[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / bestemma / clang / doomer / fa / flutter / utoronto / voros / wmafsex ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

File: 753cef768351fa2⋯.png (852.29 KB, 559x836, 559:836, 1525214342782.png)

f1ddaf  No.754928

Knowing that the doctrine of the Trinity does not originate from Judaism, how did it begin to be spread among the primitive Christians and how did it become doctrine?

Pic not related.

f5b3c8  No.754932

Because it is mentioned in the Scriptures and by Christ Himself, hence it could not merely be ignored or glossed over. There were various attempts to understand it or codify it to some extent by theologians and philosophers which led to the eventual term "Trinity" popping up in the late 2nd Century and its definition as we have it today.

Though, why you didn't bother to just read the Wiki article is beyond me.


bc15a8  No.754935

primitive?


f1ddaf  No.754946

>>754932

There are stories that the verses mentioning the trinity (father, son and holy spirit) were later added by the Catholic translations. Is that true? Specifically, verses that put the Holy Spirit as a person of the Trinity.

>>754935

Early christianity, we call it "primitive" in Brazil, at least.


f5b3c8  No.754957

>>754946

>were later added by the Catholic translations

According to what consensus? When did this happen? We have manuscripts from the 2nd and 3rd centuries speaking of the Trinity, not to mention the writings of all the Church Fathers from Polycarp (1st/2ndc) onwards.


947c39  No.754964

>>754928

>the doctrine of the Trinity does not originate from Judaism

<Isaiah 48:13, 16

(13)  Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together….

(16)  Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.


f1ddaf  No.755001

>>754957

The infallible proof that exists about the trinity is 1 John 5:7-8, but…

https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8

Besides in this text, there do not seem to be other mentions of the holy spirit as if it were a person of the trinity, detailing it more as the personified power of God or something like that.

I don't believe much in what I'm writing, so I came here asking for help.


f2ff3c  No.755004

>>754946

Não, deixa de ser macaco e estude em vez de acreditar no que te dizem. The Nicene creed is of 320 AD, in the original Greek. There is no translation.

If you want the justification for it, you should study what's called "The Nicene Creed" or "Credo Nicênico". There is not a single line that is not a condemnation of a heresy, including yours which is called Arianism from the heretic bishop Arius. Arius got slapped by St. Nicholas, died on the toilet, and the Orthodox Church has a yearly feast over his death.


f1ddaf  No.755006

>>755004

Wouldn't Arianism be not believing that Jesus is God? Because I don't question that, there are several other passages quoting God the Father and God the Son, my problem is with God the Holy Spirit.

Meua migo, eu vim aqui justamente para saber por onde começar. Tenho alguns livros (que me recomendaram) falando em contra a trindade católica, por isso precisava alguns que falassem a favor, para assim poder tirar minhas conclusões.


2042ad  No.755008

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>755006

>embed related

A pretty good explanation of the Trinity


4f56ab  No.755018

>>754928

>the Trinity does not originate from Judaism

What are you talking about? There's plenty of mention of God's Spirit and prophecies of Jesus in the OT. (((Judaism))) isn't the OT religion. Don't ever use it as your basis for understanding the OT.


2070d3  No.755081

>>755018

>What are you talking about? There's plenty of mention of God's Spirit and prophecies of Jesus in the OT.

Ya but they didn't think to differentiate it as another person within a triple entity.

which OT prophets were trinitarian? Trinity is really foundational to understanding God, but the OT never hints at this triunity like saying "and there are three that bear witness in heaven eternally, the father the son and the spirit, and these three are the one God," something like that would be very good to find.


2c046f  No.755083

>>754928

Have you ever heard of the bible?


6f5943  No.755104

>>755081

> but the OT never hints at this triunity

i'm afraid you're wrong

from the very start of the Bible we see God saying 'let us make man in our own image' – then immediately after The Fall we see the very first promise of the Messiah who would crush the serpent's head, and most every description of that Messiah is shown to be God Himself, or allusions toward the need for a mediator between God and men, as in Job

but remaining in Genesis for a moment, we see a very early Theophany where God Himself appears to Abraham just before He goes down to decree whether Sodom will be destroyed; and yet we also know that God is reigning in Heaven while God is walking on earth

but there's so much more, and it would take too long to elaborate on here; but the plurality of God can be seen in how God reveals himself as 'One', not using that term merely to indicate singularity, but more to express a wholeness and unity… just as it is said that man and woman become 'one' in marriage

but perhaps that's a little too opaque for your needs, so i'd point you to such visions as were had by prophets like David or Daniel or Isaiah – all found in the Old Testament or Tanakh as the Hebrews know it

David told of 'The Lord saying to my Lord, sit here while I make your enemies they footstool' – and who else could be the Lord over a king of Israel other than God?

