(Edit This thread is a follow on from the following post/thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-490515.64.html#msg6541713 )

It is sometimes suggested by anti-Trinitarians that the Trinity doctrine was invented at a council meeting or that it was started by the Roman Catholic Church.  Of course people with decent church history know better than to take the anti-Trinitarians seriously --- except to occasionally confront their misleading and sometimes deceitful arguments.

The piece below is not exactly a "scholarly" or "heavy tome" (and there are things in it one may question). However, for the beginning enquirer it gives a viewpoint that shows that we should not take such allegations by anti-Trinitarians at face value.


From here: http://www.letusreason.org/Trin13.htm

The   Nicene Council, what was it really about?

Emperor Constantine's Nicene council is usually pointed to as the source for the doctrine of the Trinity, yet the Trinity was present in the church long before Constantine. Most Jehovah Witnesses and other anti- trinitarians have never had a true presentation of Church history. If they knew history they may not point to Constantine. They have created this misrepresentation to do battle against a lie. They portray Church history as  proof that the doctrine of the Trinity is of a pagan source from the Emperor Constantine. The truth will astound you.

The term Trinitas was popularized by Tertullian almost 100 years before the Nicene council in his debate against Praxeas. However, he was not the first to use the term, a man Theophilus Bishop of Antioch in 160 was the first to use the term (that we have in writing), many years before in his epistle to Autolycus The 2nd,xv, We can assume it was used prior to Theophilus and was held as a common church belief with the many quotes that are left to us in history by the early church pastors. Athenagoras representing the whole Churches belief wrote, that, "they hold the Father to be God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit, and declare their union and their distinction in order."(A plea for the Christians.10.3) The term was used to simply describe the three that simultaneously exist as the one God. A man named Praxeas promoted what is called Monarchianism, which held a strict form of monotheistic progression. That the Father became the Son, and the Son became the Spirit. This is what is called modalism in it's simplest form, What is better termed Oneness today. Despite the accusation's of the Church inventing and promoting the Trinity. We find the Church in Rome and elsewhere falling prey to numerous heresies that they tried to keep out.

As we see from history the doctrine of the Trinity did not depend on any council as it was used by Tertullian and others long before a council was called on doctrinal teaching. The Catholic Church gets blamed for inventing the Trinity yet when we look through it's history it tells a different story. History shows that it was Trinitarians that first resisted a single church Government with a Pope as its head, they did not invent it. Zephyrinus (210 AD.) and Callistus (220 AD.) were the first bishops to claim Mt.16:18 to themselves, they were both modalistic in their view of God. Tertullian called him an usurper saying, "as if he was the Bishop of Bishop's." So it was Oneness believers who first wanted to be head of the whole Church, not Constantine. Adolf Harnack in his book the History of Dogma actually states that "Modalism…was for almost a generation the official theory in Rome." (3:53). Which certainly proposes a problem for those who claim a Roman origin of the Trinity. This occurred before Constantine and Arius' heresy won after Constantine which  Rome promoted for yet another 50 years.

The truth is that there was no Roman Catholic Church ruling Christianity before Constantine, because Christianity was an illegal religion and an underground practice. It was not until hundred's of year's later, 5th cent. to the 7th cent., that the first vestiges of this church government rose where there was a Roman bishop as the head of the Church, making it an official Roman Church functioning similar to today's.

Before we can understand the council of Nicea we need to at least understand Constantine and what took place. In 312 AD, Constantine claimed a vision from God, a shape similar to a cross in front of the sun. Many believe it was then that he declared his conversion to Christianity. Constantine saw a flaming cross in the sky, with the Greek words en toutoi nika- in this sign conquer.  Early the next morning, (this is according to Eusebius whom Constantinegave this account to). Constantine dreamed that a voice commanded him to have his soldiers mark upon their shields the letter X with a line drawn through it and curled around the top ,

He heard a voice say that he would conquer in the sign that he had seen. Constantine painted the perverted crosses on the shields of his soldiers. The victory was directly linked to the sign he had seen.

