The Holy Trinity

[Jbuza]

I specifically asked why my arguments regarding the textual, linguistic, and historical issues didn't convince you. I'm still waiting for an answer.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I have some thoughts why I find them unconvincing. I want you to know I have gone back through this thread and looked things over again, as I didn't do that well enough first. I wasn't trying to make you go back over the same arguments, and while I was glancing through this thread I said to myself perhaps it would be helpful to gather the scripture into one place by itself. Again sorry, and your right I will try and interact more with what you say, but am not sorry for gathering the pertinent scriptures into posts by themselves.

I find your arguments unconvincing because, although it appears you have studied, those persons that actually lived at the time of Jesus, that actually spoke the language that Jesus spoke, seemed to clearly understand that he was calling himself God, that he was claiming equality with God.

This argument should in itself convinve you that those Jews that saw Jesus with their own eyes beleived he was claiming to be more than a mere man like you and me.

John 10:30-33 “I and the Father are one.” Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

John 5:17-18 Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.” For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

John 8:56-59 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." 57The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" 58Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." 59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple."

Why were the Jews trying to, and why did the Jews kill Jesus if the language actually meant something different than His actual claims of divinity. I feel that this argument should be capable of persuading you to the divinity of Christ by itself. IT clearly convinced those poeple around him that actually fluently spoke that language.

[Fortigurn]

I specifically asked why my arguments regarding the textual, linguistic, and historical issues didn't convince you. I'm still waiting for an answer.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I have some thoughts why I find them unconvincing. I want you to know I have gone back through this thread and looked things over again, as I didn't do that well enough first. I wasn't trying to make you go back over the same arguments, and while I was glancing through this thread I said to myself perhaps it would be helpful to gather the scripture into one place by itself. Again sorry, and your right I will try and interact more with what you say, but am not sorry for gathering the pertinent scriptures into posts by themselves.

I find your arguments unconvincing because, although it appears you have studied, those persons that actually lived at the time of Jesus, that actually spoke the language that Jesus spoke, seemed to clearly understand that he was calling himself God, that he was claiming equality with God.

I need to point out - yet again, for the third time now - that the textual, linguistic, and historical issues to which I referred were actually dealing with only a few specific passages, not all passages. Please do not read these words as a reference to every single one of my arguments.

Yes, some of the Jews did indeed think that Jesus was claiming equality with God. Not only were they wrong, but Jesus said they were wrong - he claimed only to have received authority to act from his Father. He said that he could do nothing that he had not received from his Father, and he stated very clearly that his Father was greater than he.

The apostles, when they preached, never said that Christ was equal to God. They preached that he was a man (the son of God), to whom God had delegated His authority.

This argument should in itself convinve you that those Jews that saw Jesus with their own eyes beleived he was claiming to be more than a mere man like you and me.

Why were the Jews trying to, and why did the Jews kill Jesus if the language actually meant something different than His actual claims of divinity. I feel that this argument should be capable of persuading you to the divinity of Christ by itself. IT clearly convinced those poeple around him that actually fluently spoke that language.

It doesn't convince me any more than the fact that the Jews thought Christ was offering them his body and blood convinces me that the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is true.

[Byblos]

Then I gather you do not have a problem with the translation of John 1.

I have already explained to you that I disagree with your translation of John 1, and I have given a specific and detailed reason why.

Well that's a marked improvement. At least now you're saying you merely disagree.

Good, then this is what I interpret from John 1:

The Word was with God,
The Word was God,
The Word was made flesh.
Who was made flesh? Jesus.

There's really no 2 ways you can read this. That is how I see it. Period. End of discussion.

Jesus is called the word made flesh. This does not mean that Jesus is God. I have been through all of this before, in some detail. You have not in fact addressed my reply.

The Word was with God, the Word was God, the Word became Jesus, simple. I may have missed your details as other than the fact that you mentioned Jesus is not called God here, which I disagree as I think that's exactly what he's being called, I haven't seen anything else.

Instead you have chosen to ignore what I wrote, and attempted to misrepresent my arguments. This is particularly poor behaviour from a Christian.

