Have a look at this verse as we read it in two popular Christian translations of the Bible:
As Omer remarked earlier on this blog:
“It boggles the mind how someone can think that God and Jesus are the same person after reading verses like this and many other verses showing their clear and infinite distinction.”
Blogging Theology 
The Trinity Doctrine is false because the person who invented it is regarded as a heretic, Tertullian. Imagine if Jews regarded Moses as a heretic and Muslims regarded Muhammad as a heretic! That is how it is since Tertullian was inventor even behind the name behind trinitas not just the doctrine!
LikeLike
Hi Seeker of truth
I don’t think it is false doctrine it was spoken about and believed way before Tertullian was born.
LikeLike
Why don’t you prove it? Where did any one before Tertullian mention a trinity?
LikeLike
Hi Faiz.
I am learning all the time so thanks for the challenge.
LikeLike
So you are still learning and yet you made a clear and emphatic statement about the trinity being spoken of and believed before Tertullian? Where is the evidence? Which church father believed that God was a “trinity” consisting of father, son and holy spirit?
LikeLike
Before Tertullian (190-220 AD), hardly anyone that we have extant writings on, wrote very much. Ireneaus (180-202 AD) comes closest and he is about the same time as Tertullian.
Before Tertullian and Irenaeus, what we have extant between end of NT (Revelation, book of Jude as 2 of the last) is small.
Clement – 96 AD
Ignatius- 110 AD
Polycarp- 155 AD
Didache – 70-130 AD
Pseudo-Barnabas – 135 AD
Mathetes to Diognetes – 130 AD
Justin Martyr – 165 AD
Papias’ (95- 120 AD ) 5 volumes were lost to history; only fragments remain.
These are all very small works.
LikeLike
Exactly. So there is very little material on the “trinity” before Irenaeus and Tertullian. The latter was the first to even use the term “trinity”.
What this proves is that the doctrine was being developed and refined. Jesus didn’t know anything about it and neither did the disciples. Over the course of a few hundred years, the doctrine of the trinity was developed until it reached it finality in the council of Nicea in 325 CE. But it didn’t even end there. The council of Nicea did not elaborate on the divinity of the holy spirit. It was not until the council of Constantinople in 381 that the holy spirit was also given divine status.
LikeLike
The textual backing and meaning of the doctrine is there in canonical Scripture:
One God: Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29; 1 Tim. 2:5
Deity of Christ: John 1:1-5; 1:14; 8:56-58; 5:17-18; Philippians 2:5-7; Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews 1:3-12, etc.
3 persons in the Triad: “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” – Matthew 28:18-20; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Acts 2:33; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 John 5:20; Revelation 5:9-14
Deity of Holy Spirit: Acts 5:3-5; 2 Cor. 3:18; Genesis 1:1-2; John 14; John 16
Putting all of these groups of Scriptures into a coherent and unified and consistent understanding and way results in the doctrine of the Trinity: One God in three persons.
LikeLike
Except canonical Scripture; so it is not exactly, “exactly”. My point is that the extant works that survive from 96-180 AD are very small works.
LikeLike
Hi Faiz
How do you read and understand the scriptures? If you are a Muslim you would do so as a Unitarian. I look at the different characters in the bible and this case it would be the Father Son and the Holy Ghost.
The most important event for us in the bible is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and as we read we want to know who rose him from the dead.
Act 10:40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
Act 10:41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
Who is this God who raised him from the dead?
Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Joh 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
Joh 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are involved in the resurrection.
Do you have a problem with these verses and the characters within the scriptures that are mentioned, you may say you want to see the trinity.
The second scripture I want to bring to you is in John.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
My question is how do the Father and the Son make their abode in the believer? The only way for that to be possible is by the Spirit.
please don’t just dismiss what I have written I ask you to look and deal with what is written.
LikeLike
This is nothing but special pleading, which is typical of Ken. If scripture was so obvious, then why didn’t the early church fathers pick up on it? Why is there so little discussion of the trinity before Irenaeus and Tertullian, as you admitted?
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is not much extant writing at all; does not mean that there was not discussion.
I left several out in the list – Melito of Sardis, who died in 180 AD, wrote:
This is He who took a bodily form in the Virgin, and was hanged upon the tree, and was buried within the earth, and suffered not dissolution; He who rose from the place of the dead, and raised up men from the earth-from the grave below to the height of heaven. This is the Lamb that was slain; this is the Lamb that opened not His mouth. This is He who was born of Mary, fair sheep of the fold.
