I don’t understand how these people come to this conclusion.



3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?


57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.


And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.


Gabriel is the holt spirit is actually farther out there than a guy I heard on YT saying Michael the archangel is Christ.

I don’t get how people deny the trinity just because the word isn’t used. The doctrine is clearly there. Men just put a label on it.

Trinity as a label is just fine in my opinion, but I agree with you that the doctrine is as clear as day.

Is Jesus equal with our Father? Is the spirit equal to our Father? Jesus did say the greatest of commandment is God is one. Jesus also prayed unto the father falling on his face per as prior prophets, and by the permission of our father raised the dead and exorcised demons.

I guess I am unclear if original Christians believed in the trinity as equal or One God and the rest not a God?

Here is a good explanation of how the Trinity came to be,

“The first Christian writings that we know of are Paul’s epistles (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Galatians, Philippians and 1 Thessalonians) and the Book of Hebrews.

Paul referred to Jesus as the Son of God, but there is nothing to suggest that Paul saw Jesus as God.

Hebrews also refers to Jesus as the Son of God, but also as the high priest in heaven, a term that seems inconsistent with any form of divinity.

Mark’s Gospel is regarded as portraying Jesus as a human who was adopted by God at the time of his baptism. In this, the first New Testament gospel to be written, Jesus even denies being divine:

Mark 10:18: And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

This takes us to around the end of the first century, when Matthew and then Luke began to appear. In these gospels, Jesus was the Son of God because he was divinely conceived, not because he was pre-existing or equal to God. Christians who followed the gospels had no reason to believe that Jesus was anything other than a human conceived and born from the intervention of God.

By the second century, as we are moving away from the “first Christians”, John’s Gospel appears. In this gospel, Jesus repeatedly refers to himself as divine, although not in terms that explain the Holy Trinity. Some of the Greek grammar used in this gospel is consistent with the author having believed that Jesus was a second God.

By the late second century, Christian church leaders were experimenting with concepts that would lead, in the third century, to a developing belief in the Trinity and its adoptions as doctrine in the fourth-century Council of Nicaea. However, the issue continued to be debated until 381, when Emperor Theodosius made belief in the Trinity mandatory for all Christians.“

I don't know where you got this, but anything that says, "Mark’s Gospel is regarded as portraying Jesus as a human who was adopted by God at the time of his baptism." is not Christian doctrine.

Cite your source

Again, cite your source because there is plenty in Paul's writing:
But back to Paul, who said this:

2 Corinthians 13:14 May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.

Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and the entire flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood.


And this:

Ephesians 3:14 ... for this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name. 16 I pray that out of the riches of His glory He may strengthen you with power through His Spirit in your inner being, Ephesians 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and grounded in love,

And this:

Romans 8:9 You, however, are controlled not by the flesh, but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit, who lives in you.

Here are places in the Bible where Paul's teachings allude to Christ’s deity and the Trinity:

For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:27-28)

There was a reason we were instructed to baptize all people for all time in this way:

Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,

Matthew 28:19, where Jesus commands, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

is often cited as proof of the Trinity in the NT, however most scholars believe that “the father, the son and Holy Ghost“ were later additions to Matthew 28:19.

Francis A. Sullivan SJ says, in From Apostles to Bishops, “Scholars generally agree that the trinitarian formula reflects a later development of baptismal liturgy.”

(In other words it was added after the Nicene Council adopted the doctrine of the Trinity.)

More evidence that this baptismal formula was added later is the fact that, Matthew 28:19 is in direct contradiction with all of these passages:

[Act 2:38 NASB] (38) Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

[Act 8:12 NASB] (12) But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.

[Act 10:48 NASB] (48) And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

[Rom 6:3 NASB] (3) Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?

[1Co 1:13 NASB] (13) Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

[Gal 3:27 NASB] (27) For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

These verses indicate that decades after Matthew was written, early Christians were being baptised in the name of Jesus alone.

