₦airaland Forum

Zikkyy: You've not answered my question, but am going to let it go in the interest of peace



are you serious? you mean you go to the toilet for God's glory abi? this man don't make me say things i should not be saying this morning

Very funny. Do you know of Charles Spurgeon? Quite a "revered" evangelical preacher; he used to smoke a cigar (or pipe; can't remember); anyway when some other Christians frowned at it, he told them he was "smoking to the glory of God".

From http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/seeing-the-father-in-the-son-115/


Seeing the Father in the Son (1:15)
Sam Storms

Seeing is believing, or so we are told. But if that's true, how can we ever be expected to believe in God? Several biblical texts make it clear that God is, by nature, invisible. It isn't just that he has not been seen: he CANNOT be seen (cf. John 1:18; Romans 1:20; 1 Timothy 6:16; Hebrews 11:27). Even here in Colossians 1:15 he is described as "the invisible God."

In Romans 1:20, Paul says that God's existence and eternal attributes can be seen in the things that are made. In other words, the visible creation reveals an invisible creator. All well and good, but looking at a tree or a sunset or the majesty of the Grand Canyon isn't the same as looking at God himself.

So what hope is there for knowing and believing in God? The answer is Jesus! Philip certainly felt the urgency to "see" God. "Lord, show us the Father and it is enough for us" (John 14:8 ). To which Jesus replied: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9).

This is very much Paul's point here in Colossians 1:15 where he declares concerning Jesus: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation" (cf. 2 Cor. 4:4).

The word translated "image" refers to a likeness or visible representation. How exact or precise the resemblance is between the original and the copy must be determined by the context. To say someone is "like" another person often conveys the idea of moderate similarity, but not necessarily exact representation. On the other hand, you've undoubtedly heard someone described as "the spitting image" of another. If one may be reverent in saying so, God the Son (Jesus) is the spitting image of God the Father!

Of course, Paul's point isn't that Jesus "looks like" the Father, as if to suggest the Father has a physical frame and visage which the Son reflects. The Son "images" the Father in terms of moral character, will, and the attributes of deity. They, together with the Holy Spirit, share a common divine nature, glory, and purpose.

I've spoken with people who almost choke when they hear that God is their "Father." The latter term reminds them only of abuse or abandonment, often evoking a bitter taste in their mouths. How, then, does one rebuild in the hearts of Christian people the image of God as Father? It can only come by pointing to the Son. He is everything the Father is, except for being the Father. Every virtue, every power, all glory, and the fullness of deity reside in the Son as they do in the Father. He is the perfect and exact image of the Father (cf. Hebrews 1:3).

But if being the "image" of the Father seems to confirm the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, the second phrase in v. 15 appears to destroy it, for there we are told that he is also "the firstborn of all creation" (v. 15).

This phrase seems to say that Jesus was the first created being in a series of other created beings. Does this mean the Jehovah's Witnesses were right all along? No. Part of the problem is related to translation. We have to determine the best way to render this phrase. Is it, "the first born of all creation," or "the first born over all creation"? Either is grammatically possible but there is a world of difference between them. Is Jesus "of" creation in the sense that he belongs to it as its initial or original member? Or is Jesus "over" creation in the sense that he is its source and sovereign Lord and maker? I believe it is the latter, and for several reasons.

First, observe how v. 16 begins: "For by him all things were created . . ." The word "for" indicates that what follows in v. 16 supports or explains what has preceded in v. 15. In other words, Paul is saying, "Here is 'how' or 'the sense in which' Jesus is the firstborn of/over all creation: it is by virtue of his having created all things . . ." If Jesus were merely one of the many and varied parts of creation, belonging to them as if he were himself a creature, Paul would not have said that Jesus created all things.

Second, to say that Jesus is himself a creature is inconsistent with Col. 1:17. There Paul declares that the Son of God is "before" all things, similar to our Lord's claim in John 8:58 that "before Abraham was, I am."

Third, to say that Jesus is a creature would be inconsistent with what Paul clearly said about him elsewhere, primarily in Philippians 2:6-11 (esp. v. 6).

