Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think it was codified at Nicene but it had been evolving for quite awhile. It was a way to reconcile the various views of Jesus in the Gospels. He went from the 'son of man' in Mark (not divine) to 'the word' in John (divine).This is a tangent on the creationist thread. So, is the Nicene Counsel the origin or does it go back earlier than that?
Isaac Newton rejected the trinity - notice my user name.
Greek logos = Word (with the definite article in John 1:1) is not God but rather the messenger/word of God.I think it was codified at Nicene but it had been evolving for quite awhile. It was a way to reconcile the various views of Jesus in the Gospels. He went from the 'son of man' in Mark (not divine) to 'the word' in John (divine).This is a tangent on the creationist thread. So, is the Nicene Counsel the origin or does it go back earlier than that?
Isaac Newton rejected the trinity - notice my user name.
OH, btw - the entire Bible is in harmony - John did not teach Jesus was almighty God. For example:
John 1:18
(KJV) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Or, simply: Jehovah is the Father while Jesus is the only begotten son of God. And no man has seen God - many saw Jesus.
Something tells me that this phrase has no literal meaning. Seeing God face to face is absurd, since God doesn't have any face in 'human' sense.. I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30
Who decides whether it’s literal or not? Why would it not be literal?Something tells me that this phrase has no literal meaning. Seeing God face to face is absurd, since God doesn't have any face in 'human' sense.. I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30
Reason and common sense, I suppose.Who decides whether it’s literal or not? Why would it not be literal?Something tells me that this phrase has no literal meaning. Seeing God face to face is absurd, since God doesn't have any face in 'human' sense.. I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30
Why are you spamming the board?This is a tangent on the creationist thread. So, is the Nicene Counsel the origin or does it go back earlier than that?
Isaac Newton rejected the trinity - notice my user name.
Thank you. That is another example proving Jesus is the archangel Michael, not God almighty.OH, btw - the entire Bible is in harmony - John did not teach Jesus was almighty God. For example:
John 1:18
(KJV) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Or, simply: Jehovah is the Father while Jesus is the only begotten son of God. And no man has seen God - many saw Jesus.
"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30
Later edited to:
John 1:18
(KJV) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
What is spamming?Why are you spamming the board?This is a tangent on the creationist thread. So, is the Nicene Counsel the origin or does it go back earlier than that?
Isaac Newton rejected the trinity - notice my user name.
Something tells me that this phrase has no literal meaning. Seeing God face to face is absurd, since God doesn't have any face in 'human' sense.. I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30
To explain the basis for belief in the Trinity.Ding - on your long post 11 - what is your point. I think we can agree most religions in Christendom believe in the trinity - we do not believe in the trinity. So, what is the origin of the trinity doctrine?
I read most of it. However, I do not wish to try to respond to so many points. Can you specify one or 10 points you consider main points? I will be glad to respond to a reasonable number of points.To explain the basis for belief in the Trinity.Ding - on your long post 11 - what is your point. I think we can agree most religions in Christendom believe in the trinity - we do not believe in the trinity. So, what is the origin of the trinity doctrine?
The origin and history and basis is explained in the long post you didn’t read.
I believe you are free to parse the position of Christians in the nature and validity of the Trinity until you are blue in the face.I read most of it. However, I do not wish to try to respond to so many points. Can you specify one or 10 points you consider main points? I will be glad to respond to a reasonable number of points.To explain the basis for belief in the Trinity.Ding - on your long post 11 - what is your point. I think we can agree most religions in Christendom believe in the trinity - we do not believe in the trinity. So, what is the origin of the trinity doctrine?
The origin and history and basis is explained in the long post you didn’t read.
However, I will address one point for now in your post - the fact that the most accepted version of the trinity doctrine is 3 persons one God. Some believe in modalism - all being one person. For example - those who believe in modalism say Jesus is Jehovah. We (Jehovah's Witnesses) agree the Father and the Son are 2 persons, not one person.
Do you agree Jehovah is the name of the Father and Jesus is the name of the Son of God?
I believe you are free to parse the position of Christians in the nature and validity of the Trinity until you are blue in the face.I read most of it. However, I do not wish to try to respond to so many points. Can you specify one or 10 points you consider main points? I will be glad to respond to a reasonable number of points.To explain the basis for belief in the Trinity.Ding - on your long post 11 - what is your point. I think we can agree most religions in Christendom believe in the trinity - we do not believe in the trinity. So, what is the origin of the trinity doctrine?
The origin and history and basis is explained in the long post you didn’t read.
However, I will address one point for now in your post - the fact that the most accepted version of the trinity doctrine is 3 persons one God. Some believe in modalism - all being one person. For example - those who believe in modalism say Jesus is Jehovah. We (Jehovah's Witnesses) agree the Father and the Son are 2 persons, not one person.
Do you agree Jehovah is the name of the Father and Jesus is the name of the Son of God?
It won’t change our beliefs.
I don’t believe I can say it more succinctly than the Trinity is not a mystery to be solved. The Trinity is a relationship to be entered into.
And until one does, he or she will never experience it for him or herself. The only way one will ever know what a strawberry tastes like is to taste it for themselves. The Trinity is just like that.