It’s illogical to assume that Jesus would command baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, yet the apostles continued to baptize people in the name of Jesus alone.

Here are some other opinions on Matthew 28:19

The Bible Catechism: Meaning for Man’s Existence: The New Revised Vatican 11 Bible and Life Today Edition, the Catholic Church declares that the baptismal formula changed from the name of Jesus to the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost in the fourth century. In the first 300 years Christians were baptised in the name of Jesus.

James Moffett’s New Testament translation, footnote on page 64 in regards to Matthew 28: 19, reads: “It maybe that this formula, so far as the fullness of expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that acts speaks of baptising in Jesus’s name Acts 1: 5”.

New Revised Standard Version in regards to Matthew 28: 19 states: “Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and it represents later church tradition…”

According to Dr Peake in his Bible Commentary, 1919 page 723, “The command to baptise into the three fold name is a late doctrinal expansion…”

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia 11, page 263 “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son and Holy Spirit…”. This is confirmed by the Catholic University of America in Washington D.C in 1923 in its New Testament studies number 5

It’s controversial for sure, in the end you’ll have to decide for yourself. Good luck!

How about you back up and let’s go back to lineage of Christ in the Gospels?

Please be respectful ~ medicmandan

The Nicence Council in 325 only made Jesus God. The council of Constantinople in 381 made the Holy Spirit God. Then Ephesus 431 and Chalcedon 451 decided that Christ had (has?) two natures. I don't think it was until almost 500 that there was a doctrine of the trinity. Until then, there just seemed to be this unknown thing that eventually was called the trinity that you had to believe in.

I am also interested in the question you asked about Joseph's genealogy, being that you posted about "one of the most damning contradictions" yesterday but never returned.

So before we get to today's "damning" issue, wrap up yesterday's. I think we should have some order in how you present and we approach the Daily Attack on Christian tenets.

So let's look at yesterday's first.

You are unaware on how Councils operate. They do not "create" doctrines, but rather reaffirm doctrines for the sake of clarification. To say it wasn't until around 500 that there was a "doctrine" of the Trinity is incorrect.

The belief dates back, not only to Scripture, but to the earliest Christians:
Ignatius, second bishop of Antioch, who was martyred in Rome around 110 AD, wrote a series of letters to churches in Asia Minor on his way to be executed in Rome. The conjunction of Father, Son and Holy Spirit appears in his letter to the Magnesian church:

"Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual. —Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 13"

From the 1st Century Didache

Concerning Baptism
Baptize in this way. Having instructed him in all of these teachings, baptize the catechumen in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. But if you do not have running water, then baptize in other water. And if you cannot in cold water, use warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And before the baptism, let both the baptizer and the catechumen fast, and also any others who are able. And be sure that the catechumen fasts a day or two before.

@ValleyGunner I’m done talking to you and your buddies. Unfortunately, this forum is extremely biased against certain people. As you can see by the above comment by Fenn, and numerous other examples, some of you are allowed to say whatever you want to and you don’t get in trouble. If I had that same privilege I would be happy to discuss any topic with you but I do not.

If I say anything that is argumentative, I get a warning or my thread gets locked. If I do the opposite and answer everyone as politely as humanly possible, I still get in trouble and my threads get locked.

Whereas you clearly enjoy free speech on this forum, the freedom to say whatever you want or ask whatever you want to, I do not.

This is a “Catholic Christian” forum not a religious forum. I thought it was open to all views, and it’s not. I know that now. So please leave me alone and I will do the same to you, and the people in your circle. Thanks!

There is no "circle". In this forum, as you have noted many times, there are heated discussions among all Christian denominations.

There was also no mistreatment. You said yesterday that you wanted to discuss "one of the most damning contradictions" of the NT. You were given an answer, multiple, and rather than revisiting it, to either agree or disagree, you start today off with a new post about "another Christian" problem/contradiction.

All some are asking is that open topics be discussed and closed before new ones arise.

That's all. We receive warnings, edits, and I have had some threads closed as well.

