The Trinity definition

[APAK]

This is your first hermeneutical mistake the New interprets the Old not voice versa.

Get over yourself and cease your continual lying....

WHERE did I say or even IMPLY in my words, that the NT interprets the OT or visa versa Mate..YOU ASSUMED IT DID'NT YOU....confess it now...

A arrogant liar I will not acknowledge....an apology will go a long way mate...

APAK

 

[ChristisGod]

thats great but you didnt answer the question, whos son if the Most High?

the Son is Eternal just as the Father is Eternal.

next..................

 

[marks]

You see 1 Peter 1:1 has specific meaning and context. Not what you want it to be.

Hi APAK,

Koine Greek is very precise, so we shouldn't look at it as having the same looseness as American English. Koine Greek uses articles with all proper nouns unless there is a reason not to. Typically that reason is because both nouns refer to the same object.

The correct Koine Greek way to say that Peter is talking about 2 different objects would be to say, The God and The Savior Jesus Christ. That way know know that he's speaking of a first "the", in this case, the God, and a second "the", in that case, the savior.

But the way this is written is The God and Savior Jesus Christ. So "the" is applied to both nouns as the same object.

Another example would be in Titus:



When you look at the syntax of each word in this clause, well, that's how we identify the clause is by the common syntax.

Here we have a shared article introducing the Genetive case answer to the previous clause, "the happy expectation and appearance of the glory". Paul writes of the about our happy expectation, even the appearance of the glory of, whom?

The appearance of the glory of the ____________________. And what comes after this article, sheltering under it's umbrella, if you will, is part of the same. In this case, "Our God and Savior Jesus Christ".

We see the same construction in the preceding clause itself, the happy expectation IS the appearance of His glory.

The fact that 'Savior' does not have an article, this is to point us back the preceding article, and joins the object to the object of that article.

Forgive my verbosity, I feel like I should be able to explain this more simply, but Greek class was a lot of years ago!

Much love!

 

[ChristisGod]

Get over yourself and cease your continual lying....

WHERE did I say or even IMPLY in my words, that the NT interprets the OT or visa versa Mate..YOU ASSUMED IT DID'NT YOU....confess it now...

A arrogant liar I will not acknowledge....an apology will go a long way mate...

APAK

ad hominem duly noted which translated in debates means that you cannot defend your position so you attack the person and not the argument.

hope this helps !!!

 

[ChristisGod]

Hi APAK,

Koine Greek is very precise, so we shouldn't look at it as having the same looseness as American English. Koine Greek uses articles with all proper nouns unless there is a reason not to. Typically that reason is because both nouns refer to the same object.

The correct Koine Greek way to say that Peter is talking about 2 different objects would be to say, The God and The Savior Jesus Christ. That way know know that he's speaking of a first "the", in this case, the God, and a second "the", in that case, the savior.

But the way this is written is The God and Savior Jesus Christ. So "the" is applied to both nouns as the same object.

Another example would be in Titus:

View attachment 11617

When you look at the syntax of each word in this clause, well, that's how we identify the clause is by the common syntax.

Here we have a shared article introducing the Genetive case answer to the previous clause, "the happy expectation and appearance of the glory". Paul writes of the about our happy expectation, even the appearance of the glory of, whom?

The appearance of the glory of the ____________________. And what comes after this article, sheltering under it's umbrella, if you will, is part of the same. In this case, "Our God and Savior Jesus Christ".

We see the same construction in the preceding clause itself, the happy expectation IS the appearance of His glory.

The fact that 'Savior' does not have an article, this is to point us back the preceding article, and joins the object to the object of that article.

Forgive my verbosity, I feel like I should be able to explain this more simply, but Greek class was a lot of years ago!

Much love!

You did a good job Mark as I took my classes back in the late 80's.

 

[APAK]

looks like you are unfamiliar with N.T. Greek basics.


A Manual Of The Greek New Testament, Dana & Mantey,( p. 147)

The following rule by Granville Sharp of a century back still proves to be true: “When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if the article ho or any of its cases precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle; i.e., it denotes a further description of the first-named person.

Granville Sharp’s rule, according to Granville Sharp, is:

“When the copulative καὶ connects two nouns of the same case [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e., it denotes a farther description of the first named person.

Daniel Wallace Greek Grammar: used in every Seminary

In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by kai (thus, article-substantive- kai-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent.

