How did the Trinity doctrine develop in the early church?

[MonoBiblical]

Again this is a full story and pulling a one liner out of context no way point to the Messiah. But this is all they have because there is not a full description of how Yeshua was or his ministry in the Old Testament so they resort to pulling one liners out of context and suggest it is a Messianic prophecy.

The error is there, nonetheless.

 

[MonoBiblical]

We were talking about the YHWH title/name, not about the word "virgin".

Yahweh's name is used before the prophecy.

 

[Hiddenthings]

No, it's your opinion, not God's truth. He has never revealed to me that you are his spokesperson. Besides that you didn't explain anything you just wanted to play 20 questions

Your refusal to engage with one of the questions revealed your inability to understand what Ezekiel 28 was truly about. Why didn’t you simply say at the start, ‘I am a closed-minded person who clings to my traditions and prefers to remain in ignorance’? I would have left you alone.

 

[RLT63]

Your refusal to engage with one of the questions revealed your inability to understand what Ezekiel 28 was truly about. Why didn’t you simply say at the start, ‘I am a closed-minded person who clings to my traditions and prefers to remain in ignorance’? I would have left you alone.

Why didn't you just say "I am an arrogant, self deceived person who thinks I am the only one who is right, therefore I'm not capable of meaningful conversation "
I would have agreed

 

[Hiddenthings]

Why didn't you just say "I am an arrogant, self deceived person who thinks I am the only one who is right, therefore I'm not capable of meaningful conversation "
I would have agreed

Because you resisted and declared your allegiance to scholars you do not truly know, self-deception rests with you. Maybe these things have not been revealed to you, and this is a first?

 

[Aunty Jane]

There is a lot to address, but all of it is important...so here goes....

I guess you forgot to notice that Revelation is speaking about Jesus.

“The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.” (Rev 1:1-2 ESV)

Well it is a Revelation that God gave to Jesus, to convey to his apostle John, by means of an angel.....
There are four individuals in this chain of command....not five.

Why does one part of the same God need to give information to the other supposedly equal part of himself, to convey to a human, through an angel, what will take place in the future? Jesus is in heaven at this point.

And If Jesus in heaven can say.....to the angel of the Philadelphian congregation....
“The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.” (Rev 3:12 ESV)

Can you tell me how God has a God even in heaven.....? And Jesus has a “new name”....so, who gave that new name to him? It went with attaining an exalted position, which is very confusing if he is already “God”....
“Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name”. (Phil 2:9 ESV)
How does one part of an equal God, “exalt” another part of himself? How does he attain a name that is above all, others when he already has such a name? (Psalm 83:18)

In so many parts of the Christian Scriptures, when God and his son are mentioned together, the Holy Spirit, a supposedly equal third party in the triune God, is missing? (Like all those quoted above)

And in John 17:3....in prayer to his Father in heaven, Jesus said....
“And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (ESV)
Speaking of this knowledge as a salvation issue, why don’t we have to equally “know” the Holy Spirit”?

Your trinity poses more questions than it answers....all of which are completely illogical.

Did you not know that the 3 Persons of the Trintiy speak to each other?
This might be due to the fact that you don't accept the Trinity.

It might be that it is so illogical and unscriptural that no one has yet convinced me of its authenticity.
I have studied this subject thoroughly and there is only one logical conclusion.....there is only one true God and Jesus is his servant and High Priest. (Heb 3:1; Acts 4:27, 30)

And the fact that monotheism forbids the worship of more than one God. (Deut 6:4)

How does “one God” manifest in three separate personages who can talk to one another, have one part that prays to the other, can have separate wills to one another, can know things that the others don’t, and be in three different places at the same time? Only Hudini could wriggle out of those questions.

Could it be that the devil, through his agencies has created another “god” that slipped in when the church went astray in the early centuries? It was foretold by Jesus and his apostles that this would happen.....did no one notice the complete departures from Christ’s teachings? How could they when this “church” forbade the reading of Scripture by anyone other than its own priests....?

It’s sordid history proves that Christ was never in that “church”.... (Matt 7:21-23) and yet the majority accept its warped doctrines.

Jesus said that there would be “wheat” in the world, but that the “weeds” would try to choke them out....and isn’t that what we have seen? In the confused mess that is Christendom, who can you believe?...the ones who trust Scripture, not “the church’s” muddled interpretation of it.

Was Jesus a Person of dignity?
Thomas called Him God.
Why didn't Jesus correct Him?

In the Jewish religion, there was only “one God”. (capital “G”) Did Thomas really call Jesus his “God”, in contradiction to all the other apostles who declared.....

“....we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (1 Cor 8:4-6 ESV)

Their “one God” is identified as “the Father”....and their “Lord” is Jesus Christ.
Does the title “Lord” make Jesus “God”?

Calling Jesus “theos” was not calling him “God” but declaring his divinity. They knew he was the divine son of God......and “theos” does not just mean God with a capital “G”. The Bible called many divinely appointed ones “gods”. (John 10:31-36) But what did Jesus call himself?

