Trinity Definition and Justification

[nathansoz]

Canine nature is inferior to human nature, not subordinate to it. You are confusing inferiority with subordination.

I would disagree with this.

Genesis 1:28 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

We don't claim to know in precise terms what it means to be deified either (beyond what God has revealed about it). What we have in common with the early Christians is that we both saw fit to define the process as deification. I think that the choice of that vocabulary is highly significant in both cases.

zerinus

Can both of you guys give me a little bit more information on deification? Or at least some links to read to get up to speed on this?

[rhinomelon]

Canine nature is inferior to human nature, not subordinate to it. You are confusing inferiority with subordination.

Actually, it is both. Nathan hit the nail on the head.

What we have in common with the early Christians is that we both saw fit to define the process as deification. I think that the choice of that vocabulary is highly significant in both cases.

It's only significant if you know how the early church fathers used the term, and I don't think you do. There are excellent books on the subject, written from a historical perspective rather than a polemical one. Norman Russell's "The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition" is a bit technical, but one of the best books on the subject out there. "Deification" in the early church and "deification" in the LDS tradition are two different animals.

But isn't this thread about the Trinity? Deification is another thread, I would think.

A pronoun is a pronoun. It doesnâ??t matter what language you are referring to. Hebrew pronouns are still pronouns. They are not something else.

Agreed. But pronouns are limited, just as human language is limited. For instance, in some cultures in the Phillippines there are three genders named in their society, but English has no way to account for it. It's limited. In any case, the use of pronouns and terms referring to God is not simply a unitary being, as I already noted. You haven't responded to that point, so I'll assume you're conceding it.

Maybe; but that does not justify us in making wild assumptions without anything to back it up. Just because the Bible was not written in English, it does not mean we can just assume that â??meâ? doesnâ??t mean â??me,â? and must mean something else.

Thankfully, no one here is making wild assumptions simply because we can. As I've demonstrated, the doctrine of the Trinity is not some "wild assumption", but is based on significant concepts in the text. You've ignored most of them, preferring to focus all your efforts on a select few passages that cannot carry the load you're placing on them.

And there is a reason why I brought that up. The reason is that your definition of the Trinity as â??Three persons in one Godâ? is actually a verbal trick. It is a play on words. It does not mean a lot. It is a word trick designed to avoid having to say â??Three Gods in one Godâ?! That is the real definition of your Trinity. But to say it like that would expose the obvious absurdity of it, so you have invented that verbal trick to avoid having to say it like that. The Athanasian Creed, which is the epitome of the Trinitarian theology, clearly states that each member of the Trinity is individually God; so you might just as well have defined the Trinity as â??Three Gods in one Personâ?! Your Trinitarian theology permits you to adopt that definition just as much as the other one. A quote from the Athanasian Creed is instructive here:

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

* * *

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.LOL! That is your real definition of the Trinity! Thus:

Trinity = Three Persons in one Person = Three Gods in one God!

And that definition is illogical, absurd, unscriptural, and untrue.

Absolutely untrue. So many flaws, so little time. How about I define and defend my own doctrine? Fair enough?

More in a bit, take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

The scripture says nothing about â??respectâ? and â??aspectâ?. It just makes it clear that their â??kindâ? of oneness is qualitatively the same. The disciples are to be â??oneâ? with the Father and the Son in the same way in which the Father and the Son are â??oneâ?. The respect and aspect of it is not a relevant argument.

To use your own words, the scripture says nothing about "qualitatively the same", either. As I said, this passage doesn't say anything either way. Therefore, we can go to other, clearer passages that speak of the unity of Father and Son. These passages clearly indicate a unity that goes beyond anything we human beings are called to. I would also point out that the "respect" and "aspect" question is precisely the issue here. You cannot define the unity without speaking about aspects of it. That's like saying I can say "mammal", but can use no further words to narrow it down. It's a nebulous, unclear statement that begs for clarification.

You are beating a dead horse with that one. Their relationships may be unique; but the type of union that exists between them is qualitatively the same as that between them and the disciples. That is what John 17 teaches. You canâ??t get away from that.