I may not always agree with the moderation here, but it is "on the level". I can't claim to be a victim any more than you can.

Given your evidence below, let's see if these councils "created" doctrine, or "reaffirmed" doctrine.  (Spoiler alert, they made it up)

Wow. A cherry picked phrase from a cherry picked letter that only bears resemblance to the doctrine of the trinity if you do an enormous amount of reading into the passage. Let's look at the introduction to the letter to see if he holds the "doctrine" of the Trinity:

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the [Church] blessed in the grace of God the Father, in Jesus Christ our Saviour, in whom I salute the Church which is at Magnesia, near the Moeander, and wish it abundance of happiness in God the father, and in Jesus Christ.

The answer is that he does not view "God" or "the Father" in any way close to what you fantasize he does. Further, the person of the holy spirit didn't rate being mentioned.  If this is what you have of early beliefs to support your fantasy that the 2nd century church held a "doctrine" of the trinity, then wowzers that was lame.

Read the whole letter, not just the single sentence. The "doctrine" of the trinity is absent. He didn't believe in it. Read his other letters, God is the Father of Jesus, not some 3 in one logical absurdity.


OMG, three elements of Christianity are mentioned in the same phrase, what a lame evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity. This is hardly evidence of the "doctrine" of the trinity. If you actually read the document rather than than a cherry picked portion, notice who is consistently the person regarded as God:

And concerning the Eucharist... "We thank You, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant-son, which You made known to us through Jesus Your servant-son. To You be the glory for ever.".

And concerning the broken Bread: "We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your servant-son, to You be the glory for ever. Just as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your Kingdom for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.".

We thank You, Holy Father, for Your holy name you that made to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which you revealed to us through Jesus Your servant-son. Glory to You forever and ever. You, Almighty Lord, have created all things for Your own name's sake, You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You, but to us You freely gave spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Your servant-son. Above all things we thank You that You are mighty. Glory to You forever and ever.... Hosanna to the God of David.

The Didache does not consider Jesus to be God or the Holy Spirit to be God. The God of the Didache is the same one Jesus considered the one true God, his Father.

Your selections, literally, disprove your argument. The use of "Servant Son" in the Early Church refer to Christ's divine nature and appointed purpose, as the "Suffering Son". This has OT implications of both divinity and Messianic nature.

The same is true of the use of "Lord", which both God and Christ are called numerous times in the NT:

446 In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the ineffable Hebrew name YHWH, by which God revealed himself to Moses,59 is rendered as Kyrios, "Lord". From then on, "Lord" becomes the more usual name by which to indicate the divinity of Israel's God. The New Testament uses this full sense of the title "Lord" both for the Father and - what is new - for Jesus, who is thereby recognized as God Himself.60

447 Jesus ascribes this title to himself in a veiled way when he disputes with the Pharisees about the meaning of Psalm 110, but also in an explicit way when he addresses his apostles.61 Throughout his public life, he demonstrated his divine sovereignty by works of power over nature, illnesses, demons, death and sin.

448 Very often in the Gospels people address Jesus as "Lord". This title testifies to the respect and trust of those who approach him for help and healing.62 At the prompting of the Holy Spirit, "Lord" expresses the recognition of the divine mystery of Jesus.63 In the encounter with the risen Jesus, this title becomes adoration: "My Lord and my God!" It thus takes on a connotation of love and affection that remains proper to the Christian tradition: "It is the Lord!"64

449 By attributing to Jesus the divine title "Lord", the first confessions of the Church's faith affirm from the beginning that the power, honor and glory due to God the Father are due also to Jesus, because "he was in the form of God",65 and the Father manifested the sovereignty of Jesus by raising him from the dead and exalting him into his glory.66

ETA: I forgot to add that in some instances Servant son" (lowercase son) was also used among the earliest Jewish Christians to denote Christ as God's servant (Messiah) and to also denote that he was the "son of David", in line with the prophetic passages of the OT.