 

[Hiddenthings]

@RLT63, remember that it was your inference that Ezekiel 28 contained the story of your fallen angel, a claim you could not substantiate. When presented with the possibility of a deeper truth, you became defensive.

That is the whole matter.

 

[RLT63]

Because you resisted and declared your allegiance to scholars you do not truly know, self-deception rests with you. Maybe these things have not been revealed to you, and this is a first?

It would help if you actually said what things you're talking about instead of playing guessing games and I most certainly do not know you so why should I trust you more than scholars (that I don't know personally) ?

 

[RLT63]

@RLT63, remember that it was your inference that Ezekiel 28 contained the story of your fallen angel, a claim you could not substantiate. When presented with the possibility of a deeper truth, you became defensive.

That is the whole matter.

I'm defensive? Why don't you just tell everyone why you don't believe in the devil and whatever it is you do believe and stop trolling

 

[Hiddenthings]

It would help if you actually said what things you're talking about instead of playing guessing games and I most certainly do not know you so why should I trust you more than scholars (that I don't know personally) ?

Do you not wish to apply your critical thinking skills to truly engage with the Word?

Let me try again to see if you "get it?"

You (King of Trye) were an anointed guardian cherub (how?). I placed you (king); you (king) were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked. Ezek 28:14

How did the King of Tyre walk amidst the stones of fire?
Why are they called the stones of fire?

I’m not going to explain this to you RLT if you have no genuine desire to understand. It would be futile to reveal the truth only for it to be rejected or dismissed as meaningless.

Now you have 22 questions!

 

[Aunty Jane]

What's the difference?

And there is the problem, right there....if you don’t know the difference between “deity” and “divinity”, you will not see that there is a very important difference.

Strongs Concordance gives its primary definition of “theos” (god) as...

1. “a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities”.

The word itself can be translated in different ways, with context determining the correct meaning.
Since God himself through Jesus, uses this word to describe human judges in Israel, it is clear that Thomas did not mean what is translated in most trinitarian based Bibles, for obvious reasons.

He did not consider Jesus as his “God” in that sense, but in accord with the rest of Scripture and through a Jewish lens, rather than coloured by Christendom’s skewed doctrines, he acknowledged Christ’s divinity....as one “sent” by his God, Yahweh. (John 17:3)

Jesus existed even at the time of the OT.

Yes, as “the Word” he was at his Father’s side since his creation. (Col 1:15; Rev 3:14) All creation came “through” him, but not “from” him.

Peter confirmed Jesus was THE CHRIST....
Matthew 16:16
16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

NOT a son
THE son.

A monnogenius son....
unique.

That is exactly what “monogenes” means...an “only child”. He was “unique” among the many “sons of God” mentioned in the Scriptures. He was the “firstborn of ALL creation” according to Paul. (Col 1:15-17) All creation came into existence “through” the son. So yes, he existed long before anything or anyone else.
He is the only direct creation of his God and Father....that makes him unique.....but it doesn’t make him God.

Who rose Jesus from the dead?

God Father
Acts 2:24
24 "But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible * for Him to be held in its power.

Yes, Jesus was raised by his God who was in heaven whilst he was still on earth.....he did not raise himself.

God Son
John 2:19
19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

I believe that most people fail to understand what he was actually saying .....
What was “the temple” that he would raise up in three days?....what definition fits all other Scripture?

It was “the temple of his body”....he was referring to something that was not obvious, and that they didn’t understand?

They were talking about the literal temple but he was talking about his “body”....not his literal body because Jesus wasn’t raised in the body he sacrificed....he was to be raised in a spiritual body....one that could “appear” to his disciples, as he did after his resurrection....they didn’t always recognise him, until he did something familiar, or as in the case of the doubting Thomas, appeared in a body with the marks of his execution.

At other times no mention was made of them.....and don’t we have to ask if those resurrected prior to Jesus were cured of the thing that killed them, why would God raise his son in a battered and beaten body with gaping wounds on his hands and feet, not to mention the damage caused by the crown of thorns that dug into his head and the flogging they gave him that tore his flesh into ribbons....

The “body of Christ” could only begin to be gathered after his resurrection....which took place shortly after his ascension.....at Pentecost his body was identified.....his elect are his body...God’s temple to house his Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 3:16-17) That was the temple he spoke about.

Only God can raise from the dead.

God can give his spirit to whomever he wishes. Jesus was a recipient at his baptism, and his disciples were baptized in Holy Spirit at Pentecost, allowing them too to heal the sick and raise the dead. (Matt 10:5-8)
God provided the power, but mere humans could do the miracles.

If together they brought all into existence
BEFORE TIME BEGAN
Then they were both eternal and only God is eternal.