Fourth, to say that Jesus is a creature would be inconsistent with what John clearly said of him in John 1:3 – "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made."

Fifth, the word "firstborn" itself does not necessarily mean first in a sequence or first in time. It can also mean first in "rank" or "supreme in dignity." The point is that the Son, by virtue of being the image of God, has a pre-eminence and exercises a sovereignty over everything else that exists. The word is used this way of King David in the Old Testament. In Psalm 89:27, God says of David: "And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth."

The point, then, is that Jesus Christ is utterly unique, distinguished from all of creation because he is both eternally prior to it and supreme over it in the sense, as v. 16 makes clear, that he is its creator.

Who, then, is this man? He is the Lord Jesus Christ, who "images" the Father, displaying in himself as the second person of the Godhead every perfection and attribute of the first person of the Godhead (see Col. 1:19 and 2:9). He is also creator and sovereign Lord over all. Praise be to the Son!

Goshen360: This is how heresy begins with us. I told you guys I will puncture ALL your heresies. You just erred in this scriptures. Now, sit relax and learn the truth if you want to. I know this heresy exist in the JW's sect where they teach Jesus was created. The term "firstborn of all creation" is a prophetic title Apostle Paul revealed from Psalms Ps. 89:27, “I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth”. The title firstborn does not mean that Jesus was created (v. 16), but indicates His priority of rank as supreme over all the creation NOT CreatURES. What creation? He NEW CREATION, NOT CREATURE(S). Let's pull Colossians 1:15-16 again,

New International Version (©1984)
15. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

Now if He was BEFORE ALL Things and created ALL things, how is he created. If your interpretation is that Christ was created, it then contradict John 1:1-2 and it will also mean him being called “the firstborn from the dead” (Colossians 1:18) also mean he was re-born after being first born or created. If you also interpret that Christ was created, then you will also contradict Acts 13:33,

New International Version (©1984)
he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: "'You are my Son; today I have become your Father.

The KJV says, "This day, I have begotten you....". It will therefore mean that AFTER Jesus was created and is the firstborn as you supposed, he was then begotten again according to Acts 13:33. Your statement will also contradict Hebrews 7:3

New International Version (©1984)
Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.

It would be wrong to think in physical terms here, as if Paul were asserting that the Son had a physical origin or was somehow created. This is called the classic Arian heresy rather than existing eternally as the Son, with the Father (John 1:1-2) What Paul had is saying is the rights and privileges of a firstborn son in which we believers are the new creation which Christ is the firstborn, especially the son of God as those who are redeemed to the Father by the blood of the Son who would inherit ruling sovereignty. This is how the expression is used of David in the Psalms.

Very good work, Goshen360. I'll follow up with an article explaining the same thing.

^^^ I really dislike your tone; and that is why I am usually reluctant to reply you and I think I will mostly keep to that policy.

ijawkid: Chei enigma oooo...

Is Jesus the Father??

I don tire for you o....

Do u really understand the bible??

You just read 1 corintians and still confused......

Who is Jesus above??

Who are the all in that john u quoted??

Does it include Yahweh??

1 corinthians you read c alls Yahweh the Father and God over all(all with Jesus included)....

Please read 1 corinthians 11:3 for more details......

I'm afraid, it seems you do not understand the Bible; secondly, I'm afraid you need to learn to take your time to assimilate and understand things written e.g. what I wrote up there. You need to learn to be slow to speak until you understand.

Anyway, let me help your understanding on this one occasion: the point of my last post is that something that is an attribute demonstrating the supremacy of God the Father is also claimed by Jesus as demonstration of His own supremacy.

In other words both The Father and The Son are above all ----- together. Of course it must be so, since they are ONE; ONE GOD.

Ah, one more thing for good measure.

Ephesians 4:4-6

4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

John 3:31

"The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all.

Some are saying Jesus was (and is?) "a God"; or that Jesus was (and is?) a "deity"; or that Jesus was (and is?) "divine".