I can and do "get away from that". It's easy, because the text doesn't say it. You're adding words, which is rather odd considering the reaction from you when you think I'm doing the same...

Well, He ascended and descended several times. After He first met Mary Magdalene, He no doubt ascended to His Father; and then He came back and visited with His disciples on several occasions (and even allowed them to touch Him).

CFR. How many times did Jesus go up and down, and where does it say anything like that in Scripture? I hope he had frequent flyer miles...

You're really stretching here.

So He stopped being their â??Brother,â? just because He had ascended to His father? That donâ??t make sense to me.

Nope, I never said that. Jesus Christ is still my brother by virtue of the incarnation, although his relationship to the Father is different from my own. Because the Son took on flesh, he shares a kinship with all humanity. This is the meaning of the Hebrews passage, that he shares our human nature.

Well He doesnâ??t have â??human natureâ? any more. By â??human natureâ? I understand mortality. It means flesh and blood. It means being subject to the pain and suffering of this existence. Jesus has passed beyond that. He is still â??Man,â? I agree. But He was always Man; otherwise He couldnâ??t have made man in His own image. But He is no longer mortal man, therefore He no longer has â??human natureâ?.

Nice try, except scripture never states that "mortality" and "flesh and blood" constitutes the sum total of human nature. There are many other aspects, including man's creation by God, man being body, soul and spirit, etc.

Just out of curiosity, how can anyone be considered "man" with a human nature? That's an inherent contradiction. Is Jesus still human or not? There's really no middle ground here.

Are you suggesting that before His Incarnation Jesus would have been ashamed to call those who believed in Him His â??brethrenâ?? I donâ??t think that is what that means. I think it means that Jesus would have never been ashamed to call His true disciples â??His brethrenâ?. I think that is the meaning that that verse is trying to convey.

Before the incarnation, the Son was not incarnate. Therefore, he did not share the human nature, nor did he have disciples. Heck, before the incarnation, Jesus Christ did not exist. Nobody believed in him, at least in the New Testament sense, because the Son had not yet become incarnate "in the meridian of time". This statement is a non sequitur. To answer your first question, we were not Christ's brethren, because Christ had not yet been born. Simple as that.

Like I said, I would rather let them speak for themselves. They seem to be pretty good at that. I let them define their terms in the context of their own speech.

Context is exactly what you're ignoring here. "Theos" had a wider range of meanings 2000 years ago than it does today. Any interpretation that doesn't take that into account does not interpret correctly. But here I am getting sidetracked on deification again!

Take care, everyone

[cksalmon]

That may be; but in the Bible the One God is portrayed as a Person, not something else. And there is a reason why I brought that up. The reason is that your definition of the Trinity as "Three persons in one God" is actually a verbal trick. It is a play on words. It does not mean a lot. It is a word trick designed to avoid having to say "Three Gods in one God"! That is the real definition of your Trinity. But to say it like that would expose the obvious absurdity of it, so you have invented that verbal trick to avoid having to say it like that. The Athanasian Creed, which is the epitome of the Trinitarian theology, clearly states that each member of the Trinity is individually God; so you might just as well have defined the Trinity as "Three Gods in one Person"! Your Trinitarian theology permits you to adopt that definition just as much as the other one. A quote from the Athanasian Creed is instructive here:

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

* * *

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

LOL! That is your real definition of the Trinity! Thus:

Trinity = Three Persons in one Person = Three Gods in one God!

And that definition is illogical, absurd, unscriptural, and untrue.

Hi zerinus--

I think I can say without fear of contradiction that every Latter-day Saint on this board who happens to have expressed an opinion on the matter is far less than impressed when critics of Mormonism take it upon themselves to define and determine what Mormons "really believe."

Sauce for the goose and all that.

Best.

cks

[JDave]

I think I can say without fear of contradiction that every Latter-day Saint on this board who happens to have expressed an opinion on the matter is far less than impressed when critics of Mormonism take it upon themselves to define and determine what Mormons "really believe."

cks, I appreciate your opinion, but you don't comprehend the subtle differences in how zerinus is defining what others believe. He does it with style !!

And definitely do not take this as a contradiction to your statement. I think you are pretty safe there...