He who was condemned by Pilate; He who was pierced in the flesh; He who was hanged on the tree; He who was buried in the earth; He who rose from the place of the dead; He who appeared to the apostles; He who was carried up to heaven; He who is seated at the right hand of the Father; He who is the repose of those that are departed; the recoverer of those that are lost; the light of those that are in darkness; the deliverer of those that are captive; the guide of those that go astray; the asylum of the afflicted; the bridegroom of the Church; the charioteer of the cherubim; the captain of the angels; God who is from God; the Son who is from the Father; Jesus Christ the King for evermore. Amen.
For this reason did the Father send His Son from heaven without a bodily form, that, when He should put on a body by means of the Virgin’s womb, and be born man, He might save man, and gather together those members of His which death had scattered when he divided man.
And further on: -The earth shook, and its foundations trembled; the sun fled away, and the elements turned back, and the day was changed into night: for they could not endure the sight of their Lord hanging on a tree. The whole creation was amazed, marvelling and saying, “What new mystery, then, is this? The Judge is judged, and holds his peace; the Invisible One is seen, and is not ashamed; the Incomprehensible is laid hold upon, and is not indignant; the Illimitable is circumscribed, and doth not resist; the Impossible suffereth, and doth not avenge; the Immortal dieth, and answereth not a word; the Celestial is laid in the grave, and endureth! What new mystery is this? “The whole creation, I say, was astonished; but, when our Lord arose from the place of the dead, and trampled death under foot, and bound the strong one, and set man free, then did the whole creation see clearly that for man’s sake the Judge was condemned, and the Invisible was seen, and the Illimitable was circumscribed, and the Impassible suffered, and the Immortal died, and the Celestial was laid in the gave. For our Lord, when He was born man, was condemned in order that He might Show mercy, was bound in order that He might loose, was seized in order that He might release, suffered in order that He might feel compassion, died in order that He might give life, was laid in the grave that He might raise from the dead.
III.
From the Discourse on the Cross.
On these accounts He came to us; on these accounts, though He was incorporeal, He formed for Himself a body after our fashion, -appearing as a sheep, yet still remaining the Shepherd; being esteemed a servant, yet not renouncing the Sonship; being carried in the womb of Mary, yet arrayed in the nature of His Father; treading upon the earth, yet filling heaven; appearing as an infant, yet not discarding the eternity of His nature; being invested with a body, yet not circumscribing the unmixed simplicity of His Godhead; being esteemed poor, yet not divested of His riches; needing sustenance inasmuch as He was man, yet not ceasing to feed the entire world inasmuch as He is God; putting on the likeness of a servant, yet not impairing the likeness of His Father. He sustained every character belonging to Him in an immutable nature: He was standing before Pilate, and at the same time was sitting with His Father; He was nailed upon the tree, and yet was the Lord of all things.
LikeLike
“Except canonical Scripture; so it is not exactly, “exactly”. My point is that the extant works that survive from 96-180 AD are very small works.”
LOL, oh please. We have large portions of writings by Justin Martyr. You mean to tell me that in his “Dialogue with Trypho” or “Apology”, he didn’t deem mentioning the trinity as important? Really?
As for your so-called “canonical scripture”, you mean to tell me that you can only glean evidence for the trinity by putting scattered passages together? Why didn’t your scripture just come out and say it? Why is it that the only clear references to the trinity are forgeries? Isn’t that a bit too convenient?
LikeLiked by 1 person
1913 Old Catholic Encyclopedia, “St. Justin Martyr”
The Word is numerically distinct from the Father (Dial., cxxviii, cxxix; cf. lvi, lxii). He was born of the very substance of the Father, not that this substance was divided, but He proceeds from it as one fire does from another at which it is lit (cxxviii, lxi); this form of production (procession) is compared also with that of human speech (lxi). The Word (Logos) is therefore the Son: much more, He alone may properly be called Son (II Apol., vi, 3); He is the monogenes, the unigenitus (Dial., cv). Elsewhere, however, Justin, like St. Paul, calls Him the eldest Son, prototokos (I Apol., xxxiii; xlvi; lxiii; Dial., lxxxiv, lxxxv, cxxv). The Word is God (I Apol., lxiii; Dial., xxxiv, xxxvi, xxxvii, lvi, lxiii, lxxvi, lxxxvi, lxxxvii, cxiii, cxv, cxxv, cxxvi, cxviii).
