15 replies to this topic

[skeptictank]

I would like to say thanks to those (particularly fortigorn) participating in the "what is the gospel" thread. It shedded (shed... whatever) some interesting light in some interesting places. That being said, I think something may have been overlooked regarding the topic to be discussed, and stated in the topic title.

Quote

Possible reasons for Apostle's neglect to mention the deity of Christ in the gospel presentations of Acts...

1) They forgot

2) They excluded it because they wanted to make their presentations as brief as possible, so none of their audience would fall asleep before the "altar call"

3) They DID explain it fully, only Luke edited those parts out, as Acts was already running into a "lot of chapters"

4) The Apostles didn't have the "revelation" ( of Christ being God) themselves, until LATER ON when they wrote the epistles...follow-up notices were later sent to all Jews that were present at Pentecost, and to the household of Cornelius, informing them of this important "ammendment" to the gospel. (The "post script" at the bottom of these notices also instructed these first hearer's of the gospel, that if any of them DECLINED to believe this subsequent theological addition, they would be expected to return the Holy Spirit that they had received under "false pretenses")

5) It's THERE...you just have to "read between the lines"


Chris

If I may suggest...

Quote

1Cr 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able [to bear it], neither yet now are ye able.

Quote

Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their]ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Mat 13:16 But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

Mat 13:17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous [men] have desired to see [those things] which ye see, and have not seen [them]; and to hear [those things] which ye hear, and have not heard [them].

Quote

Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Quote

Pro 25:2 [It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.

...perhaps it is not an essential doctrine for salvation, but it's truth is not thereby thwarted.

Skeptictank

[Crazy]

Why only Acts, Acts is more of a doing book than a theology book as an out and out trinitarian I would say its totally biblical but Acts is not the book I would use to prove it.

[nsr]

Good post Dave

[Fortigurn]

Crazy, on Jan 15 2007, 08:57 PM, said:

Why only Acts, Acts is more of a doing book than a theology book as an out and out trinitarian I would say its totally biblical but Acts is not the book I would use to prove it.

Because Acts records for us - in specific detail - what the apostles taught as the gospel. Whatever they thought was essential Christian doctrine, is in there. You can see preaching speeches in Acts over, and over, and over again, and you'll see the same core doctrines taught to Jews, Greeks, and Romans.

Among all those doctrines, you will never find the trinity. The apostles simply never taught it.

[Crazy]

Cool your thingy says Birmingham, Are you a student?

[skeptictank]

Quote

Hi Skeptic,

Greetings

Quote

The Trinity is taught as being the cornerstone of 'Orthodox Christian' faith,

I think you'll find that the "O" word scarcely describes me.

Quote

its one of the first things people preach to you and many claim that you have to believe it or else you arent Christian.

One of the problems that stems from man's word superceding the word of god.

Quote

The point Fortigurn and Chris were making was that if it really was so fundamental, so important, so essential for salvation etc, then why were the first century preachers so silent on this matter?

Yes, I got the point, and my rebuttal was that, while it certainly isn't an essential doctrine for salvation, that fact does not mean that god is not a trinity. Though, more specifically I was speaking of christ's divinity.

It clearly is not fundamental (in terms of our salvation), as I believe was adequately shown in the gospel thread reffered to originally. As I've stated I don't think it is essential for salvation, but I do think it is important to some degree if it is true.

Quote

Eph 3:17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

Eph 3:18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what [is]the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

Eph 3:19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

Quote

And if the Trinity really was a legitimate doctrine, then how come there wasnt uproar when the Jews 'figured it out' or those with 'greater understanding of the meaty things of scripture, rather than just the milk' accidentally let slip that there was a doctrine here that was a real challenge to the Jew's monotheistic beliefs?

Quote

Jhn 10:29 My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand.

Jhn 10:30 I and [my] Father are one.

Jhn 10:31 ¶ Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

Quote

Jhn 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Quote

Jhn 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

Jhn 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father [is] in me, and I in him.

Jhn 10:39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

Quote

Jhn 19:21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.

I mention this last one because if you read the phrase that pilate wrote in hebrew, you'll find (according to chuck missler [I haven't managed to check for myself]) that the first letters of the words "JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS." spell the four letter name of god. "YHWH".

The point is that the jews were familiar with "blasphemies" commited by jesus concerning his nature. The trinity probably wouldn't have vexed them very much, but I'm sure you'll find (if you do some digging in early ecclesiastical history) that there was a jewish heresy regarding the trinity.

