Three Gods or one? Explain the Trinity.

[Absolutely]

still makes no sense, there is no mention of Jesus creating all things in this passage



all things created "through" the image is pretty difficult to explain its quite a bit more complex then Jesus is the creator.

The Holy Spirit nailed it

BY HIM (nothing about an image) were all things created.

I dont know what you are missing in your comprehension.
Are you being obtuse?

And if you dont mind me asking...what denomination agrees with your doctrine.
Provide me a link or name of some web page or name of your denomination.

 

[Absolutely]

I think the Didache is a Catholic fabrication. Only the Catholics put water on your head, most every church I have known dunks you and that water is not running, it's in a tank and sits there until someone wants to be baptized.

The early church was like today...many heresies.
Like a buffet.
Some stuff you leave off your plate.

The writings "against heresy " is a good indicator of the massive error from the start.
Much of Paul's writings were against heresy.
You can't get much earlier than that.

 

[biker]

The early church was like today...many heresies.
Like a buffet.
Some stuff you leave off your plate.

The writings "against heresy " is a good indicator of the massive error from the start.
Much of Paul's writings were against heresy.
You can't get much earlier than that.

Probably why the Didache and its writings were never included in our Bible.

 

[tourist]

You can’t be your own father.

Who's your daddy?

 

[jaybird88]

The Holy Spirit nailed it

BY HIM (nothing about an image) were all things created.

I dont know what you are missing in your comprehension.
Are you being obtuse?

And if you dont mind me asking...what denomination agrees with your doctrine.
Provide me a link or name of some web page or name of your denomination.

if the spirit has revealed this information to you i am happy for you, however the scripture does not say this, thats what is missing. IMO its not a good idea to take three or four scriptures and piece them together like a puzzle, this does not create sound doctrine, here is an example, i propose Peter tempted Eve in the garden, Jesus told Peter get behind me Satan, Rev calls Satan "that serpent", Gen says the serpent tempted Eve, thus it was Peter in the garden. see how that works?

i grew up in a baptist church, i woke up in my 30s and started reading scripture for myself rather than have this group or that group tell me what to think. Jesus taught us to be lead by the spirit, not a group, council or denomination.

 

[jaybird88]

The early church was like today...many heresies.
Like a buffet.
Some stuff you leave off your plate.

The writings "against heresy " is a good indicator of the massive error from the start.
Much of Paul's writings were against heresy.
You can't get much earlier than that.

the Nazarenes were one of the first groups to be labled as heretics. if i were told the sect of Jesus Himself were heretics that would be a sign for me to find a new church.
these councils that hunted heretics were also the same ones that burned people alive, went on crusades and tortured people under inquisitions. i dont remember Jesus and the 12 ever doing stuff like that?

 

[biker]

What if he had added the verse before 15?




14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16 For by him were all things created,

We are only redeemed by ONE Persons BLOOD.

Does this make it clearer?

 

[azamzimtoti]

I don't try to explain it - it's a mystery as Paul said:

(Col 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ)

 

[Absolutely]

the Nazarenes were one of the first groups to be labled as heretics. if i were told the sect of Jesus Himself were heretics that would be a sign for me to find a new church.
these councils that hunted heretics were also the same ones that burned people alive, went on crusades and tortured people under inquisitions. i dont remember Jesus and the 12 ever doing stuff like that?

From what you are saying it is like you have found your own separate truths?
There is no group or ministry in your arena of fellowship that is like minded and anti trinity?
I personally do not know of any believers that are anti trinity...and anti who and what the word says about Jesus ,his deity,and testimony.

It clearly ,clearly says Jesus is the creator.
The bible says "let my word be confirmed in 2 or 3 witnesses.
I have met that criteria.

Jesus is clearly the creator.

 

[Absolutely]

the Nazarenes were one of the first groups to be labled as heretics. if i were told the sect of Jesus Himself were heretics that would be a sign for me to find a new church.
these councils that hunted heretics were also the same ones that burned people alive, went on crusades and tortured people under inquisitions. i dont remember Jesus and the 12 ever doing stuff like that?

Peter was a heretic.

 

[jaybird88]

From what you are saying it is like you have found your own separate truths?
There is no group or ministry in your arena of fellowship that is like minded and anti trinity?
I personally do not know of any believers that are anti trinity...and anti who and what the word says about Jesus ,his deity,and testimony.

It clearly ,clearly says Jesus is the creator.
The bible says "let my word be confirmed in 2 or 3 witnesses.
I have met that criteria.

Jesus is clearly the creator.

this is where you and I seem to be quite different, you sound like you have to have a group tell you what to think, i choose to think for myself.

im not anti trinity, if you believe the triity and you thnk it helps you, i would never tell you to change a thing.

then Peter must have clearly, clearly tempted Eve.

if it "clearly" said Jesus is the creator then we should see that phrase somewhere, its not there.

 

[Deuteronomy]

If I may ask? The Didache is supposed to be written by the Apostles. But 3 times we see 3 different Apostles Baptizing in Jesus Name and dunking them full immersed in water. How can the Didache be factual when it does not line up with Scripture (Book of Acts)?

Hello Biker, the Didache was supposedly written by some of the Apostles, however, we are not sure of its exact authorship. Its greatest value to us is the look that it gives us into the faith and practice of the 1st Century Church (since the one thing that we do know is that it was written in the late 1st Century).