No one is misrepresenting anything, I was being facetious, get off it already. And I will certainly not lose any sleep over you questioning my christianity.

[Fortigurn]

Then I gather you do not have a problem with the translation of John 1.

I have already explained to you that I disagree with your translation of John 1, and I have given a specific and detailed reason why.

Well that's a marked improvement. At least now you're saying you merely disagree.

What are you talking about? I have said (twice), that I disagree, and I have explained why. I have said specifically that I have a problem with your translation of John 1, and the conclusions you draw from it.

The Word was with God, the Word was God, the Word became Jesus, simple. I may have missed your details as other than the fact that you mentioned Jesus is not called God here, which I disagree as I think that's exactly what he's being called, I haven't seen anything else.

Can you see that if the word became Jesus, then it wasn't Jesus to start with? If X beomes Y, then X was not Y to start with.

If an embryo becomes an adult, then an embryo wasn't an adult to start with.

No one is misrepresenting anything, I was being facetious, get off it already.

I'm sorry, it didn't look facetious to me. You made dogmatic claims about my beliefs, and quoted me to support your claims. Those claims were false.

And I will certainly not lose any sleep over you questioning my christianity.

Actually it's the other way around - you're the one claiming I'm not a real Christian, remember?

[Jbuza]

I specifically asked why my arguments regarding the textual, linguistic, and historical issues didn't convince you. I'm still waiting for an answer.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I have some thoughts why I find them unconvincing. I want you to know I have gone back through this thread and looked things over again, as I didn't do that well enough first. I wasn't trying to make you go back over the same arguments, and while I was glancing through this thread I said to myself perhaps it would be helpful to gather the scripture into one place by itself. Again sorry, and your right I will try and interact more with what you say, but am not sorry for gathering the pertinent scriptures into posts by themselves.

I find your arguments unconvincing because, although it appears you have studied, those persons that actually lived at the time of Jesus, that actually spoke the language that Jesus spoke, seemed to clearly understand that he was calling himself God, that he was claiming equality with God.

I need to point out - yet again, for the third time now - that the textual, linguistic, and historical issues to which I referred were actually dealing with only a few specific passages, not all passages. Please do not read these words as a reference to every single one of my arguments.

Yes, some of the Jews did indeed think that Jesus was claiming equality with God. Not only were they wrong, but Jesus said they were wrong - he claimed only to have received authority to act from his Father. He said that he could do nothing that he had not received from his Father, and he stated very clearly that his Father was greater than he.

The apostles, when they preached, never said that Christ was equal to God. They preached that he was a man (the son of God), to whom God had delegated His authority.

This argument should in itself convinve you that those Jews that saw Jesus with their own eyes beleived he was claiming to be more than a mere man like you and me.

Why were the Jews trying to, and why did the Jews kill Jesus if the language actually meant something different than His actual claims of divinity. I feel that this argument should be capable of persuading you to the divinity of Christ by itself. IT clearly convinced those poeple around him that actually fluently spoke that language.

It doesn't convince me any more than the fact that the Jews thought Christ was offering them his body and blood convinces me that the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is true.

Your position requires you to explain away a great many evidences for the divinity of JEsus Christ. I guess than you must be a better interpretor of that language than those Jews who spoke it every day. Jesus said He and God are one, and the Jews tried to kill him for it.

Why do you feel you need to hold onto your position even with considerable evidence that needs to be explained away clearly says the opposite is true.

The anology to the catholic belief in the literal body and blood is weak. Jesus used bread and wine, he did not cut his flesh off and use his blood. Anyway there is more evidence for that position of theirs than your poisiton that Jesus is not God

[Fortigurn]

Your position requires you to explain away a great many evidences for the divinity of JEsus Christ.

That is begging the question.

I guess than you must be a better interpretor of that language than those Jews who spoke it every day.

I have already given examples of how Christ corrected the Jews when they falsely attributed such statements to him. I can provide more.

Jesus said He and God are one, and the Jews tried to kill him for it.

Yes they did. He went on to point out that he had only intended to refer to himself as the son of God, not as 'God', and further pointed out that even in the Old Testament ment were called 'gods', so there could be no objection to him referring to himself as 'son of God'.