Wow. I can't fathom the logical construct: Jesus is a servant of God, therefore he must be God. It doesn't make any sense.


Let's compare it to other parts of the bible and say if they make the same equivalency. According to your logic, Sarah thought Abraham was God as Peter states: So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him "Lord" (1 Peter 3:6). According to your logic the crowd must have considered Paul and Silas to be God by saying: "Lords, what must I do to be saved? (Acts 16:31). And according to your logic, when the Samaritan woman called Jesus "lord" while not knowing who he was, she must have had a fully formed notion of the doctrine of the trinity by saying: “Lord, You do not even have a vessel to draw with...." (Joh 4:11)

Peter blows all of this "lord" = "God" nonsense out of the water. He emphatically states that God made Jesus Lord. Which clearly demonstrates two things: Jesus is not God and he isn't inherently "lord" but rather was elevated to the position. As it states: For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’ “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.” (Acts 2:34-36)


Seriously, do you actually think about these things before putting them out there?

Interesting. However being God's servant by definition means that Jesus isn't God. Just like you being God's servant by definition means that you are not God.

It's odd how you are so determined to be extremely rigid on the strictest application of a word's definition, as in the case of "servant", not allowing for the nuances that come with Jewish cultural usages which also explains the multi-applicative reality of "Lord", etc. However, when it comes to something that should seemingly be so cut and dry so as to meet your demands, say "My Lord and my God" John 20:28, NOW you find that a "complex" and counterintuitive explanation is the most logical.

That's not cognitive dissonance at all, is it?

"Seriously, do you actually think about these things before putting them out there?"
Oh, and nice touch here.

See inside

As I've stated about you many times, one your biggest impediments to true understanding is your hubris, which manifests itself in the belief that so long as you have your Young's Literal Translation (a horrible translation btw), Strong's Concordance, and few websites, then you have to ability to understand 2000 years of doctrine with so absolute a certainty that it cause you to make statements that only come back to weaken your credibility.

Case in point: look at how emphatically you called me incorrect about St, Ignatius. Let's see about that.
Ignatius of Antioch on the Trinity

And of course, his most famous statement: whoever “declares that there is but one God, only so as to take away the divinity of Christ, is a devil.”

If I write about something, it's because I know something about it. Otherwise, I don't post...I learn.

Here's St. Irenaeus (180 ad)
In about A.D. 180, Irenaeus wrote the statement below concerning the triune nature of God. Here we find the basic elements of the doctrine of the Trinity.
Note, in particular, the distinct role of each member of the Godhead and its relationship to all of humanity.

"This is the rule of our faith, the foundation of the building, and what gives support to our behavior.
God the Father uncreated, who is uncontained, invisible, one God, creator of the universe; this is the first article of our faith.

And the second is: The Word of God, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who appeared to the prophets according to their way of prophesying and according to the dispensation of the Father. Through him all things were created. Furthermore, in the fullness of time, in order to gather all things to himself, he became a human being amongst human beings, capable of being seen and touched, to destroy death, bring life, and restore fellowship between God and humanity.

And the third article is: The Holy Spirit, through whom the prophets prophesied, and our forebears learned of God and the righteous were led in the paths of justice, and who, in the fullness of time, was poured out in a new way on our human nature in order to renew humanity throughout the entire world in the sight of God."

So again, here are but two of many, examples of Early Church Fathers with a clearly defined doctrine of the Trinity.