As for baptizing in the name of God, His ~singular~ "name" is, "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit", according to the Lord Jesus anyway. Concerning this, I believe that we can be certain of two things,

1. that the Lord Jesus made no mistake concerning the baptismal formula that He gave us to use just prior to His Ascension (in Matthew 28:19) and,​

​

2. that the Apostle Peter made no mistake when He baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus alone in Acts. The reasons that have given for this (for Peter's choice to not follow the Lord's baptismal formula in the Book of Acts) is nothing more than conjecture.​

However, one 'very' important thing that St. Peter did for us (by baptizing in Jesus' name only in certain instances), was to show us/confirm for us that there is ~not~ a specific set of words that needs to be spoken during baptism, as if the words are some kind of necessary incantation that must be spoken for a baptism to be considered legitimate or proper.

That said, I suspect that the immediate reason that Peter chose to baptize in the Lord Jesus' name only was for the sake of those who were being baptized (because of their unique situation as 1st Century Jews), but again, anything like this that goes beyond points one and two above is simply a matter of conjecture.

We know from the Didache, and from the Ante-Nicene Fathers (as well from the later ECF) that the church chose to follow Jesus' baptismal formula, not Peter's, and that they thought it was important, but not necessary*, to do so.

*(they could not have believed that it was "necessary" to follow the Lord Jesus' baptismal formula based upon the early chapters of Acts alone)

~Deut

Matthew 28​

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.​

​

 

[biker]

Hello Biker, the Didache was supposedly written by some of the Apostles, however, we are not sure of its exact authorship. Its greatest value to us is the look that it gives us into the faith and practice of the 1st Century Church (since the one thing that we do know is that it was written in the late 1st Century).

As for baptizing in the name of God, His ~singular~ "name" is, "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit", according to the Lord Jesus anyway. Concerning this, I believe that we can be certain of two things,

1. that the Lord Jesus made no mistake concerning the baptismal formula that He gave us to use just prior to His Ascension (in Matthew 28:19) and,​

​

2. that the Apostle Peter made no mistake when He baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus alone in Acts. The reasons that have given for this (for Peter's choice to not follow the Lord's baptismal formula in the Book of Acts) is nothing more than conjecture.​

However, one 'very' important thing that St. Peter did for us (by baptizing in Jesus' name only in certain instances), was to show us/confirm for us that there is ~not~ a specific set of words that needs to be spoken during baptism, as if the words are some kind of necessary incantation that must be spoken for a baptism to be considered legitimate or proper.

That said, I suspect that the immediate reason that Peter chose to baptize in the Lord Jesus' name only was for the sake of those who were being baptized (because of their unique situation as 1st Century Jews), but again, anything like this that goes beyond points one and two above is simply a matter of conjecture.

We know from the Didache, and from the Ante-Nicene Fathers (as well from the later ECF) that the church chose to follow Jesus' baptismal formula, not Peter's, and that they thought it was important, but not necessary*, to do so.

*(they could not have believed that it was "necessary" to follow the Lord Jesus' baptismal formula based upon the early chapters of Acts alone)

~Deut

Matthew 28​

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.​

​

Please, I hope I did not make it seem that Matthew 28:19 was not valid. I just find it after doing some research with the Didache how much it differs from the Book of Acts and the rest of the New Testament. And I say that knowing it was thought to be personally guided by the actual Apostles themselves. The Didache talks about fasting and we never really see the Apostles fasting. And it discusses many things that don't seem to line up. I guess then after reading the Bible, I was expecting the Didache to be a lot closer to Scripture.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

How can Jesus be God, the Spirit be God and the Father be God?

God is multi-personal.

There is one God yet three Persons. All share the same essence.

It's no more complicated than that.

By the way, since you asked this, you will likely hear many analogies that don't really reflect the Trinity doctrine, from people who think they are orthodox Christians

 

[Diakonos]

the seven spirits of God

Study the shape of the Golden Menorah, then study Isaiah 11:2

 

[Diakonos]

How can Jesus be God, the Spirit be God and the Father be God?

How can you be body, soul and spirit, yet be one in essence?
Because you're made in the image of God. Triune

One can articulate the Trinity, but one cannot explain the Trinity. The closest we can get is by speaking analogically in addition to what the Word tells us

 

[Diakonos]

How can you be a son, and a father, and a brother, and a cousin, and an uncle, and a friend, and an enemy, all at the same time?

I understand the illustration, but I prefer not to use it because it suggests Modelism (One person who where's many hats). The Trinity is not one person with 3 modes. The Trinity is 3 persons with one essence.

 

[Diakonos]

(not to sound sacrilegious, but) I think the best analogy for the Trinity would be something like "Cerberus the 3-headed dog" (Greek Mythology).
Purely for the sake of analogy...
We may suppose that Cerberus has three brains and therefore three distinct states of consciousness of whatever it is like to be a dog. Therefore, Cerberus, while a sentient being, does not have a unified consciousness. He has three consciousnesses. We could even assign proper names to each of them: Rover, Bowser, and Spike. These centers of consciousness are entirely discrete and might well come into conflict with one another. Still, in order for Cerberus to be biologically viable, not to mention in order to function effectively as a guard dog, there must be a considerable degree of cooperation among Rover, Bowser, and Spike. Despite the diversity of his mental states, Cerberus is clearly one dog. He is a single biological organism exemplifying a canine nature. Rover, Bowser, and Spike may be said to be canine, too, though they are not three dogs, but parts of the one dog Cerberus.

 

[Diakonos]

Probably why the Didache and its writings were never included in our Bible.

I'm sure there were many writings that were true in their content. But they weren't recognized as "God-Breathed". Sometimes you run across Scriptures that have an unavoidable amount of design and mathematical properties etc that just couldn't have been invented by a mere human author

 

[Diakonos]

I don't try to explain it - it's a mystery as Paul said:

(Col 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ)

I agree with the point, but the context for this verse is clear that this mystery is "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (just 4 verses before)