Later in John's gospel, Christ tells us that he is 'one' with his Father in exactly the same way that we are 'one' with himself and the Father, so does that mean we are part of the Godhead? I have said all of this before, of course, in previous posts.

By the way, you're not actually trying to prove that Jesus and God are one, that would be Modalism (Oneness theology). You're trying to prove that God consists of three persons in one being.

To date I have seen no passages from Scripture which describe God as three persons in one being. To date I have seen no passages from Scripture which say that true Christians must believe that God consists of three persons in one being.

Why do you feel you need to hold onto your position even with considerable evidence that needs to be explained away clearly says the opposite is true.

I don't see any 'considerable evidence' that 'clearly says the opposite is true'.

Doesn't the complete absence of the trinity for several thousand years of Old Testament history, and several hundred years of Christian history, make you stop and think?

The anology to the catholic belief in the literal body and blood is weak. Jesus used bread and wine, he did not cut his flesh off and use his blood.

It is directly analogous. Christ said that it was necessary to eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to be saved. People who took him literally were so offended that a number of his disciples left him, and never returned. He knew this would happen, and watched them leave, but deliberately chose not to correct them, or to explain his belief.

You and I both recognise that he was speaking symbolically, but many others didn't. Catholics say that those who left him were in the right, just as you're trying to tell me that the Jews who wanted to stone him were in the right.

Anyway there is more evidence for that position of theirs than your poisiton that Jesus is not God

Please go right ahead and show me. Unless that's another belief I'm not allowed to challenge.

[Felgar]

Not only were they wrong, but Jesus said they were wrong - he claimed only to have received authority to act from his Father. He said that he could do nothing that he had not received from his Father, and he stated very clearly that his Father was greater than he.

Of course Jesus could only do what was received from the Father, because His very nature is that of the Father's. It's like me saying "I can only walk because my dad has legs like me."

I think jbuza's made a very good point about those actually living with him. I feel that most everyone willing to think it through will understand that Jesus was obviously much more than a man.

So let's recap and just think about it with common sense. Suppose someone asks me out of the blue, "Is Jesus the Father or the Father's Son?" I will say "He is the Father's son, and the Father and Jesus are one." This is exactly what the Bible teaches and what Jesus said. Then you have Jesus saying "I have always known Abraham because I was there before he was born." And He also says "I'm the only one who's been to heaven because I came from there." There is no inconsistency and no misunderstanding. And to even further clarify, then John comes along and explains the nature of Jesus and the Father... "That the Word became flesh, the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And then finally Revelation reveals Jesus as the Son of Man, the First and Last, who was dead and is risen forever more.

I know you'll have an 'answer' for each of those... But I think the larger issue here is that I feel you are doing a huge disservice to your faith by learning the Bible inside and out, while at the same time denying what it so obviously says. And if you can dissect such a primary and central theme and take a completely different meaning away than most everyone else, then honestly what faith do you have that the whole rest of it is truth?

And what you are claiming is that after "several hundred years of Christian history" the meaning of the Bible was corrupted. Despite jbuza's point that the understanding then is the same as now so there's been no change in meaning, let's take your conclusion through to its end... On what grounds do you feel it is the nature of God to allow such a massive perversion of His Word? God promises that if we seek we will find, which to me speaks to the very nature of God, and that nature substantiates the trust we have in the validity and accurate meaning of the Bible, which is God's Word. In other words, God wants us to know Him and for that very reason I have faith that the meaning conveyed by the vast majority of Biblical translations is the truth and is exactly what God had always intended.

I liken your approach to God's Word to the pharisees who knew the Law in greater detail than we could ever hope to, but in the end weren't even obeying what it said which was to Love the Lord. They were lying to themselves about the basic core of what the Bible says.

[Fortigurn]

Not only were they wrong, but Jesus said they were wrong - he claimed only to have received authority to act from his Father. He said that he could do nothing that he had not received from his Father, and he stated very clearly that his Father was greater than he.

Of course Jesus could only do what was received from the Father, because His very nature is that of the Father's.

That is not what he said.

It's like me saying "I can only walk because my dad has legs like me."

