How did the Trinity doctrine develop in the early church?

[St. SteVen]

The three in the trinity are not the same existence.

I am not familiar with the word triad used in this discussion.
I'm trying to understand you.

 

[Jack]

Compared to Greek, English would be inadequate for the time and task.

You're a Greek expert? All of our Bible are wrong?

 

[Jack]

I don't know. What I do know is the KJV does affirm the preexistence of Christ, it affirms the divinity and deity of Christ, and also affirms the personality of the holy Spirit. Whether you want to call that a trinity is up to you. I choose not to, because the creeds, and the teachings of the churches whether they agree with me above, or not, often go either too far or fall short of biblical truth. The fact that the church, by that I mean the Catholic Church, had to resort to the state armies and inquisitions and wars and threats thereof to convince others that belief in a/the trinity as they perceive it is truth, tells me that the church of that time wasn't convinced that God would defend that truth but needed their help. That's cultic reasoning and coercion such as that has no place in the kingdom of God.

Why not teach what is in the Bible, not tradition, reason from there, and let God do the rest?

Well said!

 

[Jack]

The Greek and Hebrew Interlinear Bibles..... word for word translations where you can see how many times God's name was substituted in the OT for a mere title (almost 7000 times)..... it also shows how many times the "ho" is ignored when it precedes "theos" in NT Greek....only Jehovah is called "ho theos", Jesus is called "theos" which is translated uniformly as "God" with a capital "G" even if it is lacking the definite article (ho). The Greeks didn't know what to call a God with no name, so they called him "ho theos" ("THE God" of the Jews) Jesus is called "ho logos" (The Word)

A grammar lesson for you Jack.....Greek has no indefinite article ("a" or "an") any that you see in the NT was added by the translators....so because "theos" means "any reference to God, gods, goddesses and or divinities", according to the Concordance, anyone who is worshipped or has divine authority can rightly be called "theos". Jesus called the judges in Israel "gods" (theos) because they had God's authority. (John 10:31-36) Read that and see what Jesus called himself.

Satan is called "theos in 2 Cor 4:4....because he is the self-proclaimed "god of this world".

You really are out of your depth in any kind of deeper Bible discussion Jack, as your ignorance at times just confirms how much you don't know. Please do some actual research....

Typical JW doctrine: 'The Bible doesn't mean what it says. It means what we say'! 'We are Bible Language experts. You ain't'!

 

[Jack]

I don't think he's confused.

Then YOU are confused. Very!

Perhaps he didn't put his thoughts on the same words as I did but I think that's what he was hoping to convey

If you agree with stevie you have HUGE problems. He won't even answer SIMPLE Biblical questions.

His name isn't Stevie.
You're not belittling St.SteVen with that tactic.

St.SteVen is his real name?

St? Yeah right.

 

[Lambano]

I am not familiar with the word triad used in this discussion.
I'm trying to understand you.

"A triad refers to a grouping of three gods in various religions, often seen as distinct entities, while the Trinity is a specific Christian doctrine that defines one God in three coequal persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, sharing one essence. The key difference lies in the nature of the entities involved; triads are typically separate deities, whereas the Trinity emphasizes a single divine essence." - DuckDuckGo Search Assistant

"The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as being one god existing in three co-equal, co-eternal, consubstantial persons....In this context, the three persons define who God is, while the one essence defines what God is" -Wikipedia

 

[MonoBiblical]

I am not familiar with the word triad used in this discussion.
I'm trying to understand you.

Three that act as one, but they aren't required to have the same existence. The English word trinity requires it.

 

[MonoBiblical]

You're a Greek expert? All of our Bible are wrong?

The syntax of Greek is underestimated, while English syntax is overrated.

 

[Jack]

The syntax of Greek is underestimated, while English syntax is overrated.

Quite evasive!

 

[Grailhunter]

"A triad refers to a grouping of three gods in various religions, often seen as distinct entities, while the Trinity is a specific Christian doctrine that defines one God in three coequal persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, sharing one essence. The key difference lies in the nature of the entities involved; triads are typically separate deities, whereas the Trinity emphasizes a single divine essence." - DuckDuckGo Search Assistant

"The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as being one god existing in three co-equal, co-eternal, consubstantial persons....In this context, the three persons define who God is, while the one essence defines what God is" -Wikipedia

The McKenzie Bible Dictionary explains it this way.... “The Trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God there are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly or formally a biblical belief.” Which hold true to the fact that the word Trinity does not occur in the Holy Bible.

