The Trinity

1.Con is right about the diverse view on the Trinity. To thoroughly evince his point, here's the two views on the Trinity: NICEAN TRINITY This is the doctrine of the Trinity as taught by the Apostles and handed down onto the pre-nicene church fathers ( i.e. sub-apostolic church leaders).It is codified in the Nicene Creed ( 4th Century). * Note that the content of the Nicene Creed is the same faith of the first, second and third century Christianity and hence, the Trinity did not come into existence on the 4th century but rather, as history tells us, the Nicene Creed is a reaction against the heresy of Arius. ATHANASIAN TRINITY This is the doctrine of the Trinity of the post-nicene church fathers which over simplify the Biblical concept of the said doctrine.It is systematized in the Athanasian Creed ( 5th Century). Notice the difference between these two: Nicene Creed We believe in one God, the Father and in one Lord, Jesus Christ. *Note that this is a complete allusion from 1 Corinthians 8:6. Athanasian Creed The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God but they are not three gods but one God *Note that this is not written in the Scriptures. Although both expresses the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, the former evinces it scripturally because it directly alludes the scripture verbatim while the latter, interpretatively because it expresses the doctrine in a systematic theology. Conclusion: Con misunderstood the variance in systematic Christian theology that is why he came up with a bizzare idea that the Trinity wasn't taught in the 1st Century Christendom. Hence, the burden of proof is on Con. 2. Con said that Jesus never claimed to be God. Con's argument holds no water because in the New Testament, we have an explicit record from the gospel of John that Jesus claimed to be God: John 10:30-33 (NIV) 30 I and the Father are one.” 31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” Conclusion: Con's arguement that Jesus never claimed to be God is null and void. 3. Con said that Jesus wasn't a Christian but rather, he's a Jew who oberves Judaism. I totally agree with the former because Jesus wasn't a follower of himself but rather, we human creatures must "follow Christ" (Luke 18:22) and I also totally agree with the latter, because Jesus was indeed " born of a woman, born under the law" based on Galatians 4:4.of the Trinity: 4. Con said that Jesus submits and prays to God as his Father and this don't evince that he is of the Trinity. Con has mistakently thought that the Son is equal to the Father in all things. The Christian Bible never claims so. There is a sense in which Jesus is equal to the Father while there's a sense in which they are not. Trinitarian Theology teaches this: Authority ( functional subordination)The Father has authority over his own Son.It doesn't lessen his deity at all. Both are still God by nature.Consider this:President Barack Obama has authority over American people. Both are of same nature: human.Nature ( ontological equality)The Father begot the Son eternally ( Hebrews 1:2-7). The anthropomorphism conveys that they are of same nature. Consider this: My Dad is human by nature. I am his son. I am human by nature. ( Simple scientific reality of Genetics).4. Con assumes that to be the Son of God means you are not God. Logically, Con's argument fails as we shall see:The son of a human is human. The offspring of an animal is an animal.The Son of God is God.This does not mean that God functions as a progeny in the sense humans do. God does not need sex nor a consort to have an offspring. According to the Christian Scriptures, God always has a Son and this Son of him is his very Wisdom ( Proverbs 8:22-30, 1 Corinthians 1:24-25).5. Con is unaware that Jeuss did speak of the Trinity: Matthew 28:19 (NIV) 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,* Note that the name (Hebrew: Ha Shem) of God is YHWH. The Trinity wasn't taught in the Sciptures systematically but experientially: For through him ( the Son) we both have access to the Father by one Spirit ( Ephesians 2:18 NIV). 1 Corinthians 12:4-9 (NIV) 4There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work. 7Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 1 Peter 1:2 (NIV) 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:Grace and peace be yours in abundance. And I ( the Son) will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever ( John 14:16 NIV)But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you ( John 14:26 NIV).6. Both Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:1-2 ( First century reliable documents) show that First Century Christians worships God on the first day of the Week (i.e. Sunday). It's not a rest day but rather, the day where Christians worship. There is totally no evidence that these first century Christians changed the Jewish Sabbath into a Sunday Sabbath.The burden of proof rests on Con.