Robbie wrote:
======================================
In the fourth century C.E. clerics of the Roman Catholic Church formulated the Trinity doctrine, which claims that Jesus was equal to his Father and part of a triune deity. However, many careful Bible students have held that the Scriptures actually do not support this widely taught doctrine.
=========================================
However, Irenaeus lived A.D. 125 - 203. This is substantially before the fourth century.
Irenaeus in his writing Irenaeus Against Heresies commented on 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 maintaining that Christ was the Spirit.
' ... the knowledge of salvation was the knowledge of the Son of God, who is both called and actually is salvation, and the Saviour, and salutary [the one bringing salvation] Salvation, indeed, as follows: "I have waited for Thy salvation, O Lord ...." For He is indeed Saviour, as being the Son and the Word of God; but salutary, since He is Spirit; for he says: "The Spirit of our countenance, Christ the Lord" (Lam. 4:20 LXX).' From Ireneaus Against Heresies Book II.
Why is this important to the revelation of the Triune God ?
Second Corinthians 3:17 says "Now the Lord is the Spirit".
It is as the Holy Spirit that Christ can come to make an abode within His lover, both He and His Father:
"If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23b).
Because Christ the Lord is also the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17) He can come into His lovers and make an abode with them. In His coming is ALSO the coming of His Father - "WE will come to him and make an abode with him."
The utter oneness of the Three of the Trinity is defended by Ireneaus. It did not wait until the fourth century CE for this to be defended.
If it is objected to that the Second of the Trinity cannot be the Third of the Trinity it should be pointed out that "the Lord is the Spirit" conforms to the fact that in Romans 8 the Lord Jesus Christ is both "at the right hand of God [b](v.34) and in the believers (v.10). [/b]
Please consider the two passages together:
"Who is he who condemns? It is Christ Jesus who died and, rather, who was raised, who is also at the right hand of God, who also interceeds for us." (Rom. 8:34)
"But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness." (Rom. 8:10) [/b]
Christ is in two locations then. This truth supports the teaching of the Triune God - the Three - One God. The Person of Christ is at the right hand of God and the Person of Christ has come as promised to make an abode with His lovers, He is Christ in them (Rom. 8:10)
But going back to John 14:23 Jesus said not only that He would come and make an abode but that His Father would accompany Him - "We [Father and Son] will come to him and make an abode with him".
Is the Father also within the Christians then along with Christ ? Not me but the Scripture affirms YES:
"One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Eph. 4:6)
The context is that the Father is "IN ALL" of the members of the mystical Body of Christ, the church (v.16).
The point here is that the coming of the Spirit brings the coming of both the Father and the Son Christ into the believers. The other point is that Ireneaus defended the plain scripture that Christ was the Spirit. Or we may say that the Holy Spirit is Christ in His pneumatic form. And with Christ is the Father. The usage of the word "WE" seals that they are distinct. The fact that Christ brings with Him the Father when He comes into man underscores that one lives within the other.
"Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; but if not, believe because of the works themselves." (John 14:11)
If the above post is digested I will anticipate how someone like Robbie will deal with this.
He will not. He does not like to discuss these subjective truths concerning the coming of God into man.
In place of his silence on the indwelling, the imparting, the dispensing of God into man what will he offer ?
He will revert back to an Old Testament understanding of an objective God Almighty - out there who has great authority.
Now I do not negate for a minute this side of the Bible's revelation, that God is the objectivee Creator with almighty authority.
However the revelation of the Trinity is about God imparting His life into man. That is important to God's economy. It may not be important to Jehovah Witnesses. They do not talk much about this. The Spirit to them is just a force. And their emphasis is on an objective God outside and above man.
The ancient brothers with experience of the indwelling of the Son and the Father and the Spirit rightly defended this mystery against Arius attempts to keep the Christian church in the realm of the Old Testament worship of an objective Almighty God "out there".
They are very proud of this knowledge of the objective Almighty Jehovah up there. They know nothing about the God dispensed into man for the accomplishing of the eternal purpose of God to produce New Jerusalem.
Watch Robbie now as he continues to stress the objective Old Testament stage of the God Almighty who is OUT THERE, ABOVE, distant, to be obeyed and feared but NOT to be the indwelling divine life or to be lived in as our realm of eternal life.'
Robbie's theology will hold you BACK and keep you in the Old Testament dispensation.
But even in the Old Testament glimpses of the Triune God definitely can be found.
Originally posted by jaywillWe have been through this before and I mostly disagree with your interpretation as it conflicts in a big way with what Christ said. I wont go into details as its a waste of time.
... But once a person is born he cannot be unborn. Birth is irreversable. And being born again is irreversable.
...
But is there some scriptural support for this statement and your interpretation as it relates to salvation?