No, he didn't say anything analogous to that. He didn't say 'I can only do what the Father does, because I'm the same being as the Father', nor did he say 'I can only do what the Father does because I'm God'.

I think jbuza's made a very good point about those actually living with him.

What do you think about the way that Christ corrected them?

I feel that most everyone willing to think it through will understand that Jesus was obviously much more than a man.

I believe he was much more than a man - he was the son of God.

So let's recap and just think about it with common sense. Suppose someone asks me out of the blue, "Is Jesus the Father or the Father's Son?" I will say "He is the Father's son, and the Father and Jesus are one." This is exactly what the Bible teaches and what Jesus said.

Then you have Jesus saying "I have always known Abraham because I was there before he was born."

Jesus says nothing of the sort.

And He also says "I'm the only one who's been to heaven because I came from there."

Jesus does not say this either.

There is no inconsistency and no misunderstanding. And to even further clarify, then John comes along and explains the nature of Jesus and the Father... "That the Word became flesh, the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I note that you are rewording what John actually said. I have already pointed out that if the Word became Jesus, then the Word was not Jesus to start with.

And then finally Revelation reveals Jesus as the Son of Man, the First and Last, who was dead and is risen forever more.

I agree entirely. This does not make him God.

I know you'll have an 'answer' for each of those... But I think the larger issue here is that I feel you are doing a huge disservice to your faith by learning the Bible inside and out, while at the same time denying what it so obviously says. And if you can dissect such a primary and central theme and take a completely different meaning away than most everyone else, then honestly what faith do you have that the whole rest of it is truth?

Please show me that the doctrine that God consists of three persons in one being is a 'primary and central theme'.

And what you are claiming is that after "several hundred years of Christian history" the meaning of the Bible was corrupted.

That shouldn't come as any suprise to you, unless you're a Roman Catholic.

Doesn't the complete absence of the trinity for several thousand years of Old Testament history, and several hundred years of Christian history, make you stop and think?

On what grounds do you feel it is the nature of God to allow such a massive perversion of His Word? God promises that if we seek we will find, which to me speaks to the very nature of God, and that nature substantiates the trust we have in the validity and accurate meaning of the Bible, which is God's Word. In other words, God wants us to know Him and for that very reason I have faith that the meaning conveyed by the vast majority of Biblical translations is the truth and is exactly what God had always intended.

I do not believe that God has allowed any 'massive perversion of His Word'. You seem to believe that I think the Bible has become totally corrupted by translators, but I believe no such thing.

To date I have seen no passages from Scripture which describe God as three persons in one being. To date I have seen no passages from Scripture which say that true Christians must believe that God consists of three persons in one being.

[Felgar]

Then you have Jesus saying "I have always known Abraham because I was there before he was born."

Jesus says nothing of the sort.

Yes He does! We've been over the Abraham quote already.

I have already pointed out that if the Word became Jesus, then the Word was not Jesus to start with.

Obviously the Word was not Jesus' body to begin with. It is the flesh that came into being. Jesus Himself is the Word and is eternal.

And He also says "I'm the only one who's been to heaven because I came from there."

Jesus does not say this either.

Yes He does!!!

John 3:13-17
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
[verse 16 continues, to clarify that Jesus is the Son of Man, but it shouldn't matter because in the previous post you already conceeded that Jesus is the Son of Man]
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

So you tell me, how this can possibly mean anything but what I've just said, that Jesus is the only one to have been in heaven and that Jesus came from Heaven?

Doesn't the complete absence of the trinity for several thousand years of Old Testament history, and several hundred years of Christian history, make you stop and think?

There IS no absence. You are simply denying what is there. Case in point is John 3 above. If there was an absence then I'd stop and think, but there simply isn't.

I do not believe that God has allowed any 'massive perversion of His Word'. You seem to believe that I think the Bible has become totally corrupted by translators, but I believe no such thing.

Well when jbuza provides more than 40 passages who most people interpret (read: the Christian community as a whole) a certain way and you counter saying, in essense, "half of these are mistranslated and the other half are misintrepretted" then you are endevouring to undermine a major portion of Biblical teaching. If you deny that John 3 says Jesus came from Heaven then you are simply not trusting the Word of God. Deny it if you want, but that's how it looks to me.

