Can you Spot the Trinity?
- Thread starter Dave-L
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
John reveals, that a Disciple asked Jesus, show us the Father.
Jesus said, if you SEE ME you SEE the FATHER.
And then explained. THE FATHER is DWELLING/LIVING inside ME and what Jesus does/say IS THE FATHER doing/saying.
^
When you let that sink into your brain, this is what you get:
God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels,
........... begat Him, emitting Him
........... along with His own wisdom before all things.
but the wisdom [Spirit in this instance is Sophia] of God which was in Him, and
........... His holy Word which was always present with Him.
^
which is this:
It reveals the WORD and WISDOM were always Internal with God before God chose to use them External. Therefore, the WORD is always connected to God at all times. There is no need to watch something that is a part of YOU whether internal or external.
Jesus said, if you SEE ME you SEE the FATHER.
And then explained. THE FATHER is DWELLING/LIVING inside ME and what Jesus does/say IS THE FATHER doing/saying.
^
When you let that sink into your brain, this is what you get:
God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels,
........... begat Him, emitting Him
........... along with His own wisdom before all things.
but the wisdom [Spirit in this instance is Sophia] of God which was in Him, and
........... His holy Word which was always present with Him.
^
which is this:
It reveals the WORD and WISDOM were always Internal with God before God chose to use them External. Therefore, the WORD is always connected to God at all times. There is no need to watch something that is a part of YOU whether internal or external.
Are you saying that there are no accurate English translations of the scriptures?
Or is it a particular translation you are saying doesn't match up?
Read this Carefully, Brother:
Quote from New Catholic Encyclopedia: The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the fourth Century. Among the Apostolic Fathers there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective’ Unquote.
The ante-Nicene Fathers we’re acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ’s birth. What they taught is of interest. In summing up the historical evidence Alyan Lamson says in ‘The Church of the First Three Centuries: Quote: The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ...derives no support from the language of Justin Martyr; and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is; to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ....Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact.” Unquote.
In my opinion, if the English Bible was correctly aligned with the Hebrew/Aramaic, and the Translated Greek to which the First Church and Church Fathers used, shouldn't we see God the same as they saw God?
They were literally 50 years from when the Apostles taught. TWO Church Fathers, IGGY and POLYCARP were direct Disciples of the Apostle/Disciple/Beloved John. That puts the Church Fathers directly to JESUS HIMSELF through JOHN!
We are 2,000 years from Jesus, and our beliefs do not match Jesus, what the Apostle John taught, or what the Church Fathers taught. My opinion is due to the English Bible.
My question for you:
if the Church Fathers are closest to Jesus, had truer Biblical Materials, had the Apostle John personally teaching what JESUS taught, shouldn't we be following that view, not today's Modern view?
I don't see anywhere in the Bible where God refers to himself as a God called Trinity. There is God who is the father and then Jesus who is the son who sits at the right hand of the father but Jesus is also Lord and has the authority of God. But from what I understand the holy spirit is not God and when I worship I worship God and Jesus. I am however very thankful for the holy spirit of course but I do not see where it says the holy spirit is God.
What do you regard as the authoritative Aramaic text?
What do you regard as the authoritative Greek text?
Possibly. My experience has been that those who begin paying a lot of attention to the early church fathers end up as Eastern Orthodox or Catholic. I'm not saying that's wrong, that's just what I've seen.
Do we follow all of what Ignatius taught?
I think the story goes that Irenaeus was a disciple of Ignatius. Would we follow everything he taught as well?
Clement of Rome is, I believe, earlier than polycarp or Ignatius. Shall we follow his teaching also?
I find that most who have responded to the questions I ask [act] as if their Doctrine is being challenged, not whether God's Doctrine is being challenged.
When I think of IGGY and Polycarp, I think about JESUS choosing John as His Beloved Disciple. Jesus knew John would escape the horrors of 67-70 AD and grow to be an old man. Jesus knew John would have his own Disciples and be able to personally pass down CHRIST's own teachings in a first hand format. Jesus knew those Disciples IGGY and POLYCARP would carry on HIS (JESUS) knowledge to who we call the Church Fathers. To me, that is SPECIAL! That is the foresight I want to see in figuring out specifically what the WORD of GOD is all about.