Originally posted by jaywillactually Jaywill i was going to bring to the forums attention your propensity not only for long non nonsensical posts, which bear an uncanny resemblance to, 'the mystery', which you are trying to impart to us, in that it is also unknowable and mysterious, but also its uncanny resemblance to Platonic philosophy, I like Thomas Jefferson's words in this regard
If the above post is digested I will anticipate how someone like Robbie will deal with this.
He will not. He does not like to discuss these subjective coming of God into man.
In place of his silence on the indwelling, the imparting, the dispensing of God into man what will he offer ?
He will revert back to an Old Testament understanding of an obj .
But even in the Old Testament glimpses of the Triune God definitely can be found.
"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend that they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one and that one is three."
now people lets get the logic here 3=1 and 1=3, are you still with us, ok very good
now you trinitarians will be pleased to tell the forum how you officially came to sanction the doctrine, was it a revelation from God, no, is it explicitly explained in scripture, no, was it was at the behest of an essentially PAGAN emperor and by a 'creed', headed by an man who was essentially versed in Platonic philosophy YES! and i quote
"Platonic philosophy influenced the Trinity doctrine. However, trinitarian ideas go much farther back than Plato. "Though it is usual to speak of the Semitic tribes as monotheistic; yet it is an undoubted fact that more or less all over the world the deities are in triads. This rule applies to eastern and western hemispheres, to north and south. Further, it is observed that, in some mystical way, the triad of three persons is one . . . . The definition of Athanasius [a fourth-century Christian] who lived in Egypt, applied to the trinities of all heathen religions," (Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought, by James Bonwick, F.R.G.S. p. 396).
Athanasius; formulation for the Trinity was adopted by the Catholic Church at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. Athanasius was from Alexandria, Egypt, and his philosophy was deeply rooted in Platonism."
are the trinitarians willing to deny these historical and well documented facts? are you willing to deny that it was accepted not for religious reasons but for political reasons? are you willing to deny that more christians were killed over the head of this than were killed by the pagan emperors? is that the effect of a teaching from God?
and Jaywill, i would be pleased if you did not condescend to do any more thinking for me, i have a mind of my own that is perfectly capable of formulating its own thoughts, thank you very much.
now its 2 am in the morning again, i bid you a good morning, till we meet again, pistols at dawn 🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobie=======================
actually Jaywill i was going to bring to the forums attention your propensity not only for long non nonsensical posts, which bear an uncanny resemblance to, 'the mystery', which you are trying to impart to us, in that it is also unknowable and mysterious, but also its uncanny resemblance to Platonic philosophy, I like Thomas Jefferson's words in this n the morning again, i bid you a good morning, till we meet again, pistols at dawn 🙂
actually Jaywill i was going to bring to the forums attention your propensity not only for long non nonsensical posts, which bear an uncanny resemblance to, 'the mystery', which you are trying to impart to us, in that it is also unknowable and mysterious, but also its uncanny resemblance to Platonic philosophy, I like Thomas Jefferson's words in this regard
=================================
Robbie's post is really nonsense in light of the Word of God.
Who said there was mystery with the experience of God? The man who wrote 13 of the 27 New Testament books, Paul wrote it.
"Holding the MYSTERY of the faith in a pure conscience." (1 Tim. 3:9)
Paul spoke of "the glory of this mystery" which is the indwelling Christ, which matter Robbie has been totally silent on.
"To whom God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this MYSTERY which is Christ in you the hope of glory." (Col. 1:27)
Paul also wrote that Christ is the mystery of God:
" ... all the riches of the full assurance of understanding, unto the full knowledge of the MYSTERY of God, Christ." (Col. 2:2)
Though Christ is the mystery of God we can experience Christ and enjoy Christ and receive Christ. Robbie is nonsensical to accuse this faithfulness to the New Testament as Platonic philosophizing.
Notice also that Paul did not say that the MYSTERY of Christ and the church WAS great. But rather he wrote that even at that time it IS great:
"This MYSTERY IS GREAT, but I speak with regard to Christ and the church." (Eph. 5:32)
So we have to bring the Jehovah Witness Robbie faithfully back to the word of God. Christ as God incarnate is the mystery of God. And Christ's union with His people to form the church His Bride is also a great mystery.
Is this Platonic mysticism or the pure word of God? God manifest in the flesh is called "the mystery of godliness"
"And confessedly, great is the MYSTERY of godliness: He who was manifested in the flesh ..." (1 Tim. 3:16a)
I have labored to show that though there is a great mystery in the nature of God and in the salvation of His dispensing Himself into man, yet I have affirmed that we all can enjoy the benefit of both.
In this manner I exactly FOLLOW the New Testament.
=====================
"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend that they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one and that one is three."
========================
I suppose he means it is too late in the day for Robbie to give us a clear testimony that he knows that he has received this wonderful Godman Jesus into his heart.
