Is God Three?

[chair]

... God didn't even leave His name to the Jews, not to speak what He's composed of...

Exodus 6:3

 

[jamie]

Jesus, the Son, was sent as an agent of the Most High who spoke and acted through him.

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know..." (Acts 2:22)

The human Jesus was a personification of the Most High, his father, just as we are.

 

[CherubRam]

I am sorry, but as for me Scripture holds the highest authority...we can not prove the infallible with the fallible words of mankind though a great testimony.

He is quoting the scriptures. I think this conversation is too much for you. Have a nice day.

 

[CherubRam]

Your argument here is moot. Even Jesus quoted that He's in OT. David called God the Lord of my Lord.

There's another location where Isaiah put it into a prophecy.

It only shows that God has revealed who He is to only the prophets in OT. You can't thus draw the conclusion that Moses' God is not the same simply because Moses didn't mention His Trinity, under the possibility that God didn't want him to reveal God's anatomy at that moment. I even give you the reason why, as back then the Jews are the only ethnic group believing in monotheism. The introduction of a Trinity God can only confuse them (as they are already very confused for being put in wilderness for 40 years).


Isaiah 9:6 (NIV2011)
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders.

And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

As a prophecy, the above can be divided into two parts. The first clearly says that it's Jesus who is to be prophesied.

Now take a look at the second part,

Wonderful Counselor
In NT Jesus is seldom referred to as a wonderful counselor. The Holy Spirit is the Wonderful Counselor instead.

Mighty God
OK.

Everlasting Father
God the Farther. Jesus is never called as the Everlasting Father.

Prince of Peace
This is Jesus who is the focus of such a prophecy.

Now how God will be called?
Mighty God - God
Wonderful Counselor - God the Holy Spirit
Everlasting Father - God the Father
Prince of Peace - God the Son


You can't simply get to the conclusion that Jesus is not taught in OT. The Jews don't need to understand God's anatomy though. God didn't even leave His name to the Jews, not to speak what He's composed of. To me, "Name" gives another reason why Jesus should be protected from being revealed to the Jews.

[FONT=&quot]Yahwah reveals His name to Moses
Exodus 3:13-15.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
13 And Moses said to Elohiym, “Suppose I go to the siblings of the Israelites and say to them, 'The Elohiym of your forefathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?” (Elohiym means, “God of The Living.”) It can also be translated as “god-s of the living” or “god-s of life;” for those who have life immortal.
14 And Elohiym said to Moses, “The Living that Lives. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'The Living has sent me to you.” (HaYah) in the ancient Semitic language means: The Living, or The Life.)
15 And Elohiym also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, 'Yahwah, the Elohiym of your forefathers; the Elohiym of Abraham, the Elohiym of Isaac and the Elohiym of Jacob has sent me to you.' That’s my name forever, the name by which I’m to be remembered, from generation to generation.”[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[jsanford108]

Constantine first called the council to convene at Ancyra but then transferred “the council from Ancyra to Nicaea so that he could control the proceedings.” - The Early Church, Chadwick, p. 130, Dorset Press, NY, 1986 ed.

Where does Mr. Chadwick get this information? Because, while Constantine allowed Christians to gather, he did not "control the proceedings." This seems to be speculation, in an attempt to revise history.

“The Emperor [Constantine] himself presided over the critical session [at Nicaea], and it was he who proposed the reconciling word, 'homoousios' (Greek for ‘of one essence’) to describe Christ’s relationship to the Father (though it was probably one of his ecclesiastical advisers, Ossius [Hosius] of Cordova, who suggested it to him).” - Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity, p. 134, 1977; Also The History of Christianity, Lion Publishing, 1990.

Note that this author is a non-trinitarian, unitarian? Again, this seems to be speculation, in an attempt to revise history.

Thus far, out of two sources, with PDF's available online, neither provided any source from which this information was obtained.

“The interference with the Church by the temporal power [began] with the control of the Council of Nicaea by Constantine in 325.” - p. 19. And, “Constantine at Nicaea in 325 arrogated to himself the right to arbitrate the dispute in the Church, even though he was only the temporal ruler of the Empire.” - p. 137, Christianity Through the Centuries, E. E. Cairns, Ph.D., Zondervan Publishing House, 1977 printing.

Authored by a political scientist; aka: someone who wants to be considered an expert without the qualifications. This book also has no source (according to Google) from which this information is gathered.

