is the trinity a biblical doctrine?

reply to post by Locoman8

Sorry but
Scriptures from the other books, not part of the bible, carry no weight with me, zero, nada, zip, they aren't inspired of God and are equal to something like the Book of Mormon.

Maybe good for a little history and reflection on the original bible cannon, that's about it.

You will never attain the truth from those books, just confusion of dogma.

Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by miriam0566

 

Michael may be the only angel mentioned as an archangel but reguardless of that, there is believed to be at least 7 archangels

well, think about this for a moment. archangel is only referred to in relation to micheal. and it is ¨the¨archangel, denoting one, vs. the belief that there are 7.

i would say that the evidence favors that there is one.

another tidbit is the prefix ¨arch¨. we say joker is batmans ¨archnemesis¨ because he is batman´s worst morst dangerous enemy. it denotes one, not mas than one.

The prefix arch comes from the Old French arche and Latin arch, meaning to begin or to rule. It can indicate the chief or principal one

does this mean that other angels are not high ranking and powerful? not at all. revelations describes cherubs being in the very presence of the throne of god. cherubs are extremely powerful and high ranking angels. i remember someone saying to me that its possible satan was a cherub.

but i think a distinction should be made between ¨archangel¨ and a high ranking one.

Maybe I misunderstood the place of Lucifer in the bible but my understanding is that He was an angel of the highest ranks but tried to overtake the throne of God.

you need to read the context of the chapter, then you´ll realize its not talking about angels at all.

Isaiah 14 (relevant verses) with my commentary

[1] For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.
[2] And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.
[3] And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve,

--- Isaiah is talking about isreal being released from their future captivity. soon they will be conquered by babylon, but isaiah is saying that it will not be indefinitely.

[4] That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

--- immediately isaiah identifies who he is prophesying against.

[5] The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.
[6] He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.

--- no political entity is above god. and none can stop god´s commands. if god says that Israel will be free, then they will be free.

[7] The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.
[8] Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.

--- babylon experiences prosperity and security

[9] Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
[10] All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?

--- all the enemies that babylon struck down eventually grow in power. we know from history that it is eventually cyrus of the medes and persians that conquers babylon.

[11] Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.
[12] How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

--- this is the actual verse that describes babylon´s fall. one thing to note is that ¨lucifer¨ was never in the original transcipts because it is latin for ¨morning star¨. why this verse renders it lucifer in english, noone is exactly sure. the other thing that is interesting is the use of the word heavens. heavens can denote ¨heaven¨, but also at times denotes governments (new heavens and a new earth for example). ill share more on the poetic language of this verse later

[13] For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
[14] I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

--- nebuchanezzar tried to exult himself but was humbled by god for 7 years.

[15] Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

--- we both know that hell is the grave or death. if this was satan, then his decent would have meant his death. but instead the angels in revelation warn the earth that things will get worse, so satan doesnt immediately die. the church believes this refers to satan because they teach a fiery hell that satan rules. they assert that this is when he is placed there.

[16] They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
[17] That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

---¨is this the man that made the earth to tremble¨, man not angel. satan is not a man. however the babylonian kings were, and they did make the earth tremble with their conquests. the verse also shows that people will worry about him less.

[18] All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.
[19] But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.
[20] Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.
[21] Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
[22] For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.

--- again directly referring to babylon

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this article gets into quite nicely. i dont like the source, but the information is the same.

it also gets into alittle detail fo how the babylon king is helal (god of the morning star) incarnate

www.apologeticspress.org...

the fact that there are other angels of the highest ranks, like your assumption of Michael being Jesus, I would have to assume as most christians do, that at the least Gabriel was an archangel.

as i said before, there is no question of angels having higher ranks. but i highly doubt that they are archangels.

and there other problem with gabriel is that nowhere in the bible does it give any indication of his rank or strength. so to say that he is an archangel is pure assumption.

I also heard something that Cherub angels and archangels were the same and that there are only four cherubs mentioned in the bible. Any comment on that?

as i said, the prefix arch implies ¨principle¨. so usually one.

cherubs are a extremely powerful and so are seraphs. i tend to believe that the number is figurative, 4 implying universal symmetry. but i honestly could be wrong. there could very well literally be 4.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Maybe good for a little history and reflection on the original bible cannon, that's about it.

You will never attain the truth from those books, just confusion of dogma.

i agree actually. the more i delve into apocryphal books, the more i see just how much they conflict with the bible on fundamental ways. i dont mean just different opinions but full blown contradictions.

it does help me to see exactly how the bible ended up being the bible.

reply to post by miriam0566


I'm not denying that the Apocrypha conflicts with the rest of the bible books. I just find it interesting that the first edition KJV bible, the first official release of Genesis to Revelation in english included these books which were part of the Greek Old Testament used by Greek Orthodox Jews. If I'm not mistaken, even Jesus referred to the books of the Macabee's or Tobit. I only used non-canonical book references to show the notion of other angels of high rank. Maybe Michael is the only archangel because that does actually make sense but I also got the notion that he was also a cherub. I may have been confused with cherub and archangels and the four angels I mentioned as being archangels.