Well, the Bible easily dismisses that nonsense.

1. We start with the famous Deuteronomy passage. Deuteronomy 6

4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 5 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

This is the original Jewish "Shema". Here "our God" = Elohenu; while "The Lord" = Yahweh.


2. However, Paul recasts that same Shema deliberately in Christian terms in 1 Corinthians 8: 4-6

4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Here, "God" = theos; "Lord" = kyrios

I have pointed out elsewhere that in the Septuagint "Yahweh" is translated "Kyrios": Paul is quoted in the New Testament as though he too was using The Septuagint; Paul could not have been unaware of The Septuagint or that it translates "Yahweh" as "Kyrios" . . . .

Anyway most crucially; according to the latter passage, to say Jesus is "a god" is to make him a "so-called god"; and we know from the Bible that every so-called god is a FALSE god.

So, this argument of Jesus is "a god" is a complete non-starter.

Some are saying Jesus only came into existence when He was conceived and born of the virgin Mary and that accordingly He was only a man and not God.

Well let us compare their argument with what the Bible says.

1. John 3:13

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

Question: Is this verse saying that Jesus came from heaven or not?


2. John 6:38

For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

Question: Is this verse saying that Jesus came down from heaven or not?

2a. Compare the reaction of those who heard Him claim He came from heaven to the argument of those who are saying today that "he was just a man."! John 6:42

They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"

2b. And see what He tells such people! John 6:62

What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!

Questions: Son of Man? Ascend? Where He was before? Or Just a man? Ascend? To heaven? And He was in heaven before?


3. John 3:12

I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

Question: How would Jesus be able to speak of heavenly things if He did not know those things; how would He know those things unless He was there ----- since we are not told that He had any vision like John?


4. John 3:31

"The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all.

Question: So who is this "one" who came from heaven and is above all?

Something I bookmarked recently has become handy rather quickly. I reproduce it below in a revised form as agreed by all concerned and I'm sure none of the parties concerned would mind the reproduction.

From https://www.nairaland.com/919500/atheism-vs-deism-vs-theism/4#12207142

pak: Kay, Pls can you do me a favour,

Just replace the word reality with God in your statement below and see what you get

Kay 17:
Reality itself can have no origin, because to conceive an origin for reality, we would fall into a pit of absurdity. Therefore reality is self existent. As a result subjects of reality are equally self existent either potentially or in actuality. . . . .


In other words, it has always been here

Infact, I'll do it for you.

Kay 17: God Himself can have no origin, because to conceive an origin for God, we would fall into a pit of absurdity. Therefore God is self existent. . . . .


In other words, God has always been here

If its not difficult to believe in the self existent nature of reality, then why is it strange to believe in the self existence of a deity.

Very nice; so, bookmarked for reference.


PS @Kay17 ---- I wonder if you will ever raise "infinite regress" again . . . .



(Edited version of original)

frosbel: Lol, I am sure you have heard of the phrase ' do not re-invent the wheel ' , these are simple questions and therefore irrespective of the source they deserve answers from our trinitarian 'theologians'.

These are questions, valid ones , answer them if you have the courage to do so , but I doubt if you ever will.

We are waiting.

You are a shameless fraud and a quite confused and intellectually bereft person.

Let me show you an example of how daft you can be:

You wrote only two days ago that (a) "there is something very personal about the Holy Spirit" and (b) that the Holy Spirit "IS GOD". https://www.nairaland.com/1067552/proposition-theological-debate/4#12464784

Yet you are unable to see that you are contradicting yourself when copying and pasting your second set of questions from any Johnny or mumu on the Internet ----- without even thinking about what you are copying and pasting as below.

frosbel: There is not one prayer or song or exclamation addressed to the Holy Spirit in the Bible, neither is there one precept in all the Bible authorizing such prayer or song. Nowhere in Scripture are we told to love,honour, or worship the Holy Spirit, or to pray to it for assistance. Why, if it is a person, like the Father and His Son?