I cannot help it that today's Modern Views do not align basically with what Jesus taught to John, who taught to IGGY and POLYCARP, who influenced other Church Fathers. I cannot help the fact that if your views are the same as Modern Day Trinity, they do not align with the Gospel of Christ (since we know how the Church Fathers were teaching). But what I can help my own walk in God in with is by paying attention to what Jesus taught, what John taught, what John's Disciples taught, what the Church Fathers taught and Believe as them.
WHY?
They are going to Heaven by following Jesus' Doctrine is why.
The Doctrines that are different like today's Modern Teachings, since they do not align with the Church Fathers, means they don't align with the Apostles, means they don't align with GOD Himself, means there is no guarantee that Doctrine will Save our Souls.
After all, the Devils believe in Jesus like modern day Doctrines, and the devils are in HELL. We don't know the result of Heaven/Hell for those not aligned with Christ's Doctrine yet. But we will and soon enough!
You just might find this interesting:
And remember, this source does not care about Doctrines. Chances are they are not even Believers so they are not trying to sway or get on someone's good side of the argument/debate. They just report what was factually discovered.
Encyclopedia Britannica 1968
"The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325. Constantine himself presiding, actively guiding the discussion, and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council 'of one substance with the father.' Over-awed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them against their inclination. Constantine regarded the decision of Nicaea as divinely inspired. As long as he lived no one dared openly to challenge the creed of Nicaea."
^
If that is factual, then it was a PAGAN EMPEROR who demanded the beliefs of TODAY!
^
If that is factual, then Modern Day View is 100% Pagan Inspired!
Personally, I do not if it is true or not, I was not there. But it is alarming none the less to wonder if today's Doctrine is Holy Spirit inspired of MAN MADE!
And remember, this source does not care about Doctrines. Chances are they are not even Believers so they are not trying to sway or get on someone's good side of the argument/debate. They just report what was factually discovered.
Encyclopedia Britannica 1968
"The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325. Constantine himself presiding, actively guiding the discussion, and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council 'of one substance with the father.' Over-awed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them against their inclination. Constantine regarded the decision of Nicaea as divinely inspired. As long as he lived no one dared openly to challenge the creed of Nicaea."
^
If that is factual, then it was a PAGAN EMPEROR who demanded the beliefs of TODAY!
^
If that is factual, then Modern Day View is 100% Pagan Inspired!
Personally, I do not if it is true or not, I was not there. But it is alarming none the less to wonder if today's Doctrine is Holy Spirit inspired of MAN MADE!
Before we know whether God's doctrine is being challenged, I think it would be good to agree on where to find God's doctrine.
It sounds like you are very interested in polycarp and Ignatius.
So, starting with polycarp, do you regard The Epistle of polycarp to the Philippians to be a reliable place to find God's doctrine?
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-roberts.html
That indeed is an excellent read because it quotes exact Scripture, it honors Paul, and it confirms many things we read in the Gospels taught by Christ Himself.
Do I hold it as equal to the Scriptures themself?
No!
And even Polycarp claims, he is only writing this because the Church at Philippi asked him to.
But like I've stated, it confirms Christ's Gospel He taught Himself!
When it comes to the Bible itself, for the Old Testament I use first and foremost the Tanakh/Torah. For the New Testament, the Hebrew/Aramaic and the oldest papyrus dated Translated Greek.
In my opinion, the closer versions to when Jesus walked the Earth are most likely the less copied/translated in biasness.
I believe the KJV is biased to what King James personally believed, since he excommunicated himself from the Catholic Church by disagreeing with their interpretation of Scripture. So I believe, we now have his own personal interpretation of Scripture.
English Catholics 1603 to 1606
James I, King of Scotland became King James when he took over control of the United Kingdom:
English Catholics were full of hope when James I made his way to London from Scotland in 1603. English Catholics believed that James had promised them an improved lifestyle once he had ascended the throne and all Catholics in England expected a more tolerant society.