Daniel saw 'one like a son of man' presenting Himself before the Ancient of Days, and taking a rightful throne of dominion and glory over every people and nation; this 'one like a son of man' having an everlasting dominion – and only God can be everlasting to everlasting

and lets not forget Christ's favourite name for Himself… 'the son of man'

tl;dr read the Messianic prophecies again and you will see the Tanakh describe the plurality of God from Job to Malachi


7c8ca4  No.755127

The trinity really isn't in scripture. Some kind of proto-trinitarian categories existed but the apostles certainly didn't believe anything much like what was developed later.

The following is taken from

https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/tag/pre-existence-of-christ/

Larry Hurtado is a historian of early Christian belief, particularly with regard to the worship of Jesus in early Christian societies.

> What are we supposed to make of statements ascribing “pre-existence” to Jesus (to use the typical theological buzzword)? If you entertain these, how could Jesus not have known this and spoken of it?

> First, a historical note: The ascription of “pre-existence” to Jesus wasn’t a late development, but appears already presupposed in texts as early as the 1 Cor 8:4-6 text cited above, and also, e.g., in the famous passage in Philippians 2:6-11 (esp. vv. 6-8). (Interesting to note Bart Ehrman’s recognition of this in his new book, and his admission that it took him by surprise and required him to correct earlier suppositions.) Indeed, we can’t really chart some evolutionary scheme in the earliest explosion of Christological beliefs. It all happened so quickly that by the time of Paul’s letters (written scarcely 15-20 yrs after Jesus’ execution) it’s all presupposed as long and widely known among believers.

> But how could people ascribe a heavenly “pre-existence” to a real human and mortal figure of recent history? To understand this, you have to enter into the “logic” of ancient theological thought, and especially “apocalyptic” thought. I’ll sketch it briefly. God doesn’t make up his game-plan as the game goes along, but has the plan (of world history, redemption, judgement, etc.) all laid out even before creation. So, as God acts in revelation, each action is also an unveiling of his prior purpose and plan. So, “eschatological” events were actually in God’s purpose from the beginning: “final things = first things” (to paraphrase a scholarly formula). Indeed, in ancient Jewish texts there are references to various things, e.g., Torah, or the “name” of the messianic figure in the “Parables” of 1 Enoch (37-70) as “pre-existent” (see, e.g., my article, “Pre-Existence,” in the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, eds. G.F. Hawthorne, et al., pp. 743-46 (and bibliography there).

> So, in this case, if Jesus has been vindicated by God and exalted to heavenly glory, made Lord and judge, declared to be “the Son of God,” and the unique redeemer, then in some sense this is the eschatological revelation and articulation of what must have been God’s purpose, and the revelation of heavenly realities, from before creation. As various other scholars as well have observed, the conviction that Jesus had been exalted to heavenly/divine glory seems to have triggered the logical corollary that he must, in some sense, have been “there” from the beginning, and that God’s redemption work is tied closely to God’s creation work. (Note that NT statements about Jesus’ “pre-existence” are essentially confined to connecting him to creation, and there is scant interest in speculations about what else his “pre-existence” involved. There, isn’t in other words, the proliferation of elaborate “myth” narratives about the matter such as we have in the classic Greek myths of the gods.)

> But the NT also, even more emphatically, insists that Jesus of Nazareth was a real, mortal, human being, not a “god-in-drag” walking the earth, only pretending to eat, sleep, die, etc. (in contrast, e.g., to the angel Raphael in Tobit). “Born of a woman” declares Paul (Gal. 4:4), and “crucified and buried” is a pretty sure indication of things! Moreover, the NT doesn’t present Jesus as raising himself from death, as if by his own innate divine power, but declares Jesus was raised by God (e.g., 1 Thess 1:9-10).

Cont…


7c8ca4  No.755128

> As a human, say the NT texts, Jesus was only able to declare what God had revealed to him (even, perhaps especially, in the Gospel of John, e.g., 5:30-38). He is pictured as empowered by God (via God’s Spirit) for his ministry (e.g., the descent of the Spirit in the baptism scenes). He declares ignorance of “the day or hour” of eschatological consummation (Mark 13:32, a text that clearly troubled some early readers, as the variant readings show).