In the hymns of adoration recorded in Revelation, the Father and Son are mentioned but not the Holy Spirit. Why is reference to the Holy Spirit omitted if the Spirit is a third person of a triune God?

Rev.5:13 says: "Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him (the Father) who sits upon the throne, and to the lamb (Jesus) forever and ever." Also
Rev.7:10: "Salvation to our God who sits upon the throne,and to the lamb."

Why is there no reference to the Holy Spirit in these hymns of adoration if it is a co-equal member of the Spirit omitted? The Bible frequently pictures the Father sitting upon His throne and Jesus sitting or standing at His right hand, but never refers to the Holy Spirit sitting on the throne with them, either on the left hand or elsewhere.

If the Holy Spirit is a separate person from the Father and Son, why is there never any mention of him being enthroned or reigning with them? The Father and Son are often associated together in judgement and redemption, and the coming kingdom is referred to as the kingdom of God and His Christ (Rev.11:15), but the Holy Spirit is omitted. Why?

In 1 Cor.11:3 we read: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." Now here is a specific order presented by the apostle Paul which he says he wants us to know about. He refers to woman, man,Christ and God, but makes no mention of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is a person like the Father, Son, man and woman, and belongs to this "family" as a separate person, why is he left out?

frosbel: Enigma will come nowhere near here, trust me, he will be walking on a landmine and his reputation might well be at stake !!

Well, what "reputation" does frosbel have really?

Again, check frosbel's next set of questions

frosbel: There is not one prayer or song or exclamation addressed to the Holy Spirit in the Bible, neither is there one precept in all the Bible authorizing such prayer or song. Nowhere in Scripture are we told to love,honour, or worship the Holy Spirit, or to pray to it for assistance. Why, if it is a person, like the Father and His Son?

In the hymns of adoration recorded in Revelation, the Father and Son are mentioned but not the Holy Spirit. Why is reference to the Holy Spirit omitted if the Spirit is a third person of a triune God?

Rev.5:13 says: "Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him (the Father) who sits upon the throne, and to the lamb (Jesus) forever and ever." Also
Rev.7:10: "Salvation to our God who sits upon the throne,and to the lamb."

Why is there no reference to the Holy Spirit in these hymns of adoration if it is a co-equal member of the Spirit omitted? The Bible frequently pictures the Father sitting upon His throne and Jesus sitting or standing at His right hand, but never refers to the Holy Spirit sitting on the throne with them, either on the left hand or elsewhere.

If the Holy Spirit is a separate person from the Father and Son, why is there never any mention of him being enthroned or reigning with them? The Father and Son are often associated together in judgement and redemption, and the coming kingdom is referred to as the kingdom of God and His Christ (Rev.11:15), but the Holy Spirit is omitted. Why?

In 1 Cor.11:3 we read: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." Now here is a specific order presented by the apostle Paul which he says he wants us to know about. He refers to woman, man,Christ and God, but makes no mention of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is a person like the Father, Son, man and woman, and belongs to this "family" as a separate person, why is he left out?

and see where it is lifted from word for word _http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sojouner/christ/christ%20ch7.html {copy entire address to get to link and it is under the sub-heading "Never Addressed in Prayer"}

There is not one prayer or song or exclamation addressed to the Holy Spirit in the Bible, neither is there one precept in all the Bible authorizing such prayer or song. Nowhere in scripture are we told to love, honour, or worship the Holy Spirit, or to pray to it for assistance. Why, if it is a person, like the Father and His Son?

In the hymns of adoration recorded in Revelation, the Father and Son are mentioned but not the Holy Spirit. Why is reference to the Holy Spirit omitted if the Spirit is a third person of a triune God?

Rev.5v13 says "Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him (the Father) who sits upon the throne, and to the lamb (Jesus) forever and ever". Also Rev.7v10 "Salvation to our God who sits upon the throne, and to the lamb".

Why is there no reference to the Holy Spirit in these hymns of adoration if it is a co-equal member of the Godhead? Why is the Holy Spirit omitted?