I still do not see him speak of the assurance of knowing God within. And I doubt that he can lead ANYONE where he himself has not been.
============================
now people lets get the logic here 3=1 and 1=3, are you still with us, ok very good
================================
And assurance = assurance. Robbie does not display any though he talks about Christ.
"He who believes into the Son has the testimony in himself ..." (1 John 4:10)
I have attempted to help Robbie see his own lack of confidence that he has received Christ. He seems not to think it is important.
Assurance = assurance.
"I have written these things to you that you may know that you have eternal life, to you who believe into the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13)
Could it be that Robbie's tampering with the revelation of the Bible to force his polytheism has hindered him from knowing that he has received Christ, and therefore has recieved forgiveness and eternal life?
Something is wrong. In spite of his grasp of simple math, something seems wrong with his hesitation, wavering, lack of confidence to affirm that he is saved.
I don't think he can lead ANYONE where he himself has not gone.
Originally posted by jaywilli noticed you avoided the main points of the post Jaywill, in that the acceptance of the trinity was politically motivated, by a pagan emperor, proposed by an individual who was well versed and influenced by Platonic philosophy. how very very convenient for you don't you think? are you ashamed?
=======================
actually Jaywill i was going to bring to the forums attention your propensity not only for long non nonsensical posts, which bear an uncanny resemblance to, 'the mystery', which you are trying to impart to us, in that it is also unknowable and mysterious, but also its uncanny resemblance to Platonic philosophy, I like Thomas .
I don't think he can lead ANYONE where he himself has not gone.[/b]
well ok jay will, at least we have something to discuss, something with content, in that the question has arisen, "what is the sacred secret", or "mystery" that you are so fond of.
I have resolved in my heart that the trinity is neither scriptural nor logical, nor knowable, but that being said, i should stop being so facetious, although it is my character to be so inclined, and i would be very much pleased if you would also be a little more civil in tone.
what is the Greek word, its Hebrew equivalent and its spectrum of meaning? 🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI appreciate the reading material you've provided. However, you still haven't answered my question.
here is an article that i recently read, it echoes my own sentiments on the trinity and sheds light on why we cannot, nor will not except this idea, of substance.
WHY NEWTON REJECTED THE TRINITY
Through his scientific studies Newton came to have a high regard for the ‘Book of Nature’ and saw in it the evidence of design by God, the great Author. ...[text shortened]... eligion of Isaac Newton, p. 61, Yahuda Ms. 15.4.fol.67v.
18. Isaac Newton, A Biography, p. 642.
Why would God have us give the honor due only to Him to a creature instead?
It is a legitimate question. Do you have an answer for it, or not?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI feel burdened to spend some time on the building of God and have started another thread where most of my labors are now directed.
i noticed you avoided the main points of the post Jaywill, in that the acceptance of the trinity was politically motivated, by a pagan emperor, proposed by an individual who was well versed and influenced by Platonic philosophy. how very very convenient for you don't you think? are you ashamed?
well ok jay will, at least we have something to di ...[text shortened]... l in tone.
what is the Greek word, its Hebrew equivalent and its spectrum of meaning? 🙂
I am afraid that you will not understand the mystery of the Triune God until the day that Christ makes His home in your heart through faith.
I am praying for you as Paul prayed for the believers in Ephesus - "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father ... that Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith." (See Eph, 3:14-17)
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am a brother. I am a son. I am a father. I=3...3=I. Not so much a mystery as you might imagine Robbie😉
actually Jaywill i was going to bring to the forums attention your propensity not only for long non nonsensical posts, which bear an uncanny resemblance to, 'the mystery', which you are trying to impart to us, in that it is also unknowable and mysterious, but also its uncanny resemblance to Platonic philosophy, I like Thomas Jefferson's words in this ...[text shortened]... n the morning again, i bid you a good morning, till we meet again, pistols at dawn 🙂
Originally posted by epiphinehasI thought it was well understood that there are many instances in scripture where honour is given to a created being, just off the top of my head, for example honour your father and your mother (ten commandments), show honour to all men (Paul i think), assign her honour as to a weaker vessel (peter talking about our wife) etc etc etc
I appreciate the reading material you've provided. However, you still haven't answered my question.
Why would God have us give the honor due only to Him to a creature instead?
It is a legitimate question. Do you have an answer for it, or not?
Originally posted by jaywillthank you jaywill, i did not intend entering into this discussion with you, considering that Christians have been arguing about this thing for millennia, it seems a great pity, that with so much in common we must focus on those essentials which are great chasms among us, thankyou for praying for me, for a righteous mans prayer has much weight with god.
I feel burdened to spend some time on the building of God and have started another thread where most of my labors are now directed.