> It has been a common mistake to assume that if Jesus bears divine glory, status, etc., now (in Christian faith), and if in some sense he was “pre-existent”, then this must have affected (or even limited) how he could have been truly human. To think this, however, is both to ignore the NT texts, and (in theological terms) to descend into a kind of heresy (classically called, “Docetism”). Indeed, in later creedal statements, “orthodox” Christian “Fathers” often declared “that which the Son did not take on him self he cannot redeem” (meaning that a fully human Jesus was necessary for him to be an adequate redeemer of humans, an emphasis that actually emerged as early as Hebrews 2:5-18). In short, ascribing to Jesus divine honour, status, glory, etc., in the NT texts was never at the expense of Jesus being truly, fully, human. The statement in John 1:14 bears as much force as the statement in 1:1-2. “The Word became flesh” (i.e., fully, mortal human). And so, e.g., operating within the knowledge available to humans, whether about themselves or anything else.

The following is the important bit. . .

> What about subsequent creedal controversies and formulations? E.g., the three “persons” (or “hypostases”) that comprise the “Trinity,” etc.?

> To my mind, these should be seen as valiant and impressive attempts by Christians living in later (than the NT texts) times, engaging and appropriating conceptual categories of those later times, to address questions and issues that had arisen then. But these conceptual categories and issues weren’t always the same ones that we find in the NT texts. E.g., referring to “persons” of the “Father” and the “Son” seems to have emerged sometime in the 2nd century (e.g., Justin Martyr’s references to the “prosopon” of the Son or the Father (literally = “face”, the Latin “persona” a subsequent attempt at an equivalent term).

> Simply reciting NT terms and expressions wasn’t sufficient (and is never sufficient for the theological task, to my mind). The questions had shifted, and the conceptual categories (heavily shaped by Greek philosophy) were different (the NT texts still heavily steeped in biblical/Jewish categories), and couldn’t rightly be avoided.

> But I suspect that if Paul were asked whether Jesus was the “second person of the Trinity,” he would likely have responded with a quizzical look, and asked for some explanation of what it meant!

> Were the patristic texts and creedal statements saying something beyond or distinguishable from what the NT texts say? Certainly. Does that invalidate those later creedal discussions and formulations? Well, if you recognize the necessity of the continuing theological task (of intelligently attempting to articulate Christian faith meaningfully in terms appropriate and understandable in particular times and cultures), then probably you’ll see the classic creedal statements as an appropriate such effort. But that’s a historical judgement about that later period, and/or a theological judgement. And my emphasis is on the historical question of what the NT texts say and how to understand them in their own historical context.


2070d3  No.755139

>>755104

>from the very start of the Bible we see God saying 'let us make man in our own image'

That's no a triunity, referring to himself as a vague "we" isn't not the trinity.

>after The Fall we see the very first promise of the Messiah who would crush the serpent's head, and most every description of that Messiah is shown to be God Himself, or allusions toward the need for a mediator between God and men, as in Job

That's also not a trinity. At all. Grasping at straws. Look I wish the trinity was explained in the OT and then maybe clarified in the NT, but that isn't the case. How many trinitarian prophets were there prior to Christ?

>but remaining in Genesis for a moment, we see a very early Theophany where God Himself appears to Abraham just before He goes down to decree whether Sodom will be destroyed; and yet we also know that God is reigning in Heaven while God is walking on earth

God is infinite and transcendant, he fills all space and time and everything, so he can be in all places at all times. BUT that is not a trinity

>but perhaps that's a little too opaque for your needs, so i'd point you to such visions as were had by prophets like David or Daniel or Isaiah – all found in the Old Testament or Tanakh as the Hebrews know it….and lets not forget Christ's favourite name for Himself… 'the son of man'

That's not a trinity either. Since it doesn't explain tri-unity of anything, that verse doesn't help you at all.

>tl;dr read the Messianic prophecies again and you will see the Tanakh describe the plurality of God from Job to Malachi

Plurality isn't a trinity. What is so hard for you to understand that the trinity is not in the OT.

Vague uses of "we" is not a trinity.

Saying the messiah is somehow divine is not the trinity.

The idea came up with the coming of Christ.


