The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitarian
 

AFF wouldn't let me post the whole video title as the title for this discussion, but the whole title is:

The Early Church was Absolutely, Unequivocally NOT Trinitarian.

I've heard a few of Bro Ken Raggio's studies before. He's been to my home church two or three different times, but it's been a couple years back since we've last had him done for a visit.

Are any of you familiar with his teachings? Your thoughts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHV3...MHYYVYGpxMW9LT

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

Even trinitarians sometimes admit the early church wasn't trinitarian.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

I don't believe I've ever spoken with any that would agree with that. But that isn't saying that some don't.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

Some trinitarian scholars admit the doctrine of the trinity was a developed doctrine. In fact, I believe that is the official position of the catholic church. Several Protestant theologians and historians acknowledge the same. The idea is that the doctrine was revealed to the church over time as it was needed.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

Alright this I have heard. Some Trinitarians believe that the doctrine of the Trinity was "revelation" to the Roman Catholic church and that the Bible speaks of a God that "can only be understood in Trinitarian terms".

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

Was the Oneness of God a "revelation" at the 1913 Arroyo Seco campmeeting ?

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

It may have been to some, but it certainly wasn’t a new revelation.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

It was an opening of understanding, as in here:

[Luk 24:45 NKJV] 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

Couldn't the same be said of Trinitarianism...after all, God HAD just come to earth and talked to everyone. Might take a minute to sort that out.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

Oneness uses sola-scriptura. It was an opening of understanding that was blinded for years by a learned doctrine. Oneness is Biblical Theology: what the Apostles (Jewish people) believed, not what people developed AFTER them.

Trinitarianism goes beyond the scripture. It goes to the reasoning of people theology AFTER the apostles, to come to a non-monotheist explanation of the Son of God.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

What the Jewish people believed????

That is a statement which reverberates through history.

No Christian who loves Christ shouldn’t care what the Jewish people believed as far as theology. They don’t believe that their messiah would be GOD in human form. They believe that is idolatry. To glean from Rabbis is to drink poison from a serpents fangs.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

I am referring to people in the Bible that feared the Lord, including the Apostles and first Generation Christians that are mentioned in the New Testament. In other words, I am talking about Biblical Theology.
Let’s make it more clear: the People of God throughout the generations in the Bible.
I don’t know how my previous post didn’t imply that by the context of my words. I hope I was clearer this time.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

So you are going to go by the Scriptures that Trinitarians compiled? After all, it was Trinitarian Councils that decided which scriptures should be included and not, depending on the Holy Spirit (one of the Trinity) to guide them. I'd think you'd need to find your own Bible, or at least start over ;)

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

The NT scriptures were written by non trinitarians and copied originally by no trinitarians. The canon was set later on as an obvious need to filter out the noise. Later Christians formalized the canon. The fact that they did it doesn’t mean that Christians weren’t already collectively having a proto-canon. The canon wasn’t a revelation.
I do appreciate the work of some Trinitarians groups in history, and yes, God can use people even in their imperfections, but my faithfulness to the Word of God and its truth is more important than any thankfulness I can have towards the work of a group of people.
I don’t compromise the truth.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

If you really want to know what the Apostles believed

Read Peters sermon on the day of Pentecost. Acts 2: 22-37.
Remember the 11 we’re standing with Peter.
Acts 2:38 was not the sermon that pricked their hearts.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

.
What no comments ???

Oh By the way 10 years after Pentecost Peter preached the same sermon to Cornelius and his household.

WOW 10 years after the first sermon the second sermon is almost word for word as the first. By the duplicate sermon and many others should tell you what the apostles believed.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

You are right. They preached the man Jesus died for our sins. God raised him from the dead.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

... read the whole Bible.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

No, just Acts :lol

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

Their music is used, so why not their bible :nod

Ultimately I guess it's #God uses trinnies too#

In which case this whole oneness vs trinny schism is rather mind boggling.

I think that if ya'll ever realized how close oneness and trinitarianism actually is that you'd have alot of repenting to do. Both are one God in three and the three are each God and yet there is one God. Both are the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God. Both are there are not 3 Gods but 1 God.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

The problem is the theology has already care for that by asserting he is 100% God and 100% man - yet one more thing Trinnies and Oneness both believe in...

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

Well attested to by other scripture. To OVEREMPHASIZE his deity puts us in a place where though we know that we understand he is both we APPEAR to those who dont to be distorting the scriptures.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

1Jn 2:22....Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jn 2:23....Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
1Jn 2:24....Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

1Ti 2:5....For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

Act 17:31....Because he (God) hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead

You say Jesus is God so is he going to turn into a man again??

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

Over 700 scriptures in the New Testament contradict You

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

Might the issue be one of emphasis more so than theology?

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

Might be.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

In what? Are you saying Jesus is NOT GOD?