The Bible frequently pictures the Father sitting upon His throne and Jesus sitting or standing at His right hand, but never refers to the Holy Spirit sitting on the throne with them, either on the left hand or elsewhere. If the Holy Spirit is a separate person from the Father and Son, why is there never any mention of him being enthroned or reigning with them?

The Father and Son are often associated together in judgement and redemption, and the coming kingdom is referred to as the kingdom of God and His Christ (Rev.11v15), but the Holy Spirit is omitted. Why?

In 1 Cor.11v3 we read: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God". Now here is a specific order presented by the apostle Paul which he says he wants us to know about. He refers to woman, man, Christ and God, but makes no mention of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is a person like the Father, Son, man and woman, and belongs to this "family" as a separate person, why is he left out?

I have deliberately chosen not to get involved in this thread.

However, just because frosbel has been hounding me on various other threads about it and even directing jibes at me let me point a couple of things out. {EDIT I see he even called me a "coward" on this thread. }

As ever, the questions in the opening post are of course not frosbel's questions as anyone who knows him should know. See the questions as lifted word for word from this site http://www.faithworksministries.org/user/pentecostal/biblicalstudies/questionstrinity.htm

How could only the second person of the Trinity become a man, and not the other two persons in light of the Trinitarian doctrine of the perichoresis of persons? How can the Father and Spirit only indwell Jesus (as it is commonly stated), while the eternal Son is actually Jesus' essential deity? How can one separate the persons like that without confessing three gods, only one of which became incarnated, and the other two just tag along?

If it was the eternal Son who became a man, and not the Father or Spirit, then why did Jesus not state this? Paul said Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Jesus said that those who saw Him saw the Father (obviously not the essence of the Father, for no man can see God's essence no matter if He is one or three persons). Never does He state that they were seeing the image of the incarnated eternal Son.. If Jesus is the 'second person' made flesh, then why didn't He ever say "he who has seen me has seen the Son"? Why not "he who has seen me has seen the Holy Spirit"? Why is it only the Father? If Jesus' deity is the eternal Son, in contradistinction to the Father and Spirit, why would Jesus say that they have seen the Father by seeing Him, rather than seeing the Son? Jesus indicated that to see Him was to see the person who sent Him [Father] (John 12:45).

In any event of course, the questions have been addressed on various threads on this Nairaland.

Above all, this same frosbel keeps opening thread after thread on the same topic --- usually with copy and paste material that he does not even understand and has not even thought about carefully. Critically, once he is cornered he will run away or pretend not to see the question that has stumped him or "promise" to give an answer later but never return to the point.

There are several examples but here just one.

https://www.nairaland.com/1067552/proposition-theological-debate/5#12466216

Here, he said the Holy Spirit is "personal" and IS GOD but Jesus is only a mere man; he was then asked how Jesus, a mere man, has now gone to heaven and from there sent GOD to earth (a mere man is sending God); and how the Holy Spirit is "personal". He has since fled and now opened this thread!

frosbel: Let me quote John 1 v14.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.


Jesus Christ is the word manifested in the FLESH


Christ is the personification of GOD's WORD

Only God has been eternal without beginning, Jesus Christ had a beginning.

"And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." - Hebrew 1:6

Scripture makes it clear that Jesus became God's Son through begettal through the Holy Spirit power of the Father overshadowing Mary, causing her to "conceive."

This is just 'making it up as you go along' and using style to dodge what he had said that "Word" means "Word" "in the actual sense".

In any event, the approach to "Word" is about primary school level when talking about biblical interpretation; "Word" is the English rendering of the Greek "Logos" a matter of some serious considerations of interpretation many many many levels removed from "word in the actual sense".

Let me give a simple demonstration -----using the same NIV as my friend has used for his John 1:14

1. John 1:1& 2

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

Would mere "Word in actual sense" be described as "He"?

2. John 1:14 that is always bandied about

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

See it's easy; the only Son came from the Father. Well John says He was with the Father in the beginning.

It's pretty straightforward really. Jesus always existed eternally with God the Father. That He has always existed eternally is also corroborated when the Bible says in several places that everything was created through Him.