As I said before you do not do context, as in 2 Peter 1:1b. Granvilles Sharp's rule does not work everywhere as you should know by now as you loved to spill out the law to me on the subject. You can give these other exceptions I hope? And this one is another exception.

If you bother to read past this one verse you will see the context support my claim, as I suggested to you do before.. It would be ridiculous to force a legalist rule BLINDLY, on both YHWH and his Son. You have no qualms in doing so I see. As I said before your intention is not to discover and understand scripture. It is to force you triune idol by what any means necessary, as in butchering 2 Peter 1:1b to be placed on your altar as a trophy of conquest.

Christo, this 2 Peter 1:1b is one of a few salutations that speak to two beings. It was common and customary to introduce to those of even Judean origin, to YHWH their Father AND their Christ. Do the other salutations then speak to one being as you are so convinced...you have to be consistent...

Look at Titus 2:13...one being is addressed or two....one being of course..Christ is our great god (not YHWH) and also our Saviour..he is our blessed hope, and the context after this verse supports it....CONTEXT is very important to consider, always. So why do you ignore the context before and after 2 Peter 1:1b? You know the answer of course. If you continue in this false reasoning, you can never understand 1 Peter 1 at all. You cut yourself off....you CANNOT delineate between the Father and the Son...it's a shame.

Let me bring you some support as if I really need it regarding 1 Peter 1:1b..a noted scholar..

"There is absolutely no reason to force this verse to make Jesus Christ into God. It is the opening verse of the epistle, and reading all of the epistles will show that it is customary in the New Testament to introduce both God and Christ at the opening of each one. Furthermore, it is through the righteousness of both God and Christ that we have received our precious faith. It was through God in that it was He who devised the plan of salvation and was righteous in His ways of making it available to us. It was through Christ in that by his righteous life he carried out the plan so that we can have what we now have. Both God and Christ had to be righteous in order for us to enjoy our current status in the faith, and we think the evidence is conclusive that they are both present in the verse..."

Broughton and Southgate, p. 202

 

[ChristisGod]

As I said before you do not do context, as in 2 Peter 1:1b. Granvilles Sharp's rule does not work everywhere as you should know by now as you loved to spill out the law to me on the subject. You can give these other exceptions I hope? And this one is another exception.

If you bother to read past this one verse you will see the context support my claim, as I suggested to you do before.. It would be ridiculous to force a legalist rule BLINDLY, on both YHWH and his Son. You have no qualms in doing so I see. As I said before your intention is not to discover and understand scripture. It is to force you triune idol by what any means necessary, as in butchering 2 Peter 1:1b to be placed on your altar as a trophy of conquest.

Christo, this 2 Peter 1:1b is one of a few salutations that speak to two beings. It was common and customary to introduce to those of even Judean origin, to YHWH their Father AND their Christ. Do the other salutations then speak to one being as you are so convinced...you have to be consistent...

Look at Titus 2:13...one being is addressed or two....one being of course..Christ is our great god (not YHWH) and also our Saviour..he is our blessed hope, and the context after this verse supports it....CONTEXT is very important to consider, always. So why do you ignore the context before and after 2 Peter 1:1b? You know the answer of course. If you continue in this false reasoning, you can never understand 1 Peter 1 at all. You cut yourself off....you can delineate between the Father and the Son...it's a shame.

Let me bring you some support as if I really need it regarding 1 Peter 1:1b..a noted scholar..

"There is absolutely no reason to force this verse to make Jesus Christ into God. It is the opening verse of the epistle, and reading all of the epistles will show that it is customary in the New Testament to introduce both God and Christ at the opening of each one. Furthermore, it is through the righteousness of both God and Christ that we have received our precious faith. It was through God in that it was He who devised the plan of salvation and was righteous in His ways of making it available to us. It was through Christ in that by his righteous life he carried out the plan so that we can have what we now have. Both God and Christ had to be righteous in order for us to enjoy our current status in the faith, and we think the evidence is conclusive that they are both present in the verse..."

Broughton and Southgate, p. 202

who is Lord and Savior in 2 Peter 1:11 ?

who is Lord and Savior in 2 Peter 3:18 ?

 

[APAK]

Hi APAK,

Koine Greek is very precise, so we shouldn't look at it as having the same looseness as American English. Koine Greek uses articles with all proper nouns unless there is a reason not to. Typically that reason is because both nouns refer to the same object.