It is assumed it was Jesus Christ whom he accepted. The fact that Constantine saw the cross and the sun together may explain why he worshiped the Roman sun god, while at the same time professing to be a Christian to bring a political religious unity to his empire. Constantine built a triumphal arch featuring the sun god, his coins featured the sun. Constantine made a statue of the sun god, with his own face on it, for his new city of Constantinople.

Under Constantine in 312 AD, Christianity was adopted by Rome. He repealed the persecution edicts of Diocletian. Constantine 'Christianised' the Roman Empire and made it the religion of the state. He also paganized Christianity in Rome. Constantine's plan to have unification and peace in his empire succeeded and “Christianized Rome” and a political church was made to rule. Satan began the process of corrupting the church from within. Christianity was slowly infiltrated with a pagan system and joining the church with the world political system. Baptism made one a Christian and they brought their pagan religion in to be synthesized with the church. Saints and Images entered the Church under Christian `names, the worship of relics. In Eastern Orthodoxy, icons had intrinsic power.

Historians disagree whether or not Constantine actually became a Christian. His character certainly did not reflect the teachings of Jesus Christ. Constantine was vain, violent and superstitious. Constantine waited until he was dying before asking to be baptized. Christianity became politically correct. Many people joined the Church for other reasons than forgiveness of sins and a changed life.

Many claim that the Trinity doctrine was invented by the Catholic Church at the council of Nicaea in Bithynia, (Turkey) in the 4th century. History has a different story! Its been said if one tells a lie long enough, and hard enough, people will begin to believe it. That is exactly what [my insert: some anti-Trinitarians] have done.  They have revised history.

Also, regarding the Johannine Comma:

1 John 5:7-8

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Many will of course know that this passage is disputed as not being found in the majority of extant manuscripts. Irrespective of that however, there is the genuinely legitimate question: what is the origin of the Comma itself and when/where did it first appear?

It seems the first undisputed use of the Comma is attributed to one Priscillian who is said to have written in c. AD 380 that:

As John says “and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.”

Some claim that Cyprian who wrote around AD 250 was also referring to the Johannine Comma; this is disputed; what is not disputed though is that the two quotations of Cyprian that are used (from c. AD 250) are clear Trinitarian statements e.g.:

The Lord says “I and the Father are one” and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. “And these three are one.”

The worst case that could be made would seem that the Johannine Comma first came about in the 4th century; it is of course yet possible that it came about earlier.

Still on the Johannine Comma

The "earliest" manuscript (as opposed to extraneous writings) in which it is known to be recorded is the Latin manuscript m (427 AD; Codex Speculum/Speculum Augustine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Speculum ). That is fairly early despite the arguments that the Latin manuscripts are translated from Greek and the earliest Greek manuscripts known (which are dated later) do not contain the Comma.

There is indeed a line of argument that there must probably be early Greek manuscript support for the Comma. For example while some doubt that the Comma was included in the original Latin Vulgate, Jerome who compiled the Vulgate from Greek manuscripts (inter alia) is quoted as having said:

"In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, in which also the names of three, i.e., of water, of blood, and of spirit, do they place in their edition and omitting the testimony of the Father, and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic (i.e. universal) faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is confirmed." (390 AD, Prologue To The Canonical Epistles)

(edited)

Bro:

Aside your foregoing, another question comes to mind - did "trinitarians" or the "RCC" write the Scriptures? where do we place the torah which speaks of the Godhead as one yet shown not as one? Or was that written by the RCC too?

I for say! Na wa oh! (Although the argument would be that the Jews did not have a concept of the Trinity; there are of course possible explanations from the Trinitarian side too)

PS Hope to be in touch soon.

This account of history is wrong on a number of counts. Here are a few. The earliest symbols of christianity were the Chi Rho and the Ichtus. Not the cross. That came later, much later. So what Constantine saw was probably the Chi Rho which he then told his soldiers to paint on their shield, to their utter dismay. Eusebius was Constantine's scribe and adviser. It is quite possible that he was making suggestive ideas into constantine's head. Constantine saw something and Eusebius suggested that it was a sign from the christian God. Eusebius later wrote the story down for posterity. So whatever actually happened we only have one man's version.