Quote

The nature and 'oneness' of God was the number 1 most important doctrine to Jews and it was and always has been to Jews and Christians since then. It is not some minor unimportant doctrine confined to the realms of the honour of kings searching out some deeper matter.

Besides what I've previously posted I think it's important to note that the doctrineo of the trinity does not do away with oneness of god. It is simply man's way of naming his multidimensionality.

Quote

The point is ... the fact that they didnt preach it in Acts and the fact that there was no uproar about the teaching, proves that the doctrine of the Trinity didnt even exist in the first century.

Re-read my post. I think you might have missed the point. It's pretty clear to me that there would have been much that was not initially taught to the multitude.

Quote

And if it wasnt believed in the first century, then why should we believe it?

The roundness of the earth comes to mind. Medicine comes to mind. Plus it is very presumptuous (as I've noted) to declare that

1) we know everything that was believed in the first century Ano Domini

2) that everything believed was taught

Since the scripture is pretty clear that such was not the case.

Quote

Why should we believe in the trinity when historically this teaching wasnt invented / supposedly 'discovered' / developed until after the first century, when Hebrews 13 says that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever"?

Again, I think you should re-read my original post. It was not widely taught until the time you speak of. This is not evidence that it was not believed.

Quote

Why should we believe it when theres no mention of the apostles ever believing it?

Quote

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Be like the bereans--

Quote

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

I'm not the one to judge you.

Skeptictank

[skeptictank]

Quote

This may be true if Jesus was saying that he was God. But he wasnt, he was saying in verse 30 that he was 'one' with God. One in what way? In the Trinitarian sense? Not at all, in the John 17v20-24 sense of 'oneness'.

That's interesting. I'll have to look into these verses deeper.

Quote

By saying you believed Jesus was talking about the trinity in John 10v30, youre making the same mistake as the Jews.

I said no such thing. I was merely pointing out that such was the perception of the jews, so they (the unbelieving jews in general) would not have been surprised at the apparent heresy of the trinity. We've gone a bit off topic with this whole thing though.

Quote

I dont believe we have a copy of the Hebrew words written on the cross. We only have the Greek. Besides, I dont see how its a strong argument for deity.

It certainly isn't. Just an observation. Even though we don't have the words in print. We can reproduce the statement in the hebrew language.

Quote

You'll have to be more specific. I have dug around quite a bit in ecclesiastical history. Evangelion even did a university course on the subject. I'm yet to find anything that conclusively / legitimately proves that anyone believed in the trinity before the time of Athanasius and co. Most of the commonly quoted passages from 'alternative early scriptures' turn out to be fake / edited after the date, they cant be proven to be from the first century etc. If you can dig for me and provide specifically what you are referring to, then that'd be much appreciated.

I'm actually taking for granted a heresy described by John Newman, which would have been present around the 3rd or fourth centuries. Now that I think about it, it's not very relevant. Just something that came to mind.

Quote

I was saying that 'if the trinity wasnt believed in the first century, then why should we believe it?' If we're going start believing things that the Bible does not teach, then I'm going to state dogmatically that Jesus went to Australia after his assension. Please find me one passage where it says he didnt.

I certainly wouldn't argue with it. I believe that our lord Jesus Christ, was, is, and shall be hereafter, the god which is the same. As such he is as omnipresent as the father. So his presence extends to Australia.

Quote

Obviously, since it was never taught in scripture that Jesus went to Australia post-assension and since theres no evidence for it ever being believed, I have no reason to believe it is true. Same with the trinity.

We were talking about the essential doctrines of the apostles, and whether or not the absence of the doctrine of his deity is grounds for its dismissal amongst biblical truth. Though I do believe it is true, such a discussion is for another thread.

Quote

But thats the thing, everything that was believed was taught. If it wasnt we come back to the scenario presented by echad ...

The scripture is clear that there are and will always be truths that are left to the diligent to seek out. I concede that the absence of the teaching in question suggests that its belief is not necessary for salvation, but as is clearly shown in the scriptures quoted in my original post, understanding of all truth is not necessary for salvation.

Quote

The Bible is 'pretty clear' about no such thing.

See my original post.

Quote

See Fortigurn's article about the speeches in Acts for a run down of everything taught. All of the essential basi doctrines were taught.

Yes, those necessary for salvation.

Quote

The trinity was not one of them, it was never preached by anyone, therefore this suggests the doctrine simply never existed back then.