[Byblos]

Doesn't the complete absence of the trinity for several thousand years of Old Testament history, and several hundred years of Christian history, make you stop and think?

No it does not as there is ample evidence. Here's an excerpt followed by the link:

50 AD The Huleatt Manuscript

* 50 AD The Huleatt Manuscript "She poured it [the perfume] over his [Jesus'] hair when he sat at the table. But, when the disciples saw it, they were indignant. . . . God, aware of this, said to them: 'Why do you trouble this woman? She has done [a beautiful thing for me.] . . . Then one of the Twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priest and said, 'What will you give me for my work?' [Matt. 26:7-15]" (Huleatt fragments 1-3).

74 AD The Letter of Barnabas

* 74 AD The Letter of Barnabas "And further, my brethren, if the Lord [Jesus] endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, 'Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,' understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men" (Letter of Barnabas 5).

80 AD Hermas

* 80 AD Hermas "The Son of God is older than all his creation, so that he became the Father's adviser in his creation. Therefore also he is ancient" (The Shepherd 12).

140 AD Aristides

* 140 AD Aristides "[Christians] are they who, above every people of the Earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge
God, the creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16).

150 AD Justin Martyr

* 150 AD Justin Martyr "The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God,
* is even God." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63) 150 AD Justin Martyr "Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch, 36)



http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm

The anology to the catholic belief in the literal body and blood is weak. Jesus used bread and wine, he did not cut his flesh off and use his blood.

It is directly analogous. Christ said that it was necessary to eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to be saved. People who took him literally were so offended that a number of his disciples left him, and never returned. He knew this would happen, and watched them leave, but deliberately chose not to correct them, or to explain his belief.

You and I both recognise that he was speaking symbolically, but many others didn't. Catholics say that those who left him were in the right, just as you're trying to tell me that the Jews who wanted to stone him were in the right.

Wha? Catholics say that those who left him were in the right? Don't know exactly what you're implying here.

Anyway there is more evidence for that position of theirs than your poisiton that Jesus is not God

Please go right ahead and show me. Unless that's another belief I'm not allowed to challenge.

Here's a link that completely explains Eucharist according to Catholic doctrine better than I could, using scripture. Veronica posted it a while back. I offer it as evidence since you begged the questions but this is not the point of this thread, so if you want to debate it please create a new one.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/a ... p0092.html

[Fortigurn]

Then you have Jesus saying "I have always known Abraham because I was there before he was born."

Jesus says nothing of the sort.

Yes He does! We've been over the Abraham quote already.

We have indeed, and it says almost the opposite of what you claimed. Christ said 'Abraham rejoiced to see my day', he does not say 'I have always known Abraham because I was there before he was born'. How much more of a misquote could you get?

I have already pointed out that if the Word became Jesus, then the Word was not Jesus to start with.

Obviously the Word was not Jesus' body to begin with. It is the flesh that came into being. Jesus Himself is the Word and is eternal.

You are missing the point. If X becomes Y, then X is no longer X, it is Y. If the Word (which is 'God'), became flesh, then it is now flesh, it is no longer 'the Word' (which is 'God').

And He also says "I'm the only one who's been to heaven because I came from there."

Jesus does not say this either.

Yes He does!!!

John 3:13-17
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

THe words you've placed in bold are not Christ's words, they are a parenthetical note by the gospel writer. Christ came from heaven in the sense that he was born of the Father (who is in heaven), in the same way that John the Baptist is said to have been sent from beside God, because God chose him as His spokesman.

The manna in the wilderness is said to have come down from heaven, even though the Bible tells us plainly that it formed on the ground with the dew. It was heavenly in orgin, it didn't drop from the sky.

[verse 16 continues, to clarify that Jesus is the Son of Man, but it shouldn't matter because in the previous post you already conceeded that Jesus is the Son of Man]

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

What do you mean 'already conceded that Jesus is the Son of Man'? I've never argued anything else. What amazes me is that you seem to think 'Son of Man' means 'God Almighty'.