Constantine sympathised with Christianity and his mother was a christian but he didn't convert. He merely made it legal to be christian again and so stopped the persecution. He did not make christianity the Roman State Religion.

Initiation into christianity was always by baptism and it wasn't Constantine that introduced baptism as initiation into christianity.

@Enigma. Compelling argument which I accept for the most part. I'm not anti-trinity in the way Nuclearboy believes it. I don't accept it but I don't discount it. I merely see it as not being impossible. As regards your write-up, the question is not when or by whom the concept of trinity emerged but why was it favoured among the plethora of views concerning the nature of God. Even among trinitarians, arguments like whether all three members of the trinity are made of the the same substance or whether there is a hierarchy among them. The point is there were many versions of God's nature, the Council mere deliberated and chose the best or perhaps the one with most proponents and made the other views heretical. Lol, Constantine certainly was no Christian. He couldn't be more unchristian-like. He boiled someone and mutilated another out of matrimonial betrayal if memory serves.

^^^

Actually, whether or not Constantine was a Christian or made Christianity state religion is not exactly relevant to the key point being made here. The key point being made, as I understand that you acknowledge, is that the Trinity doctrine well predated Constantine and the Nicene Council.

As to why the Trinity doctrine was favoured, the question to ask is this: Does the Bible lead to the conclusion that each of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is God? If the answer is yes and if one believes that God is One, then accepting a doctrine of Trinity becomes inevitable. The question then is what are the details of that doctrine of Trinity?

Let me state here that I don't believe anyone is damned for not believing in the Trinity per se. If defective doctrine is what damns one, all of us have had it!

Having said that: I am very careful about using the word "manifestation" because of its potential interpretation (or misinterpretation, I suppose) as advocating the Oneness/Sabellian doctrine.

^^^I absolutely agree that trinity predated all those Councils. In fact, I find it ridiculous to believe otherwise. The bible surely seems to propose a trinity. No doubt there too. But you realise the bible books were chosen and compiled during these councils. That's the reason why I say the trinity doctrine was favoured. It happened by default when those 66 books made the final cut. How's your weekend going, good man?

cool like dat vescucci, many thanx.

@enigma
There are a lot of fallacies in your link which I wish to address

History shows that it was Trinitarians that first resisted a single church Government with a Pope as its head, they did not invent it.

Zephyrinus (210 AD.) and Callistus (220 AD.) were the first bishops to claim Mt.16:18 to themselves

The authourity of the bishop of Rome as the head of the universal church was attested as early as 96 CE,when Pope clement 1 was called in to adjudicate on the crisis in the corinthian church.Also in 156CE,Polycarp bishop of smyrna had to travel to Rome to confer with Pope Anicetus 1 over disagreement in the date of celebration of easter.Alsi in 190 CE,Ireneaus had to plead with Pope victor 1 to stop the excommunications of some christians in north Africa over this same issue of easter date.

The truth is that there was no Roman Catholic Church ruling Christianity before Constantine

This is another falacy that has been addressed by the remarks above.

Constantine 'Christianised' the Roman Empire and made it the religion of the state. He also paganized Christianity in Rome.

This is a figment of your own imagination,Constantine only legalised christianity,he did not make it a state religion and he certainly did not paganise christianity.

Saints and Images entered the Church under Christian `names, the worship of relics. In Eastern Orthodoxy, icons had intrinsic power

The veneration of saints and images also predated constantine.

For the avoidance of doubt,The council of nicea did not invent the trinity doctrine,it was merely convoked to resolve the arian heresy.Tertullian merely coined the term trinity,he did not invent it,the concept of trinity has been taught from apostolic times and passed down by sacred apostolic tradition.

Tertullian called him an usurper saying, "as if he was the Bishop of Bishop's." So it was Oneness believers who first wanted to be head of the whole Church, not Constantine.

Maybe if you don't know tertullian started as a roman catholic christian,when he coined the term trinity,he was a catholic christian,it was later in life that he left the catholic church to join the montanists.
Tertullian was one of the most ardent catholic apologists to have ever lived

…Tertullian

"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

Enigma -

It seems to me you are trying to shake off the obvious: a fact which is well known: namely that the doctrine of the holy trinity was not accepted a official and standard church doctrine until Nicea.

