A question for Catholic trinitarians and others...?

Where are those terms at in the Bible, even just one of those? Nowhere, nada, zilch, zero...

Where do they come from? From the same folks who said (and read it for yourself):

"[The Trinity Doctrine] is not ... directly and immediately the word of God." - (p. 304) "The formulation `One God in three persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.

Yep, you read it yourself from the Catholic Encyclopedia, who acknowledge that Christ followers never even remotely believe in the trinity. Yet, the Catholics teach it anyway, along with: you guessed it, such made up terms as substance, essence, nature, etc...

Line Dancer: You answered your own question!

"...where in the Bible is the triune God described by the terms "substance," essence," nature," or "hypostasis"?

Then you asked:" If those terms are not there, where did they come from?"

I say, "from any any trinitarians, and others," to quote you.

If trinity is taught in the scriptures why is the word not there, as well?

Why is it not explained, why is it not logical--or a mystery?

Thinking people want to know, and they can find out.

When Jehovah's witness knock on your door, be brave and ask them!

Definition: The central doctrine of religions of Christendom. According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three “Persons” are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the divine essence exists. Thus some Trinitarians emphasize their belief that Jesus Christ is God, or that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are Jehovah. Not a Bible teaching.

What is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

Even though, as Trinitarians acknowledge, neither the word “Trinity” nor a statement of the Trinitarian dogma is found in the Bible, are the concepts that are embodied in that dogma found there?

Why do JWs keep misquoting their sources?

JW quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 299....

"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly

not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to

the end of the 4th century. . . . Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been

nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."

Complete quote:

"Question of Continuity and Elemental Trinitarianism: From what has been seen thus

far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis

a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true; but it implies an

extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. Triadic

Consciousness in the Primitive Revelation. The formulation "one God in three

Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into

Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.

But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the

Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even

remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the 2d-century

Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within

the unique Godhead. ... From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the

intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three

distinct Persons was easily derived. ... If it is clear on one side that the dogma

of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3

centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that

confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental

Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins."

Those terms are not in the bible. Not all of Catholic beliefs are in the bible because God established HIS Church and his Church, then decided which writings should be included in the Christian Canon.

However, nothing the Catholic faith contradicts what's in the bible, either.

So... logically, there are extra-biblical things and then there are un-biblical things. Not all extra-bibical are unbiblical.

So "substance," essence," nature," or "hypostasis" when describing the Trinity are extra-biblical words used to describe the trinity or shed further light on the triune nature of God.

They are not unbiblical, just extra-biblical. Much like the word "Computer" or "Yahoo! Answers"

Both of which are extra-biblical but not un-biblical.

Get the difference?

Hello

Everyone might confess and admit that the Trinity is not found in the Bible explicitly, but implicitly, you can be sure of that.

Therefore, you won't find something like this in the Bible

"" God is a Triune God who are three persons existing equally in one being.

This is explicitly, but the Trinity is found implicitly, that's why the Bible says that Jesus has the same Nature and Essence or Substance of God.

ESV

Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

King James

Heb 1:3 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;

Many translations use the word "substance" or "essence"

So it means EAQUALITY

Php 2:6 Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.

The word "form2 is "morphe" in Greek , which means that Jesus has the same nature of the Father.

In the same way that a son has the same nature of his father, and the nature of the Father no-angel or human being has, ONLY JESUS.

STRONG

G3444

μορφή

morphē

mor-fay'

Perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts); shape; figuratively nature: - form.

the "Complete Wordstudy Dictionary" says:

Morphḗ in Php_2:6-8 presumes an obj. reality. >>>No one could be in the form (morphḗ) of God who was not God.<<<< However, morphḗ is not the shaping of pure thought. It is the utterance of the inner life, a life that bespeaks the existence of God. He who had been in morphḗ Theoú, in the form of God, from eternity (Joh_17:5) took at His incarnation the morphḗn doúlou (doúlos [G1401], servant), a form of a servant. The fact that Jesus continued to be God during His state of humiliation is demonstrated by the pres. part. hupárchōn, "being" in the form of God. Hupárchō (G5225) involves continuing to be that which one was before. Nothing appeared that was not an obj. reality from the beginning. In His incarnation, Jesus took upon Himself the form (morphḗ) of a servant by taking upon Himself the shape (schḗma) of man. The schḗma, shape or fashion, is the outward form having to do not only with His essential being, but also with His appearance. The eternal, infinite form of God took upon Himself flesh (Joh_1:1, Joh_1:14). See Sept.: Dan_4:36; Dan_5:6, Dan_5:9-10.

The Arian heretics in the early formation of the church came up with a new twist to doubt the divinity of Christ. Arian sects had their greatest influence in the barbarian Europe to the north and in Arabia. Not without coincidence Arians in Arabia would later be converted to Islam, since they also deny the divinity of Christ. The Arians were similar in some ways to the Gnostic heretics before them.

The Church, in response this heresy, convened the council of Nicae in 325 AD. It is important to add that they are not adding to beliefs, but simply defending what is already the church position. Specifically in this council they used terms such as the Greek "ousia" (in one substance or being) or "prosopon" (distinct in person) to describe the attributes of Christ.

Christians have always proclaimed His divinity. You are fighting a very old fight. For if you hold that Christ was created, then you deny his divinity. Yet he is the alpha and the omega, he always was, and thus we say he is "begotten, not made, he is consubstantial with the Father."

Listen sweetie, the bible was not written in English. It was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Plus there's the problem of you reading a substandard bible with missing sections.

Have you ever read the Book of Wisdom? Bet you haven't. You really should. Even in the worst translations it's a beautiful book.

Matthew 28:18 "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"

Book of Wisdom teaches all about the Holy Spirit, also called Wisdom. Or in the ancient, Hagia Sophia - one of the oldest, and sadly formerly - Christian Churches of all time.

Kind of an odd question since there are many words that we use to describe things in english about things in the bible that are not in the bible ..Is the word abortion or suicide ..i'm not sure your question makes much sense .

Those terms are not there. They are words used to help describe the indescribable. God's nature is beyond our finite comprehension, so we use words we can comprehend to help explain the Trinity.

The word Bible is not in the Bible, yet we use it to refer to the set of books we know as God's word. The word Incarnation is not in the Bible, yet we use that term to describe God becoming man.