John 1:3-4 (among at least 2/3 other places)

3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

If "Word" is just "Word in the actual sense" would such be referred to as "He" and "Him"?





EDITED

@ Mr Anony

Sorry for butting in (and hope I do not derail the discussion) but the following questions are "asking to be asked" following our friend's posts!

God's "Word" is "Word" in the actual sense"!

God's "Word" became flesh ---- in Jesus, as I understand our friend.

OK then:

When God's "Word" had become flesh in Jesus, did God have any other "Word" or "Words"?

During Jesus' baptism (when Jesus was already God's "Word" in the flesh) God was heard saying "words" "This is my beloved Son etc": are these "words" of God "words in the actual sense"? Are these God's "words" different from God's "Word"?

If God's "Word" had already become flesh, how and where did God then find another "word" or other "words" to speak afterwards?

frosbel: The Apostles certainly did not believe in the Trinity and neither did the ancient Christians, the Trinity was a heresy which became fully developed hundreds of Years after Christ and was finally sanctioned by the Pagan emperor Constantine.

This was just before the killing and torture of Monotheistic Christians who rejected this foolishness.

Now, I know you are steeped into church tradition, but may I remind you that our standard is the WORD of GOD and not man made tradition.

As the Nairaland leader for the Trinitarian 3-god god worshippers , can you kindly show us ONE place in the bible where GOD says he is 3 ?

I promise to counter each verse with 10 ONENESS verses.

Now, I do not want cherry picking, I want contextualised evidence from the OT to NT.

So now you admit that you lied with that nonsense about Constantine!

Having been caught in that lie that Christians did not believe in Trinity before Constantine you promptly jump to another deliberate lie.

Well, for the benefit of others reading, Christians know that the apostles called Jesus God and there are clear examples including Peter, Paul Thomas, John, the author of Hebrews etc.

frosbel: . . . For the first 300 years before the Pagan Emperor Constantine, the Trinity was not a known , talk less of accepted doctrine . . .

This is a nonsensical lie that many mumus and wolves are spreading all over the Internet and dunces are lapping up.

This has already been disproved on Nairaland before e.g. https://www.nairaland.com/497445/trinity-doctrine-invented-council-meeting/2#7181702

Anyway, this makes for an opportunity to add another useful link on this particular issue

http://carm.org/early-trinitarian-quotes

There are cult groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way International, Christadelphians, etc.) who deny the Trinity and state that the doctrine was not mentioned until the 4th Century until after the time of the Council of Nicea (325). This council "was called by Emperor Constantine to deal with the error of Arianism [see page 45] which was threatening the unity of the Christian Church."

The following quotes show that the doctrine of the Trinity was indeed alive-and-well before the Council of Nicea:

Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.

"O Lord God almighty... I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).

Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.

"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).

Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).
"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)

Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.

"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l)

Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation... [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.

"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority... There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).

"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)

"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

If, as the anti-Trinitarians maintain, the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine and was never taught until the council of Nicea in 325, then why do these quotes exist? The answer is simple: the Trinity is a biblical doctrine and it was taught before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

Part of the reason that the Trinity doctrine was not "officially" taught until the time of the Council of Nicea is because Christianity was illegal until shortly before the council. It wasn't really possible for official Christian groups to meet and discuss doctrine. For the most part, they were fearful of making public pronouncements concerning their faith.

Additionally, if a group had attacked the person of Adam, the early church would have responded with an official doctrine of who Adam was. As it was, the person of Christ was attacked. When the Church defended the deity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity was further defined.

The early church believed in the Trinity, as is evidenced by the quotes above, and it wasn't necessary to really make them official. It wasn't until errors started to creep in that councils began to meet to discuss the Trinity, as well as other doctrines that came under fire.

^^^^ lol; Now you've gone back to copying and pasting form any Johnny on the Internet ----- this time without even acknowledging that it is copy and paste; and then spamming various threads with the nonsense.


Well, remember the warning not to be one of the people spoken about that deny the Sovereign Lord who bought them.