If English Catholics expected much from James, they were to be disappointed. It is said that the great anger that Digby felt pushed into the conspiracy that planned to kill James I.
In his writings while King of Scotland James frequently used the words “devil”, “Satan” and “demonic” when referring to the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope. It is highly unlikely that anyone in England would have read these works but if they had, they would have realised that any chance of tolerance for the Catholics was at best minimal.
***Ironically, this hate for the Roman Catholic Church led to king James creating his own Bible, which we know as the KJV***
James I, King of Scotland became King James when he took over control of the United Kingdom:
English Catholics were full of hope when James I made his way to London from Scotland in 1603. English Catholics believed that James had promised them an improved lifestyle once he had ascended the throne and all Catholics in England expected a more tolerant society.
If English Catholics expected much from James, they were to be disappointed. It is said that the great anger that Digby felt pushed into the conspiracy that planned to kill James I.
In his writings while King of Scotland James frequently used the words “devil”, “Satan” and “demonic” when referring to the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope. It is highly unlikely that anyone in England would have read these works but if they had, they would have realised that any chance of tolerance for the Catholics was at best minimal.
***Ironically, this hate for the Roman Catholic Church led to king James creating his own Bible, which we know as the KJV***
That guy was right, one of the largest religions in the world is truly a synagogue of Satan. For even Satan and his angels can come as agents of light. Christ warned us there would be many antichrists after him. Christ himself disliked religion, which is shown in the gospels when he refers to the Pharisees. The Roman church is just a modified form of Judaism that uses the name of Christ. Sadly they are steeped in the blood of the saints and now their deadly wound has been healed. Any religious practices, traditions or rituals which are not of the Bible are of Satan. It is my great hope that many of those people will wake up and hear the voice of Christ.
This idea is both naive and foolish. There were almost 50 translators involved with the translation of the KJV, and they all were not catering to anyone's whims or personal interpretations. They were men of integrity, piety, and learning. Had that not been the case, the KJV could not have withstood the test of time, and acknowledge as the standard English language Bible for over 300 years. The fact that the KJV has been under constant attack speaks for itself, and shows that because it is the written Word of God, Satan hates it.
I did not mean all 66 Books, every translated word, all sentence structures had his input. I think his input is in very minute specific doctrinal finalizations. I showed you how the Aramaic, Greek, Latin Vulgate 1 John 5:6-8 were the same and the KJV was completely not even close. This could be an area of what I am pointing out.
Which version of the Tanakh/Torah? Do you mean the Masoretic text? Do you read Hebrew?
When you say the Hebrew/Aramaic, do you mean this?
https://www.thearamaicscriptures.com/
Or something different?
Do you read Aramaic?
When you say the oldest papyrus dated Translated Greek, which papyrus are you referring to? Are you including fragments, or do you mean the earliest complete copy of the New testament in Greek?
Do you read Greek?
I am near a Chabad Center that teaches and I use their Bible, that is claimed to be the version AMOS the Scribe (we have a Book of Amos in the KJV/same person) copied.
My Grandfather was yiddish and we have often been taught portions of the Language growing up.
i do use a version like this but more importantly, like this Version, it contains New Testament, in such manuscripts as The Yonan Codex, The Khabouris Codex, The 1199 Houghton Codex, and The Mingana 148 Codex.
And Yes, I do understand some Aramaic.
The earliest complete copy.
No, I find Greek to be a very improper Language, which is why in some Greek Translations there are still Hebrew/Aramaic words that at the earliest times, were unable to be translated for lack of word meaning within the Greek Language.
Looks like Chabad has high praise for the Masoretic text, so they're probably using a translation based on that. I think it's pretty much the standard for the Jewish world, and the Christian world with the exception of the Eastern Orthodox.
Cool!
Which one?
Cool again!
I believe the earliest complete copies of the New testament are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Dating is uncertain, so as I understand it it's not clear which one is the oldest.
Do you use one of those?
Of course you're welcome to take that position.
Most people would find your reasoning to be
(and I mean this as gently as possible)
not compelling.