The deity of christ and the holy spirit is either implied or directly stated somewhere in acts, so I can't say I agree with your premise on those grounds. Even if I agreed with your premise, your conclusion is faulty for reasons already stated.

Quote

And if it did exist, then why didnt Barnabus and Paul pounce on the opportunity presented to them in Acts 14v11, since the people of Melitia already believed in the incarnation of pagan deities. They were saying "ah, Zeus, Mercurius, youve come down in the likeness of men!" This would have been prime time for the trinity to get a foot in the door by them saying "you know what chaps, we arent incarnate Gods, but we know somebody who was!" Fact is, Paul and Barnabus didnt start preaching the trinity ... they told them to "depart from these vanities!" that they were saying / doing.

Umm... I think you'll find that when dealing with crazy people, it's best to try to bring them to reality before bursting forth with difficult concepts like the trinity.

Quote

I need to see evidence that it was even remotely believed, never mind widely believed.

For you to believe it, or for you to investigate it? I'm not trying to prove christ's deity here, I'm simpley pointing out that the absence of its being stated does not prove that it isn't true. All it proves is that it is not necessary to believe that he is god in order to be saved.

Quote

I've searched the scriptures pretty thoroughly and I'm yet to find any conclusive evidence for God being triune. Have you got any that you can share with me?

If you want to discuss that, then I recommend opening a separate thread. I would certainly love to discuss it.

Skeptictank

Edited by skeptictank, 15 January 2007 - 10:21 PM.

[Naphal]

Dave Hudson, on Jan 15 2007, 04:32 AM, said:

Why should we believe in the trinity when historically this teaching wasnt invented / supposedly 'discovered' / developed until after the first century, when Hebrews 13 says that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever"? Why should we believe it when theres no mention of the apostles ever believing it?

Are you saying you don't believe the statement in Hebrews?

[Evangelion]

No, he's not.

[mattquarterstein]

What sort of things would the apostles need to have said to prove the trinity?

[Fortigurn]

Something like what trinitarians actually believe. Going around and repeatedly telling people that Jesus is a man sent by God, as they did, clearly isn't going to get the job done.

[Naphal]

Fortigurn, on Mar 19 2010, 11:35 PM, said:

Something like what trinitarians actually believe. Going around and repeatedly telling people that Jesus is a man sent by God, as they did, clearly isn't going to get the job done.

They also record Christ as having been God, you just don't accept what has been written.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

When I am face to face with Christ, I shall also declare him to be my Lord and God. You won't.

[Naphal]

Naphal, on Mar 20 2010, 02:58 AM, said:

Fortigurn, on Mar 19 2010, 11:35 PM, said:

Something like what trinitarians actually believe. Going around and repeatedly telling people that Jesus is a man sent by God, as they did, clearly isn't going to get the job done.

They also record Christ as having been God, you just don't accept what has been written.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

When I am face to face with Christ, I shall also declare him to be my Lord and God. You won't.

Tell me more about what you believe as to when Jesus returns. What happens?

[Jeremy]

Naphal, on Mar 20 2010, 10:58 AM, said:

They also record Christ as having been God, you just don't accept what has been written.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

When I am face to face with Christ, I shall also declare him to be my Lord and God. You won't.

Somebody with more NT Greek than me may be able to chip in, but I understand that the grammar of what Thomas says here demands that he is talking about two different referents, one who is his Lord, and one who is his God. If he was referring to the same person, he would have said "My Lord and God" (which I note he doesn't).

Boot on the other foot, I think, Naphal.

[Fortigurn]

Naphal, on Mar 20 2010, 06:58 PM, said:

Fortigurn, on Mar 19 2010, 11:35 PM, said:

Something like what trinitarians actually believe. Going around and repeatedly telling people that Jesus is a man sent by God, as they did, clearly isn't going to get the job done.

They also record Christ as having been God, you just don't accept what has been written.

If that's what they believed, why didn't they preach it even once throughout Acts?

[Jeremy]

Naphal, on Mar 20 2010, 11:01 AM, said:

Tell me more about what you believe as to when Jesus returns. What happens?

• Responsible dead are raised
  
• Responsible living and dead are judged; rewarded (with eternal life) or punished (with death)
  
• Israel rescued from its enemies and turns to Christ
  
• God's Kingdom established
  
• World comes under Christ's authority; gradually changed into the kind of place God wants it to be
  
• Christ hands the authority back to God (1 Cor. 15 v 28 - there it is again, two different individuals)

That's the gist of it, I think. We can start a new thread if you like.