Nr. 61: You like if Jimmy Swaggart very well? He believes in the Trinity and not live the way he should and should, or do I wrong?

Nr. 61:

You like if Jimmy Swaggart very well? He believes in the Trinity and not live the way he should and should, or do I wrong?

Answer:

Firstly. Brother Jimmy Swaggart has made up his sin both to God and people as far as I know. Secondly, as has his wife forgave him, which is the most important and they have been married over 50 years. The family and the church has it too.
When you apply the Trinity so take these things time. I began to study specifically the Trinity in 1985 and it was not until 2009 that I was mature and dare to go out against the Trinity. Such things take time and it actually requires a comprehensive study, a clear understanding and we need to mature.
But as said: There are two persons in the Godhead, the Father and the Son, and they have a common spirit that is holy to the self. Therefore the Holy Spirit that title!

Now you might ask: 'If the Trinity is not biblical, what was it then that it became one of Christianity's teachings? "Many believe that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea (Nicea) in 325 AD
However, it is not entirely correct. The Council of Nicaea claimed that Christ was of the same substance or essence as God, which formed the basis for the later Trinitarian theology. However, this Council adopted not the Trinity, for it was not said anything about the Holy Spirit as the third person of a triune deity.

Constantine's role in Nikaia
At the time when the notion that Jesus is God, was under development, met strong opposition from biblical reasons. To try to settle the conflict called the Roman Emperor Constantine all bishops to Nicaea. There was no more than 318 - a fraction of the total - who met up.
Constantine was not a Christian. He probably went over to "Christianity" later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay on his deathbed. In a book about church history says Henry Chadwick, "Constantine worshiped like his dad the Unconquered Sun;. . . his conversion should not be interpreted as an inner experience of grace. . . It was a military question. He never got a clear understanding of Christian doctrine, but he was confident that the Christian God could give victory in war. "- The Early Church.
What role did this unbaptized emperor at the council of Nicaea? Encyclopædia Britannica relates: "Constantine himself was chairman, led an active discussion and suggested personal. . . the crucial formula regarding Christ's relation to God in the creed that was prepared by the Council: 'consubstantial with the Father'. . . In fear of the emperor signed the bishops, with only two exceptions, creed, and many of them did much against his wishes. "
Constantine's role was therefore essential. After two months of fierce religious debates took this pagan politician in and struck a decision in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Definitely not because of any Biblical conviction. "Constantine was not really any understanding of the questions that were asked in Greek theology," says a book about the Christian taught history. (A Short History of Christian Doctrine) What he understood was that the divisions in the religious area was a threat to his kingdom, and he wanted to strengthen his kingdom.
However, there was not any of the bishops in Nicaea which promoted the idea of ​​a Trinity. They only took a position on Jesus' nature, not to the Holy Spirit's role. If the doctrine of a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should not they have argued that on this occasion?

The further development
After meeting in Nicaea continued debate on this subject for decades. They believed that Jesus was equal with God, was actually taken back into favor for a time. But later, Emperor Theodosius against them. He decided that the creed of the council of Nicaea was to be the norm in his kingdom, and convened a synod in Constantinople in 381 AD for formula preparation.
At this synod is there a consensus to equate the holy spirit of God and Christ. For the first time in Christendom's Trinity to come into focus.
But even after the council of Constantinople was the Trinity generally accepted. Many opposed it and thus vulnerable to violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was firmly articulated in the creeds. The Encyclopedia Americana says: "The final design of the Trinity took place in the West, in medieval scholasticism, when they tried to give an explanation with the help of philosophy and psychology concepts."

