How did the Trinity doctrine develop in the early church?

[Aunty Jane]

We obviously can't because you do not read Greek. In Greek, all these verses have "ho theos", which you claimed is never used about the Son.

When you have been proven wrong, you simply run away from Greek back to just English and tried to interpreted the verses instead of acknowledging the definite article in them.

Where is honesty, sincerity, admitting that you were wrong?

Post the Greek to English and show us where Jesus is called “ho theos”.....I am interested to see it.
For the sake of the readers let’s hope you speak Greek so that you can educate us all....
I have not been shown that I am wrong.....please enlighten us....

 

[HealthyShape]

Post the Greek to English and show us where Jesus is called “ho theos”.....I am interested to see it.
For the sake of the readers let’s hope you speak Greek so that you can educate us all....
I have not been shown that I am wrong.....please enlighten us.l..

I am not sure what more do you want now. I posted the verses in the post #605 and even colored the "ho theos" parts red for you.

Why are you not answering if you are a Jehovah Witness?

 

[Hiddenthings]

I am not sure what more do you want now. I posted the verses in the post #605 and even colored the "ho theos" parts red for you.

Why are you not answering if you are a Jehovah Witness?

Proper context is crucial when studying this topic. Even if certain titles are applied to Christ, that alone does not make him God in essence, nor does it indicate pre-existence. It also does not establish the Trinitarian formula.

Most honest T believers will accept this as truth.

 

[Aunty Jane]

I am not sure what more do you want now. I posted the verses in the post #605 and even colored the "ho theos" parts red for you.

What you posted was not Jesus being called “ho theos”.....are you stalling?

Thomas’ declaration was literally (Greek phrasing) ....”The Lord of me and the God [ho the·osʹ] of me!” (No need for a capital “G”)
This is not Thomas declaring Jesus as “ho theos”...it’s the same as satan being called “ho theos” in 2 Cor 4:4. Paul called him “the god of this world” Not the same at all.

I addressed all of the Scriptures you presented...none of them are proof of your assertions.

Why are you not answering if you are a Jehovah Witness?

Have I asked you what religion you are? I was raised Anglican so I know exactly what Christendom teaches....I have studied the Bible for many years and as I said, I allow the Bible to interpret itself.

What does it matter whether I am a JW or not...the Bible says what it says....you can’t make it say anything else, though deflecting appears to be giving an excuse not to respond. Do you speak Greek?

I am here to defend Scripture not religion.

 

[Brakelite]

But you do not understand how or why that LIFE was granted Brakelite.

You write many words, but none of them show an understanding of John 5:26

John 5:26 “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.”

The Lord certainly fulfilled Psalm 21 in so many more ways than you have possibly imagined!

You haven't explained the point you are attempting to make. But as far as the Scripture in question, I have no issues with it. Not being a traditional or Orthodox trinitarian, I have no problem with scriptures that declare the Father having authority over His Son, and being the source of life. This is the normal rule for all life. Divine or human. One thing to note. The life given to the Son is the Father's life. It couldn't be anything else, it was as natural for the Son to have the same life as the Father as it is for any level of creation. And what is the Father's life... It is divine life. Thus the Son is also divine, equal to the Father in all things except in rank. And though this may be difficult for you to understand, that the Son received His life from the Father does not change the fact that the quality and character of that life is exactly that of the Father...underived, self existent, eternal.

 

[HealthyShape]

What you posted was not Jesus being called “ho theos”.....are you stalling?

Thomas’ declaration was literally (Greek phrasing) ....”The Lord of me and the God [ho the·osʹ] of me!” (No need for a capital “G”)
This is not Thomas declaring Jesus as “ho theos”...it’s the same as satan being called “ho theos” in 2 Cor 4:4. Paul called him “the god of this world” Not the same at all.

You are making no sense.

Have I asked you what religion you are? I was raised Anglican so I know exactly what Christendom teaches....I have studied the Bible for many years and as I said, I allow the Bible to interpret itself.

You obviously source your theology from some extra biblical materials, how else would you come with "ho theos" argument if you cannot even read Greek letters?

What does it matter whether I am a JW or not.

Because your statements like "my only source of truth is Bible" would be ridiculous, immediately. We would know your true background.

Do you speak Greek?

I read koiné Greek. I am not sure why should I speak it. It is not used in today's communication.

I am here to defend Scripture not religion.

You are here to defend your specific view of Jesus, most probably obtained in the JW's "religion".

 

[Brakelite]

Proper context is crucial when studying this topic. Even if certain titles are applied to Christ, that alone does not make him God in essence, nor does it indicate pre-existence. It also does not establish the Trinitarian formula.
Most honest T believers will accept this as truth.