Here is more:
From a St. Ignatius biographer, quoting Ignatius on the Trinity:

"For Ignatius God is Father, and by ‘Father’ he means primarily ‘Father of Jesus Christ’ : ‘There is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son’ (Magn. 8.2). Jesus is called ‘God’ 14 times *(Eph. inscr. 1.1, 7.2, 15.3, 17.2, 18.2, 19.3; Trall. 7.1; Rom. inscr. 3.3, 6.3; Smyrn. 1.1; Pdyc. 8.3). He is the Father’s Word (Magn. 8.2), ‘the mind of the Father’ (Eph. 3.3), and ‘the mouth through which the Father truly spoke’ (Rom. 8.2). He is ‘His only Son’ (Rom. inscr.), ‘generate and ingenerate, God in man . . . son of Mary and Son of God . . . Jesus Christ our Lord’ (Eph. 7.2). He is the one ‘who is beyond time the Eternal the Invisible who became visible for our sake, the Impalpable, the Impassible who suffered for our sake’ (Polyc. 3.2)."
* not biblical verses, but other citations so don't try to find Eph. 19.3

"It has been urged that for Ignatius there is no Trinity before the birth of Jesus, but that before the birth there was only God and a pre-existent Christ, who is called either Logos or Holy Spirit. There is, however, no solid evidence that Ignatius either in intention or in words made any such identification either in his letter to the Smyrnaeans (inscr.) or in that to the Magnesians (13.1,2). On the contrary. when Ignatius writes that ‘our God, Jesus Christ, was born of Mary . . . and of the Holy Spirit’ (Eph. 18.2), he seems to indicate that before this birth both ‘our God Jesus Christ’ and the Holy Spirit pre-existed distinctly and that thus there was a Trinity before His birth."

I can do this for Polycarp, St. Clement of Rome (Pope circa 90 ad and walked with some of the Apostles) etc. For the First Christians, the Trinity was not some academic construct, but rather a reality, something they knew and felt.

Imagine the hubris it takes to think that just because somebody disagrees with you, it means they have hubris.

I think you are confusing "know" with "have been propagandized without critical thinking". Case in point, your failure to read compare your doctrine to what Ignatius wrote in his "most famous statement":

The Evangelists, too, when they declared that the one Father was the only true God, did not omit what concerned our Lord, but wrote: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." And concerning the incarnation: "The Word," says, "became flesh, and dwelt among us." And again: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." And those very apostles, who said "that there is one God," said also that "there is one Mediator between God and men." Nor were they ashamed of the incarnation and the passion. For what says "The man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself" for the life and salvation of the world. Whosoever, therefore, declares that there is but one God, only so as to take away the divinity of Christ, is a devil, and an enemy of all righteousness. He also that confesseth Christ, yet not as the Son of the Maker of the world, but of some other unknown being, different from Him whom the law and the prophets have proclaimed, this man is an instrument of the devil. And he that rejects the incarnation, and is ashamed of the cross for which I am in bonds, this man is antichrist. Moreover, he who affirms Christ to be a mere man is accursed, according to the prophet, since he puts not his trust in God, but in man. (To the Antiochians, IV-V).

Let's recap what Ignatius actually said in his "most famous statement":
-He viewed the one true God as the Father, just like Jesus and completely unlike trinitarians
-He viewed the Father as greater than Jesus, just like Jesus and completely unlike trinitarians.
-He viewed Christ as the son of the maker, not the maker, again completely unlike trinitiarians.
-He viewed Christ as a man, mediating between the one God and man, completely unlike trinitiarians.
-And the Holy spirit didn't rate a mention.

If this is his "most famous statement" whereby he is demonstrated to believe in the doctrine of the trinity, it is lacking connection to the doctrine of the trinity. In multiple places it directly contradicts it. He knew nothing of this trinity doctrine of yours. He didn't affirm any part of it.


In addition, this "most famous statement" comes from on of the "spurious epistles" that are believed to be a forgery by pretty much everybody. As evidences go, may I ask that you do a little more homework before asking me to do it for you.  (It would also be helpful if you didn't do this sort of thing as evidence that you know something and saying I am full of hubris).


I'm really not sure what to do with this one, as this is just poor analysis on a multitude of levels.




First, the God Irenaeus describes is not tri-une in nature. What he actually said is only one of the three is "God":
-God the Father is uncreated, the one god, the creator of the universe.  
-Jesus is not the one god, not the creator, not uncreated. He's the son of God.
-The holy spirit isn't the one God, isn't the creator, and isn't uncreated either.