LikeLike
Oh good Lord, this is like talking to a five-year old. Where is the evidence for the trinity? Don’t you know that the trinity consists of father, son AND holy spirit?
LikeLike
Duh. Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Matthew 3:13-18; 1 Peter 1:2; – all three persons are in those passages. Justin mentions the Holy Spirit in other places.
Justin Martyr:
“We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein” (First Apology 13:5-6).
LikeLike
“For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.” Justin Martyr, 1 Apology, 63
Both, “the Father has a Son” and “Word of God, is even God”
by nature is even God
Father and Son = 2 persons
LikeLike
Oy vei. Your appeal to Melito of Sardis fails for two reasons:
1. He also wrote around the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian.
2. He makes no mention of a trinity, only that the father and son were divine. No mention of the holy spirit there.
It’s no wonder that even 325 CE, Christians could not definitively state their creed. It took more “councils” to clarify what a Christian should believe. What a joke.
LikeLike
Except for all the verses in earlier(than 100-180) Scripture that point to the Deity of the Holy Spirit and the verses have all 3 persons in the Triad. Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14, etc.
LikeLike
I already refuted this nonsensical argument. It’s quite telling that you simply repeat the same nonsense like a broken record and won’t actually answer my question. Why does your scripture fail to just explicitly state the trinitarian creed? Why is it only available in some alleged scattered verses or forgeries?
LikeLiked by 2 people
There is no textual evidence that Matthew 28:19 is a forgery or added later. The Didache, one of the oldest extant non-canonical works, that may have written anywhere from 70 AD to 130 AD, quotes Matthew 28:19; therefore, Mr. Faiz, you are just wrong.
LikeLike
“Both, “the Father has a Son” and “Word of God, is even God”
by nature is even God
Father and Son = 2 persons”
Which is less than 3 persons (i.e. the trinity). So did Justin believe in a “dinity”?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 6) Notice what else Justin say: “Worship God alone.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 16) “Whence to God alone we render worship.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 17)
LikeLike
“the Son who is from the Father;”
What does that even mean?
Can we say the Father is from the Son, and why?
Keep in mind that they are supposed to be co eternal together.
LikeLike
no, the Son is coming out from the Father eternally, as the eternal Word (John 1:1; 17:5) There is a hierarchy within the Trinity.
LikeLike
“There is a hierarchy within the Trinity.”
Comes handy when needed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“the Son is coming out from the Father eternally”
How can that be understood. The son is coming out?!
Is there a period before the son is coming out?
Does that mean the son was begotten from the Father?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“no, the Son is coming out from the Father eternally, as the eternal Word (John 1:1; 17:5) There is a hierarchy within the Trinity.”
so the father pops out another being from himself, right? this being has everything the father has? the son is in the company of the father which implies it is a being
is
iz/Submit
third person singular present of be.
“BE”
so what is “be” , ken?
LikeLike
Hi Faiz.
I’m going to argue with Ken but I will still have a go myself.
LikeLike
sorry not argue with Ken
LikeLiked by 1 person
how come you repay same questions for past five years?
LikeLike
Hi Faiz
You are going to have to deny certain scriptures that speak of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost.
Father speaks…Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
The Son speaks…Luke 5:31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
The spirit speaks…Act 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
Act 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.
Act 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
No one has any problem with the Father and the Son speaking, but can you explain the Spirit speaking?
LikeLike
In the Tanakh, different spirits spoke as well. One prominent example is the “lying spirit”. It also spoke. Does that make it divine? Come now…surely you can do better.
LikeLike
Hi Faiz
or according to Muslims does that make it the Angel Gabriel or Muhammad?
We know what we mean when we speak about the spirit of God stop trying to play games.
Furthermore the councils did not come about to decide what Christians believe it was to stamp out heresy that was rising up.
Now I have shown from scripture the Trinity accomplishing something together.
I dont need to go to the church fathers I have shown verses to prove my point.
The resurrection involved all three at the same time.
according to the bible verses is that a yes or no?