Now your notion of Lucifer and Babylon may have a dual sense.... like the fact that when he was cast out of heaven, he worked "as satan" in the leader of these nations. The notion of Lucifer being cast into hell is odd because it said "beside the pit" which if you recall is where he goes during the 1000 year reign of Christ. The notion in that context may have been that he is sent to a grave pictured as a pit or abyss. The grave, though associated with death can simply refer to being in the ground or underground, just as he would be in a pit or abyss. "Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths OF THE PIT. Actually, we need to stop about angels and devils and such because it's going too off-topic. I was just curious on your notion of Michael being Jesus and I don't see how you can be so sure of it. I also understand the idea behind the passages in Isaiah referring to Lucifer but I am getting the fact that he is working through these leaders to get his objection done. And let's just agree to call all of these angels "superangels" and subtract Raphael since his mention is non-canonical. If you take Ezekiel chapter 28 and consider this to be Satan working through the king of Tyre, he was a Cherub.

reply to post by Locoman8

If you take Ezekiel chapter 28 and consider this to be Satan working through the king of Tyre, he was a Cherub.

Exactly the Angel that became Satan was a Cherub which is a highly ranked Angel with a lot of power, in this case his assignment from God was the earth and it's humanity present and upcoming, a huge privilege God had granted him, because he was good at this point.

When you read it, it is sad as this is God addressing a fallen angelic son who changed himself into Satan the Devil.
Ezekiel 28 12-19
'This is what the Sovereign LORD says:
" 'You were the model of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden,
the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
ruby, topaz and emerald,
chrysolite, onyx and jasper,
sapphire, turquoise and beryl.
Your settings and mountings were made of gold;
on the day you were created they were prepared.
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.
15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.
16 Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, O guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.
17 Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.
18 By your many sins and dishonest trade
you have desecrated your sanctuaries.
So I made a fire come out from you,
and it consumed you,
and I reduced you to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.
19 All the nations who knew you
are appalled at you;
you have come to a horrible end
and will be no more.' "

This scripture has a sad tone for the end for a once majestic angel, but fully justified for his crimes against the universe. As a side point Satan doesn't get to live forever in "Hell" as many think rather he is "reduced to ashes and becomes no more". He is executed by God, and all of humanity and the angels will see the ultimate price for rebellion against God.

The trintiy is implanted on ALL human bodies, I made a post about it and still to this date only one person understood this mystery.


it was either Jungle jake or Kinglizard.

which tells me he has understand that surpasses some other people in here.

we are walking trinties.

Originally posted by JesusisTruth

The trintiy is implanted on ALL human bodies, I made a post about it and still to this date only one person understood this mystery.


it was either Jungle jake or Kinglizard.

which tells me he has understand that surpasses some other people in here.

we are walking trinties.

yes, they understand so much more since they ignore simple scripture and instead look for obscure similarities to geometric shapes.

if you want to compare stupid geometric similarities, technically we are closer to the pentagram, does this mean that we obviously have satan imprinted in our bodies?

Dag Miraim you look good.

But no, there are only 3 makrs (on) the body.

Jesus said

" At the right hand of my father "

God doesn't have hands. So I believe that since the heart is under the left breast, and the belly button represents the body area, that the right breast represents Christ and he formed the body in a triangle like this.


Now it's not 100% sure, but it is very obvious.

and furthermore there are scriptures that indicate the trintiy and it's not your place to interpret them which is why god set up a hiearchy to interpret them infallibly (loose and bind) 1,000s of years before you were born.


You are beautiful Miriam.


bye.

reply to post by JesusisTruth


Seriously, you need bust out of your emotional need to NOT examine this doctrine and really have a hard look at it.

More and more Christians are coming to an accurate knowledge of this basic simple truth of the bible.

Every christian should watch this, it's 2 hours so do it when you have some free time.
Video about Jesus & God

Stop letting men form 325 CE decide this for you, check it out yourself.

\No. those men from 325 ad are the leaders of Gods church, you may not think so but I do.

Not including the miracles and saints that this church has provided. And the fact is that scripture itself says that the interpreting body or hiearchy will have the ability to loose and bind on Earth.

after death God wil show you the mystery I am talking about and I can't wait.


bye. peace.

Originally posted by JesusisTruth
God doesn't have hands. So I believe that since the heart is under the left breast, and the belly button represents the body area, that the right breast represents Christ and he formed the body in a triangle like this.

so you take a phrase like ¨at the right hand¨ which is used in many other scriptures to denote someone who is important or the most important, then you ignore that context.

instead you apply an assumption that this means god´s right breast?

if god doesnt have a hand, then why would he have a breast?

then you arbitrarily add the heart and the belly button for no reason with no scripture to back it up. and this is logic?

Now it's not 100% sure, but it is very obvious.

picking random points on the body can make anything obvious.

and furthermore there are scriptures that indicate the trintiy and it's not your place to interpret them which is why god set up a hiearchy to interpret them infallibly (loose and bind) 1,000s of years before you were born.

i explained that scripture to you several times before. you are mistaken, sorry.

so you take a phrase like ¨at the right hand¨ which is used in many other scriptures to denote someone who is important or the most important, then you ignore that context.



