The Trinity and the Incarnation

[Keiw1]

The WORD that was Elohim(Plural) became flesh = Elohim(Plural) became a man as the only begotten Son of the FATHER.

As a man, HE subject Himself to the FATHER in obedience for our benefit = the WAY the TRUTH the LIFE

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

In Hebrew for the true living God Elohim translates-the supreme one--nothing plural about it for the true God.
Fact=there is one God--- Jesus is that one Gods son=not God or there would be more than one God.

 

[DavidTree]

In Hebrew for the true living God Elohim translates-the supreme one--nothing plural about it for the true God.
Fact=there is one God--- Jesus is that one Gods son=not God or there would be more than one God.

JESUS Says if you believe His Truth it will set you free from the lies of satan and false teachings/watchtower.

Genesis 1:1

In the beginning
בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית (bə·rê·šîṯ)
Preposition-b | Noun - feminine singular
Strong's Hebrew 7225: 1) first, beginning, best, chief 1a) beginning 1b) first 1c) chief 1d) choice part

God
אֱלֹהִ֑ים (’ĕ·lō·hîm)
Noun - masculine plural
Strong's Hebrew 430: 1) (plural) 1a) rulers, judges 1b) divine ones 1c) angels 1d) gods 2) (plural intensive-singular meaning) 2a) god, goddess 2b) godlike one 2c) works or special possessions of God 2d) the (true) God 2e) God

 

[MTMattie]

Yes Peter= one of the little flock=anointed. He is with the 1 religion that has Jesus, a non trinitarian religion. God was never a trinity.
Catholicism kept the bible in latin until the 1300,s at least. Few knew that language thus could not read the bible. Once translating was allowed, the protestants saw clearly Jesus was NEVER with Catholicism( 2 Thess 2:3)--they couldn't fix much because only Catholicism translating remained when they translated.

That thrills you, doesn't it. " because only Catholicism translating remained when they translated.""a non trinitarian religion"

Which Pope _____ed it up for the RCC? Because

What the Early Church Believed: The Trinity

The early Christians clearly understood, as we do today, that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God).

www.catholic.com

What the Early Church Believed: The Trinity​

The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14, Heb. 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians, who clearly understood them in the sense that we do today—that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God).

Here are examples of what early Christian writers had to say on the subject of the Trinity:

The Didache​

“After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

Ignatius of Antioch​

“[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

“For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 18:2).

Justin Martyr​

“We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein” (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).

Theophilus of Antioch​

“It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom” (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

Irenaeus​

“For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit” (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian​

“We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit” (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).

“And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (ibid.).

“Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (ibid., 9).

“Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number” (ibid., 25).

Origen​

“For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a being outside himself, so that there was a time when he [the Son] did not exist” (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).

“For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages” (ibid.).

Hippolytus​

“The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the being of God” (Refutation of All Heresies 10:29 [A.D. 228]).

Pope Dionysius​

“Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it [the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. . . . [Some heretics] proclaim that there are in some way three gods, when they divide the sacred unity into three substances foreign to each other and completely separate” (Letter to Dionysius of Alexandria 1 [A.D. 262]).

“Therefore, the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in one, a summit, as it were, I mean the omnipotent God of the universe. . . . It is blasphemy, then, and not a common one but the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork [creature]. . . . But if the Son came into being [was created], there was a time when these attributes did not exist; and, consequently, there was a time when God was without them, which is utterly absurd” (ibid., 1–2).

“Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine unity. . . . Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. ‘For,’ he says, ‘The Father and I are one,’ and ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in me’” (ibid., 3).

Gregory the Wonderworker​

“There is one God. . . . There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever” (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).

Sechnall of Ireland​

“Hymns, with Revelation and the Psalms of God [Patrick] sings, and does expound the same for the edifying of God’s people. This law he holds in the Trinity of the sacred Name and teaches one being in three persons” (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 22 [A.D. 444]).