Now the fact of the matter is that the council of Nicea was convened on account of the raging controversies that had come to a head as typified by the Arian Heresy.

"The Arian controversy describes several controversies related to Arianism which divided the Christian church from before the Council of Nicaea in 325 to after the Council of Constantinople in 381. The most important of these controversies concerned the relationship between God the Father and God the Son.

The early history of the controversy must be pieced together from about 35 documents found in various sources. The historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius first became controversial under the bishop Achillas of Alexandria, when he made the following syllogism: he said, "If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing". - Wikipedia

Now the fact that the son is described as "begotten" in scripture evidentially shows that the son did not always exist in the way that the Father always existed - - -> He had a beginning. Now God does not have a beginning and as such this conclusively shows that Jesus, being described as begotten of the Father, could not be God.

This logic is so simple and clear that it unsettled your christian forebears so much that they found it necessary somewhere down the line to convene at Nicea to address this and other supposed "heresies." I wonder why the voice of simple logic such as that cited above must always be "heretical".

I guess logic is heresy.


Now for the avoidance of doubt here is what the First Council of Nicea did -

The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in A.D. 325. The Council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[2]
Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the relationship of Jesus to God the Father; the construction of the first part of the Nicene Creed; settling the calculation of the date of Easter; and promulgation of early canon law.[3][4]

The leading item on the agenda of the synod was - The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father and Son one in divine purpose only or also one in being.

The council ended with the adoption of the Nicene Creed which set out firmly the agreed areas of Christian Doctrine incorporating the finalized understanding and acceptance of the Holy Trinity as Follows -

- We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

- And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.

So there.

Arguments about the "Trinity" both then and now all boil down to this one question?
Is Jesus God?
That is the crux (pun definitely intended!) of the matter. I suppose people probably have less issues with agreeing that the Holy Spirit is God, but when it comes to the Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, it becomes another thing entirely.

@ Deep Sight

Erm . . . ok!

@Enigma: See? This conversation has become about the question: Is Jesus God?

Deep Sight:

Now the fact that the son is described as "begotten" in scripture evidentially shows that the son did not always exist in the way that the Father always existed - - -> He had a beginning. Now God does not have a beginning and as such this conclusively shows that Jesus, being described as begotten of the Father, could not be God.

This logic is so simple and clear that it unsettled your christian forebears so much that they found it necessary somewhere down the line to convene at Nicea to address this and other supposed "heresies." I wonder why the voice of simple logic such as that cited above must always be "heretical".

I guess logic is heresy.

Is the "logic" clear and simple? You hinge you argument on the word "begotten". Let us examine what the scriptures actually say about Jesus.

KJV: John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Your misapprehension arises from the fact that you do not make the distinction between eternity and time. God dwells in eternity and is without beginning or end of days but He also descended into time at a definite point in time (a beginning) and this is alluded to in:

KJV: Hebrews 1:5. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

The scriptures are clear as to the question of Jesus is God:
[14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The Word was God; The Word was made flesh.

@ aletheia

It's no surprise, is it? Even on the "Is the Holy Spirit Personal and Sentient" thread, nuclearboy had pointed out this destination very early on.

nuclearboy:

@DeepSight:

Yor 1st attempt above at a reply is hilarious - everyone here knows my style. I am addicted to fun (in the cleanest sense of it) and thus attempt to be imaginative and lively in conversing. But it is tiring to answer the same questions over and over especially when they come from the same person. You seem to go about doing one of two - [a] looking for ways to stand against the "carpenter" [2] offering an alternative "infinity". No wahala, bro, bring it on.

But when you do so, be honest. . . .

And earlier on nuclearboy also had pointed out the aim at the Trinity more generally.

nuclearboy:

EDITED

@DeepSight:

I now see where this is going - its another attempt to ridicule the "1 showing as 3" concept! . . . .