Since God is spoken of in Scripture as the King of Eternity, we have to understand what eternity means...
“Without beginning or end”....and since Jesus is said to be the “firstborn of all creation”, he must have had a beginning....and if he was “begotten”, which was long before his human birth, then the one who ‘begat’ him had to have existed before him. A father and son do not come into existence at the same time....

Logos is more than a "mouthpiece".

“Logos” can mean a “spokesman”...one who speaks for God...and this certainly fits the description of Jesus as “the one mediator between God and men” (1 Tim 2:5) ....if he is the mediator between two estraged parties, then he cannot be one of the parties.....

So my research has been thorough in obtaining all the available knowledge from the whole Bible, not just cherry picked bits of it backed up by suggestion and inference.

If there is not one unambiguous statement about something as important as the very nature of God, then what is left but a mountain of conjecture....? and a lot of contradicting Scripture....?

 

[RLT63]

Do you not wish to apply your critical thinking skills to truly engage with the Word?

Let me try again to see if you "get it?"

You (King of Trye) were an anointed guardian cherub (how?). I placed you (king); you (king) were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked. Ezek 28:14

How did the King of Tyre walk amid the stones of fire?
Why are they could the stones of fire?

I’m not going to explain this to you RLT if you have no genuine desire to understand. It would be futile to reveal the truth only for it to be rejected or dismissed as meaningless.

Now you have 22 questions!

I've already explained my thoughts on Ezekiel 28 ( more than you've shared) now you're just making excuses for why you want share your beliefs (oh, you wouldn't believe me anyway)
What's the difference in explaining yourself and just dragging it out one question at a time?
I've already been to seminary once in my lifetime I don't intend to go through your coarse

 

[Muna]

I've already explained my thoughts on Ezekiel 28 ( more than you've shared) now you're just making excuses for why you want share your beliefs (oh, you wouldn't believe me anyway)
What's the difference in explaining yourself and just dragging it out one question at a time?
I've already been to seminary once in my lifetime I don't intend to go through your coarse

Just to find out

"Right there is where you had no answer."

 

[RLT63]

Just to find out

"Right there is where you had no answer."

I've already let him know my thoughts on Ezekiel 28, I agree with the brief article I posted
Right there is where you butted in.
If you want to play 20 questions with him be my guest

 

[Hiddenthings]

I've already explained my thoughts on Ezekiel 28 ( more than you've shared) now you're just making excuses for why you want share your beliefs (oh, you wouldn't believe me anyway)
What's the difference in explaining yourself and just dragging it out one question at a time?
I've already been to seminary once in my lifetime I don't intend to go through your coarse

Okay, you've made your position very clear! I think it's a kick the dust-off situation...

 

[Hiddenthings]

"Right there is where you had no answer."

It's not that he couldn't answer because I know he can...that's the issue

 

[RLT63]

Okay, you've made your position very clear! I think it's a kick the dust-off situation...

Let me try asking you a question.
Can you briefly explain why do not believe in a fallen angel called Satan and to what is the Bible referring the few times he is mentioned?

 

[RLT63]

It's not that he couldn't answer because I know he can...that's the issue

My answer is that the passage is no longer speaking of the King of Tyre but of the spirit behind him

 

[Aunty Jane]

It would be nice to get into the stoning of Stephen too...

Good idea....

Could you tell us WHY Stephen was stoned?
Acts 7:54-59

I’ll post this one separately as there is a bit to say about it for those who might be interested.....

Stephen had just given the Jewish Leaders a dressing down which made them extremely angry.

“You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.” Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him.“

So what was the outcome?

“But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
What did Stephen see? He was about to be martyred....so God, by means of his Holy Spirit, gave Stephen a wonderful vision....where he saw “the glory of God” and Jesus standing at his right hand.

“But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him.”

It was too much for them to bear.....so they stopped up their ears and led him to his death....
How many of God’s prophets had they silenced in their long and sorry history? The truth hurts.

“Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

Why would Stephen appeal to Jesus to receive his spirit? What was the “spirit” that Stephen entrusted to his Lord Jesus? As the one he knew was given the power of the resurrection, Stephen entrusted Jesus to restore his life. Jews did not believe in an immortal soul, so a resurrection is what he expected.....he would sleep in death until Christ called him to heaven at a future time.....as a member of his “body”. His reward for faithfulness to death.

Interestingly, Saul presided over the execution as one of the main drivers of persecution heaped upon Christ’s disciples’.
His encounter with the risen Jesus was to come...

“And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.” (ESV)

Why did he ask God not to hold this sin against them?.....like Jesus, he knew that many of his persecutors were ignorant and lacked knowledge, swept away by the emotions of the moment....misled by their corrupt leadership.
As Jesus had asked his God and Father to forgive the Roman soldiers for their part in his death, so Stephen, in agreement with Christ’s teachings (Matt 5:43-44) he knew that to forgive was better that expressing vengeance upon these ones, who might yet come to Christ, as we see many Jews did after Peter preached to them. (Acts 2:29-38)

 

[RLT63]

It seems like some people have never considered that they could be the one who is wrong.