Patrick of Ireland​

“I bind to myself today the strong power of an invocation of the Trinity—the faith of the Trinity in unity, the Creator of the universe” (The Breastplate of St. Patrick 1 [A.D. 447]).

“[T]here is no other God, nor has there been heretofore, nor will there be hereafter, except God the Father unbegotten, without beginning, from whom is all beginning, upholding all things, as we say, and his Son Jesus Christ, whom we likewise to confess to have always been with the Father—before the world’s beginning. . . . Jesus Christ is the Lord and God in whom we believe . . . and who has poured out on us abundantly the Holy Spirit . . . whom we confess and adore as one God in the Trinity of the sacred Name” (Confession of St. Patrick 4 [A.D. 452]).

Augustine​

“All the Catholic interpreters of the divine books of the Old and New Testaments whom I have been able to read, who wrote before me about the Trinity, which is God, intended to teach in accord with the Scriptures that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one and the same substance constituting a divine unity with an inseparable equality; and therefore there are not three gods but one God, although the Father begot the Son, and therefore he who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, himself, too, coequal to the Father and to the Son and belonging to the unity of the Trinity” (The Trinity1:4:7 [A.D. 408]).

Fulgence of Ruspe​

“See, in short you have it that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another; in Person, each is other, but in nature they are not other. In this regard he says: ‘The Father and I, we are one’ (John 10:30). He teaches us that one refers to their nature, and we are to their Persons. In like manner it is said: ‘There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and these three are one’ (1 John 5:7)” (The Trinity 4:1–2 [c. A.D. 515]).

“But in the one true God and Trinity it is naturally true not only that God is one but also that he is a Trinity, for the reason that the true God himself is a Trinity of Persons and one in nature. Through this natural unity the whole Father is in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, and the whole Holy Spirit, too, is in the Father and in the Son. None of these is outside any of the others; because no one of them precedes any other of them in eternity or exceeds any other in greatness, or is superior to any other in power” (The Rule of Faith 4 [c. A.D. 523).

In Hebrew for the true living God Elohim translates-the supreme one--nothing plural about it for the true God.
Fact=there is one God--- Jesus is that one Gods son=not God or there would be more than one God.

I am dumbfounded how one can make a definitively false claim about Elohim.

Learn:

Hebrew for Christians

https://hebrew4christians.com › Names_of_G-d › Elohim › elohim.html

The Hebrew Name for God - Elohim - Hebrew for Christians​

The word Elohim is the plural of El (or possibly of Eloah) and is the first name for God given in the Tanakh: "In the beginning, God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1): The name Elohim is unique to Hebraic thinking: it occurs only in Hebrew and in no other ancient Semitic language.

The rest of the article I cannot copy........

Elohim - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Elohim​

44 languages

This article is about the Hebrew word. For other uses, see Elohim (disambiguation).
Elohim in Hebrew script. The letters are, right-to-left: aleph-lamed-he-yud-mem.
Elohim (Hebrew: אֱלֹהִים, romanized: ʾĔlōhīm: [(ʔ)eloˈ(h)im]), the plural of אֱלוֹהַּ (ʾĔlōah), is a Hebrew word meaning "gods" or "godhood". Although the word is plural in form, in the Hebrew Bible it most often takes singular verbal or pronominal agreement and refers to a single deity, particularly but not always the God of Israel. In other verses it takes plural agreement and refers to gods in the plural.

Morphologically, the word is the plural form of the word אֱלוֹהַּ<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#cite_note-1"><span>[</span>a<span>]</span></a> (eloah) and related to el. It is cognate to the word 'l-h-m which is found in Ugaritic, where it is used as the pantheon for Canaanite gods, the children of El, and conventionally vocalized as "Elohim". Most uses of the term Elohim in the later Hebrew text imply a view that is at least monolatrist at the time of writing, and such usage (in the singular), as a proper title for Deity, is distinct from generic usage as elohim, "gods" (plural, simple noun).