7a8f51  No.755140

>>755127

>>755128

What this historian gets wrong is that Christianity is assumed at the latest to have received all of its revelation from the apostles, most of it directly from the mouth of Jesus or from inspired exegesis of the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus, his assertion that Christianity “evolved” isn’t what the church itself says about itself, and as a Cathodox poster, that’s like calling Christ himself a lier about himself, since we are his body.

Also, the church teaches that Christ was always God in earth, but was also a human being. It’s a paradox, but it’s what the church believes. The author, despite claiming the doctrine of the incarnation is just “God in human drag”, has fallen into another heresy: Adoptionism, which states Jesus was not always God but rather put on his divinity at a later time.


d7cb8a  No.755142

File: 5e3e3b449326b2c⋯.png (272.47 KB, 822x1857, 274:619, trinity-in-bible.png)

>>754928

>how did it begin

Simplistic version: reconciling three seemingly trichotomous facts:

1. Jesus is God.

2. The Holy Spirit is God.

3. There is only one God, and we are NOT polytheists.

It's a limited human model of the incomprehensible Divine. Finite minds trying to grasp and grapple with the infinite.

correct me in what ways I'm wrong

Refer pic related for further detail.


6f5943  No.755221

>>755139

first you asserted that the Tanakh doesn't even 'hint' at the Trinity – so that's what i addressed; partial revelation of the plurality of God

now you're demanding absolute categorical definitions of the Trinity in that same collection of books

that's shifting the goal posts, friend – and disingenuous


2acaac  No.755339

>>755104

Yeah, yeah, but what about the Holy Spirit? I saw in some books that the Holy Spirit was incorporated in the trinity to make the christianity become more closer to the paganism.


2070d3  No.755341

>>755221

You didn't read the full sentence where I said "hint at"

I meant actually hint at a trinity, no need to develop it, but state the tri-unity, not simply a vague, unnamed plurality. I said: " but the OT never hints at this triunity like saying "and there are three that bear witness in heaven eternally, the father the son and the spirit, and these three are the one God," something like that would be very good to find."

That's what I meant because that's what I said. You snipped that sentence apart and just concentrated on the word "hint" without any qualification


2acaac  No.755631

>>755018

>(((Judaism))) isn't the OT religion.

Oh, I forgot about that.

>>There's plenty of mention of God's Spirit and prophecies of Jesus in the OT

I read that the Holy Spirit is none other than the Spirit of Jesus sent to earth to guide the Christians. However, he is not a separate "person" in the trinity, he is basically the Son.

If memory serves, jehovah's witnesses believe in something similar, but for them Christ is not God.


f5b3c8  No.755632

>>755631

>I read that the Holy Spirit is none other than the Spirit of Jesus

Heresy.


2acaac  No.755633


f5b3c8  No.755635

>>755633

>I saw in some books

Which books? What are your sources?

>make the christianity become more closer to the paganism.

If English is not your first language, you shouldn't be debating complex things in English.

>>755633

Your claims contradict the Scriptures, the God-guided ecumenical counsels of the Church and all authentic Tradition of the Christian religion.

Begone Satan.


2acaac  No.755639

>>755635

>If English is not your first language, you shouldn't be debating complex things in English.

The most popular Brazilian IBs are in chaos, and the only ones where I could try to debate this are completely empty. I can read English with some ease, but to write I'm a complete failure, so I'm translating everything on www.deepl.com.

>the God-guided ecumenical counsels of the Church and all authentic Tradition of the Christian religion

I am not Catholic, ecumenical councils and catholic tradition in general is not a valid source for my beliefs. But, if I could know where, in the Bible, the belief that the Holy Spirit is another person of the Trinity originated, I leave quietly and happily, because that was a belief that I always had and that only now I began to question.


f5b3c8  No.755647

>>755639

If you believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God then why would you doubt Matthew 28:19? Jesus distinguishes between the Father, the Son (Himself), and the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit was just Jesus' spirit then why didn't He just say so?


2acaac  No.755656

>>755647

Now THAT'S what I was searching for. Do you know other texts in the Bible that are as clear as that one?


241beb  No.755664


f5b3c8  No.755677

>>755656

Why on Earth don't you do your own research? Why aren't you reading your own Bible?


2acaac  No.755689

>>755677

>Acts 8:31

<31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

I'm afraid to read and overlook passages like that.


50fe32  No.755697

>>755008

Great find. I love their videos




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / bestemma / clang / doomer / fa / flutter / utoronto / voros / wmafsex ]