The correct Koine Greek way to say that Peter is talking about 2 different objects would be to say, The God and The Savior Jesus Christ. That way know know that he's speaking of a first "the", in this case, the God, and a second "the", in that case, the savior.

But the way this is written is The God and Savior Jesus Christ. So "the" is applied to both nouns as the same object.

Another example would be in Titus:

View attachment 11617

When you look at the syntax of each word in this clause, well, that's how we identify the clause is by the common syntax.

Here we have a shared article introducing the Genetive case answer to the previous clause, "the happy expectation and appearance of the glory". Paul writes of the about our happy expectation, even the appearance of the glory of, whom?

The appearance of the glory of the ____________________. And what comes after this article, sheltering under it's umbrella, if you will, is part of the same. In this case, "Our God and Savior Jesus Christ".

We see the same construction in the preceding clause itself, the happy expectation IS the appearance of His glory.

The fact that 'Savior' does not have an article, this is to point us back the preceding article, and joins the object to the object of that article.

Forgive my verbosity, I feel like I should be able to explain this more simply, but Greek class was a lot of years ago!

Much love!

Marks thanks for the input..you are though barking up the wrong tree with this information..it is misplaced...read my latest post to Christo on 1 Peter 1:1b...

thanks again and I do appreciate it....APAK

 

[ChristisGod]

Marks thanks for the input..you are though barking up the wrong tree with this information..it is misplaced...read my latest post to Christo on 1 Peter 1:1b...

thanks again and I do appreciate it....APAK

who is Lord and Savior in 2 Peter 1:11 ?

who is Lord and Savior in 2 Peter 2:20 ?

who is Lord and Savior in 2 Peter 3:18 ?

 

[marks]

Furthermore, it is through the righteousness of both God and Christ that we have received our precious faith. It was through God in that it was He who devised the plan of salvation and was righteous in His ways of making it available to us. It was through Christ in that by his righteous life he carried out the plan so that we can have what we now have. Both God and Christ had to be righteous in order for us to enjoy our current status in the faith, and we think the evidence is conclusive that they are both present in the verse..."

Two righteousnesses? That doesn't sound right.

And I'm revisiting the context but I don't see the reason to see this as two different objects sharing the article.

Much love!

 

[Mattathias]

that is because they have not studied the topic

A few minutes ago I was called a liar by a Catholic member of this forum for saying that trinitarianism teaches us “Jesus is not a human person” (he called it “patently false”) and advised me to “investigate whatever caused you to post such a lie”. In other words, he suggested that I study the topic.

This has been a common experience in my conversations with trinitarians - Catholic and Protestant alike.

I don’t think he’ll be persuaded by appeals to Protestant sources but I’ll post some Catholic sources for him to consider and see whether that will cause him to change his mind or not.

 

[jaybird]

the Son is Eternal just as the Father is Eternal.

next..................

that mean you dont know?

 

[ChristisGod]

A few minutes ago I was called a liar by a Catholic member of this forum for saying that trinitarianism teaches us “Jesus is not a human person” (he called it “patently false”) and advised me to “investigate whatever caused you to post such a lie”. In other words, he suggested that I study the topic.

This has been a common experience in my conversations with trinitarians - Catholic and Protestant alike.

I don’t think he’ll be persuaded by appeals to Protestant sources but I’ll post some Catholic sources for him to consider and see whether that will cause him to change his mind or not.

whoever you are speaking with, they are ignorant of History, the Doctrine and Scripture. Jesus Christ gets His Person from Hid Divine nature as God the Son. It was the 2nd Person of the Godhead who became Incarnate hence He is God in the flesh, Emmanuel etc......

Nestorianism
Nestorianism insisted that there were two natures but that there were also two persons: one divine and the other human. Rather than unifying Jesus, this view separated the person of Jesus along with his two natures.

Two natures of Jesus
The two natures of Jesus refers to the doctrine that the one person Jesus Christ had/has two natures, divine and human. In theology this is called the doctrine of the hypostatic union, from the Greek word hypostasis (which came to mean substantive reality). Early church figures such as Athanasius used the term "hypostatic union" to describe the teaching that these two distinct natures (divine and human) co-existed substantively and in reality in the single person of Jesus Christ. The aim was to defend the doctrine that Jesus was simultaneously truly God and truly man.