The principle title that stands as criteria for identifying Christ, and for knowing Him which is essential for salvation, is the title, Son of God. Which identity the apostle John went to great pains to prove in the face of many heresies which were creeping into the church, some of which are evident in this thread. I believe I addressed this adequately in a previous post, but it seems to have gone over your head as you didn't respond to any of the points I made but just added another line of reasoning, the purpose of which I remain unsure.

 

[Brakelite]

No, the gospel is the Father sent the Son, Jesus was praying to His Father, he was not crying to himself

Heb 5 :7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared

Not my will, but thine be done

Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

Even after Christ was crucified and was risen again and ascended unto His Father, it tells us

Heb 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

Even Jesus' doctrine was not his own

John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

Just like here

John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine,
but the Father's which sent me.

The Father taught him what to say

John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he,
and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

He is the eternal life that was with the Father

John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.(John 7:28)

His words were given to Him (Deut 18:18) which agrees in John 12:49 that Jesus would speak by commandment

John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

Again Jesus tells us His words were given to him (and we receive and believe exactly that)

John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them,
and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

I agree with everything you posted here, not sure of what you were pointing to though?

 

[Muna]

I agree with everything you posted here, not sure of what you were pointing to though?

That Jesus was not speaking to himself.

 

[Hiddenthings]

You haven't explained the point you are attempting to make. But as far as the Scripture in question, I have no issues with it. Not being a traditional or Orthodox trinitarian, I have no problem with scriptures that declare the Father having authority over His Son, and being the source of life. This is the normal rule for all life. Divine or human. One thing to note. The life given to the Son is the Father's life. It couldn't be anything else, it was as natural for the Son to have the same life as the Father as it is for any level of creation. And what is the Father's life... It is divine life. Thus the Son is also divine, equal to the Father in all things except in rank. And though this may be difficult for you to understand, that the Son received His life from the Father does not change the fact that the quality and character of that life is exactly that of the Father...underived, self existent, eternal.

If you believe this then Christ could not have pre-existed.

 

[Hiddenthings]

The principle title that stands as criteria for identifying Christ, and for knowing Him which is essential for salvation, is the title, Son of God. Which identity the apostle John went to great pains to prove in the face of many heresies which were creeping into the church, some of which are evident in this thread. I believe I addressed this adequately in a previous post, but it seems to have gone over your head as you didn't respond to any of the points I made but just added another line of reasoning, the purpose of which I remain unsure.

Agree with the underlined statement.

 

[Hiddenthings]

You haven't explained the point you are attempting to make. But as far as the Scripture in question, I have no issues with it. Not being a traditional or Orthodox trinitarian, I have no problem with scriptures that declare the Father having authority over His Son, and being the source of life. This is the normal rule for all life. Divine or human. One thing to note. The life given to the Son is the Father's life. It couldn't be anything else, it was as natural for the Son to have the same life as the Father as it is for any level of creation. And what is the Father's life... It is divine life. Thus the Son is also divine, equal to the Father in all things except in rank. And though this may be difficult for you to understand, that the Son received His life from the Father does not change the fact that the quality and character of that life is exactly that of the Father...underived, self existent, eternal.

In nature, the Son of Man and the Son of God differ: the Son of Man refers to Christ in his humanity (100%), while the Son of God with power refers to Christ in his divine authority granted by God. The glorified Christ became eternal when the Father gave him immortality, meaning Christ did not exist before this and therefore had no pre-existence.

 

[Hiddenthings]

@Brakelite you cannot receive something from God if it is already in your possession.

God placed access to His Life in His Son.

1 John 5:11–12 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Do you understand how and why God did this in His Son?

As soon as you remove this granted / given Life to Christ you remove your own Life.

 

[Aunty Jane]

You are making no sense.

It makes perfect sense to one who has shed the shackles of false Christianity.
Your claim that “ho theos” was used to identify Jesus as God (capital “G”) is bogus.

If the Greek calls satan “ho theos” meaning “the god” of this world (2 Cor 4:3) then we need context and an understanding of what was said and to whom it was addressed. It isn’t the words themselves but like Thomas’ expression, didn’t mean what was translated into English. Thomas didn’t believe something contrary to his fellow apostles. (1 Cor 8:5-6)

You are here to defend your specific view of Jesus, most probably obtained in the JW's "religion".

From whom do your own views come? Do you accept what the majority of the fractured churches of Christendom teach as doctrines? (Matt 15:7-9) The majority is never right....satan has the majority....completely hoodwinked....all blissfully travelling on the wrong road, (Matt 7:13-14) but not prepared for where it ends. (Matt 7:21-23)

But that is not just my opinion....it’s what Jesus already told us what was coming....and history attests to the fact that it did.....that apostasy that was foretold, took place from the end of the first century....and grew like “weeds” always do, to take over the whole world.....Christendom pretends that it isn’t them.