The Athanasian Creed
Trinity doctrine was more fully defined in the Athanasian creed. Athanasius was one of the clerics who supported Constantine at Nicaea. Profession of faith that bears his name, declares: "We worship one God in Trinity. . . So the Father is God, the Son of God, the Holy Spirit of God, and yet not three Gods but one God. "
Well-informed religious historians agree, however, that it was Athanasius who drawn up this creed. A reference book says: "Profession of Faith was unknown to the Eastern Church until the 12th century. Since the 17th century, historians have generally been agreed that the Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius (died 373), but probably was written in southern France in the fifth century. . . . Profession of faith seems to have had the greatest influence in southern France and Spain in the sixth and the seventh century. It was used in the liturgy of the church in Germany in the ninth century and later in Rome. "- The New Encyclopædia Britannica.
There were thus several hundred years from the time of Christ and the Trinity won widespread acclaim in the Christian world. What was the guideline for the decisions that were eventually adopted? Was it the Word of God, or was it clerical and political considerations? Professor EW Hopkins replied: "The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics." - Origin and Evolution of Religion.
Apostasy foretold
Treenighetslærens history harmonizes with what Jesus and his apostles foretold would happen after their time. They said it was to be an apostasy, a deviation from the true worship, and that the situation would continue until Christ's return, when true worship would be restored before God's day, and this system of things were destroyed.
Having discussed this 'day', said the Apostle Paul: "First, the rebellion occurs and the lawless one will appear." (2 Thessalonians 2: 3, 7) Later, he predicted: "When I pulled away, the ravenous wolves need in with you, and they will not spare the flock. And among yourselves men will rise up and the danger of heresy in order to draw disciples with him. "(Acts 20: 29, 30) and others by disciples of Jesus also wrote of this apostasy and its 'lawless' priestly class. - See, for example 2 Peter 2: 1, 1 John 4: 1-3; Jude 3, 4
Paul also wrote: "There will come a time when people can no longer endure sound doctrine, but as they see fit, they take themselves teachers, for they will have that itch in your ear. They will turn their ears from the truth and stick to myths. "- 2 Timothy 4: 3, 4
Jesus explained what was behind this falling away from true worship. He said that he had sown good seed, but the enemy, Satan, would the weeds in the field. At the same time that the wheat began to shoot up, then came the weeds appear. One might therefore expect that a deviation from true Christianity would be applicable until harvest time, when Christ was to resolve the situation. (Matthew 13: 24-43) A reference book says: "Trinity Doctrine in the fourth century was no accurate reflection of the early Christian teachings about God's nature: it was on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." (The Encyclopedia Americana) How did the this discrepancy? - 1 Timothy 1: 6

The doctrine originated
In the ancient world, dating back to Babylon, it was customary to worship the pagan gods in groups of three triads. Adoration of the triads were also prevalent in Egypt, Greece and Rome when Christ was on earth, and in the centuries before and after his time. After the death of the apostles began such pagan beliefs to enter into Christianity.
The historian Will Durant said: "Christianity is not destroying paganism, it was assumed it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity. "And in his book on Egyptian religion maintains Siegfried Morenz:" Trinity was a main occupation of Egyptian theologians. . . Three gods come together and treated as a single being and will be prosecuted in the singular. In this regard, the Egyptian theology spiritual content directly related to Christian theology. "- Egyptian Religion.
Church men in Alexandria in Egypt in the late third and early fourth century, including Athanasius, bore clear signs of this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence grew, so Morenz considers "Alexandrian theology as the link between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity."
In the preface to Edward Gibbons works about the history of Christianity, we read: "If paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by paganism. The first Christians unadulterated doctrine of the deity. . . was the Roman church changed to the incomprehensible dogma of the Trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as something worth believing. "- History of Christianity.
A work of religious knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity "is a corruption borrowed from the pagan religions and grafted into the Christian faith." (A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge) and a book on paganism and Christianity says that treenighetslærens' origin is entirely pagan. " - The Paganism in Our Christianity.
That is why James Hastings wrote: "In Indian religion, we meet as the trinitarian group of Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu, and in Egyptian religion, the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis and Horus. . . It is not only in historical religions that we find that God is seen as a trinity. We remember especially the nyplatonske view of the highest or last and fundamental reality, "as is" triadic represented. " (Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics) What does the Greek philosopher Plato in the Trinity to do?

Platonism
Plato lived, for what you believe, from 428 to 347 BC He maintained no Trinity in the form it has today, but his philosophy paved the way for this doctrine. Later was the philosophical movement that had triadic views, and these were influenced by Plato's ideas about God and nature.
A French encyclopedia says this about Plato's influence: "The Platonic trinity, which was only a rearranging of older trinities that came from earlier peoples, appears to be the rational, philosophical attributes of the Trinity that was the origin of the three hypostases or divine people that the Christian churches teach about. . . . This Greek philosopher's conception of the divine Trinity. . . one can find in all the ancient [pagan] religions. "- Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel.
Another reference work shows the influence that Greek philosophy was: "The doctrine of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who. . . was strongly influenced, directly or indirectly, of the Platonic philosophy. . . There can be no denying that the errors and corruptions caught the attention of the church from this hold. "- The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.
A book about the church in the first three centuries, said: "Trinity doctrine was designed gradually and at a relatively late stage. . . . they arise from a source that has nothing with the Jewish and Christian scriptures to do;. . . it evolved and was instilled in the Christianity of the church fathers who made use of Plato's principles. "- The Church of the First Three Centuries.
By the end of the third century, "Christianity" and the new Platonic philosophical views were inseparable. As Adolf Harnack points out in his book on the history of dogma, the church's teachings "solid roots in rock collapse of [the pagan Greek thinking detection] soil. Thus, it was a mystery to the vast majority of Christians. " - Outlines of the History of Dogma.
The church claimed that its new doctrines were based on the Bible. But Harnack says: "In reality it legitimized the Hellenic speculation in their midst, the superstitious views and customs from the pagan mysteriedyrkelse."
Professor Andrews Norton said this about the Trinity: "We can follow this teaching history backwards in time and discovers that it has originated, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy. . . Trinity doctrine is a doctrine derived from Christ and his apostles, but a fiction derived from the later Platonists school. "- A Statement of Reasons.
The apostasy that was foretold by Jesus and his apostles, then struck out in full flower in the fourth century after Christ. The design of the Trinity was just one evidence of this. The apostate churches also began to accept other pagan ideas, such as the doctrine of a burning hell, and the belief in an immortal soul, and they began also with idolatry. Christendom had spiritually gone into the foretold dark ages, dominated by a growing priest class, "The Lawless". - 2 Thessalonians 2: 3, 7