So you tell me, how this can possibly mean anything but what I've just said, that Jesus is the only one to have been in heaven and that Jesus came from Heaven?

Done.

Doesn't the complete absence of the trinity for several thousand years of Old Testament history, and several hundred years of Christian history, make you stop and think?

There IS no absence. You are simply denying what is there. Case in point is John 3 above. If there was an absence then I'd stop and think, but there simply isn't.

Could you explain for me why:

* The Jews didn't believe in the trinity, and God never corrected them?
* Christians didn't believe in the trinity until it was cobbled together over a couple of centuries?

Can you give me any Old Testament passages which speak of the trinity? Any evidence that Abraham worshipped Jesus? Any evidence that Christians prior to the 4th century believed in the trinity and considered this belief to be essential to the Christian faith?

I do not believe that God has allowed any 'massive perversion of His Word'. You seem to believe that I think the Bible has become totally corrupted by translators, but I believe no such thing.

Well when jbuza provides more than 40 passages who most people interpret (read: the Christian community as a whole) a certain way and you counter saying, in essense, "half of these are mistranslated and the other half are misintrepretted" then you are endevouring to undermine a major portion of Biblical teaching.

I did not say 'half of these are mistranslated and the other half are misinterpreted'. This only goes to show that you are not reading my posts.

If you deny that John 3 says Jesus came from Heaven then you are simply not trusting the Word of God. Deny it if you want, but that's how it looks to me.

You're programmed to say that, so this doesn't surprise me.

[Fortigurn]

Doesn't the complete absence of the trinity for several thousand years of Old Testament history, and several hundred years of Christian history, make you stop and think?

No it does not as there is ample evidence. Here's an excerpt followed by the link:

50 AD The Huleatt Manuscript

* 50 AD The Huleatt Manuscript "She poured it [the perfume] over his [Jesus'] hair when he sat at the table. But, when the disciples saw it, they were indignant. . . . God, aware of this, said to them: 'Why do you trouble this woman? She has done [a beautiful thing for me.] . . . Then one of the Twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priest and said, 'What will you give me for my work?' [Matt. 26:7-15]" (Huleatt fragments 1-3).

I'm afraid the Huleatt Manuscript (P 64, or the 'Magdelen Papyrus'), is dated to the 2nd century, not 50 AD.

Nor does it say anything about the trinity.

74 AD The Letter of Barnabas

* 74 AD The Letter of Barnabas "And further, my brethren, if the Lord [Jesus] endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, 'Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,' understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men" (Letter of Barnabas 5).

The Letter of Barnabas is dated to the 2nd century, after the revolt of Bar Kochba (this is a reliable date, since it mentions the attempted rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, which didn't take place until 132 AD).

Nor does it say anything about the trinity.

80 AD Hermas

* 80 AD Hermas "The Son of God is older than all his creation, so that he became the Father's adviser in his creation. Therefore also he is ancient" (The Shepherd 12).

The Shepherd of Hermas is dated to the 2nd century.

Nor does it say anything about the trinity. Hermas does refer to Jesus as 'The most venerable angel', 'the glorious angel', and 'the holy angel'. Furthermore, Hermas states that Jesus became Divine when God's Spirit (which Hermas also calls 'the son of God'), entered his body. This is not trinitarian theology.

140 AD Aristides

* 140 AD Aristides "[Christians] are they who, above every people of the Earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge
God, the creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16).

Aristides says nothing about a trinity. He is a Bitheist if anything, but no more.

150 AD Justin Martyr

* 150 AD Justin Martyr "The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God,
* is even God." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63) 150 AD Justin Martyr "Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch, 36)

Martry was not a trinitarian either. He believed in Logos Theology (you might want to look that up).

http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm

Yes, I'm very familiar with that site. It's not particularly scholarly.

Wha? Catholics say that those who left him were in the right? Don't know exactly what you're implying here.

I am saying you take Christ's words as they stand here.

Here's a link that completely explains Eucharist according to Catholic doctrine better than I could, using scripture. Veronica posted it a while back. I offer it as evidence since you begged the questions but this is not the point of this thread, so if you want to debate it please create a new one.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/a ... p0092.html

Thank you.

