Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

why christmas should not be celebrated, page-75

First 75 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
wotsup

27,946 Posts.

1

31/12/21

13:23

Post #: 58585937
Share

Originally posted by ppm56: ↑

The Trinity is a doctrine, a construct. The evolution of the doctrine of the Trinity developed in stages and the doctrine that received the first imperial sanction did so in 325 A.D. in Nicaea.
Hi waffle, it’s good that you mentioned this and the creed.
Lets take a look how the creed developed as this will shed the history of the Trinity, you are correct Jesus never taught the Trinity as we see it today, but we see in the bible, NT reveals the deity of Christ in numerous ways namely the attributes of the Father are also the same as Jesus, you have to keep in mind what this would’ve meant to the Jews not to people with today’s mindset.
The Doctrine of the Trinity and somewhat the creeds developed due to all the different heresies that developed during the first 300years and beyond, it tried to put it in a format what was reveled by Christ in order and as a whole church believed for the faith to be kept in tack from all the various version that people come up with from lack of understanding especially with the passage time
On thing for certain is if it wasn't for the heresies and different takes throughout the 2000 years, we would not have the doctrine of the Trinity, but still believe what the doctrine teaches
The Jews absolutely believed in the one and only God, there is no way they would except a different God, even a Son, meaning 2 individuals, it had to be the one God
Now having said that, the Church of that time was left with a particular mindset by the apostles, which is its understanding, Traditions of how things were to be done and practiced. The Didache gives us a good indication of how the early faith was practiced outside from the source of the bible
One good way of doing this is to bounce it off the heresies of that time, as this will give us a good indication of what the church believed and what it didn’t believe which was what was rejected by what's proposed by that individual heresy.
There were many coming from individuals to which the church rejected, indicating what was actually believed
I can name a few but will concentrate on one that should be enough to give you an indication of what I mean otherwise I’ll clog up this post
We see in Partripassiamism, Modalism, the mindset was that the Father, Son and the Holy Spirt is the same God, working in different modes, we see in this heresy of the 2^nd century the believe was already there that Jesus in a sense was God, but the Church rejected it for it did not line up with its mindset left by the apostles
Patripassianism is attested as early as the 2nd century
In Christian theology, historical patripassianism (as it is referred to in the Western church) is a version of Sabellianism in the Eastern church (and a version of modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism). Modalism is the belief that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three different modesor aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead – that there are no real or substantial differences between the three, such that the identity of the Spirit or the Son is that of the Father.^[1]
In the West, a version of this belief was known pejoratively as patripassianism by its critics (from Latin patri- "father" and passio "suffering"), because the teaching required that since God the Father had become directly incarnate in Christ, the Father literally sacrificed Himself on the Cross.^[2]

There were many heresies Arianism is another one, the Church had no choice but to develop the creed as to be the official teaching of the church, if you were to open the Catechist of the CC one will see that the teaching is right there biblically explained.

Christ never taught the Trinity.
I can give you numerous biblical passages with Jesus having the same attributes as the Father where the doctrine comes from. But won’t to make this easier to read.

The Trinity has no bearing on one's salvation.
That’s not the case at all, we have writings coming down from the apostolic fathers, leaders who were taught by the apostles themselves attest, that without the believe in the Trinity and baptism in the Name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit there is no salvation.
Now we can bicker about this all we want, first one has to first eliminate what has crept in due to human history like the heresies I mentioned about which are many, once this is done one can see it is correct, that the Trinity is needed for salvation.
Now as Mr Gordon is unable to accept any true other than that which is delivered to him via the GB, it remains to be seen if you are able explore truths outside the framework of your religions codified beliefs?
Unfortunately, it’s not only Mrg, but many have fallen into the same trap
Augustine and Thomas Aquinas could not explain the Trinity. They said it either came done to Faith, or both faith and reason. They said, if there are several persons in G.d then there are several substances; which appears to be heretical
To keep this post as readable as possible lets just say that both Augustine and Aquinas said much more then this, the church due to modalism and others knew very well of the substance of the Trinity and so would have Augustine and Aquinas

Expand

Christ never taught the Trinity.
I can give you numerous biblical passages with Jesus having the same attributes as the Father where the doctrine comes from. But won’t to make this easier to read.

Yea,.........I would stay away from it as well, because if you bring in Bible verses, your claim in the bold falls on it's face.

Attributes -> Deu 18:18 - I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
(God did this for many years before sending Jesus into the world John 17:18).

John 5:30 - I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Acts 2:22 - Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did through him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

John 3:34 - For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

And these words are Spirit and words of eternal life which then meant;
John 5:26 For as the Father has life in himself (In his word) so has he given to the Son (Deu 18:18) to have life in himself.

So that is where and how the attributes come into play.
Luke 2:40 & 52 - And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Did he fall out of favor at some point, if he pre-existed?

The emptying verse in Phil that you lot try and bring in, has zero to do with a pre-existing Jesus emptying himself.
Jesus gives and example of this emptying.....................feet washing etc.
Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

Listen: HotCopper Wire Podcast 018 – Potatoes, TACOs, and the $120M helicopter heist

PSC

Prospect's Mumbezhi Project puts it at the middle of copper's megatrend. And FQM just bought in

PTX

This rare type of lymphoma ruins the body – so do existing treatments. Prescient could have a solution

WA8

Warriedar aims for Ricciardo MRE upgrade on 'thick, high-grade' gold and antimony

ASX Market Close: Climbing to 8,700s based on vibes wasn't sustainable

First 75 Last