Your supposed "evidence" is lacking from the substance from the words of Ireneus. What Irenaus actually did is contradict the doctrine of the trinity a multitude of times.


And lastly, nobody denies what Jesus has a role, and the holy spirit has a role, and that God has a role. Simply asserting these three exist and have a role isn't actually addressing anybody's position, but rather some sort of strawman.



The real upshot of this discussion is that you really haven't thought about anything, but like to post slabs of stuff you haven't read, don't understand, and haven't looked into what may be problematic about it (and think those that don't do likewise have hubris).

That LITERALLY is how you identify the Trinity. I mean that. At its most basic formula, you have to have The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The first epistle I quoted was not a "spurious" one. The Epistle to the Magnesians is a Middle Rescension. You also realize that even in the "spurious" ones, like the Anitiochan, the changes do not alter the doctrines in any significant way:
"The Anglican J.B. Lightfoot, no great fan of Catholic (whom he terms “Romanists”) nevertheless concedes that “throughout the thirteen letters the same doctrines are maintained, the same heresies assailed, and the same theological terms employed. In this respect no difference can be traced between the two sets of epistles.” So while there may have been theological reasons (responding to the Apollinarian or Arian heresies) for the forgery of the additional 6 letters, nothing theological (between Catholics and Protestants) turns on these spurious letters. Anything that Protestants would object to in the six false letters is also found in the seven genuine letters."

"In other words, the fact that the Middle Recension is authentic should give Protestants serious pause, since it disproves many Protestant theories about the nature of the early Church."

Everything else you said, is outright false. Now, I know from experience that it is more important that you have your own Gospel rather than accept Christ's Gospel. That's why your beliefs do not constitute, according to the BASIC definition, Christianity.

Trinity: Nope
Jesus Divine on Earth: Nope

etc.

For some reason though, it seems the Early Church Fathers' acceptance of the Trinity is a very sticky point for you. That's twice now you have stated the provided Church Fathers didn't believe in the Trinity, when a basic search reveals it is universally understood that they did.

So, let's look at some more.

St. Ignatius of Antioch: The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

Caution with False Doctrines
Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace. For the divinest prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased Him that sent Him.
What does "manifest" mean, and more importantly, doesn't the bolded part about Christ being His Word sound familiar? Where have we heard this before: John 1:1 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
And for anyone reading, I will now start posting links to the original documents because some of the "quotes" he is providing do not come from the sources he attributing them to. Now you all can judge for yourselves.
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (NOT Spurious)

The Spurious Epistle to the Antiochians: This is the one you attributed to me for some reason, though I only quoted one part. This is your own quote, and you have damned your argument by not reading/comprehending it:

Chapter 4 Continuation:
"The Evangelists, too, when they declared that the one Father was the only true God, did not omit what concerned our Lord, but wrote: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." And concerning the incarnation: "The Word," says, "became flesh, and dwelt among us." And again: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." And those very apostles, who said "that there is one God," said also that "there is one Mediator between God and men." Nor were they ashamed of the incarnation and the passion. For what says "The man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself" for the life and salvation of the world. Whosoever, therefore, declares that there is but one God, only so as to take away the divinity of Christ, is a devil, and an enemy of all righteousness. He also that confesseth Christ, yet not as the Son of the Maker of the world, but of some other unknown being, different from Him whom the law and the prophets have proclaimed, this man is an instrument of the devil. And he that rejects the incarnation, and is ashamed of the cross for which I am in bonds, this man is antichrist. Moreover, he who affirms Christ to be a mere man is accursed, according to the prophet, since he puts not his trust in God, but in man."
Spurious Epistle to the Antiochians