[zerinus]

Can both of you guys give me a little bit more information on deification? Or at least some links to read to get up to speed on this?

Try the two links I had given to my Blog in Post #42. That is as good a place to start as any.

zerinus

[rhinomelon]

Can both of you guys give me a little bit more information on deification? Or at least some links to read to get up to speed on this?

I'm trying to avoid the ridiculously complicated stuff here. Try this link, a pretty good article:

Can Man Become God?

I haven't read all the articles here, but maybe this will help:

http://www.affcrit.com/archives/ac_02_02.html

I could also email you some articles I have on hand here. I'm not sure how to post a pdf file here.

Anyway, I'll keep an eye out for more. Take care

[nathansoz]

I could also email you some articles I have on hand here. I'm not sure how to post a pdf file here.

Thanks for the links! And that would be great if you could email those to me. I think my email is on my profile.

Edit:

Try the two links I had given to my Blog in Post #42. That is as good a place to start as any.

Thank you! I will check that out too.

Edit 2

Eh, when i get the chance.... gotta finish up here at school mock trial and then play in the basketball pep band. Late night readings are always fun though!

[rhinomelon]

Sauce for the goose and all that.

It's called the "straw God" fallacy. If you can't address a conception of God as it is, remake it into something easier to attack.

Take care, everyone

[LeSellers]

the Shema, "The Lord our God, the Lord is one", using a Hebrew word for "one" that does not refer to a unitary object or nature, but to a unity of more than one.

Of course, that is not the only translation of Deut 6:4, and it is not particularly accurate.

שׁמע ישׂראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד׃

'echâd yehôvâh 'ĕlôhîym yehôvâh yiśrâ'êl shâma‛

one Jehovah Gods Jehovah Israel Hear

Your point that the word "'echâd" means something other than "one" is good, but the context does not necessarily give us what you'd like out of this passage. But the other words are not as rendered in most versions. The reluctance (or taboo) to speak the name Jehovah (or however it is correctly pronounced) led to the misapplication of the word "Lord" in its place.

But "Jehovah [our] God [is] united Jehovah" is very nearly meaningless without an understanding of both the cultural and spiritual contexts of the pronouncement. The cultural is difficult, but the spiritual is nigh impossible without individual revelation. For what Moses, and by extension, God, meant by this is not to be had except through the Holy Ghost. The main meaning, whatever else one may read into it (or have given to him), is that the God of Israel is not the God of the Canaanites or the Egyptians (or Greeks or Babylonians), He was supreme to any other god(s), and was not to be seen as among them, even as the prime in a pantheon.

The rest is conjecture, unless you are saying you have a direct revelation. But I haven't heard that from you.

Lehi

[zerinus]

Actually, it is both. Nathan hit the nail on the head.

Canines may be subordinate to humans; but canine nature is inferior to human nature. It is the â??nature bitâ? that you seem to be fond of bringing up all the time that I was commenting on.

It's only significant if you know how the early church fathers used the term, and I don't think you do.

Like I said, I will let them speak for themselves, rather than let you interpret them for me. I think they are perfectly capable of doing that. And I think I have enough brains to be able to fathom what they are talking about, without the need for an interpreter, thank you very much.

There are excellent books on the subject, written from a historical perspective rather than a polemical one. Norman Russell's "The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition" is a bit technical, but one of the best books on the subject out there.

There are many books, most of which like to put their own slant on it. Some of the faithless ones donâ??t even see it to be of Christian origin at all, and try to trace it to ancient paganism, Greek mythology, and Egyptian demonology! Russellâ??s book is one that I would not trust. The best book on the subject is probably The Divinization of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers by Jules Gross.

"Deification" in the early church and "deification" in the LDS tradition are two different animals.

See above.

But isn't this thread about the Trinity? Deification is another thread, I would think.

I canâ??t remember who brought it up first, me or you; but I am sure there was a good reason for introducing the subject here.

Thankfully, no one here is making wild assumptions simply because we can. As I've demonstrated, the doctrine of the Trinity is not some "wild assumption", but is based on significant concepts in the text. You've ignored most of them, preferring to focus all your efforts on a select few passages that cannot carry the load you're placing on them.

I think you are attributing your own actions and tactics to me.