Give me the scripture about other right hands.

As for breast. That's not the point, the point is that God doesn't have hands.

and so when he says sits at Gods right hand I think he is signifying that the heart is on the left side of the body, the main part of the trinity, I could be wrong.



" I rpovided the scripture "

Yea so. What makes your interpretation better then the hierarchy of a church God founded years ago or mine for that matter?

it also says personal intepretation leads to destruction, which is why God set up a hiearchy, this is common sense.

peace.

and furthermore it doesn't say jesus is Gods right hand man, it says specifically that he (sits) at Gods right hand.

so we'll see after death.

Originally posted by JesusisTruth

\No. those men from 325 ad are the leaders of Gods church, you may not think so but I do.

Not including the miracles and saints that this church has provided. And the fact is that scripture itself says that the interpreting body or hiearchy will have the ability to loose and bind on Earth.

after death God wil show you the mystery I am talking about and I can't wait.


bye. peace.

WOW, I have never heard somebody actually say that, and I have talked to many Christians on this subject. I am really surprised.

Thus, I have nothing more to say except this scripture, and I will use the bible as a sword now, as there is nothing left for me to do, but that.

Romans 10 verse 2 multiple bibles

Weymouth New Testament
For I bear witness that they possess an enthusiasm for God, but it is an unenlightened enthusiasm.

International Standard Version (©2008)
For I can testify on their behalf that they have a zeal for God, but it is not in keeping with full knowledge.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
I can assure you that they are deeply devoted to God, but they are misguided.



[edit on 1-4-2009 by Blue_Jay33]

reply to post by JesusisTruth



no disrespect, but.... huh???????

Originally posted by JesusisTruth
Give me the scripture about other right hands.

1 kings 2:[19] Bath-sheba therefore went unto king Solomon, to speak unto him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself unto her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a seat to be set for the king's mother; and she sat on his right hand.

1 cron 6:[39] And his brother Asaph, who stood on his right hand, even Asaph the son of Berachiah, the son of Shimea,

psalms 16:[8] I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.

psalm 109:[6] Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.

matt 25:[33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.


sitting, or being at someone´s right hand means a trusted position. not literally being a part of that person.

psalm 109:6 says that the wicked man has satan standing at his right hand, doe this mean that the wicked and satan are the same person?

really think. jesus sitting at the right hand of god does not imply they are the same person.

psalm 110:[1] The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Originally posted by JesusisTruth
so we'll see after death.

you just dont get it do you? it will be too late by then.

2 peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,
15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

reply to post by miriam0566

some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

OUCH, and I thought I was using the bible as a sword then Miriam comes along and brings it up a level.

I don't know if I should say "well done" or cringe.

But I sure understand WHY you posted that scripture.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Blue_Jay33]

I believe those me men from 325 A.D. were the leaders of Gods church and I believe they brought about the doctrine of the trinity for two main reasons.

Firstly they were trying to explain to those early Christian followers at that time in a very simply way, the concept of God the Farther, God the son and the Holy Spirit, which even today, for many, is still very confusing . The trinity try’s to keep it very simple, even if not completely a sound doctrine…you also have to remember that there were many Christians at that time who were opposed to the idea of the trinity being preached.

Secondly and most importantly, those men of 325 A.D. wanted to make a clear distinction between Judaism and Christianity, for obvious reasons. One reason being the very simplistic idea that Judaism was fundamentally the worship of one God, where as Christianity could at that time, after the introduction of the trinity, be seen as the worship of three.

As I have said in my other post on this thread, although I don’t exactly go along with the trinity, I do understand that at that time is was important to distinguish between Judaism and Christianity because of the close relationship between both religions. The trinity is still being debated today and whether it’s right or wrong, I can clearly see good reasons as to why it was introduced at that time.

For me personally Jesus and God are clearly separate and the only doubt I had was with the Holy Spirit being separate, but now I am convinced that the Holy Spirit is a part of God and not separate, Jesus on the other hand is a part of God, but he is also separate. If anything, I believe we have a Byinity (made up word ) rather than a trinity.


To Miriam

Originally posted by miriam0566

i think of it more as a hand. of course not a literal hand, god is a spirit and spirits dont have bodies like we do. but i think of it as god´s way of manipulating the universe. much like a hand, the holy spirit does not think or make decisions. but it is used to accomplish things

I just wanted to add that I thought that was a great analogy...using the word “hand” to describe the Holy Spirit…I’ve never heard it described that way before…



- JC


[edit on 1-4-2009 by Joecroft]

reply to post by Joecroft

not completely a sound doctrine…you also have to remember that there were many Christians at that time who were opposed to the idea of the trinity being preached.

I agree with this part of your post.

It's a pity those Christians lost that theological debate, and then forever after anybody who thought that way was branded a heretic. Not exactly Christianity finest moment.