When Christ arrives as judge....who will he identify as his sheep? What are they doing that the goats are not?

 

[HealthyShape]

It makes perfect sense to one who has shed the shackles of false Christianity.

Classic Dunning-Kruger.

Your claim that “ho theos” was used to identify Jesus as God (capital “G”) is bogus.

No, I claim (you can read the post #600 again, if you need to):
"In Greek, the definite article does not distinguish a different "kind" or "grade" of deity, but is dependent on grammar and syntax. God can be both "theos" and "ho theos, tu theu, ton theon...", depending on the sentence."

Both the Father and The Son are called "ho theos" in the Bible and both are also called just "theos". The definite article "ho" has no special theological meaning in the Greek grammar.

And I have shown you the verses, but you are not able to even read them. You are just parroting some JW's nonsense.

From whom do your own views come? Do you accept what the majority of the fractured churches of Christendom teach as doctrines? (Matt 15:7-9) The majority is never right....satan has the majority....completely hoodwinked....all blissfully travelling on the wrong road, (Matt 7:13-14) but not prepared for where it ends. (Matt 7:21-23)

But that is not just my opinion....it’s what Jesus already told us what was coming....and history attests to the fact that it did.....that apostasy that was foretold, took place from the end of the first century....and grew like “weeds” always do, to take over the whole world.....Christendom pretends that it isn’t them.

When Christ arrives as judge....who will he identify as his sheep? What are they doing that the goats are not?

Classic cult move. "Majority is wrong, we are the few who is right and the end is coming".

How many times were the Jehovah Witnesses correct about the predicted coming? Zero. You have been predicting one basically in every decade since the 19th century. Ridiculous.

 

[MonoBiblical]

No, I claim (you can read the post #600 again, if you need to):
"In Greek, the definite article does not distinguish a different "kind" or "grade" of deity, but is dependent on grammar and syntax. God can be both "theos" and "ho theos, tu theu, ton theon...", depending on the sentence."

It is an indefinite article which a noun case with nouns and infinitive verbs. The JW is correct, but I wouldn't want him as a neighbor.

 

[HealthyShape]

It is an indefinite article which a noun case with nouns and infinitive verbs. The JW is correct, but I wouldn't want him as a neighbor.

"Ho" is the definite article. And you and the JW are saying opposing things, if you care.

 

[MonoBiblical]

"Ho" is the definite article. And you and the JW are saying opposing thing, if you care.

The bible never calls Jesus out as YHWH.

 

[HealthyShape]

The bible never calls Jesus out as YHWH.

Therefore? Bible also never calls the Father as YHWH.

You wonder why? Because the tetragrammaton YHWH is never used in Greek.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Classic Dunning-Kruger.



No, I claim (you can read the post #600 again, if you need to):
"In Greek, the definite article does not distinguish a different "kind" or "grade" of deity, but is dependent on grammar and syntax. God can be both "theos" and "ho theos, tu theu, ton theon...", depending on the sentence."

Both the Father and The Son are called "ho theos" in the Bible and both are also called just "theos". The definite article "ho" has no special theological meaning in the Greek grammar.

And I have shown you the verses, but you are not able to even read them. You are just parroting some JW's nonsense.


Classic cult move. "Majority is wrong, we are the few who is right and the end is coming".

How many times were the Jehovah Witnesses correct about the predicted coming? Zero. You have been predicting one basically in every decade since the 19th century. Ridiculous.

LOL.... we always know when people run out of argument.....when they cannot defend....they attack....
I’ll just leave that there for posterity, but will say one thing that really stands out in your response.....

You said....
“Both the Father and The Son are called "ho theos" in the Bible and both are also called just "theos". The definite article "ho" has no special theological meaning in the Greek grammar.”

That is patently wrong. When reading the Greek with reference to God, and Christ, the Greeks knew what you apparently do not....the definite article is crucial in identifying the right God or god..in context.

Read John 10:31-36 and see that only God is identified as “ho theos”....the “gods” Jesus referred to were human judges, and Jesus refers to himself as “the Son of “ho theos”.....

You are saying that Jesus is Yahweh....he is the son of Yahweh.....only begotten....unique.

I showed you that the instances where Jesus is called “ho theos” were not references to him as God (capital “G”), but like Satan was called “ho theos” (2 Cor 4:4) because he was identified as “the god” (small “g”) of this world”.
Thomas’ words in Greek, are phrased very differently to English.....he said...”the Lord of me and the god of me”....”ho theos“ there is about phrasing, not deity. He did not disagree with his fellow apostles, who knew exactly who their “one God” was.....”the Father”. (1 Cor 8:5-6)

Context tells us where God is meant, not capital letters, which you know don’t exist in Greek. Translators got away with murder.....trinitarian bias is plainly evident.