[Felgar]

Then you have Jesus saying "I have always known Abraham because I was there before he was born."

Jesus says nothing of the sort.

Yes He does! We've been over the Abraham quote already.

We have indeed, and it says almost the opposite of what you claimed. Christ said 'Abraham rejoiced to see my day', he does not say 'I have always known Abraham because I was there before he was born'. How much more of a misquote could you get?

So you get "Abraham rejoiced to see my day" out of "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!" "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" John 8:57-58 whereas I get "I have known Abraham because I was there before he was born" and I'm the one misquoting? Ya, alrighty then.

John 3:13-17
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

THe words you've placed in bold are not Christ's words, they are a parenthetical note by the gospel writer.

Nope, sorry I don't buy it. Not sure if you really don't understand or are just being difficult. Going to NASB which makes the quotes very clear and going back to verse 10 we see that Jesus begins to speak and hasn't stopped by verse 14.

10Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you (L)the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?
11"Truly, truly, I say to you, (M)we speak of what we know and (N)testify of what we have seen, and (O)you do not accept our testimony.
12"If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
13"(P)No one has ascended into heaven, but (Q)He who descended from heaven: (R)the Son of Man.

Now if you deny that Jesus said this then that gets back to my whole point about not trusting the Bible and deeming it to be corrupted, which opens up the whole issue of God revealing Himself through His word.

Any evidence that Christians prior to the 4th century believed in the trinity and considered this belief to be essential to the Christian faith?

That's what we've been showing you through this entire thread!!! (besides, isn't the "parenthetical note by the gospel writer" enough proof that they understood the concept of Jesus being with God in Heaven before the 4th century? Either way you're position is not tennible)

I feel it is incumbent upon you to adress that you've been shown to be wrong about the Abraham quote above and about Jesus saying He was in Heaven before He descended.

[Fortigurn]

So you get "Abraham rejoiced to see my day" out of "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!" "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" John 8:57-58 whereas I get "I have known Abraham because I was there before he was born" and I'm the one misquoting? Ya, alrighty then.

No, I get 'Abraham rejoiced to see my day' out of the passage which says 'Abraham rejoiced to see my day'. I wasn't aware that you were referring to the other passage.

But how do you get 'I have known Abraham because I was there before he was born' out of 'before Abraham was, I am'? It should at least say 'before Abraham was, I was'.

Nope, sorry I don't buy it. Not sure if you really don't understand or are just being difficult. Going to NASB which makes the quotes very clear and going back to verse 10 we see that Jesus begins to speak and hasn't stopped by verse 14.

I'm sorry if you don't buy it, it's a standard Christian exposition. The fact of the matter is that Christ was sitting right there next to Nicodemus, so clearly he wasn't telling Nicodemus that he was in heaven.

But of course, this doesn't actually adress the argument I have presented.

Now if you deny that Jesus said this then that gets back to my whole point about not trusting the Bible and deeming it to be corrupted, which opens up the whole issue of God revealing Himself through His word.

That is completely off the mark. I trust the Bible completely, and I have never said I deem it to ber corrupt. Where do you get these ideas?

That's what we've been showing you through this entire thread!!! (besides, isn't the "parenthetical note by the gospel writer" enough proof that they understood the concept of Jesus being with God in Heaven before the 4th century? Either way you're position is not tennible)

No you haven't done that yet. You've given me a handful of verses which you believe state that Jesus is God. That is not the trinity. You've given me a few quotes from 2nd century literature which appear to refer to Jesus as God. That is not hte trinity either.

Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that John's reference in John 3 is an indication that John believed Christ was in heaven before he was born on earth, as I have explained (you omitted to deal with my argument).

I feel it is incumbent upon you to adress that you've been shown to be wrong about the Abraham quote above and about Jesus saying He was in Heaven before He descended.

I have done this. You didn't even address what I wrote. If you want a more detailed answer on John 8:58, I direct you here (a reply to which I have already referred in this thread).

[Fortigurn]

Here's a question for those to whom it is relevant. On what basis do you argue that 1 John 5:7 is part of Scripture?