And if not deal with the verses in a right way and I will do the same with Koran
LikeLike
DC said:
“Hi Faiz
How do you read and understand the scriptures? If you are a Muslim you would do so as a Unitarian. I look at the different characters in the bible and this case it would be the Father Son and the Holy Ghost.”
I would read it as a Unitarian because that is what the evidence shows. You read it with your trinitarian presumptions and that’s the problem. The trinity was invented to harmonize the contradictory verses which spoke of Jesus as a human in one place and divine in another place. To avoid the obvious polytheistic implications, and also somehow remain true to Jewish monotheism, Christians had to invent the trinity as an explanation. That is why the historical evidence shows a gradual development of this concept.
You initially claimed that the trinity was believed in way before Tertullian, yet all you have presented as “evidence” is scattered verses from the NT. As I asked Ken, let me ask you. Why does your scripture fail to just explicitly state the trinitarian creed? Why do you have to rely on scattered verses? Why do the early church authorities fail to mention it? Why did it take almost 400 years for the concept to be clarified?
“The most important event for us in the bible is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and as we read we want to know who rose him from the dead.
Act 10:40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
Act 10:41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
Who is this God who raised him from the dead?
Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)”
Stop right there. You see how you jump from book to book? Why do you have to do that? Why can’t you give clear statements from one book without having to jump to another book? You know as well as I do that the different books were not written at the same time. Thus, the early Christians could not possibly have made the same presumptions that you are making by appealing to scattered verses because they had no such thing as a “Bible”. The canonization was also not completed until the countil of Nicea.
“The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are involved in the resurrection.
Do you have a problem with these verses and the characters within the scriptures that are mentioned, you may say you want to see the trinity.”
Um, yeah. That is exactly what I say. You want to interpret these scattered verses in light of the trinity because of your presumptions. But again, why didn’t your church fathers make the same connection? In the examples Ken gave above, church leaders like Melito or Justin Martyr ALWAYS failed to include the holy spirit with the father and son. Were they dinitarians (or binitarians)?
“The second scripture I want to bring to you is in John.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
My question is how do the Father and the Son make their abode in the believer? The only way for that to be possible is by the Spirit.
please don’t just dismiss what I have written I ask you to look and deal with what is written.”
I have no reason to just accept your trinitarian interpretations. The gospel of John dwells heavily on Jesus’ divinity. But it too ALWAYS fails to include the holy spirit with the father and son. There is no doubt that the author of the gospel of John believed that Jesus was divine (in contrast, the synoptics show Jesus as only a man). But that does not prove that he believed in the trinity.
So we’re back to square one and you guys have utterly failed to provide an iota of evidence from your scripture or church authorities to show that the trinity was an established doctrine from the onset of Christianity. The reason is clear. These is no such evidence. Christianity was in a state of flux. There were many different (and often competing) doctrines.
LikeLike
Hi Faiz
You dont set the criteria for how I or anyone prove our case.
The point being made about the resurrection is that all three are involved.
I am not using scattered text I have made it clear that Father Son and the Holy Ghost are involved.
Jesus is not God in the flesh?
Well here is what the bible says.
1. John 1:33
33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
only God can baptise with the Holy Ghost.
2. 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
It is only God that sends prophets and this is something that will happen in the future.
Furthermore you claim Matt 28:19 is not original and quote Eusebius well…
Eusebius quotes the long form in
Contra Marcellum I.1.9; I.1.36;
Theologia III. 5.22;
EpCaesarea 3 (Socrates, Eccl.Hist 1.8); Psalms 117.1-4;
Theophania 4.8
And even Bart Erhman the friend of the Muslims ( muslims like to quote him) says the long version is original.
LikeLike
DC said:
“You dont set the criteria for how I or anyone prove our case.”
LOL, and you don’t get to tell me how I can and cannot criticize the trinity joke.
“I am not using scattered text I have made it clear that Father Son and the Holy Ghost are involved.”
Um, yes you are using scattered text. You demonstrated that clearly. You jump from book to book trying desperately to form a trinity superteam like the Avengers or something.
Tell me. Why did your apostle Paul ALWAYS begin his letters with the following greeting:
“Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Where was the holy spirit? Why did Paul ALWAYS forget to mention the holy spirit along with the father and the son?
“2. 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
It is only God that sends prophets and this is something that will happen in the future.”
Except that your “god” said that it would all happen to the present generation!
“Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.”