 

[ProverbsInPink]

Then YOU are confused. Very!

If you agree with stevie you have HUGE problems. He won't even answer SIMPLE Biblical questions.

Or,you can't understand simple Biblical answers.
It is as God wills. That's Biblical too.

St.SteVen is his real name?

St? Yeah right.

Pseudonyms. Look it up.

 

[ProverbsInPink]

Well... ???

Matthew 8:26-27 NIV
He replied, “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?”
Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves,
and it was completely calm.
27 The men were amazed and asked,
“What kind of man is this?
Even the winds and the waves obey him!”

Yes. And you'll notice that observation was preceded by their question. "What kind of man is this?"

Are you of the sect that insists Jesus wasn't a flesh and blood man but what today we would call a hologram?

Jesus was the word,God,made flesh. That's John 1. Any who deny that aren't speaking of Jesus in scripture.

 

[Jack]

Or,you can't understand simple Biblical answers.

I understand stevie's answers. Nearly all anti Bible.

It is as God wills. That's Biblical too.

Pseudonyms. Look it up.

Like I said, if you are defending stevie you're attacking the Bible.

 

[ProverbsInPink]

I understand stevie's answers. Nearly all anti Bible.

Like I said, if you are defending stevie you're attacking the Bible.

When you don't know who Christ was in scripture,you are unable to judge those who do.

Orvour.

 

[Jack]

When you don't know who Christ was in scripture,you are unable to judge those who do.

Orvour.

God sent Himself in the flesh. Clear enough? Stevie judges himself every time he attacks the Bible.

Col 1 By Him all things were created.

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
Well... ???

Matthew 8:26-27 NIV
He replied, “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?”
Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves,
and it was completely calm.
27 The men were amazed and asked,
“What kind of man is this?
Even the winds and the waves obey him!”

Yes. And you'll notice that observation was preceded by their question. "What kind of man is this?"

Would it have made sense to ask what kind of God is this? (nope)

 

[St. SteVen]

Orvour.

You should probably stick with a grade school vocabulary, or he won't understand you.
Correct spelling might help as well. (assuming)

Au revoir

 

[Jack]

You should probably stick with a grade school vocabulary, or he won't understand you.
Correct spelling might help as well. (assuming)

Au revoir

I understand you well stevie. You won't even answer the simplest of Bible questions.

Let's try again: Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

 

[Aunty Jane]

'The Bible doesn't mean what it says. It means what we say'! 'We are Bible Language experts. You ain't'!

There you go again....talking about yourself like that will just reinforce the fact that all you can do is regurgitate a few Bible verses and from a dinosaur Bible that needs to be relegated back to the era of high button shoes.

No one speaks archaic English anymore. The English language has changed markedly since the KJV was released in 1611...many words contained in the KJV are no longer used, or their meaning has changed over time.
Read Gen 25:29 and tell me what it means to someone reading it for the first time....."Jacob sod pottage"....

The KJV was actually a revision based on a small number of manuscripts, and since its release many thousands of older manuscripts have been discovered, adding to their understanding.

Linguistics has therefore progressed a lot since then.....so try to keep up.....or at least stop pretending that you know anything about the Bible or the language of the writers, as well as the understanding of their intended audience.

 

[HealthyShape]

There you go again....talking about yourself like that will just reinforce the fact that all you can do is regurgitate a few Bible verses and from a dinosaur Bible that needs to be relegated back to the era of high button shoes.

No one speaks archaic English anymore. The English language has changed markedly since the KJV was released in 1611...many words contained in the KJV are no longer used, or their meaning has changed over time.
Read Gen 25:29 and tell me what it means to someone reading it for the first time....."Jacob sod pottage"....

The KJV was actually a revision based on a small number of manuscripts, and since its release many thousands of older manuscripts have been discovered, adding to their understanding.

Linguistics has therefore progressed a lot since then.....so try to keep up.....or at least stop pretending that you know anything about the Bible or the language of the writers, as well as the understanding of their intended audience.

I do not see his posts (I have him in ignore), but I agree with what you wrote about the issues with the KJV. Well summarized.