or beginning, v. 18) Either way, Jesus as the first-raised from the dead is the origin of God's new creation, and he is in consequence of this priority and resurrection also the highest in rank "so that he himself might come to have first place in everything" (v.18). However, whether we take the term firstborn to mean first in relation to time or first in relation to rank, this much is at least clear, that taken in its natural sense, the expression and firstborn excludes the notion of an uncreated, eternal being.

To be born requires a beginning. In order to verify our findings so far, we must look at the second part of the phrase that the son is "the first-born of all creation."

Mark 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.


Paul

[postroad]

[Replying to post 45 by Pierac]
I suspect that pretty much anything could be concealed in your type of retorical sophistry. Nevertheless I will ponder your post further to see if it will become comprehensible with repeated reading. I like to think I have at least average intelligence but who knows?

[Pierac]

[Replying to post 45 by Pierac]
I suspect that pretty much anything could be concealed in your type of retorical sophistry. Nevertheless I will ponder your post further to see if it will become comprehensible with repeated reading. I like to think I have at least average intelligence but who knows?

It has nothing to do with retorical sophistry... as you say... but reading our historical scripture documented in history in the context of it's Hebraic background as it was written.



Paul

[postroad]

[Replying to post 47 by Pierac]
And yet the charge is levelled that those that studied the scriptures most earnestly rejected their Messiah because the failed to understand them?