“at the Nicene Council ... there were three parties present: the strict Arians, the semi-Arians and the Alexander-Athanasian party. The latter party, with the help of Constantine and the [seven] Western bishops, secured the adoption of a creed which no strict Arian could subscribe to, since it declared that the Son is identical in essence (homoousian) with the Father. The semi-Arians, although they maintained that the Son was not identical in essence, but of similar essence (homoiousian) with the Father, were finally constrained [‘to compel, force’ - Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary] to sign the document.” - Encyclopedia Americana, p. 233, v. 2, 1957 ed.

Finally, a decent, unbiased source. Note that Constantine did not "control the proceedings," influence the Bishops, etc. All we see is a gathering of various Christians, with varying doctrines, and them coming up with a Creed, stating what they all believe.

One can't help but note your oh so subtle defining of "constrained." "Compel" does not mean "forcible." You are trying to place your own connotations into the unbiased work, in order for it to allude to an alternate version of history. This quote just shows that over time, the various Christians came to an agreement. Not forced, but through compelling conversation and debate.

“The Emperor [Constantine and his trinitarian designee, Hosius] presided over the council and paid its expenses. For the first time the church found itself dominated by the political leadership of the head of state.” - Cairns, p. 143.

Oh, look. Another biased source with a preference to an alternate reality. Again, no actual source, but mere conjecture.

“Constantine banished Arius, ordered the death penalty for those who did not conform, and commanded the burning of the books composed by Arius...” - pp. 50-51, Christianity Through the Ages, 1965, Harper ChapelBooks.

Wow. This is compelling (note there was no force needed). Except that historically, Constantine did not convert to Christianity until he was on his deathbed, according to his son, advisers, and historians. (Rise of Christendom, Brown, unsure of exact page, my bad). This also makes no logical sense. Have you ever heard of a new convert to Christianity who immediately wanted to kill those who did not conform? That is not the heart of a true Christian, nor anything taught by Jesus. So, this point goes against logic, as well as history.

In fact, according to Jackson Speilvogel’s Making of the West (2008), we can clearly see the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Constantine legalized Christianity in 325 AD. At the time, the pope was Sylvester I, the 33rd pope. It was not until 336/337 AD in which Constantine converted to Christianity. Then, we have six emperors of the Roman Empire, all pagan. It was one of these, Theodosius I, who declared Christianity as the official religion of the state, due to its dominance. Then, in 386 AD, Augustine, emperor of Rome, converts to Christianity. At this time, Sirictus is pope (38th), and Augustine is hailed as the first Christian emperor.

This is history according to secular sources, absent of bias.

“The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority, and they were misunderstood and disliked by many [even those] who were not adherents of Arius. In particular the terms [‘out of the substance’ - 'exousia'] and 'homoousios' [‘of the same substance’] aroused opposition, on the grounds that they were unscriptural, novel, ... and erroneous metaphysically.” - p. 41, Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., Bettenson, 1967, Oxford University Press.

Who authored this document? Because, the lack of a date and attributed authorship would call into question the authenticity of the contents of this document. This particular source book is merely a collection of documents, of anyone who labels themselves “Christian,” regardless of doctrine. (I was unable to find a PDF of this document online, therefore unable to trace the source of the quote)

“But [the Council of Nicaea’s] formula of the Son’s ‘consubstantiality’ ['homoousios'] with the Father was slow to gain general acceptance, despite [Emperor] Constantine’s efforts to impose it.” - p. 72, The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, John McManners, Oxford University Press, 1992.

Now this is again a good source, but one written by a person of a particular bias. Again, this particular bit of information lacks a source material, and is mere speculation and conjecture of the author.

“Before the assembling of the council of Nice, Constantine had been persuaded that the Arian doctrine contained a blasphemy against the divinity of Christ, and that the [homoousian] was absolutely required, in order to maintain the dignity of Christ’s person. …. It was nothing but the influence of the emperor Constantine which induced the eastern bishops at the council of Nice to suffer the imposition of a doctrinal formula which they detested and from which, indeed, they sought immediately to relieve themselves.” - Neander’s History of Christianity, Vol. 3, p. 189, Bohn.

Another biased source, revising history.

