Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I feel empathy for any non-christian trying to understand the myriads of Christian theories regarding the nature of the Christian trinity. However, to give specific context, might I describe the core controversy I am commenting on?
I believe that ALL Christians (with extremely rare exception) believe 1) that there is a Lord God (the father of a messiah); 2) believe in Jesus (as the son of God) and 3) they believe in the Holy Spirit (as a revelator). I do not think there is much controversy over whether these three entities (i.e. the “trinity”) exist, but rather the core controversy regards their individual natures and their relationship to one another. An overly simple description of this controversy is whether these three entities are actually THREE SEPARATE entities, or if they are ONE SINGLE entity having three separate manifestations.
I do not want to debate, but merely discuss the “clarity” of modern biblical text and offer some reasons as to why I think many, many of the world’s Christians believe that the “trinity” exists as THREE SEPARATE entities rather than ONE SINGLE entity with multiple manifestations. (Either view creates additional controversies). I am also speaking from the context of a Christian that came from a “Three is really One” Christian belief; and became convinced of and moved into a “Three is really Three” Christian belief. I also admit that I don’t spend much time with modern christian theory, but my interest lies in the early Christian beliefs in their earliest periods.
The data and reasoning underlying the belief that The Father; the Son; and the Holy Ghost are separate individuals is different for the modern and typical “sunday school” christians than it is for the “historian-christian”. In this regard, I should point out that the belief in a trinity made up by “three individuals”, whether correct or incorrect, existed before Jesus time as the Jewish records describing the trinity attest (I’ll give examples later). As one moves backward in time through ancient texts, the evidence for three-individuals becomes even stronger. This is a small part of the reasoning behind the assertion that the “three is really one” theory originated and became more popular a few centuries AFTER Jesus when an evolving Christianity is trying to define such doctrines. (Origen, admits that the christians of his day had not even come to decide if God the Father was embodied or not).
If this assertion is true, then we should see textual evidence of this. And we do. In fact, as one looks further and further back in time in Judao-Christian history, the textual descriptions of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost become ever more clearly descriptions of individuals. Conversely, as one moves away from the earliest Judao-Christianity, then Christian textual descriptions evolve and begin to describe the various “three is really one” type of Trinity.
With this as a basic context, perhaps I can offer a few examples of why I think many modern christians believe that the God head / trinity, is made up of three individuals.
1) INDICATIONS OF “UNITY” OF THE FATHER; THE SON; AND THE HOLY SPIRIT
There are many, many textual indications where the trinity are described by terms used for separate individuals. Though there are a few textual indications that indicate the trinity are one individual, they seem, on the surface, to be fairly strong.
One wishes both to know what the original text read and that the NT text was clearer. Many Judao-Christian texts are very clear that the earlier doctrines show they are different individuals, and later texts are the ones upon which the trinity is based. However, the earlier the text, the more clearly the non-trinitarian view is expoused.
“ONENESS”
For examples : A frequent theme described in christian texts is UNITY. Translators of biblical text have Jesus say “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) If the translators are correct, using the word "one" for their relationship, what then is the underlying meaning of the concept “oneness” mean? Not only is Jesus “one” with his Father, but Jesus teaches the same principle by the same words for other relationships that are obviously NOT “one” in reality. A man is to “... cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. (Matthew 19:3-6). No one assumes that the man and wife lose their individual bodies and other individual characteristics, but that some other sort of unity is meant by such phrases.
Speaking to his disciples Jesus says he will ask the Father to send a comforter to them and “20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” John 14:20-23. The same difficulty exists with the concept of being “in” the father in the same way the disciples are to be “in” Jesus and Jesus is “in” them. We are dealing with a different symbology using different idioms than we are used to using. And in this, we must be careful.
For example : In prayer, Jesus lifts up his eyes to heaven (presumably to another entity which was unnecessary if HE WAS that same entity) and asks for his disciples : “21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:21-22) It is obvious that Jesus is saying that he is “in the father” and that he indicates that “we are one”, but he then asks (and clarifies) that the disciples also “be one, even as we (God and Jesus) are one". It stretches rationality to suppose this means the godhead to include the 12 disciples. It is more rational to assume a different type of unity is meant by such phrases. A sort of unity that men can have with one another and a type of unity men can have with Jesus and with God the Father. Clarification is missing in such descriptions.