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

Yes he was a man ,is a man and will always be a man.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

I said "read the whole Bible" which you interpret as me saying "Jesus is God." Interesting.

Then you proceed to argue against that. Even more interesting.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

Moses wrote of a man that would speak the words of God.
Jesus said he was the man that Moses spoke of.
John 1:44 Acts 3/22 1Cor 15/24-28.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

Light,
Have you always been Unitarian?

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

Trinitarian (and especially Catholic) theologians and historians readily admit that the Bible does not explicitly teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Any supposed expression of the Trinity found in the Biblical text is drawn out by inference only. In other words, it is a conclusion brought about by conjecture and presupposition. Here are a few quick examples.

“The New Catholic Encyclopedia” states...

“There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical
theologians...that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New
Testament without serious qualifications...New Testament exegesis is
now accepted as having shown that not only the verbal idiom but even
the patterns of thought characteristic of the patristic (church
fathers) and concilar (church councils) development would have been
quite foreign to the mind and culture of the New Testament writers.”
-“The New Catholic Encyclopedia,” Art. “Trinity, Holy (In the Bible),” pp. 295-305.

Trinitarian Protestant theologian Emil Brunner stated...

“The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical doctrine and this indeed not by accident but of necessity. It is the product of theological reflection upon the problem...The ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity is not only the product of genuine Biblical thought, it is also the product of philosophical speculation, which is remote from the thought of the Bible.”
-Emil Brunner, “The Christian Doctrine of God,” Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949, pp. 236- 239.

Furthermore, a simply exploration of the early history of Christianity reveals that the development of Trinitarianism was a process taking place over at least several centuries, numerous church councils, Roman emperors' interventions, and much violence and bloodshed. This is just plain history, and I don't think anyone who is educated honestly debates this. It's not even hidden.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

For every passage that declares Jesus was a genuine man, one could point out two or more that clearly state or clearly imply Him as God. Jesus was a man but He was also God manifest in flesh AS a man. This is fundamental to Christianity. Without being fully God and fully man simultaneously, the Atonement could not have been accomplished. The Messiah HAD to have been both God and man. If He was not a genuine man, He could not act as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of mankind. If He was not God in flesh, He could not have been the sinless, spotless sacrifice. Jesus, of theological necessity, in fact HAD to be both fully man and fully God.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

Very well written. :thumbsup

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

Can you demonstrate this claim from Scripture?

Thanks!

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

And Paul wrote of "our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ".
The apostle Thomas said Jesus was his "Lord and God".

Next?

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

I have to confess, I'm a bit confused why you would ask me to cite Scripture regarding one of the foundational basics of Christianity and the Atonement, but here goes...

According to God’s plan, the shedding of blood was necessary for the remission of human sins (Hebrews 9:22). The blood of animals could not take away human sin because animals are inferior to humans (Hebrews 10:4). No other human could purchase redemption for someone else, because all had sinned and so deserved the penalty of death for themselves (Romans 3:24, 6:23).

Only God was sinless, but He did not have flesh and blood. Therefore, God prepared a human body for Himself (Hebrews 10:5), that He might live a sinless life in flesh and shed innocent blood to save humanity. He became flesh and blood so that He could through death defeat the devil and deliver humanity (Hebrews 2:14-15).

In this way, Christ is our Propitiation – the means by which we obtain forgiveness, the satisfaction of God’s justice, the appeasement of God’s holy wrath (Romans 3:25). The sacrifice of Christ is the means by which God pardons our sin without compromising His righteousness. We are saved today through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ – through the offering of the Son of God (Hebrews 10:10-20, John 3:16). Thus, the Son is the sacrifice and propitiation for our sins.

When the Son of God became a sacrifice, He also became a substitute for us. He died in our place, bore our sins, and paid the penalty of death for our sins (Isaiah 53:5-6, 1 Peter 2:24). He was more than a martyr; He actually took our place. He tasted death for every person (Hebrews 2:9). Of course, the only way Jesus could be our substitute and die in our place was by coming in flesh as a descendant of Adam.

Consider the following passages as well...

“Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour (to give aid to) them that are tempted.”
–Hebrews 2:17-18

“Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood (speaking of Jesus), to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”
–Romans 3:25-26

“To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ”
-2 Peter 1:1

“Jesus said to him, “I AM the way, the truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” –John 14:6-7

“For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”
–Hebrews 4:15-16

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
–John 3:16

“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 any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”
–John 1:1-14

"For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec."
-Hebrews 5:1-10

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

Angels are sinless, Adam was sinless. There must be more than one reason for Jesus to be God revealed in flesh, don’t you think?

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

Titus 2:13 (AV)
Looking for that blessed hope,
and the glorious appearing
of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Your version is the Granville Sharp rule for fools.

Re: The Early Church Was Absolutely NOT Trinitaria
 

How many are going to appear? One! Jesus Christ! Paul was referring to One! :thumbsup