Interestingly, Deep Sight said above that his post had shown conclusively that Jesus is not God. What does one say to that other than to laugh? On the other thread that I mentioned, I played along for a while and when I threw down the gauntlet about what he and supporters would need to show to even begin approaching proof that the Holy Spirit is not a personal sentient being, what did they do?

The same here, there is even no need to make a defence when someone says he has shown conclusively that Jesus is not God! If again I point out what he will need to do to even make a case I expect the same kind of reaction as on the other thread!

@ Deep Sight

I really was not going to respond beyond my last post. However, because of my response to aletheia's post I will say this to you. See, if you make an extraordinary claim and you do not realise that you would need extraordinary proof for such a claim, you are not making a good presentation of yourself at all.

but really the trinity is paganic. you can sight it in myths and eastern religions.

Enigma:


The same here, there is even no need to make a defence when someone says he has shown conclusively that Jesus is not God! If again I point out what he will need to do to even make a case I expect the same kind of reaction as on the other thread!

The word translated "only begotten" is monogenes. This same word was used by the scripture writers to refer to human children who were single children. It is thus eminently obvious that the term monogenes contains the connotation of having been brought into existence. We can go onto the etymology if you wish.

Monogenes is a cumulative derivative from the Greek words ‘monos’ and ‘genos’.

The word Monogenes comprises two components as stated above.

Monos (mon'-os) is defined as: sole or single - alone, only.

The Second component is -genos (ghen’-os) which means an offspring or kind. It is translated ‘Born’ in Acts 18:22 and 18:24. It is translated ‘offspring’ in Acts 17:28.

In greek the derivative root of the term Monogenes is ‘ginomai’ - which is defined as; to cause to be ("gen"-erate or to be born)}, and thus is thus accurately rendered as ‘only begotten’.

There is no doubt and no escaping the implications of the root word “gi nomai” – which has a clear indicative meaning as “to be caused, generated or born.”

If Jesus was begotten, then he came into existence at a point. God, by contrast, is eternal and always existed.

P.S: For Alethia please note that "begotten" here does not refer to his earthly birth - that seems to be your confusion on your last post above.

@ Deep Sight

I really was not going to respond beyond my last post. However, because of my response to aletheia's post I will say this to you. See, if you make an extraordinary claim and you do not realise that you would need extraordinary proof for such a claim, you are not making a good presentation of yourself at all.

I make no extra-ordinary claim. I would rather think that it is you who make a most extra-ordinary claim indeed: namely that you assert a Jewish man who lived two thousand years ago to be almighty God. I would think that is a more extra-ordinary claim than anything I have ever put forward on this forum, and certainly requires the extra-ordinary proof that you speak of.

^^^ If you think that you have proved (and "conclusively" too for that matter!) that Jesus is not God, I am happy to leave you with that thought.

Now, more on the personality of the Holy Spirit.

From here:  http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin04a.html

The term "Holy Spirit" and "Spirit of God" (and parallel terms) appears in a wide variety of statements in the NT. In many of these statements and contexts, this term APPEARS to be denoting a fully conscious/fully personal/fully alive agent. This Agent is said to speak, warn, reveal, predict, teach, remind, enable, help, witness, testify, encourage, counsel, know, and pray. This Agent is apparently invested with active authority over the mission of God--leading, selecting workers for tasks, selecting workers for positions of authority, dispatching workers, evaluating situations, making decisions about distribution of spiritual gifts, 'steering' and directing. Even though the grammar would predict otherwise, this Agent is referred to by non-neuter personal pronouns in several situations (i.e. 'he'). Human interactions with this agent are best categorized as "inter-personal"--we can lie to the Spirit, resist Him, test Him, grieve Him (notice the inner emotional capacity of the Spirit), blaspheme Him. Christ seems to view the Spirit as a 'suitable', non-localized replacement for His earthly, localized presence among the disciples. Finally, the Spirit is used in co-ordinate statements with the other Divine Personal Agents (i.e. Father, Son) in such a way as to suggest the possession of Personality/Consciousness.