“... the Creed of Nicaea became entirely distinctive because of its technical [non-scriptural] language and solemn curses (anathemas).” - p. 159. (This actually began the period of persecution of Christians by “Christians”!) And, “The Council of Nicaea set many precedents. The emperor called it, influenced its decision-making and used his civil power to give its decrees virtually the status of imperial law. The Council introduced a new kind of orthodoxy, which for the first time gave non-Biblical terms critical importance. .... In the long term did the whole church recognize that Nicaea had decisively developed its understanding of the divinity of Christ?

“Nicaea was followed by more than half a century of discord and disorder .... The ‘faith of Nicaea’, as the Creed was commonly called, was for most of the period out of favor with most churchmen.” - p. 160, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity, 1977.

You really like this book; most likely due to its clear bias and alternate reality of history. Again, no actual source material as a source. This is pure revisionism, in preference of denying actual history and reality, so as to push personal doctrine and agenda.

Actual history books, made by secular sources, are better for gathering information related to Church history. They are unbiased, and if biased at all, are anti-Christian in their leanings. Thus, they will paint a negative picture of Christianity. Yet, even then, they all agree that Constantine was not in charge of the Council of Nicea, that the Christians did not forcefully submit those who did not believe the same as that declared at Nicea, and that a majority of Christianity believed in the Trinity doctrines. Time and again, we see that those who are not the majority have attempted to revise history in order to paint themselves as “true, original Christians.” Islam does the same thing.

 

[jsanford108]

Polycarp did not teach the trinity either, but he did confuse the valentinians who thought their god was Jesus Christ.

And, false. Polycarp did. Here are some quotes of his: "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 and in all freedom from anger and forbearance and steadfastness and patient endurance and purity." How could Jesus be the Son of God? That implies paternal heritage.

"How, then, could I blaspheme my King who saved Me?....I bless Thee for deigning me worthy of this day and this hour that I may be among Thy martyrs and drink the cup of my Lord Jesus Christ." Calling Jesus "the King" is blasphemous if He is not God. To worship a man is idolatry, no? So, to equate Jesus with God as King, Lord, etc is blasphemy/idolatry if He is not God.

 

[jsanford108]

I am sorry, but as for me Scripture holds the highest authority...we can not prove the infallible with the fallible words of mankind though a great testimony.

So, the words of early Christians is useless? If so, then how can you trust the writings of Paul?

If you only trust the infallible, then who was the first president of the US? There are no "infallible" sources on that are there?

How do you know Scripture is the highest authority? How do you know it is infallible?

I am not disagreeing with your points on the Trinity, but you reasons are poor. That is why I give all of these questions.

 

[jsanford108]

And again, in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:

What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke these words to his followers, and fulfilled it by that event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.”

Here, Eusebius is attributing the perceived end of the persecution of Christianity as an act of Christ/God, working through the actions and decree of Emperor Constantine. If you read the entire script/text, that is very clear.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

"46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Did you have a point to make?

 

[TestedandTried]

He is quoting the scriptures. I think this conversation is too much for you. Have a nice day.

No, He is trying to back up Scripture or prove out Scripture with the authority of outside writings.

 

[TestedandTried]

You appear to be in quite a quandary...yes, I've pondered these questions you pose, but the Scriptures are handed down to us as inspired; that means the Word of God, God's own thoughts...good enough for me...what are the alternatives? Lots of doubts and going to dubious texts which were not included in the canon. Scripture proves itself out. We are not to add or subtract from God's Word...Proverbs 30:6; I Corinthians 4:6; 2 John 1:9; Revelation 22:18-19.
Have faith!

 

[CherubRam]

No, He is trying to back up Scripture or prove out Scripture with the authority of outside writings.

You should not be teaching what the scriptures say.

[FONT=&quot]Acts 2:38[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Yahshua Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 8:16
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Yahshua.)

Acts 10:48
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:4
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Yahshua.

Acts 19:5
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Yahshua.

Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Romans 6:3
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Yahshua Christ were baptized into his death?

Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[jsanford108]

You appear to be in quite a quandary...yes, I've pondered these questions you pose, but the Scriptures are handed down to us as inspired; that means the Word of God, God's own thoughts...good enough for me...what are the alternatives? Lots of doubts and going to dubious texts which were not included in the canon. Scripture proves itself out. We are not to add or subtract from God's Word...Proverbs 30:6; I Corinthians 4:6; 2 John 1:9; Revelation 22:18-19.
Have faith!

Is this directed at Cherubram or myself?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[chair]

Did you have a point to make?

