The Doctrine of the Trinity

SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE TRINITY
One God
- Deuteronomy 6:4
- Isaiah 43:10

And yet...

The Father is God
- Psalm 89:26
- John 20:17

The Son is God
- Isaiah 9:6
- John 1:1-3, 14

The Holy Spirit is God
- Genesis 1;2
- Acts 5:3-5

But they are not one person. but three distinct persons indicated by roles played
+ The Father is the main source and creator
Psalms 89:26
Romans 1:25
+ The Son is the Redeemer, Savio, & King
Isaiah 44:6
John 3:16-17
Philippiansv 2:6-11
+ The Holy Spirit is the counsellor and source of eternal life
Exodus 31:3
John 4:10-14, 16:7-14
Romans 8:11

Direct Old Testament References
- Genesis 1:2, 26, 18:1-3,
- *Isaiah 48:16-17

16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
17 Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.
- Isaiah 48:16-17

Direct New Testament References
- *Matthew 3:16, 28:19,
- 2 Corinthians 13:14

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
- Matthew 28:19

Athanasian Creed (A.D. 500)
This creed is attributed to Athanasius, the fourth century bishop of Alexandria who was the strongest defender of the doctrines of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. It defines the doctrines of the Trinity and the nature of Christ in very concise language.

Please note that the term "catholic" with the lower case 'c' is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church, but is a reference to the universal Christian faith, since that is how the term was originally used.
______________________

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.

For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

And in the Trinity none

DISCLAIMER: I did not draw the diagram but only added color for emphasis. Also, this meme is a Repost.

Image Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=free+trinity+diagram&safe=active&rlz=1C1WPZB_enUS733US733&sxsrf=ACYBGNSk4aCWzeLrhyQt8ywJX4bZAwv_GQ:1572245264393&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOj--Drr7lAhVYqJ4KHS4LCdQQ_AUIEigB&biw=1350&bih=612#imgrc=l7nwTYQSqO5KCM:

Also, the Athanasian Creed and information about it is copied from Carm.org

https://carm.org/athanasian-creed-500-ad.

You believe the bible, correct?

Nope, I'm not letting you go on this question.

Do you believe that the Bible is inerrant and inspired; that it is the word of God, therefore you accept and believe it?

You believe it or you don't, Timber. Is it the word of God or not?

Then what you believe is based nothng more than your opinion. Therefore, you cannot say with a surety which is right and what is wrong, now can you?

You can say that your beliefs are based on thorough research, but then that's no different than other philosophical thinkers. Notice that despite their maticulous work of discovery made different conclusions on what is.

Plato believes in a heliocentric universe as Aristotle, geocentic; Yogis believed that the world is immatterial, as Naturalists believed that the universe evolved. Modernists believe in facts and research, while post-Modernists believed that truth is relative.

None of them didn't simply snort or smoke "the good stuff" to create their worldview, no... they took their time and spent their energy in thought and finding out what is true and what isn't.

So what is the foundation for your worldview?

I'm going to address the following, and then I'll get to the rest later

"As I said...from my very first response...what you believe and what I believe are so radically different that any attempt to explain would fall on deaf ears, for now, and that has proven to be true."

Timber, that tells me nothing of specifics

Your radically different beliefs could mean that you're a:

1. Total Pagan who rejects the Trinity and the Bible
2. A complete Atheist who also rejects the Trinity and the Bible
3. A full-on Post-Modernist who disbelieves the Trinity and the Bible

That is because

A) You've never said anything about the kind of deity, spirits, or any transendent reality you may or may not believe in,
B) Your complete rejection or ignorance of the existence of God if you're either one or both
C) Or the the fact that there's no truth at all... except of what you've said before. What you and I believe, aerre worthless.

Do you really expect me to know everything you believed in, or what you know are facts, or what is from your very short sentence?

Timber1972?

I didn't say you didn't study the bible at length, nor did I rejected "the truth" outright (Well, attempting to declare victory already? "Welp - I trield but you just wouldn't listen so..."); I've said it's not a fair judgment on your part IF.... you didn't study the bible.

And the reason why I had you explain more your position is to find out what you really believe. BECAUSE you wouldn't answer the question directly. Nothing at all to do with how I wanted you to asnwer so that I can score somehow, for all you've given is an ambigous statement that my belief in the bible is "Biblioltary".

You could have just told me yes and no, the Bible has merits, it has spiritual wisdom, but it is not perfect nor is it completely the word of God.. but you did not.

And right after, you launched into your question to prove my faith in scripture wrong.

At my insistance, it is only then... you've began to finally explain your position.

"Those are contradictions. Again: my study of the Bible is completely and utterly irrelevant. I may have never picked one up in my life. I may be a biblical scholar beyond compare, with 40 years of study under my belt. All totally irrelevant. All that matters is whether or not what I've said is true. You're dissembling."

Since you do not get my point on, let me tell you another reason why it is relevant. It is called the Bandwagon Fallacy. Some people reject an idea not because they've done their research, but because someone else told them... or... the idea of denying that notion is popular or it is the general opinion, So one joined the bandwagon

I understand your point, but for all I know, you could have simply rejected the Bible because it is based only on what you've heard.

I also understand that it is the argument that matters, not the person. I have no intention to commit Ad Hominem Circunstantial. The reason for my raising that issue is that I often encounter those who disbelieved the bibe but the same have not read it. They often used Bible contradictions to prove their point but merely looking at the context betays their ignorance. They are the ones who've also oftne claimed the old ""

but what you've said earlier:

"Your question fails, because it assumes that the Bible...whatever version you believe in (note words used there)...is, itself, a single "unit", and that within that "unit"...despite multiple changes over millenia about what is, and what is not, "canonical" (itself a huge red flag)...is perfect "inerrancy."

Because of that I admittedly suspected you as the same as others which is why like all the others I've met. It even appeared to me as a hyperbolic claim.

With that, I will cease for now.

"I'm not going to say "yes and no, the Bible has merits, it has spiritual wisdom, but it is not perfect nor is it completely the word of God" because none of those things is relevant, and all of those things are man's wisdom, which is worthless. Those are *your* words, not mine. You look to the Bible for the answers, rather than the One who wrote It. That is idolatry."

It's going to be tough for me to understand you. I wanted to know how much you believed in the scripture and by doing so could ascertain what person I'm talking to, but apparantly you just don't want me to know. If I ask you if you believed in God I wonder if that too you'll claim as irrelevant.

I don't think you've read the Bible long enough to know that to be true. If you've read it from cover to cover.

But suppose you did and that you're right, why come to me at all if truth is relative or no truth at all? To give your opinon when you know it is just... as worthless?

Did you come here just to harass me because you're bored?

No Timber, your questions came after mine. It was only when I pressed you on it di you begin to explain your view on the Bible.

And yes, it does matter what you do, because if I criticised the Harry Potter series because I've heard it was a terrible book then that wouldn't really be a good judgment on my part now would it?

So why would you criticise something, that you've never read or studied at length yourself?

Sorry, it didn't include "IF" on my quesiton to you.