It should be noted at this point (prior to really analyzing the probability that the Spirit is simply a personification of an influence/operation of the Father) that the above data points are surprisingly extensive, varied, and consistent. Most personifications are not this robust nor are maintained so pervasively throughout the breadth of literature (e.g. 'love' in I Cor 13--it is rarely used in such a personified way elsewhere). This will create a strong presumption in favor of the impersonal passages being derivative upon the personal--AND NOT VICE VERSA. In other words, it is beginning to look like it makes more sense to understand passages like "poured out the Spirit" as referring to the operations of the Personal Agent the Spirit, than it is to take "grieve not the Holy Spirit" as a personification of God's power, but more on this later.

From the same  http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin04a.html

If the Spirit WERE not a Person, but rather a simple alternate designation for some influence of God, we WOULD NOT expect to find the following kinds of passages, in which BOTH the Spirit AND the possible influences are co-ordinately named:

* [not identical with power of God]--Rom 15.13: May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. [would it make sense to say 'the power of the power'?!]
* [not identical with power of God]--Acts 1.8: But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; ["you will receive power when the power comes on you"?]
* [not identical with love of God]--2 Cor 13.14: May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. ["the love of God and the fellowship of the love of God"?!]
* [not identical with power of God]--Acts 10.38: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, ["God anointed Jesus with power and with power, "?!]
* [not identical with love of God]--Rom 5.5: because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us. ["God poured his love into our hearts by his love, "?!]
* [not identical with power of God]--Luke 4.14: Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, ["Jesus returned in the power of the power, "?]
* [not identical with power of God]--Rom 15.19: by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. ["by the power, , through the power, "?]
* [not identical with power of God]--Gal 4.29: At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. [ "by the power of the power, "]


We must conclude on the basis of the data, that the term 'Spirit of God' is NOT a metonymy for the 'Power of God' or the 'love of God'

Granted that in some contexts, the Holy Spirit may be justifiably used to describe the power of God.

One more from http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin04a.html

That the Spirit of God is DISTINCT from God the Father can also be seen by trying to 'substitute' the term 'God the Father' in all the passages  in which the Holy Spirit is present. While this would not be a problem in ALL verses, in certain passages it makes no sense at all--indeed, it makes "anti-sense" of the passage.

Note especially that the "Father sends/gives/pours out/etc. the Spirit" passages (above) make absolutely NO practical sense--"the Father sends/gives/pours out/etc. the Father"?! The terms are simply NOT EVEN CLOSE to being identical in referent. In addition to the 'dispatching' verses above, compare:

* Rom 15.16: so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. ["acceptable to God, sanctified by God"?]
* 2 Cor 13.14: May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. ["the grace of Jesus, the love of God, and the fellowship of God"?!
* 2 Pet 1.21: For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. ["men spoke from God as they were carried along by God, "]
* I Cor 2.11: For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. ["no one knows the thoughts of God except God", sorta destroys the whole passage!]
* Eph 2.18: For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. ["Access to the Father by one Father, "?!]


In addition to the above, we might add the passages in which God calls the Spirit 'his Spirit'. Certainly, the word 'God' or 'Father' cannot be substituted in these texts either!

* Rom 8.11: And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
* I Cor 2.10: but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. [God searches the deep things of God?]
* 2 Cor 1.22: and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, [He put HIMSELF in our hearts as a deposit?]
* Gal 3.5: Does God give you his Spirit
* Eph 2.22: And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit. ["in which God lives by Himself, "?!
* Eph 3.16: he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit ["He may strengthen you with power through Himself, "?]


The point is this: the literary and linguistic usage of the terms for the Spirit of God demonstrate that they are neither uses of metonymy nor circumlocutions for God. Somehow, those terms (e.g. Spirit of God, Holy Spirit) refer to "something" DISTINCT from God the Father (in some meaningful sense).

Subtle References to the Holy Spirit

http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVSermons/SubtleReferencesToTheTrinity.htm

Even if there did not exist passages which directly state that God is three beings who are one, there is ample evidence in the Scriptures to prove it by indirect means

A.  What is said of one is generally said of the others, though there are some characteristics that are unique to each.

B.  The commonness reenforces the idea that God is one and that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all God.

Finally on the personality of the Holy Spirit, this piece by Spurgeon from http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/0004.htm

First, the Holy Spirit is spoken of as having understanding.