3rd hour? You seemed to think that was significant

 

[TestedandTried]

Is this directed at Cherubram or myself?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

I believe I'm answering you; it was you who countered my comment on mot using fallible man's words to uphold God's infallible, inspired Word.

 

[TestedandTried]

You should not be teaching what the scriptures say.

[FONT=&quot]Acts 2:38[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Yahshua Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 8:16
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Yahshua.)

Acts 10:48
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:4
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Yahshua.

Acts 19:5
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Yahshua.

Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Romans 6:3
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Yahshua Christ were baptized into his death?

Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Your point???????? precisely??!

 

[jsanford108]

I believe I'm answering you; it was you who countered my comment on mot using fallible man's words to uphold God's infallible, inspired Word.

Thanks. I thought you were, but I did not want to be presumptuous.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[jsanford108]

I believe I'm answering you; it was you who countered my comment on mot using fallible man's words to uphold God's infallible, inspired Word.

So, how do you know the Scriptures are infallible?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[TestedandTried]

So, how do you know the Scriptures are infallible?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

The Scriptures confirm and uphold one another. They are like the work of a very skilled weaver...prophecies all miraculously and meticulously fulfilled in Christ also and quotes from the OT found in the NT; from the Gospel word fulfilling both OT and NT...suppose I could go on. You may think me naive, but I do stand on faith with these proofs provided therein. Afterall it is also a faith act/lack thereof to go to outside sources. I posted already the passages which provide our faith should rest upon Scripture alone without adding and subtracting.
I believe I'll allow you to respond if you wish and bow out of the discussion at that point.

 

[jsanford108]

The Scriptures confirm and uphold one another.

Agreed. But I could take two false facts, make them "confirm" each other. That does not make them infallible.

They are like the work of a very skilled weaver...prophecies all miraculously and meticulously fulfilled in Christ

Amen, brother.

also and quotes from the OT found in the NT; from the Gospel word fulfilling both OT and NT...suppose I could go on.

So, does using quotes from the OT make something "inspired?" Yes, Jesus and the Apostles do quote from many books we find in the OT, but they do not quote from Ecclesiastes, Esther, or Song of Songs, among others. Yet, they do quote from books considered apocryphal by many, such as Wisdom and Maccabees.

You may think me naive, but I do stand on faith with these proofs provided therein. {/QUOTE]It is not that I consider you naive, but, forgive commonly applied connotations, ignorant. Not as an insult to your intellect. You accept ideas of infallibility, without proofs or critical analysis on your own part. To ignore facts and logic is, by definition, ignorant. Again, not insulting your intellect.

How can you defend the Bible to an atheist, agnostic, or any non-Christian, when you are unable to logically prove that the Scriptures are infallible? To say simply that "faith" is how you know is no different than the Muslim who declares that Muhammad speaks only truth.

Afterall it is also a faith act/lack thereof to go to outside sources.

I disagree. I would say it takes greater faith. One proves the Scriptures to be historical fact by using outside sources. One proves the theological truths by logic. One believes these truths by faith.

In fact, the way one proves the Scriptures as infallible requires outside sources. Both Christian and secular, in origin.

I posted already the passages which provide our faith should rest upon Scripture alone without adding and subtracting.

I agree that our faith does rest upon the Scriptures, and that the proofs of the Trinity are contained therein. However, our faith should not, and in fact does not, rest upon Scripture alone. According to the scriptures, we find truths outside of Scripture. Add on to this: We never see the word "Trinity" in Scripture. I know this is getting off onto another topic, but I felt that you made several assumptions in order to posit your affirmation of what you deduce from Scripture.

I believe I'll allow you to respond if you wish and bow out of the discussion at that point.

If you wish to discuss the infallible nature of Scripture, which I believe fully as you do, we can. I would be remiss if I did not address these issues as they appeared.

Does my tangent add to the discussion? I do not really think so; however it is the issue that has been running amok since the inception of this thread. People rely (and believe) on Scripture as infallible, without being able to say how or why, logically, that Scripture is infallible. Then, they reject any outside information that affirms that which can be found in Scripture. Bright Raven, for example, used quotes from early Christians that proved Trinity doctrine was believed and taught before 325 AD, as the OP suggested (and was defended by a few other non-Trinitarians). People commonly reject truths of faith, if the material from which it was derived, came from outside the Bible. This is illogical. And that is my whole purpose of this response.