THE PROBLEM OF TEXTUAL CORRUPTION AND LACK OF CLARITY
Just as there are discrepancies between all known early manuscript families of the New Testament, Our Modern texts derived from them are not without errors, nor are the trinity proof texts free of error. Some of these errors are unknown, but some have been known for many years.
For example : 1 John v.7 , the infamous “Johannine comma”, has been used as a proof-text for the trinity : ‘There are three that witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are at one. There are three that witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one in Christ Jesus, and there are three that give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit’.
However, it has long been recognized that the text starting with “There are three that witness” to the end, is not IN any early Greek New Testament Text, but rather, it represents a later, spurious addition to the text. Such Textual changes and errors do not tell us anything about the original text, but they do indicate the nature of doctrinal changes within christianity.
When fictitious textual changes occurred, they usually are done to reflect the doctrinal bias of their authors. Once such doctrinal trains are moving they are difficult to correct or stop. When Erasmus shocked contemporaries by omitting the false text for the trinity in 1 John v.7 in the first printed greek text of the New Testament. The outcry was so great that he he foolishly promised to insert the reference if it could be found in ANY Greek manuscript (since it did not exist in any of the Greek manuscripts that anyone knew of at that time). However, someone found a “late and worthless“16th century manuscript containing the disputed text that had been rendered into Greek. Having sworn, reluctantly, he inserted the text back into his second edition in 1519. Luther, who had made no rash promises and thus his version did NOT include the text but unfortunately, the KJV did. Scholars knew Erasmus was correct in culling spurious additions to the New Testament Text. However, what is to be done with such unknown additions; mistranslations; lack of a critical text; or even simple lack of clarity?
Textual problems have been obvious for a many years, but it is impossible with current knowledge to correct all such textual errors, deletions, and spurious additions. It is equally impossible to say with certainty what the original text was. A very strong and often used passage for the “three is one” trinity is John 14:8-11 :
Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. (John 14:8-11)
The difficulty with this passage is that, without additional context, it can easily be taken to support the later theory of “three is one” trinity, or it is equally suitable to support the earlier “three is three” trinity simply based on the context and the actual context surrounding the question Phillip asked. Did phillip REALLY ask something so presumptive as to be shown God the Father or did phillip ask to be shown what the father is like, or did phillip ask some another similar question. I think THIS text is the one that would best support the theory of a “three is one” trinity, IF one doesn’t consider any other historical issues.
2) INDICATIONS OF INDIVIDUALITY IN THE TRINITY
Though there are a few texts supporting the “three is really one” christian trinity, there are many, many texts which support the “three is really three” christian trinity. The indications of three individuals making up the trinity is not merely strong, but it becomes “obvious” as one moves into the early Christian and Judao-Christian texts as I hope to show.
Underlying Jesus existence (premortal, mortal and post mortal) are consistent indications that he is different in many important ways from God his Father. For examples :
The many examples where Jesus prays to his Father is perfectly fine if he is talking to another individual but irrational if he is talking to “himself”. Jesus many requests to the Father fits the typical a request of another individual, but is irrational if he is making an oral request of “himself”. Even the posturing of jesus “looking up” in prayer fits speaking to another individual “in heaven” but is irrational if speaking to ones self. Such communications are all made rational by simply assuming individuality in the Trinity.
On the mount of transfiguration, a voice comes out of the cloud saying : This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. (Matthew 17:1-5; 31)
The verse feels more easily justifiable that the voice is a separate individual who is pleased with Jesus as a Son than to pull it from that context and represent it as Jesus being pleased with himself. The same principle holds true with all such declarations from heaven about Jesus such as at Jesus baptism when ... and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Matthew 3:16;
The descriptions in the scriptures regarding the relationship of the Father to his son are easily placed into the context of the Father and Son as separate individuals. Not so if they are the same beings. For example : Paul speaks of God the Father thusly :
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? (Rom 8:31-32) It is less rational if God spares himself rather than sparing his son as a separate entity..
When Jesus’ soul was “troubled” as he speaks of asking his Father to save him, it is less rational to believe that he is speaking of “asking himself” to “save himself”, but rather it is more rational that he speaks of asking another individual to save him from this hour : 27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. (John 12:27-28 )
It is not simply the modern Christians who believe that God the Father is separate from the son, but the early Christians also spake and thought of and interpreted the scriptures as speaking of The Father and the Son as separate individuals.