It literally DOES NOT get any clearer than that. Notice how, even if this part of the letter WAS spurious, it doesn't deviate from the doctrines in his letter to the Magnesians? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Now, is this considered a "spurious" Epistle. Most scholars say yes, that most likely PARTS of it are, and I normally would not use something like this. However, they were accepted as being from Ignatius for so long, by so many NON-Catholic theologians, because other than the discrepancies in writing styles, the content is completely consistent with his other authentic works:
"The Anglican J.B. Lightfoot, no great fan of Catholic (whom he terms “Romanists”) nevertheless concedes that “throughout the thirteen letters the same doctrines are maintained, the same heresies assailed, and the same theological terms employed. In this respect no difference can be traced between the two sets of epistles.” So while there may have been theological reasons (responding to the Apollinarian or Arian heresies) for the forgery of the additional 6 letters, nothing theological (between Catholics and Protestants) turns on these spurious letters. Anything that Protestants would object to in the six false letters is also found in the seven genuine letters."
How Do We Know Ignatius’ Letters are Genuine?

The issue is that you have a poor grasp of the doctrine of the Trinity, and of the language/terms of the Trinity. You're trying to argue something above your pay grade, and out of emotion.

And on and on with Ignatius of Antioch. But let's get back to St. Irenaeus since you likewise gave false information on him.

IRENAEUS [A.D. 120–202]

"Irenaeus, a contemporary of Justin Martyr, is another key leader in early Trinitarian development. In Against Heresies he sets forth a theological construction of the Trinity that is very similar to the Trinitarian formula articulated two hundred years later at Nicaea, with the same order of precedence from the Father to the Son to the Spirit."
Baptist Seminary site

"The Church . . . believes in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth . . . and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in one Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets . . . the Church, having received this preaching and this faith . . . carefully preserves it. She also believes these points just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth."
Full Document of Against Heresies (Book I, Chapter 10)

"Continuing on this theme of “the Creator,” Irenaeus states that God is the ultimate cause of creation by using the illustration that when a tree is cut down, it is not the axe which receives the credit, but the man. However, he goes on to clarify that:

He Himself in Himself, after a fashion which we can neither describe nor conceive, predestinating all things, formed them as He pleased . . . while He formed all things that were made by His Word. . . . For this is a peculiarity of the pre-eminence of God, not to stand in need of other instruments for the creation of those things which are summoned into existence. His Word is both suitable and sufficient for the formation of all things.

Here he references the “Word” which most likely refers to Christ, whom he later describes as “the Son of God, the Only-begotten, who is also the Word of the Father.” He expounds on this idea by saying:

"This is Christ, the Son of the living God. For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word."

"Christ being called God here has significance when Irenaeus states that “unless the Word of God dwell with, and the Spirit of the Father be in you . . . ye cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” Between these two statements he views Christ as being in essence God, but also at the same time the Word of God. This seems to indicate that he views Christ in two different relational realms as He is on the same plane as God the Father, and yet still proceeds from the Father as does the Spirit."

That is the Trinity, which you cannot seem to comprehend.

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity". The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God." In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary." "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son." They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds." The divine Unity is Triune.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance." Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship." "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."

How about we leave that up to others to decide who is guilty of this?


Frankly, the way you are dissecting quotes, and even by looking at the quotes you provide, it is plainly evident that the reason you are not seeing the evidence of the Trinity, is because you do not know what it is, its composition, the relation of those parts, and the terminology used. You are fighting against shadows.

You appear to get tripped up in the notion that:
253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity". The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God." In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."

It's a VERY complicated doctrine, and I am not faulting you for the confusion, but it would serve you better if you actually KNEW what you were arguing against before setting out to disprove it.

Please be respectful ~ medicmandan

How about you not post forgeries and claim them to be the "most famous statement" and that you "know" things (immediately after saying I'm full of hubris).

(we can get along smashingly if you actually read things and comprehend them before posting them)



Doctrines aren't to be disproved. Doctrines are to be proved. It is a very complicated doctrine that states what God is, and is necessary for salvation. As such it should be clear, well laid out in the apostolic writings and sermons, with clear and unmistakable foundations that are well explained in the Old Testament and not have to be "proven". Your entire method of reasoning fails to ascribe the importance to the doctrine that it claims. Of the two of us, I am the one treating it with the importance that it claims to have.