“Furthermore you claim Matt 28:19 is not original and quote Eusebius well…
Eusebius quotes the long form in
Contra Marcellum I.1.9; I.1.36;
Theologia III. 5.22;
EpCaesarea 3 (Socrates, Eccl.Hist 1.8); Psalms 117.1-4;
Theophania 4.8”
LOL, this only proves that there were variants of the last few verses of Matthew’s gospel and that your church fathers had no idea which one was authentic! Why did Eusebius quote different versions of the so-called “Great Commission”?
He also quoted the short form in his “History” and “Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine”.
Not only that, but other church fathers also quoted the short form. These include Origen and Clement of Alexandria.
“And even Bart Erhman the friend of the Muslims ( muslims like to quote him) says the long version is original.”
Ehrman believes that the long form maybe original but he does not think that it reflects the trinitarian doctrine. So, your appeal to him backfires.
LikeLike
Hi Faiz
There are lots of scriptures that speak of God Jesus and the Holy Ghost.
Romans 5:3-8, 8:1-11, 1st Cor 12:4-6. and many more.
LikeLike
Eusebius quoted the verse depending on what he was talking about, for instance you have Paul quoting poets he doesnt say the whole verse.
even quoting OT doesnt quote the whole verse part of a verse or paragraph.
LikeLike
LOL, there goes Ken with his sloppy research.
“Duh. Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Matthew 3:13-18; 1 Peter 1:2; – all three persons are in those passages.”
Matthew 28:19 is most likely a later addition. Compare what the modern text says and how Eusebius quoted the text:
“Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you” (“The Proof of the Gospel”, Book 1, Chapter 4).
You can see it here: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_03_book1.htm
None of the other texts say anything about a trinity either.
“Justin mentions the Holy Spirit in other places.
Justin Martyr:
“We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein” (First Apology 13:5-6).””
Justin also regarded the spirit as the “word”. In other words, to him, the two were not separate persons.”
“Therefore, it is wrong to understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the first-born of God” (First Apology, Chapter 33).
See it here: http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html
Do some better research next time. 😉
But here is the kicker. Justin actually regarded the son as ANOTHER god!
“I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures,[of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things–above whom there is no other God–wishes to announce to them” (Dialogue With Trypho, Chapter 56).
See it here: http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html
So was Justin a polytheist? He certainly was not a trinitarian!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Faiz,
I knew about those passages in Justin Martyr – see here; and David Waltz’ comments and Sam Shamoun’s (in this case Sam did a good job of just sticking to facts and texts and argumentation).
Overall, David Waltz is right in that Justin Martyr was Trinitarian, but some statements and phrases are difficult to understand; but if you isolate them, as you do, from the rest of his writings, you can make them say what you want; but that is eisogesis on your part.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2017/03/07/justin-martyr-was-trinitarian/
LikeLike
it is anachronistic to suggest that Justyn Martyr was a Trinitarian.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can christians deal with this passage which destroys their religion?
For example, why was Jesus given that authority while God by definition has all authority already .
Also, why will Jesus be (under) the authority of God ?
How can you deal with this very clear separation between God in one hand, and Jesus on the other hand in this passage?
Be honest with yourselves, christians!
LikeLike
*Matthew 23:34 behold I send prophets and scribes
LikeLike
Faiz
you said…But it too ALWAYS fails to include the holy spirit with the father and son.
Both the Father and the Son send the Spirit.
John 14:26
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 16:7
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
LikeLike
None of this refutes the fact that your scriptures ALWAYS fail to mention the holy spirit along with the father and the son. Whenever the father and son are mentioned, the holy spirit is conspicuously absent. Why?
It’s no wonder that it took you Christians 400 years to finally get your act together and clarify that the holy spirit was divine and part of some super team called the trinity.
LikeLike
Faiz said: “Why does your scripture fail to just explicitly state the trinitarian creed? ”
Why should it just for Muslims and other heretics?
There is no need for God to express the doctrine as an abstract formulation. It is probably not possible anyway. It is already eloquently and adaquately asserted in the bible without further ado. We should not question God’s wisdom.
LikeLike
LOL, Ignoramus. Just another idiotic rant from you, but then after a while you will run away like you usually do.
Your special pleading shows just how much of a joke the trinity is. I have already shown that it was developed gradually. It took almost 400 years for Christians to get their theology together! What was your god waiting for?