Historical development
The doctrine of the hypostatic union (the two natures of Jesus) was adopted as orthodox doctrine at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Three major schools of theology were involved at the council: Alexandria, Antioch, and the West. The consensus of these three schools in the Chalcedonian Creed illustrates the catholicity (i.e. universality) of the ancient church. ^[1]^ The creed asserted two distinct natures, human and divine, and affirmed the one person of Jesus Christ.theopedia

hope this helps !!!

 

[ChristisGod]

that mean you dont know?

wishful thinking.................

 

[jaybird]

doesn anyone else think the trinity may have been invented to separate Judaism from Christianity? you have to admit its very strange that Jews had no problem following Jesus and the 12, fast forward several hundred years when the trinity is being taught and now no Jew will touch the faith with a ten foot pole. even to this day you ask an orthodox Jew about being a Christian and the first thing they will tell you is they do not worship three gods.

 

[Mattathias]

whoever you are speaking with are ignorant of History and Scripture. Jesus Christ gets His Person from Hid Divine nature as God the Son. It was the 2nd Person of the Godhead who became Incarnate hence He is God in the flesh, Emmanuel etc......

Nestorianism
Nestorianism insisted that there were two natures but that there were also two persons: one divine and the other human. Rather than unifying Jesus, this view separated the person of Jesus along with his two natures.

Two natures of Jesus
The two natures of Jesus refers to the doctrine that the one person Jesus Christ had/has two natures, divine and human. In theology this is called the doctrine of the hypostatic union, from the Greek word hypostasis (which came to mean substantive reality). Early church figures such as Athanasius used the term "hypostatic union" to describe the teaching that these two distinct natures (divine and human) co-existed substantively and in reality in the single person of Jesus Christ. The aim was to defend the doctrine that Jesus was simultaneously truly God and truly man.

Historical development
The doctrine of the hypostatic union (the two natures of Jesus) was adopted as orthodox doctrine at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Three major schools of theology were involved at the council: Alexandria, Antioch, and the West. The consensus of these three schools in the Chalcedonian Creed illustrates the catholicity (i.e. universality) of the ancient church. ^[1]^ The creed asserted two distinct natures, human and divine, and affirmed the one person of Jesus Christ.theopedia

hope this helps !!!

It helps me, but I don’t think it will help the Catholic member I mentioned. (Meanwhile, a second Catholic member has joined that conversation and said, in part: “Your claim is false - and the people who told you it was true either lied to you - or are woefully ignorant.”)

I’m not trying to drag you into the middle of it. Just mentioning to you that this is the kind of thing I run into constantly in my conversations with trinitarians. Trinitarians aren’t united on this fundamental point.

 

[jaybird]

wishful thinking.................

i dont mean disrespect, but its odd how you guys will blindly ignore things that are right in front of you, i mean, i showed you a simple problem, asked you a simple question on it, you answer with these random things like "the Son is eternal?" which i have no idea what that is supposed to mean when it really has nothing to do with what i asked you. its like asking what size motor is under the hood and someone responding with "i like fishing". how do you respond to that?

 

[ChristisGod]

It helps me, but I don’t think it will help the Catholic member I mentioned. (Meanwhile, a second Catholic member has joined that conversation and said, in part: “Your claim is false - and the people who told you it was true either lied to you - or are woefully ignorant.”)

I’m not trying to drag you into the middle of it. Just mentioning to you that this is the kind of thing I run into constantly in my conversations with trinitarians. Trinitarians aren’t united on this fundamental point.

I found it

 

[APAK]

doesn anyone else think the trinity may have been invented to separate Judaism from Christianity? you have to admit its very strange that Jews had no problem following Jesus and the 12, fast forward several hundred years when the trinity is being taught and now no Jew will touch the faith with a ten foot pole. even to this day you ask an orthodox Jew about being a Christian and the first thing they will tell you is they do not worship three gods.

Ouch, Aced it again...how's country living these days?

 

[ChristisGod]

It helps me, but I don’t think it will help the Catholic member I mentioned. (Meanwhile, a second Catholic member has joined that conversation and said, in part: “Your claim is false - and the people who told you it was true either lied to you - or are woefully ignorant.”)

I’m not trying to drag you into the middle of it. Just mentioning to you that this is the kind of thing I run into constantly in my conversations with trinitarians. Trinitarians aren’t united on this fundamental point.

I quoted their own source which they cannot argue against as it is in their catechism and official teaching of the CC.

So if they disagree now its with their own Church and its teachings. This should end the discussion over there.