Why not preaching God's prophets on a trinity?
Why had none of the prophets of God, over a period of several thousand years, taught his people about the Trinity? Should not at least Jesus have used his powers as the Great Teacher to prepare Trinity for his disciples? Would God have inspired hundreds of pages of Scripture without giving teaching about the Trinity if it were the "central doctrine" of the Christian faith?
Can it be expected that the Christians believe that God, centuries after Christ's time and after he had inspired the write-down of the Bible, would support the formulation of a doctrine which had been unknown to his servants for thousands of years, a teaching that is 'unfathomable mystery' as is 'beyond human comprehension, "a doctrine that had a pagan background, and as' largely a matter of church policy.
Mark. 13: 32: "The day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven nor the Son, but only the Father." (This would obviously not have been the case if Father, Son and Holy Spirit were equal and amounted to one deity. And if it were true that the Son, as some believe, did not know the day or hour because of his human nature, we may ask: Why did not the Holy Spirit the day or hour?)

Matt. 20: 20-23: "The mother of Zebedee's sons. . . answered [Jesus]: ​​'Say that these my two sons may sit by your side in your kingdom, the one on the right and the other on the left side.' But Jesus said. . . 'My cup you shall drink, but who will sit at my right or left is not mine to decide. There, they must sit as my Father has given to it. '"(Would not this have been a strange answer if Jesus was God, as is claimed? Some supporters of the Trinity states that Jesus here just black out from their" human nature " . But this is actually a logical explanation, when they also say that Jesus was both God and man, not just one or the other? Does not Matthew 20: 23 rather that the Son is not equal with the Father and the Father has reserved the right to certain privileges ?)

Matt. 12: 31, 32, "every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, neither in this world or in the future. "(If the Holy Spirit was a person and it was God, would this passage have meant that it somehow was greater than the Son. This would have been contrary to the doctrine of the Trinity. What Jesus said, shows rather that the Father as "Spirit" belonged, is greater than Jesus, the Son of Man.)

Joh. 14: 28: "[Jesus said] If you loved me, you were happy that I go to the Father, for he is bigger than I am."

1. Cor. 11: 3: "I want you to know that Christ is every man's head, the husband is the head and the head of Christ is God." (It is therefore clear that Christ is not God and that God is greater than Christ. We should note that this was written around the year 55 CE, about 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. The truth here is argued, is thus the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.)

1. Cor. 15: 27, 28, "'Everything he [God] under his [Jesus'] feet. When it says it all, it is clear that God himself is exempt from this. For he is the one who put all things under him. And then, when everything is subject to him shall the Son also himself submit to God who put all things under him, and God may be all in all. "

Both the Hebrew word Sjaddai and the Greek word Pantocrator is translated as 'Almighty'. Because the language is both of those words repeatedly used of Jehovah, the Father. (2 Mos. 6: 3; Rev. 19: 6) None of the terms is ever used of the Son or the Holy Spirit.

The Bible teaches that each of them is said to be a part of the Trinity, is God?

Jesus said in prayer: "Father,. . . this is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God, and him you sent forth, Jesus Christ. "(John 17: 1-3, highlighted by us) (You use the phrase" the only true God "of the Father . He can not be "the only true God" if the other two are God in the same degree as he, can he? If another is referred to as a "god", he must either be a false god or simply a reflection of the true God.)

1. Cor. 8: 5, 6: "There is NOK-called gods in heaven or on earth, it's many 'gods' and many 'lords'. But for us there is only one God, the Father. By him are all things, and we are made to him. And for us it is only one Lord, Jesus Christ. Through him all things, and we live through him. "(Here referred to as the Father of the Christians 'one God', and it is shown that he is of a different rank than Jesus Christ.)

1. Pet. 1: 3, LB: "Blessed be the Lord Jesus Christ, God and Father" (the Bible calls the Father repeatedly that Jesus Christ "God", even after Jesus ascended to heaven. In John 20: 17 Jesus spoke of himself as the Father "My God," and this was after his resurrection. Later, when he was in heaven, he used the same phrase again, as it is written in Revelation 3: 12 But there is nowhere in the Bible that the Father reviews Son " my God, "and neither the Father or the Son refers to the Holy Spirit as" my God ".)
Father = God
Son = Jesus
The Holy Spirit = God's active force

http://jsm.org/