In 1 Corinthians 2:9 we read, “‘No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him’ - but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God” [1 Corinthians 2:9-11]. Here you see an understanding - a power of knowledge is ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Now, if there are any persons here whose minds are of so absurd a character that they would ascribe one attribute to another, and would speak of a mere influence having understanding, then I give up all argument. But I believe every rational person will admit, that when anything is spoken of as having an understanding, it must be an existence - it must, in fact, be a person.

^^^ Caught, Killed, Skinned, Cooked and Eaten! Infact, digested!

[size=4pt]But dem no go gree. Watch out - this will still be debated if not here, someplace else in another form. "And he left Him for a season". Very soon[/size]

^^^ Lol, you are really on your grind in this religion section o. You are amok

^^^ Guess so. Sadly though, to NO effect aside irritation for some and amusement for others. Nothing ever has effect for most people here. Most have decided what they want to "decide" and so just seek crutches to sit on.

I at least can say NL has changed my mind about many issues, religious and otherwise, and broadened my horizons. I thank God for that. I think you likely are like that too and have actually corrected some issues about yourself. If right, nice but we are a pitiable minority - most people would see us as naive and/or wavering!

Who is as strong as the weak that has nothing to lose? Peace, bro!

I wish I didn't agree with you completely. Luckily I rarely come here to teach anything. He whose aim is to teach will likely end up with a coronary. Even when I explain stuff according to my understanding, it's with a secret wish to have my views changed. There's nothing refreshing like disillusionment. To sum it up, the greatest asset one can have here is an open mind.

Hmmm an interesting happenstance ------- a propos the question of Jesus being "begotten"

Reading the excerpted below from an old post by M_nwankwo

m_nwankwo:

God is one and he is known as God the Father. God is not divisible but God can will that small unsubstantiate divine essence of his can emanate from from HIM and take on a conformation, that is take up a form. It is not the unsubstantiate essence that has the form because this unsubstantiate essence has no form but it is the cloaks through which it radiates that gives it form. Thus imagine God the Father to be a human body, then imagine that his right and left arms to be Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit. If God essense is inexhaustible and infinite as you correctly sensed, then you see that God can will that his left and right arm to leave HIM and work outside of Himself and yet if you see this "body" of God after the left and right arm has left, the left and right arm are not missing but still intact. Thus a separation has not occured as you seem to imagine. This is a crude picture as their is no concept that can give a true reflection of the process but this crude analogy is for you to see that there is no separation or division. It is simply God the Father who works as Father, Jesus Christ and the Holyspirt. If you again imagine atlantic ocean to be infinite and inexhaustible, then, one cup from this ocean can be liked to Jesus Christ and another cup of this ocean can be liked to the HolySpirit. You can only see a separation between the two cups of water and the ocean because of the cup, the vessel that contains a small part of the ocean. If you pour the cups of water back to the ocean, then they are one again with the ocean and no separation. Thus, because Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are small "parts" of God the Father, God the Father is greater in human conception than Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Thus even though the cup of water from the ocean has the same essense as the ocean, it will be incorrect to say that it is the whole ocean. The correct description will be to say that it is a small volume of water from Atlantic ocean.

. . . reminded me of the below from elsewhere and, in a sense, from a "different camp"

From http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/nicene.htm

A favorite analogy of the Athanasians was the following: Light is continuously streaming forth from the sun. (In those days, it was generally assumed that light was instantaneous, so that there was no delay at all between the time that a ray of light left the sun and the time it struck the earth.) The rays of light are derived from the sun, and not vice versa. But it is not the case that first the sun existed and afterwards the Light. It is possible to imagine that the sun has always existed, and always emitted light. The Light, then, is derived from the sun, but the Light and the sun exist simultaneously throughout eternity. They are co-eternal. Just so, the Son exists because the Father exists, but there was never a time before the Father produced the Son. The analogy is further appropriate because we can know the sun only through the rays of light that it emits. To see the sunlight is to see the sun. Just so, Jesus says, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:9)

Can't resist one more excerpt; still from here http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/nicene.htm