So you think that expressing the trinity doctrine “as an abstract formulation” was “probably not possible”? Even for your god?! It seems to me that you’re the heretic here! LOL!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Abstract formulations of the trinity are not absolute truth as the bible is. They are only approximations to the truth by necessity of the nature of the trinity. That is why they are not to be found in the bible. The trinity is asserted in the bible in the form of absolute truth.
LikeLike
Ignoramus can’t explain why his god could not explicitly state his nature for everyone to see. Instead, his god had to rely on vague and scattered passages to give a hint.
LikeLike
Hi Faiz
Where does the koran explain Allah by one verse?
LikeLike
Um yes, right here:
Say: He is Allah, the One!
Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
He begetteth not nor was begotten.
And there is none comparable unto Him.
Now will you answer my question and stop trying to distract?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Faiz
Are the four gospels meant to say exactly the same thing?
And all include what the others have written.
LikeLike
DC said:
“Hi Faiz
Are the four gospels meant to say exactly the same thing?
And all include what the others have written.”
Shouldn’t they all say the same thing? Otherwise, what’s the point of having multiple eyewitnesses if they all say different things? Would you believe in Bigfoot if multiple eyewitnesses said they saw it but all gave different details? Stop using double standards for once and think rationally. It’s for your own good.
And by the way, they do not “include what the others have written”. Mark knew nothing about the Great Commission. It was added by Matthew.
LikeLike
Abstract formulations of the Trinity are not absolute truth-Erasmus of bloggingtheology.
But the Trinity was abstractly formulated by councils upon councils in from human minds, therefore Trinity is not absolute truth. Why then worship Trinitarian God? if you believed its abstract formulation is not true, but it was abstractly formulated by human councils.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Paul Williams
July 19, 2017 • 6:07 pm
it is anachronistic to suggest that Justyn Martyr was a Trinitarian.
—-
No, because these passages from Justin Martyr (died 165 AD) shows he understood both the principles of 1. the three persons and 2. that there is only One God
“But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 6) Notice what else Justin say: “Worship God alone.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 16) “Whence to God alone we render worship.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 17)
LikeLike
DC said:
“Hi Faiz
There are lots of scriptures that speak of God Jesus and the Holy Ghost.
Romans 5:3-8, 8:1-11, 1st Cor 12:4-6. and many more.”
Still not getting it? Why didn’t your scriptures mention the holy spirit along with the father and son? Why did Paul ALWAYS forget to mention the holy spirit in his greetings?
And if the holy spirit was “God” then why didn’t it know when the hour will come? Jesus said that only the father knows when the hour will come. That means the holy spirit is just as ignorant as the son or the angels. Some god, huh?
LikeLike
Hi Faiz
Not being mentioned in a particular text does not mean the Holy Ghost does not know the day or hour.
LikeLike
Um yes it does because this particular text says that ONLY the father knows about the hour.
Is there ever a time that you people can be honest? Why lie to yourselves?
LikeLike
don’t you think when it says “no ONE knows” it also means GHOSTS, unseen objects, aliens, humans etc ?
“no one” coupled with “only the father” is good indication that ghost is ignorant.
LikeLike
DC, why does Paul NEVER mention the holy spirit in his greetings? Stop running away from my questions. You already refused to deal with Mary’s age in the other thread and now you’re evading the question of why Paul failed to mention the holy spirit.
LikeLike
DC said:
“Eusebius quoted the verse depending on what he was talking about, for instance you have Paul quoting poets he doesnt say the whole verse.
even quoting OT doesnt quote the whole verse part of a verse or paragraph.”
Oh Lord, more special pleading. What do you mean “what he was talking about”? Why would Eusebius have deliberately cut short the baptismal formula and the so-called “Great Commission”? Didn’t he have any respect for the trinity? It is not like quoting a poet and not saying the whole verse. It is like completely altering the verse! It would be like quoting Hamlet’s line “to be or not to be” and saying “to sing or not to sing”. You see how they are completely different?
Here is the conundrum for you Christians. There is already ample evidence that Matthew’s version of the “Great Commission” had at least two variant versions. But there is another problem. Mark’s version is also completely different. Here is what Mark’s version says:
“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
Since we know that Matthew used Mark as a source, and if we assume (for the sake of argument) that the long form of Matthew’s version is authentic (which is not certain), then clearly Matthew added to the baptismal formula and embellished it further. Mark knew nothing about baptizing in the name of Jesus or anyone else.