For example, speaking of Genesis 1:26 Barnabas explains : "For the Scripture speaks about us when he says to the Son: “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and let them rule over the beasts of the earth and the birds of the air and the fish of the sea.” And when he saw that our creation was good, the Lord said: “Increase and multiply and fill the earth.” These things he said to the Son" (The Epistle of Barnabas 6:12)
To understand THIS single point regarding early christianity provides context for how the early christians interpreted their texts : How then, would barnabas and early christians have viewed the trinity in view of the text :
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. (John 1:1-2)
The earliest Christian testimonies regarding the Father and the Son are more rational in the context of separate individuals; they need less rhetorical support, if the Father and the Son are separate individuals. For example, steven testifies :
And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Acts 7:55-56;
IN ALMOST ALL CASES, CHRISTIANITIES THAT ASSUMED GOD AND JESUS AND THE HOLY GHOST ARE SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS HAS LESS NEED FOR COMPLICATED EXPLANATION; LESS NEED FOR RHETORICAL SUPPORT; LESS NEED FOR COMPLICATED MODELS EXPLAINING THEIR POSITION THAN THE CHRISTIANITIES THAT BELIEVE THAT THE FATHER, THE SON AND THE HOLY GHOST ARE THE SAME INDIVIDUAL.
Consider what early Christians themselves wrote from the time period when the apostles are still alive or the writers lived during the lives of the apostles :
Ignatius speaks of a christian named Crocus who had “refreshed” him and says “...may the Father of Jesus Christ likewise refresh him” (Ignatius to the Ephesians 2:1) Bishop Ignatius is referring to the Father as an individual. Polycarp uses the same context : "Now, may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High Priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth and in all gentleness...” (The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 12:2)
Not only do they teach of them as individuals, but place them on different levels, it is clear that it is the Father who raised Jesus (jesus does NOT “raise himself). "may he give to you a share and a place among his saints,...and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.” (The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 12:2)
These are PRE-NICEAN Bishops and orthodox teachers in period of the early apostolic fathers. Even the earlier sacred texts make it clear that The Father is separate from the Son. Enoch, speaking of his vision of pre-earth “heaven” makes this clear.
“1 At that place, I saw the One to whom belongs the “chief of days.” (A euphamism for the Lord of Spirits, or God the Father). And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. 2 And I asked the one–from among the angels–who was going with me, and who had revealed to me all the secrets regarding the One who was born of human beings, “Who is this, and from where could he be, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?”. 3 And he answered me and said to me, “This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. (1st Enoch 46:1-6)
It is not just clear that they were individuals but it is also clear that they were not equals. The Father was always the LORD God, over all other, including the son. Consider the principle of Authority and knowledge of the Father versus the authority and knowledge of Jesus.
3) THE DIFFERENCE OF AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE BETWEEN JESUS AND GOD THE FATHER
JESUS HAS LESS AUTHORITY THAN HIS FATHER
When asked to allow them to sit next to him in heaven, Jesus declined and defers to another will, that of his Father : "....Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father (Matthew 20:23)
37 They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory. [...] 40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared. (Mark 10:37,40)
Jesus does NOT take unto himself the same authority as the Father, but admits the father is greater : “Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (John 14:28)
THE FATHER COMMANDS AND SENDS THE SON. THE SON IS OBEDIENT TO THE FATHER, NEVER THE OPPOSITE.'
“But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence. ( John 15:31)
Such ancient christians believed that God the Father delegates to Jesus, what level of authority he willand they understood this principle. “ How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. (Acts 10:38)
It is NOT Jesus who “raised up himself”, but God the Father raises him :“And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. Cor 6:14
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead Gal 1:1
“...how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; 10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come. 1 Thess 1:9-10
Christians spoke of the power of God “ Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,.... 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Eph 1:20-22; “
It is God the Father who gives jesus authority; who sends Jesus and whom Jesus obeys. ...the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God 1 Cor 11:3
Not only does Jesus have less authority than his Father, but he has less knowledge than his Father as well. In speaking of the future, Jesus admits : “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. (Mark 19:32) The father knows, but Jesus does not.