Arius said that if the Father has begotten the Son, then the Son must be inferior to the Father, as a prince is inferior to a king. Athanasius replied that a son is precisely the same sort of being as his father, and that the only son of a king is destined himself to be a king. It is true that an earthly son is younger than his father, and that there is a time when he is not yet what he will be. But God is not in time. Time, like distance, is a relation between physical events, and has meaning only in the context of the physical universe. When we say that the Son is begotten of the Father, we do not refer to an event in the remote past, but to an eternal and timeless relation between the Persons of the Godhead. Thus, while we say of an earthly prince that he may some day hope to become what his father is now, we say of God the Son that He is eternally what God the Father is eternally.

A favorite analogy of the Athanasians was the following: Light is continuously streaming forth from the sun. (In those days, it was generally assumed that light was instantaneous, so that there was no delay at all between the time that a ray of light left the sun and the time it struck the earth.) The rays of light are derived from the sun, and not vice versa. But it is not the case that first the sun existed and afterwards the Light. It is possible to imagine that the sun has always existed, and always emitted light. The Light, then, is derived from the sun, but the Light and the sun exist simultaneously throughout eternity. They are co-eternal. Just so, the Son exists because the Father exists, but there was never a time before the Father produced the Son. The analogy is further appropriate because we can know the sun only through the rays of light that it emits. To see the sunlight is to see the sun. Just so, Jesus says, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:9)

1. The sun is a star: stars do not emit light at every stage of their existence: so on a physical level that kills your analogy DEAD.

2. The etymology of the word monogenes applied to Jesus also kills your analogy DEAD. You have not read or understood the etymology.

3. Light emanating from the sun is analogous to energy emanating from an entity: this would suit my description of what the holy spirit is! - namely - God's energy or will! It is altogether inappropriate for that which is said to be a personality - an individual - begotten by God!

Quote from: m_nwankwo on April 13, 2010, 12:06 PM
God is one and he is known as God the Father. God is not divisible but God can will that small unsubstantiate divine essence of his can emanate from from HIM and take on a conformation, that is take up a form. It is not the unsubstantiate essence that has the form  because this unsubstantiate essence has no form but it is the cloaks through which it radiates that gives it form. Thus imagine God the Father to be a human body, then imagine that his right and left arms to be Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit. If God essense is inexhaustible and infinite as you correctly sensed, then you see that God can will that his left and right arm to leave HIM and work outside of Himself and yet if you see this "body" of God after the left and right arm has left, the left and right arm are not missing but still intact. Thus a separation has not occured as you seem to imagine. This is a crude picture as their is no concept that can give a true reflection of the process but this crude analogy is for you  to see that there is no separation or division. It is simply God the Father who works as Father, Jesus Christ and the Holyspirt. If you again imagine atlantic ocean to be infinite and inexhaustible, then, one cup from this ocean can be liked to Jesus Christ and another cup of this ocean can be liked to the HolySpirit. You can only see a separation between the two cups of water and the ocean because of the cup, the vessel that contains a small part of the ocean. If you pour the cups of water back to the ocean, then they are one again with the ocean and no separation. Thus, because Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are small "parts" of God the Father, God the Father is greater in human conception than Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Thus even though the cup of water from the ocean has the same essense as the ocean, it will be incorrect to say that it is the whole ocean. The correct description will be to say that it is a small volume of water from Atlantic ocean.

Although I have the most profound respect for the views of M_Nwankwo I firmly believe it is a significant misperception to imagine that an element which is -

1. Intangible and

2. Infinite

- May be "divided" or may be spoken of as having "parts."

Such can only be said of finite things, and not the infinite God.

At the end of the day, these notions of the Divinity of Jesus spring solely from the human instinct to deify spiritual (and sometimes political) leaders.

Nothing more.

PS: I hope you are aware that the adherents of the Grail Message - from which M_Nwankwo's views are sourced, also believe that the writer of the Grail Message, Mr. Abd Ru Shin - is the earthly incarnation of a being called Parsifal - who they believe is the Holy Spirit himself and part of the Trinity. Perhaps you are also willing to swallow that?