LikeLike
Ken said:
“Faiz,
I knew about those passages in Justin Martyr – see here; and David Waltz’ comments and Sam Shamoun’s (in this case Sam did a good job of just sticking to facts and texts and argumentation).
Overall, David Waltz is right in that Justin Martyr was Trinitarian, but some statements and phrases are difficult to understand; but if you isolate them, as you do, from the rest of his writings, you can make them say what you want; but that is eisogesis on your part.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2017/03/07/justin-martyr-was-trinitarian/”
LOL, you guys are so pathetic! It’s amazing how much deceit you use. First of all, I showed that Justin regarded the spirit as the same as the word.
Second, your article is filled with anachronisms, as brother Paul pointed out. You are simply inserting your OWN eisegesis. There is no indication that Justin believed in a trinity as you understand it. His use of the phrase “another God” is a complete departure from the trinitarian doctrine. Look at what he wrote in the First Apology:
“Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.”
Notice there is nothing there about Jesus’ “two natures”. He is simply “a crucified man” who is “second to the unchangeable and eternal God…” That doesn’t sound like a trinitarian, does it? It sounds more like polytheism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No response from Ken?
Here is some more interesting facts about Justin Martyr.
1. He actually believed that the Jews had eliminated portions of scripture! On this point, he agreed with the Muslim view:
” And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying;” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 72).
2. In contrast to the gospels, Justin believed that Jesus was born in a cave:
“But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 78).
3. According to Irenaeus, Justin believed that Satan did not blaspheme God before Jesus came to earth:
“Truly has Justin remarked: That before the Lord’s appearance Satan never dared to blaspheme God, inasmuch as he did not yet know his own sentence, because it was contained in parables and allegories; but that after the Lord’s appearance, when he had clearly ascertained from the words of Christ and His apostles that eternal fire has been prepared for him as he apostatized from God of his own free-will, and likewise for all who unrepentant continue in the apostasy, he now blasphemes, by means of such men, the Lord who brings judgment [upon him] as being already condemned, and imputes the guilt of his apostasy to his Maker, not to his own voluntary disposition” (Against Heresies, Book 5).
4. Like the Roman philosophers, Justin believed that the world was created from matter. In other words, God created the universe from pre-existing matter!
“And we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man’s sake, create all things out of unformed matter” (First Apology, Chapter 10).
5. Justin revered the Roman leaders and the Senate:
“To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar, and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural son of Caesar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate, with the whole People of the Romans, I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them” (First Apology, Chapter 1).
And in his closing remarks, he referred to the emperor as the “Supreme Pontiff”:
“The Emperor Caesar Titus AElius Adrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius, Supreme Pontiff, in the fifteenth year of his tribuneship, Consul for the third time, Father of the fatherland, to the Common Assembly of Asia…”
So given all these statements by Justin, how is he still regarded as a saint by the Christians?
LikeLike
Ken said:
“There is no textual evidence that Matthew 28:19 is a forgery or added later. The Didache, one of the oldest extant non-canonical works, that may have written anywhere from 70 AD to 130 AD, quotes Matthew 28:19; therefore, Mr. Faiz, you are just wrong.”
LOL!!! Yes, there is textual evidence! It’s right there in the writings of Eusebius, Origen and Clement of Alexandria!
It’s amazing how you people appeal to the church fathers when it suits your purpose. But when they contradict your assumptions, you cast them aside.
Your appeal to the Didache is fallacious because, as you yourself admitted, it could very well have been written as late as the early to mid 2nd century. It could have been written in the first century or it could have been the second century. We simply do not know. Thus, your appeal to it is laughable.
Moreover, appealing to the Didache backfires because if it was written in the first century, it shows that its writers did not place much importance on the death and resurrection of Jesus for the simple reason that they don’t mention these things at all! As Burton Mack puts it, the Didache doesn’t have:
““…the slightest association with the death and resurrection of Jesus” (Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth, pp. 239-240)”.
By the way, Mack dates the Didache to the second century.
Also, as I said to DC, the baptismal formula found in the long form of Matthew is not found in Mark, the first gospel to be written. Therefore, if the long form is authentic, then the author simply added to Mark what was not there.
LikeLiked by 1 person