ALL SUCH REFERENCES ARE MADE LESS RATIONAL BY ASSUMING JESUS IS THE SAME AS HIS FATHER. THEY ARE ALL MORE RATIONAL IF JESUS AND HIS FATHER ARE SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS.
Not only does Jesus have less authority and less knowledge than God the Father, but it is Jesus, who is servant of the father. This was very clear in the earliest Christianities.
“Let all the nations know that you are the only God, “that Jesus Christ is your servant, and that “we are your people and the sheep of your pasture.” (1 Clement 59:4)
They spoke of the Father as “the creator of the universe...through his beloved servant Jesus Christ, through whom he called us from darkness to light, ....among all of them have chosen those who love you through Jesus Christ, your beloved Servant, through whom you instructed us, sanctified us, honored us. (1 Clement 59:2-3)
The earliest Judao-christian understood and spoke of “...the all-seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ,. 1 Clement 64:1;
This chosing of Jesus by the LORD GOD was a clear and consistent theme in most of the earlier texts AND the doctrine becomes clearer the older the text as one approaches the time of Christ. Enoch speaks of this time period when in vision of the pre-mortal heaven. ...2 At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the Before-Time .... 3 even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. 4 He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall.” (1st Enoch 48:1-7)
When one understands this earliest christian model of the trinity, then Jewish Enoch and Christian Bartholomew texts correlate completely : “Jesus said to him: “Bartholomew, the Father named me Christ, that I might come down on earth and anoint with the oil of life everyone who came to me.” The Gospel of Bartholomew CH IV
A return to the earliest doctrine of the trinity allows not only a correlation of doctrine between Jewish Enoch and christian Bartholomew and many, many, many of the earliest Judao-Christian texts, but even the later texts make greater sense. For example, the discourse given by Archbishop Timothy was able to make sense of the earliest doctrines while the early model of the trinity was used.
Referring to the Time when the pre-creation Jesus becomes “named’ or “chosen” as the savior “slain from the foundation of the world”, Jesus explains regarding the creation of Adam that God, his Father “... took the clay from the hand of the angel, and made Adam according to Our image and likeness, and He left him lying for forty days and forty nights without putting breath into him. And he heaved sighs over him daily, saying, “If I put breath into this [man], he must suffer many pains.” (Because of moral transgressions which God knows men will undergo)
Jesus explains to the apostles :“And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be an advocate for him.” And My Father said unto Me, “If I put breath into him, My beloved son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to primal state.” And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfil Thy command.”
Such quotes are completely clear that, in this early theological model, Jesus is NOT the Father, but a subordinate TO the Father.
To the earliest Judao-Christians, it made sense that Jesus was the Lamb Slain from the foundation of the world. He WAS chosen from the foundation of the world. If you remove God and Jesus from this early context, then the earliest Judao-Christian texts cannot make sense. IF you use the early Christian model for the trinity, then one can use the earliest texts to understand what the earliest Christians believed and taught and how such things made sense to THEM. In their context, it made perfect sense to refer to The Father and the Son as separate individuals “... they have denied the Lord of the Spirits and his Messiah. “Blessed be the name of the Lord of the Spirits.” (1st Enoch 48:10)
In the context of the earliest christians, it made perfect sense to the ancient Judo-Christians when the Son is given orders by his Father in the pre-creation heaven. : ... And I heard the voice of the Most High, the Father of my Lord, as he said to my Lord Christ, who will be called Jesus, “Go out and descend through all the heavens...12 and they shall not know that you (are) with me when with the voice of the heavens I summon you...16 This command I heard the Great Glory giving to my Lord.” (Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah . 10:6-16)
The decensus doctrine and it’s vast accompanying literature can make sense in this early christian context where the Father and the Son are separate individuals whereas taken out of context, it cannot make the same sense. In the early christian text, apocalypse of Abraham, Jesus, speaking to Abraham says : “I am sent to you to strengthen you and to bless you in the name of God, creator of heavenly and earthly things, who has loved you....8 I am Iaoel...11 I am ordered to loosen Hades and to destroy those who wondered at the dead...” (The Apocalypse of Abraham 10:5, 11,14-17) Again, the pattern of Jesus being “sent” by the Father is clear. He is “ordered” to loosen Hades (a reference to christs descensus during the three days between death and resurrection). An entire genre of liturature (the early Christian descensus literature) makes more rational sense if Jesus is a separate individual from his Father. If they are the same, this ancient christian literature cannot correlate as rationally.