Absolutely untrue. So many flaws, so little time. How about I define and defend my own doctrine? Fair enough?

Not fair enough! The doctrine of the Trinity is nothing new. It has been around for centuries. Its history is well known. If I can detect that your expression of the doctrine is deliberately skewed for effect, I donâ??t see why I should have to accept it like that. I shall have the pleasure of unskewing it for you! You should be pleased about that!

zerinus

[cksalmon]

cks, I appreciate your opinion, but you don't comprehend the subtle differences in how zerinus is defining what others believe. He does it with style !!

Hi JDave--

Is that what it is? Style?

Well, it's no wonder I missed it; I can barely dress myself!

cks

[zerinus]

I think that this discussion has reached the end of its productive stage. It is not worth the effort and time required for me to give lengthy and comprehensive replies to you posts. I will only reply to your posts selectively from now on. I will let other LDS take up the slack if they want to.

CFR. How many times did Jesus go up and down, and where does it say anything like that in Scripture? I hope he had frequent flyer miles...

You're really stretching here.

Then you donâ??t know your scriptures very well. There are at least three separate (and different) accounts of the ascension of Jesus Christ that are mentioned in the New Testament (Luke 24:51; John 20:17; Acts 1:11); and many more separate accounts of his visitation of them (Matt. 28:9, 18; Mark 16:9; Luke 24:15, 34, 36, 39; John 20:14, 19-20, 29; 21:4, 14; Acts 1:3; 7:55; 9:5).

zerinus

[cksalmon]

Then you don't know your scriptures very well. There are at least three separate (and different) accounts of the ascension of Jesus Christ that are mentioned in the New Testament (Luke 24:51; John 20:17; Acts 1:11);

Hi zerinus--

Luke 24.51 records the event. John 20.17 does not. Acts 1.11 reports the event after the fact.

There is no textual reason to read the event(s) recorded in Luke 24.51 and Acts 1.11 as different.

Best.

cks

[Mudcat]

Hi JDave--

Is that what it is? Style?

Well, it's no wonder I missed it; I can barely dress myself!

You underrate yourself.

Lego Cobra Commander = Style

though I am curious as to how you change pants. Or do you?

[rhinomelon]

Your point that the word "'ech

[rhinomelon]

If I can detect that your expression of the doctrine is deliberately skewed for effect, I donâ??t see why I should have to accept it like that. I shall have the pleasure of unskewing it for you! You should be pleased about that!

How oddly eccentric. "I will correct your own beliefs (even though I don't understand them), define them how I like and then attack my own definitions, pretending they are yours, and you should be grateful for the privilege of having experienced my intentional misrepresentation!" Amazing.

Actually, the main thing that this tactic of yours tells me is that you are unable to counter the actual doctrine of the Trinity. You have to take something different, dress it up like the Trinity, and then attack that. As a result, I am still confident in my beliefs, while you still do not understand them. An interesting outcome to this discussion.

I think that this discussion has reached the end of its productive stage. It is not worth the effort and time required for me to give lengthy and comprehensive replies to you posts. I will only reply to your posts selectively from now on. I will let other LDS take up the slack if they want to.

Once again, amazing. After badgering me for days, claiming that I didn't understand my own beliefs, that I was incapable of defining or defending them, that I was afraid of discussing it, that I wouldn't show up if a Trinity thread got started, etc., after all that, you're bowing out after a day and a half?

Well, you know what they say about heat and kitchens...

Personally, I think this discussion has been quite focused and productive; usually these threads tend to wander all over, but nathan has done a good job shepherding the dialogue in a pretty good direction. Well done, Nathan!

Then you donâ??t know your scriptures very well. There are at least three separate (and different) accounts of the ascension of Jesus Christ that are mentioned in the New Testament

And there are four separate (and different) accounts of his crucifixion. How many times do you think he went through that? Does the LDS church officially teach that Christ ascended and descended in Israel more than once?

Okay, zerinus seems to be out. I'm enjoying the discussion, I love this topic, and am more than happy to continue it in a different tone. Nathan, let's keep talking!

Take care, each and all.