I am afraid that you will not understand the mystery of the Triune God until the day that Christ makes His home in your heart through faith.
I am praying for you as Paul prayed for the believers in Ephesus - [b]"For this ...[text shortened]... Father ... that Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith." (See Eph, 3:14-17)[/b]
Actually i wish you would start a thread on what it means to be born again, not that i am born again, or ever will be, but it would be nice to hear some of your thought on the matter, especially with reference to scripture.
Originally posted by dueceroh deucer my learned friend, it is in vain that you try to enlighten me, the matter is quite settled in my heart, all that i ask is that you do not feel ill of me for some of the things that i have said, for at present i feel quite remorseful in this regard, and should have conducted myself with a little more dignity and decorum. 🙂
I am a brother. I am a son. I am a father. I=3...3=I. Not so much a mystery as you might imagine Robbie😉
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTrue, but who is worthy of being given the same level of honor as the LORD? Remember, we're talking about God Almighty, I Am That I Am, Yahweh, Elohim, God Most High, El-Elyon, Adonai, El-Shaddai, God Everlasting, The LORD... Seriously, who is worthy of being given the same level of honor as Him?
I thought it was well understood that there are many instances in scripture where honour is given to a created being, just off the top of my head, for example honour your father and your mother (ten commandments), show honour to all men (Paul i think), assign her honour as to a weaker vessel (peter talking about our wife) etc etc etc
If you're at all familiar with the Old Testament, and I believe you are, I'll assume that your answer will be, "No one but God is worthy..." In which case, how does Jesus, a lifelong Jew, no doubt familiar with the writings of Moses, possibly muster the audacity to claim equal honor with God? "All should honor the Son [i.e., Jesus] just as they honor the Father" (John 5:23).
I'm thinking you haven't let these words uttered by Jesus concerning himself sink in quite yet. I say this with complete respect: take some time to appreciate what it might mean to be genuinely worthy of the same level of honor as the LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; The Great 'I AM', Jehovah.
Selah...
If nobody but God is worthy of the honor due to God, how then do we explain Christ's assertion that the Son should be honored just as the Father is honored?
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhen I asked Robbie about a reply to this last post, his answer included these words:
True, but who is worthy of being given the same level of honor as the LORD? Remember, we're talking about God Almighty, I Am That I Am, Yahweh, Elohim, God Most High, El-Elyon, Adonai, El-Shaddai, God Everlasting, The LORD... Seriously, who is worthy of being given the same level of honor as Him?
If you're at all familiar with the Old Testame ...[text shortened]... ain Christ's assertion that the Son should be honored just as the Father is honored?
======================
i resolved in my heart that my time was wasted and really regretted having spent any effort whatsoever, not to mention some of the things i said, and in fact I have not left the question unanswered as you presume, for i have asked epiphinehas why he presumes to state, that even though we are to honour both the father and the son, that this makes them equal, or the same, for it is clearly apparent, from scripture, that they are not one and the same. i gave clear references to creatures who are due honour, are we also to presume that these are equal to and the same as the father?
===============================
We can appreciate that you're very busy.
We can appreciate that you have a sensative conscience.
However I don't see an effective reply to WHY Jesus would even teach that men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father if His Father was displeased with that.
According to your Jehovah's Witnesses teaching, Almighty God, His Father would not permit that.
Why would this supposed inferior created other god, Christ, teach that then ?
Originally posted by jaywillexcuse me? this doing my own thinking for me is too much Jaywill, it is not permitted, for i have my own mind and my own thoughts, that is sacrosanct.
When I asked Robbie about a reply to this last post, his answer included these words:
======================
i resolved in my heart that my time was wasted and really regretted having spent any effort whatsoever, not to mention some of the things i said, and in fact I have not left the question unanswered as you presume, for i have asked epiphinehas rmit that.
Why would this supposed inferior created other god, Christ, teach that then ?
it is not the sign of a good teacher either, for the Christ was want to let individuals draw their own conclusions, therefore if you cast your mind to the word of truth and the account of the so called 'good Samaritan', what was it that the Christ said to the man, 'so who to you appeared to be the mans neighbour? in other words he let the man come to the conclusion himself, so you will be pleased to adopt the same manner that was good enough for the Christ.
the question that i was asked i have already answered, or at least i think i have, which was proposed by epiphenomena, why are we to honour a creature, and i stated that there are many instances in scripture where we are to give honour to a creature, did I not! now you will be pleased to answer my question, how does giving honour to the Christ make him the same as God? I know that you cannot answer this, for if you do it will be self incriminatory for in each and every instance the Christ is subject to God, both in word and in deed, before and after his manifestation as a man and his resurrection and ascension to heaven, nor do i know of any reason in scripture why giving honour to the Christ would not be permitted, perhaps you know something that i do not or you are gravely ignorant of my theology, who can tell?