whoever enforces the bible is a sick, evil person. Why should we kill our sons and daughters if they are disobedient?

"All who curse their father or mother must be put to death" Leviticus 20:9

And you can't use the excuse that that is null because of this verse

"The law of the Lord is perfect" Psalm 19:7

The Bible is full of this stuff

Depending on who you ask, you will get different responses. Some will try and argue that a council of Bishops invented the Trinity concept up, while others will argue that the bishops simply confirmed what everyone else already believed.

As I'm sure you know, the word "Trinity" never appears in the Bible. However, when you read the Bible, there are passages that show God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit as one and the same entity, yet also completely different (at least, I think there is). There are passages where Jesus says "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30, for example), and other passages where some of his apostles call him Lord and fall down and kneel before him. And there are other places where Jesus says of himself "Before the World existed - I am" (John 8:58)..... "I Am" being the name given to the Lord in the Old Testament. And when Jesus forgives people's sin (Luke 5), the Pharisees all exclaim "Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (5:21).

Yet there are other passages that state that Jesus is different, with different knowledge and different roles: "But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. - (Mark 13:32)
The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son - (John 5:22).
If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. (John 14:28)

As the early Christian church grew in their understanding of who Jesus was, they grew also in their understanding to better articulate the nature of Jesus. They knew that Jesus was God, or else each and every one of them (devout Jews) would have known they were committing blasphemy by worshipping Jesus. And so the Doctrine of the Trinity developed over time as people grew in their understanding of the scriptures.

In the context of this thread, the Doctrine of the Trinity was only fully revealed towards the end of the Bible, with the pattern of the Kingdom accomplished through Jesus. Jesus' complete humanity and deity in one was the only being who could intercede on the behalf of both man and God. The Pattern of the Bible has been completed through Jesus Christ, who being in very nature God did not consider equality with God (something to be grasped) but made himself nothing, born as a human. And being found in appearance as a man, he was obedient to death - EVEN death on a cross........ (Philippians 2:8-10).

All the best, BM

~ Regards, PA

There you have it .You have a trinity of answers .You pay your money and you take your pick .The historians or the bible(in all it's reliability)


fullywired

^Excuse me? I'm afraid you lost me with your answer. "Trinity of answers"????? "Pay your money and take your pick"????? "The historians or the bible"?????? Maybe I'm just tired (entirely possible, I might add) but in relation to this thread and the past few posts, I don't get it.

I will elaborate



There were three answers to the question a trinity( poor attempt at humour ) all different . "Pay your money and take your pick (common expression used when presented with multiple choice ,You can either believe what history says (my answer)or yours and blue fingers both bible answers but both different


fullywired

The Oxford Companion to the Bible:

Trinity. Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon.

Later believers systematized the diverse references to God, Jesus, and the Spirit found in the New Testament in order to fight against heretical tendencies of how the three are related. Elaboration on the concept of a Trinity also serves to defend the church against charges of di- or tritheism. Since the Christians have come to worship Jesus as a god (Pliny, Epistles 96.7), how can they claim to be continuing the monotheistic tradition of the God of Israel? Various answers are suggested, debated, and rejected as heretical, but the idea of a Trinity—one God existing in three persons and one substance—ultimately prevails.

While the New Testament writers say a great deal about God, Jesus, and the Spirit of each, no New Testament writer expounds on the relationship among the three in the detail that later Christian writers do.

The earliest New Testament evidence for a tripartite formula comes in 2 Corinthians 13.13, where Paul wishes that “the grace of the Lord Jesus, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit” be with the people of Corinth. It is possible that this three-part formula derives from later liturgical usage and was added to the text of 2 Corinthians as it was copied. In support of the authenticity of the passage, however, it must be said that the phrasing is much closer to Paul’s understandings of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit than to a more fully developed concept of the Trinity. Jesus, referred to not as Son but as Lord and Christ, is mentioned first and is connected with the central Pauline theme of grace. God is referred to as a source of love, not as father, and the Spirit promotes sharing within the community. The word “holy” does not appear before “spirit” in the earliest manuscript evidence for this passage.

A more familiar formulation is found in Matthew 28.19, where Jesus commands the disciples to go out and baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The phrasing probably reflects baptismal practice in churches at Matthew’s time or later if the line is interpolated. Elsewhere Matthew records a special connection between God the Father and Jesus the Son (e.g., Matthew 11.27), but he falls short of claiming that Jesus is equal with God (cf. Matthew 24.36).

It is John’s gospel that suggests the idea of equality between Jesus and God (“I and the Father are one”; John 10.30). The Gospel starts with the affirmation that in the beginning Jesus as Word (See Logos) “was with God and … was God” (John 1.1), and ends (John 21 is most likely a later addition) with Thomas’s confession of faith to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20.28). The Fourth Gospel also elaborates on the role of the Holy Spirit as the Paraclete sent to be an advocate for the believers (John 14.15– 26).

For the community of John’s gospel, these passages provide assurance of the presence and power of God both in the ministry of Jesus and in the ongoing life of the community. Beyond this immediate context, however, such references raise the question of how Father, Son, and Spirit can be distinct and yet the same. This issue is debated over the following centuries and is only resolved by agreement and exclusion during the christological disputes and creedal councils of the fourth century and beyond.