The apostles understood the concept of delegation of authority from God the Father, to the Son and then to them. “For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us." The gospel of Phillip;
As I said, I do not want a debate, but simply to offer some reasons as to why many christians anciently and nowadeays do not believe that Jesus is the same individual as the Father (nor do they believe he is a different manifestation OF his Father); but rather believed / believe that Jesus is a different individual than the father (and a different individual than the holy spirit as well)
Having established the underlying rationale for the reasons which many, many Christians believe that the trinity is made up of THREE individuals, rather than one three manifestations of ONE individual, I simply wanted to introduce the principle of unity, which, The Father and Son lived perfectly, but which the Christian Saints were to model and develop as well.
4) THE ETERNAL PRINCIPLE OF UNITY :
If God is in the process of preparing mankind to live in a social heaven where joy and harmony will exist forever, then he must teach men the moral principles upon which a social heaven is both created and sustained indefinitely.
One of these moral principles upon which joy and harmony is based, is UNITY, or “oneness”. There must be a profound agreement within an eternal social order for harmony to exist. "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.Acts 4:32;
For many, many Christians, both ancient and modern who believe God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are THREE INDIVIDUALS, it is the principle of complete unity of heart and soul and purposes that underlies the unity and agreement and their “oneness” rather than the theory that they are ONE INDIVIDUAL having three manifestations.
If one reads the scriptures and early Judao-Christian texts from this specific, contextual unity, then various descriptions the principle of unity are made more rational, not less. The texts require less rhetorical support and explanation. The texts are more simply understood. The meanings are clearer and more straightforward.
For example : Jesus tells the disciples : “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. Luke 10:16 It is not literally true that individuals hearing the voice of Peter are hearing the actual voice of Jesus, but rather they are hearing the same doctrine. It is because Peter taught doctrines Jesus gave him, and because Jesus taught doctrines his Father gave him, that one can say that one despises or rejects (or accepts) the Father’s doctrine by a rejection of Peters doctrine. Still, the Father, the Son and Peter remain separate individuals.
This same simple straightforward reading applies to many such declarations. If one despises Jesus by despising Peter as in the example above, then the same simple reading applies to an acceptance of Peter or Jesus or the Father. “...He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. (John 12:44)
Development of this sort of like minded unity was to apply to all disciples of Jesus. In many such descriptions, they were to learn to be “like minded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: 6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Rom 15:5)
“... a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. (Eph 5:31);
“... I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (1 Cor 1:10)
The ancient christians were to learn to be “no respector of persons" regardless of nationality or riches or level of power. There was to be ".. neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:27-28)
The ancient christians were to endeavor “...to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.“ and remember that there was “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Eph 4:1-6) Christian were to learn to “... walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. (Phil 3:16) just as Jesus walked by the same rule as his Father taught him and he minded the same things as the Father minded. So were the saints to do, they were to “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” (Phil 2:5)
It is in THIS context that the earliest christian leaders taught the saints : “Let there be nothing among you which is capable of dividing you, but be united with the bishop and with those who lead, as an example and a lesson of incorruptibility.” (Ignatius to the Magnesians 6:2) The early saints were taught to “... glorify Jesus Christ, who has glorified you, so that you, joined together in a united obedience and subject to the bishop and the presbytery, may be sanctified in every respect (Ignatius to the Ephesians 2:2)
The earliest Saints did not lose sight that the purpose of developing and perfecting the principle of social unity was to develop and learn to live in social HARMONY. Thus ignatius taught : “...I congratulate you who are united with him, as the church is with Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ is with the father, that all things might be harmonious in unity.” (Ignatius to the Ephesians 5:1) The saints were to “Be subject to the Bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ in the flesh was to the Father, and as the apostles were to Christ and to the Father, that there might be unity, both physical and spiritual. (Ignatius to the Magnesians 13:2) They were to develop the type of unity the Father and the Son and the Apostles had taught them.
And, the purpose of and process of developing unity is part of the preparation of mankind to live in a social heaven where joy and harmony will exist forever for those who chose to obtain that principle of becoming “of one heart and of one soul” described in Acts 4:32, the same unity that the apostles were developing with Jesus, and the same unity that Jesus had developed with God, the Father.