[Tanyan]

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/twogods.htm

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[nathansoz]

Okay, zerinus seems to be out. I'm enjoying the discussion, I love this topic, and am more than happy to continue it in a different tone. Nathan, let's keep talking!

Ok! I would love to continue the discussion. But you give me too much credit, it is you who has kept this going on topic.

and many more separate accounts of his visitation of them (Matt. 28:9, 18; Mark 16:9; Luke 24:15, 34, 36, 39; John 20:14, 19-20, 29; 21:4, 14; Acts 1:3; 7:55; 9:5).

These visitations don't necessarily mean he came down each time to do each one does it? He could have done them all after his resurrection and then ascended. But who knows, they didn't have an oil crisis on their hands and he could use as much fuel as he wanted with those frequent flyer miles

Canines may be subordinate to humans; but canine nature is inferior to human nature. It is the â??nature bitâ? that you seem to be fond of bringing up all the time that I was commenting on.

Ok, so if Canines are subordanant to humans, and their nature is inferior, would that not lead you to believe that their nature is also subordanant? If not, why?

Not fair enough! The doctrine of the Trinity is nothing new. It has been around for centuries. Its history is well known. If I can detect that your expression of the doctrine is deliberately skewed for effect, I donâ??t see why I should have to accept it like that. I shall have the pleasure of unskewing it for you! You should be pleased about that!

Not fair enough? Isn't the whole point of this thread to define the trinity and find scripture that argues both sides?

Rhino, isn't there a part of Isaiah which talks about the Lord God not seeing any other gods? Used in the context that he does not acknowledge them? Can this be used in any way to support the oneness of Jesus with God in the trinity?

[JDave]

I ain't got style, but I'll pick up some slack....

Is the scriptural basis of the Trinity basically the balancing of the two concepts you first mentioned?

1. One God
   
2. Father, Son, Holy Ghost all God
   

Is the Trinity a concerted effort to maintain monotheism? Or are there some other scriptures that point to Trinitarian ideas from a different perspective?

[nathansoz]

I ain't got style, but I'll pick up some slack....

Is the scriptural basis of the Trinity basically the balancing of the two concepts you first mentioned?

1. One God
   
2. Father, Son, Holy Ghost all God
   

Is the Trinity a concerted effort to maintain monotheism? Or are there some other scriptures that point to Trinitarian ideas from a different perspective?

Well, hopefully rhino will set things straight if I am wrong. But I think that the trinity comes into play because of the apparent contradictions in the bible about there only being one God, the whole John 1:1-16, etc...

Not sure if it is a concentrated effort to maintain monotheism. The torah does strictly say that the God of Abraham, Issac is the one God and we shall have no others before him. If we were to introduce Jesus as a separate God, then what does that do for the foundation of Christianity (Judaism). IMO it weakens it significantly.

[zerinus]

Hi zerinus--

Luke 24.51 records the event. John 20.17 does not. Acts 1.11 reports the event after the fact.

There is no textual reason to read the event(s) recorded in Luke 24.51 and Acts 1.11 as different.

John 20.17 and Luke 24.51 record two separate accounts of His ascention. The first one reads:

John 20

:

17 Jesus saith unto her,

Touch me not;

for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them,

I ascend

unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

That tells me that He intended to ascend to the Father before He did anything else. Next He appeared to them and allowed them to touch Him:

Luke 24

:

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself:

handle me, and see;

for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

That tells me that in the intervening period between His appearance to Mary and to the disciples He must have ascended to the Father, and then returned to continue the remainder of His ministry to his Disciples. That means that John 20.17 and Luke 24.51 relate to two separate accounts of His ascension into heaven. Furthermore, in the book of Acts we read that Jesus continues to minister to His disciples from time to time for forty days after His resurrection before His final ascension to heaven:

Acts 1

:

3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them

forty days,

and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

He was not with them all the time during that period; but appeared to them periodically to give them instruction. So what was He doing in the intervening periods during those forty days when He was with His disciples? Was He wondering aimlessly in the desert debating what to do next? No doubt He would return to His new home which was in heaven, and perhaps perform other functions such as visiting the lost sheep of the house of Israel elsewhere. Even after His final ascension he continued to appear to His disciples occasionally to minister to them, such as when He appeared to Paul and to Ananias for example.