While there are other New Testament texts where God, Jesus, and the Spirit are referred to in the same passage (e.g., Jude 20–21), it is important to avoid reading the Trinity into places where it does not appear. An example is 1 Peter 1.1–2, in which the salutation is addressed to those who have been chosen “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father in holiness of spirit.” This reference may be to the holiness of spirit of the believers, but translators consistently take it as the Holy Spirit in order to complete the assumed trinitarian character of the verse: “who have been chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit” (NRSV). This translation not only imposes later trinitarian perspectives on the text but also diminishes the important use of the spirit of human beings elsewhere in 1 Peter (e.g., 1 Peter 3.4; 1 Peter 3.19).--DANIEL N. SCHOWALTER, Professor of Religion and Classics at Carthage College

AND:

... "I find a most interesting confession of a Catholic scholar concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine held by most Protestants as well. This isn't a mistake in the Bible of a true doctrine already in the Bible, this is a man-made doctrine added to the Bible later! The Old Testament definitely does not have the trinity. "the New Testament does not specify the terms of the relationship between Father and Son, nor among Father and Son and Holy Spirit. It assumes only that there is some relationship..." He then cites Matt. 11:27; John 1:1; 8:38; 10:38; 1 Corinth. 2:10; John 14:16, 26; 17:3; Gal. 4:6; John 15:26; 16:7; Mark 12:1-12; John 1:1, 14; 2 Corinth. 4:4; Hebrews 1:3, and then notes something incredibly interesting! "...none of these texts individually, nor all of them together, express a theology of the Trinity as such." He then rather honestly notes that "It took three or four hundred years before the Church began to make the proper distinctions, to go beyond the formulations of the Bible [note this!] and the creeds alone, and to see how the 'economic Trinity' and the 'immanent Trinity' are one and the same...we cannot read back into the New Testament, much less into the Old Testament, the more sophisticated trinitarian theology and doctrine which slowly and often unevenly developed over the course of some fifteen centuries."--(See Richard P. McBrien, "Catholicism: Study Edition," Winston Press, 1981, p. 347). F.F. Bruce, "The Spreading Flame," Eerdman's, 1958, flat out admitted that the word "homoousios" (of the same substance) which was judged heretical, later became the very hallmark of orthodoxy! (p. 255). In fact, this word was not even in the Bible! (p. 306). Also J.N.D. Kelly, "Early Christian Doctrines," Harper & Row, 1978, Chapters IX-X has an excellent discussion on the Trinity and its development.)

Sean

Ok, thank you for clarifying. For the first, I didn't realise there were three answers (thanks for noticing though, lol). The second, I'll have to remember that phrase, I've never heard it before. As to the last, your historical answer does not deny the divinity of Jesus or the triune nature. You showed that it was not until the 4th century that the Trinity was set in doctrinal stone. I made mention of that in my post though, and believe that the ruling simply confirmed what everyone already believed at the time (as opposed to making it up at this council). I think the fact that the final vote for the divinity of Jesus was 298-2 against says much about what everyone already believed. Of course, the best people have come up with to refute such a landslide vote was that the bishops were threatened by Constantine if they didn't vote the way he wanted - a conspiracy theory that holds no historical proof to back that up.

You are of course free to disagree with this, I'm just giving my view. However, this thread is about the overall pattern of the Bible and how things fit into it. For the purposes of the Trinity, I mentioned where Jesus' divinity fits into that pattern in my first response about the Trinity:

In the context of this thread, the Doctrine of the Trinity was only fully revealed towards the end of the Bible, with the pattern of the Kingdom accomplished through Jesus. Jesus' complete humanity and deity in one was the only being who could intercede on the behalf of both man and God. The Pattern of the Bible has been completed through Jesus Christ, who being in very nature God did not consider equality with God (something to be grasped) but made himself nothing, born as a human. And being found in appearance as a man, he was obedient to death - EVEN death on a cross........ (Philippians 2:8-10).

I don't think the voting was as clear cut as you would have us believe.I know you mentioned that there was no historical reference to the Bishops being under pressure to vote for it but I have found this article and posted an extract here .I don't think the source is biased http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/51d.htm




Those bishops who allowed Constantine any role at all in the decision of the council and the affairs of the church, bring the credibility of their own Christianity into question. The events which led to the final vote and the subsequent behaviour of the victors, are convincing evidence that the council itself and any decisions reached, completely lack the seal of the Spirit of God.

To resolve the dispute, a creed was proposed which favoured Athanasius and condemned Arius. Although most of the bishops present were not Arian, many of them were equally opposed to the wording of part of the creed which defined the nature of Jesus as of "one substance" with the Father. Over sixteen centuries later, the theologians of the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Western Churches, of Roman origin, are still divided over this issue.

After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. To avoid the consequences, a number of bishops found excuses to leave the council and return home before the vote was taken.

The majority voted in favor, although many were motivated by fear or politics, rather than conscience. Two stood firm to their conviction and voted against the proposed creed. They were subsequently exiled, along with Arius. The writings of Arius were condemned to be burnt and a death sentence decreed for any found in possession of them.


Source http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/51d.htm

While it is true that the two dissenting bishops were exiled, they were welcomed back with great apologies only a few years later. I guess the fact that they were exiled has added fuel to the conspiracy theories, but the rest is conjecture only. There is no indication that they were threatened with exile before the vote.

Though considering this topic was designed to be an overview of the Bible and how things fit into it, this will be my last post on this particular matter. All the best, fullywired.