I HOPE THAT I HAVE OFFERED SOME CLEAR AND SIMPLE REASONS AS TO WHY MANY, MANY CHRISTIANS, BOTH ANCIENTLY AND NOWADAYS, BELIEVE STRONGLY IN GOD THE FATHER; IN HIS SON JESUS; AND IN THE HOLY SPIRIT AS THREE SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE PROFOUNDLY UNIFIED IN HEART AND MIND AND PURPOSE AND THAT THE EARLY CHRISTIANS SAINTS WERE TO LEARN TO BE LIKE JESUS AND HIS FATHER IN THESE ATTRIBUTES.
Such doctrines have resulted in a great deal of debate and bad feelings among Christians for many years. Good luck in coming to your own determination as to what you will believe.
Clear lens
vineeinn
Last edited by Clear lens; 02-08-2011 at 12:06 PM..
I've never pinned a name to it, but the Bible clearly points out God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. They are all God but each has His own job. I don't know why some people have a hard time understanding the concept. I just take it on faith and what I read in the scriptures. Good study on the hebrew words for "one," Mike 555.
Hi katiemygirl The Bible never (at least I can't find it.) says God the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is sent by God to do what he sends it to do but it is not a seperate being.
Hi katiemygirl The Bible never (at least I can't find it.) says God the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is sent by God to do what he sends it to do but it is not a seperate being.
Hi Mike I read your answers and we are still going to disagree and thats fine. You do very good research and I like that you make me think but we do interpret the verses differantly and I am sure we both believe we are right and thats ok too.
To me God is the Father and Christ Jesus is his only Begotten Son. He came out of the Father, The first born of creation, and though him, by him and for him all else was created.
As you say the Father has not been seen or heard by anyone but the Son, so in the old testament when they are talking with God or when Moses sees God it is not the Father but the Son they see and hear.
One other thing that I , and maybe it sounds petty, have trouble with is in referring to God as a person, God is not a person he is spirit. Not he is A spirit but he IS SPIRIT.
Thanks for the lively debates and I hope to have more in the future.
Hi katiemygirl The Bible never (at least I can't find it.) says God the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is sent by God to do what he sends it to do but it is not a seperate being.
Compare Acts 5:3 with verse 4; compare these with Acts 10:19; Acts 13:2; Acts 20:28; Acts 21:11; John 14:16; John 14:26; 2 Cor 13:14; Romans 8:26-27.
A comparison of Scripture with Scripture reveals the Personhood of God the Holy Spirit and the fact that He is one of the Person's of the Godhead.
I've never pinned a name to it, but the Bible clearly points out God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. They are all God but each has His own job. I don't know why some people have a hard time understanding the concept. I just take it on faith and what I read in the scriptures. Good study on the hebrew words for "one," Mike 555.
Thanks Katie. Many people simply reject what they don't understand and won't even make an effort to try and understand.
Compare Acts 5:3 with verse 4; compare these with Acts 10:19; Acts 13:2; Acts 20:28; Acts 21:11; John 14:16; John 14:26; 2 Cor 13:14; Romans 8:26-27.
A comparison of Scripture with Scripture reveals the Personhood of God the Holy Spirit and the fact that He is one of the Person's of the Godhead.
I admit that the trinity is not my strong suit. I guess I've just never given it a lot of thought. You make me realize that I need to study the concept out thoroughly. There has been a lot of scriptures posted on this thread so I have a pretty good starting point. I don't really think I'm in disagreement with what you have said. I just don't think I express myself well sometimes. I come from a catholic school background, but left the catholic faith when I was a young woman. If I remember right they taught the three in one concept. I guess I'm guilty of not having paid much attention to it. It just never seemed important to me at least not as important as other biblical concepts. Studying God's Word is a lifelong journey. I'll make this my next stop. Thanks Mike.
Thanks Katie. Many people simply reject what they don't understand and won't even make an effort to try and understand.
Mike, I've posted a link. There is a section on the trinity that I found quite good. Let me know what you think.
allanturner.com/ss01.html
If this doesn't work, I can dm it. Thanks
Hi katiemygirl The Bible never (at least I can't find it.) says God the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is sent by God to do what he sends it to do but it is not a seperate being.
Act 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back [part] of the price of the land? Act 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men but untoGod. , Act 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. Act 13:4 ¶ So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