Following on from the discussion on Acts 20:28 I'd just like to add something especially for frosbel to consider very very very carefully --- a sort of friendly warning.

Compare Acts 20:28

Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

and 2 Peter 2:1

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.

^^^ So how is the Spirit "personal"?

^^^ You say the Holy Spirit is "personal" and IS God.

Of course we also have God the Father: Is God the Father also "personal"?

^^ Your lack of balls, lack of cojones, is beginning to show again now you see! Remember I diagnosed that problem of yours a long time ago!

Of course you cannot answer the question.

Meanwhile if you accuse those who believe in The Trinity of "polytheism" ---- what about you saying The Father is God and The Holy Spirit is God, is that not also "polytheism" according to your interpretation of the word?

OK, let us clarify and recap:

The Father IS God.

The Holy Spirit IS God ---- as you said.


Where is The Father presently?

OK Jesus is acting by the authority of God; cool.

But he is still sending God!

Meanwhile he only sent God after he himself went up to heaven.

Thus Jesus went to heaven ----- and then sent God to earth to dwell in the followers of Jesus.

So Jesus stays in heaven while God is on earth.

Enigma: So Jesus sends God ------- by the authority of God?

In addition, this Jesus is a mere man ----- and he is sending God by the authority of God.

Fantabulocious!

Ihedinobi: @Enigma

Sent you an email yesterday, bro. Just a heads-up, sir.

Ah, I didn't know --- will look into it.

frosbel: everything done By the authority of the FATHER.

So Jesus sends God ------- by the authority of God?

frosbel: Sorry , but you are not this thick

God is a Spirit, so wherever you see Holy Spirit, it refers to God, period.

OK.

So let us consider this then!

John 16:7

But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

So, Jesus will send The Holy Spirit; Jesus will send God!

So Jesus a mere man will send the Holy Spirit; a mere man will send God . . . .

And by the way when The Father sends The Holy Spirit as "comforter" . . . .

Ihedinobi: Meh........frosbel is wonderful. Now, the Holy Spirit is personal. Only thing is He is the Father or the Father's Spirit which still makes Him the Father. #roaringwithlaughter# fros-b, you go kii pesin o. Na wa for dis guy.

Anyway sha, I'm hanging around to watch you come full circle, dude.

Bros, you sef see am!

Hear the latest wey our friend tok now:

frosbel: . . . And if you say the Holy Spirit was speaking , is GOD not a Spirit, does God not have 1 Spirit or does he have 2 ?

"God IS Spirit." You can't separate the Father from His Spirit. The two are "one" in the most intimate sense possible. Therefore, when the Spirit
conveys instruction it is GOD speaking. When the Spirit performs wonders, it is GOD working. Make no mistake about it: there is something very personal about the Holy Spirit - IT IS GOD. . . .

Now the Holy Spirit IS God (though our friend still uses "IT" for HIM) ---- the same Holy Spirit that he and his friends have been saying is only a "force" etc.

OK so now The Father is God and The Holy Spirit IS God. Cool

And that one is not "polytheism" as our friends claim of The Trinity?

Oh, and while The Father is God and The Holy Spirit is God, Jesus is just a "man"!

Confusion don break bone and Overtake don overtake overtake.

frosbel: So says the Lawyer who cannot understand why evidence is a part of Logic.

Anyway , let me bail you out again.


24 However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me--the task of testifying to the gospel of God's grace. 25 "Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again. 26 Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27 For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. 28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood

It so obvious I seriously wonder how you can miss this , that v28 was a continuation of Paul's statement centred around Christ Jesus.

Jesus Christ purchased the church of GOD with his own blood, no ?

You are truly getting all mixed up.

After Paul had already interjected "God" and even "Holy Spirit" before turning to "Church of god which He purchased with His own blood"?

Of course Jesus is the God who purchased the Church with his own blood.

^^^ My argument is lost on you naturally; I would have suggested you should read it again but I guess even if you read it ten times the nuance/subtlety would still be lost on you.