That's nice.

Now please address how you are wrong with both Ignatius and Irenaeus, before we move on to other Early Fathers.

1.   If the book of Enoch is not canonical, why is it referred to in the Bible?

2.   There seem to be way more species of animals, birds, insects, etc., than could possibly have fit on the ark.

3.   Why does one passage say Judas hanged himself, and another say he fell and his guts burst open?

4.   Where did Cain and Abel's wives come from?

5.   Are the two witnesses in Revelation Enoch and Elijah, since they never died physically, and the Bible says it is appointed unto man "once to die?"

The book of the Giants, found in the dead sea scrolls, talks more about this.  Mind you, if we read the oldest translation of Genesis from the LXX it documents the giant Goliath as being about 7 feet tall rather than 9 feet as found in the later masoretic text.

In the book of the giants, group of angels, watching the sin of men, decided THEY wanted to go in, get with the ladies, have kids, and rule the world.  They do so, and teach pharmacea (root cutting magic) to the women, and other things to their sons.  Their sons are big and full of power, and rise up to enslave, kill, and dominate the world.  The angels come to be worshiped as gods.

In this you find the Annunaki of the Sumerians, and the gods if the India, etc.

Eventually God decides to imprison most of those angels, and reset the world, though some of the evil spirits are left at the request of satan (referred to as the prince of hostility) so he can keep messing with people as he does with Job, and as he asks to do with Peter, the same sort of spirits as the prince of Persia that the angel has to get through to respond to Daniel's Prayer.

In Jubilees (also at qumran) we read that people in what would become Sumeria found ancient tablets with religion from before the flood and used it to reestablish false religion, astrology, and magic in what would become Babylon

#1.  I rarely see good answers for this.  In the past, the argument was that the copies we had probably weren't legit and had been made up in latter centuries, the real versions lost.  That argument has to change a bit now that parts of Enoch were found at Qumran.  The  pre-Christian Jews did not include it in the Septuagint, and that's a fair argument that it doesn't belong in the same canon, but it is clear it was read and quoted in the time of Jesus, so at least the parts that we find consistent with the discoveries at Qumran bare examination.  

The book itself shifts through 3 major themes and you have to split it up and parse to get the three chunks comprehensible.  One is the story of the fallen angels and the destruction of their works, one is of Enoch's tour of heaven, and that one is hard to understand and reconcile with our earthly perspective (store houses of snow, etc) and that tends to undermine trust in the work (although some make an interesting claim the work describes Enoch being shown a black hole).  Then there are the retelling of past and future history such as the Animal Apocalypse.

The biggest take away I have us that while the book may be useful for context of the perceived history and context for the people of Israel, there is nothing in it that us necessary beyond what is already in the canon to understand God, his purpose and plan, and our part in coming to reconciliation to him through obedience to him via faithfulness to the commands he issued in the flesh through his life and sacrifice as Jesus (Not "avatar" of God, but God himself).   It's an interesting book that can help understanding, but can also be a distraction.

#5.  That's how I read it.

All being referred to means is that you referred to something, and not an iota more or less.

Hayek can refer to marx without thinking marx is true, too.

And yet you have used this argument as evidence that the Deuterocanonical books ARE NOT biblical because they do not appear in the citations (are referred to) of the NT books.

How is it that it works as evidence for you, but not for the poster who has a question about Enoch?

For me, it is quite simple. The Book of Enoch is not canonical because the Church that created, compiled, and promulgated the Bible and its canon, and the only authority God charged with having authority, says it is not canonical. Now, you can disagree on whether it has authority, but you can't disagree that from a position of logic, this is the only position that doesn't result in an infinite regression on the question of a proto-canonical legitimacy through scripture tests scripture, Holy Spirit inspiration etc.

It's also reasonable to point out that it's not canon since the Jews didn't include it in the Septuagint.