Conclusion: He ascended and descended to His disciples many times after His resurrection.

zerinus

[zerinus]

The idea of deification is not a Christian invention, and anyone telling you otherwise is selling you something. Even a cursory reading of Greek and Roman myths yields many examples of human beings becoming gods (Hercules, for example). The Roman cult of the emperor taught the deification of the Caesar, and I think the Egyptians believed something similar about the Pharoah, though I could be wrong. What is unique about the Christian approach is not the idea itself, but how Christians integrated into their theology, thereby creating something new and different (it's like the quote in my sig line).

I had figured that you are the type of person that would find the suggestion of a pagan origin for deification in Christian theology an attractive one. It sits well with your way of thinking. Therefore be it known unto you that I donâ??t. I believe that deification in Christian theology has a divine origin, and part and parcel of the original Christian revelation. It did not originate from paganism, Greek mythology, or Egyptian demonology!

Why not? Do you know anything about it? Have you read it?

Yes. I have read the reviews of it, and the introduction to the book, and that is enough to tell me is not something I would like spend my money on. There are much better books about the subject, such the one I had mentioned.

Ah, so you deny me the right to define and defend my own beliefs? You'd rather stick words in my mouth and then castigate me for them, I suppose. It does make an argument easier, but it never makes the argument convincing.

The Trinity does not belong to you. It is not your Trinity. It is a historical principle that has been around for centuries, and the history of it is well known. It is not something that you can define for yourself any way you like. The definitions of it were fixed long before you were born. The â??Three Persons in one Godâ? clich

[zerinus]

How oddly eccentric. "I will correct your own beliefs (even though I don't understand them), define them how I like and then attack my own definitions, pretending they are yours, and you should be grateful for the privilege of having experienced my intentional misrepresentation!" Amazing.

Like I said, it is not your doctrine of the Trinity. It has been around for centuries, and the definition of it is well-known and fixed by centuries of history and debate.

Actually, the main thing that this tactic of yours tells me is that you are unable to counter the actual doctrine of the Trinity. You have to take something different, dress it up like the Trinity, and then attack that. As a result, I am still confident in my beliefs, while you still do not understand them. An interesting outcome to this discussion.

The â??actual doctrine of the Trinityâ? is â??three Gods in one God!â? like it says in the Athanasian Creed. You canâ??t just change the goal posts after centuries of debate and discussion and expect to just get away with it.

Once again, amazing. After badgering me for days, claiming that I didn't understand my own beliefs, that I was incapable of defining or defending them, that I was afraid of discussing it, that I wouldn't show up if a Trinity thread got started, etc., after all that, you're bowing out after a day and a half?

Well, you know what they say about heat and kitchens...

After a point is becomes obvious that you no longer have anything positive to contribute to the discussion, except just repeating the same arguments over and over which have been trounced several times over, and just engaging in a semantic debate. That kind of a discussion is no longer productive, and everyone can realize that. Therefore continuing it at the same pace becomes a waste of time and effort. I will continue to reply to your posts selectively from time to time as I consider appropriate, but not at the same pace as before.

And there are four separate (and different) accounts of his crucifixion. How many times do you think he went through that? Does the LDS church officially teach that Christ ascended and descended in Israel more than once?

See my reply to cksalmon.

zerinus

[beenthere2]

I am starting this thread as a side product that has emerged out of the A hole in non-mormon theology thread. The question is, is it possible to build a definition of the trinity and support it with scripture?

Lets keep things civil, but I would love to see and add too some good discussion that was derailing the other thread.

Hi everyone,

I'm a newbie, but I'll throw in my 2c. I actually discuss this quite a bit with my Evangelical friends. A definition of the Trinity is not found in Scripture, though it certainly is supported. My faith in the Trinity is not based on scripture, but on the definition of the Council of Niceae, which, as a Catholic, I must view as infallible.

So while it is possible to support Trinitarian belief in Scripture, I do not believe it's possible to look at Scripture without preconceptions and say 'Aha! The Trinity!' In my belief system we hold that God gave us the Successors of the Apostles, who defined that doctrine for us.

Regards,

Jesse