Rabbinic scholar Maimonides wrote that Elohim "Divinity" and elohim "gods" are commonly understood to be homonyms.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#cite_note-maimonides-2"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a> One modern theory suggests that the notion of divinity underwent radical changes in the early period of Israelite identity and development of Ancient Hebrew religion. In this view, the ambiguity of the term elohim is the result of such changes, cast in terms of "vertical translatability", i.e. the re-interpretation of the gods of the earliest recalled period as the national god of monolatrism as it emerged in the 7th to 6th century BCE in the Kingdom of Judah and during the Babylonian captivity, and further in terms of monotheism by the emergence of Rabbinical Judaism in the 2nd century CE.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#cite_note-FOOTNOTESmith201019-3"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a> Another theory, building on an idea by Gesenius, argues that even before Hebrew became a distinct language, the plural elohim had both a plural meaning of "gods" and an abstract meaning of "godhood" or "divinity", much as the plural of "father", avot, can mean either "fathers" or "fatherhood". Elohim then came to be used so frequently in reference to specific deities, both male and female, domestic and foreign (for instance, the goddess of the Sidonians in 1 Kings 11:33), that it came to be concretized from meaning "divinity" to meaning "deity", though still occasionally used adjectivally as "divine".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBurnett2001-4"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a>

What is the meaning of "Elohim"?

Elohim is a Hebrew term that appears frequently in the Old Testament, often translated into English as “God.” In Hebrew script, the word is spelled אֱלֹהִים (ʾĕlōhîm). It is a plural form of the more general term for deity, “El” (אֵל), yet when referring to the one true God in Scripture, it is normally used with singular grammatical forms.

What Does the Name Elohim Teach Us about God?

Elohim is the third word in the Bible in its original Hebrew. So what does it mean?

www.christianity.com

Where Did the Word Elohim Come from?​

Elohim is the plural form of the Canaanite and Hebrew word El, which means mighty one. El is a general name for a deity throughout the Old Testament. Look for it in place names as a reference for God. For example, Bethel, where Jacob had his vision of angels ascending and descending from heaven, means house of God. Beth means house, and el means god.

 

[MTMattie]

Yes Peter= one of the little flock=anointed. He is with the 1 religion that has Jesus, a non trinitarian religion. God was never a trinity.
Catholicism kept the bible in latin until the 1300,s at least. Few knew that language thus could not read the bible. Once translating was allowed, the protestants saw clearly Jesus was NEVER with Catholicism( 2 Thess 2:3)--they couldn't fix much because only Catholicism translating remained when they translated.

Have you even read what you wrote. I just caught this even though I replied yesterday.

YOU wrote.....

Yes Peter= one of the little flock=anointed. He is with the 1 religion that has Jesus, a non trinitarian religion. God was never a trinity.
So you are using the Catholic religion of Peter as a non-trintarian religion and confirm it
by saying God was never a trinity.
Then
Catholicism kept the bible in latin until the 1300,s at least. Few knew that language thus could not read the bible. Once translating was allowed, the protestants saw clearly Jesus was NEVER with Catholicism( 2 Thess 2:3)--

So you are saying that the Protestants were not with the Catholics as you claim Jesus was not.... (Who the ____ was that Peter guy that Jesus built His church on?) and if that 1 religion had Jesus, in a non-trinitarian religion.....well!!!!!!!

they couldn't fix much because only Catholicism translating remained when they translated.

Say what? No one could translate Latin.... One reason why the RCC among others kept mass in Latin until not too long ago because only doctors would know what they were saying.
But why in the world did they not hit the good old Koine Greek, and Aramaic?
Why in the world did they not jump on

Manuscript evidence​

Beyond this general linguistic background, the manuscript evidence is a crucial part of addressing the question of what language the New Testament was written in. Here, the evidence is unequivocal: the New Testament is a corpus of Greek compositions. The Institute for New Testament Textual Research has documented over five thousand Greek manuscripts containing parts (or all) of the New Testament, ranging from the second century AD into the early modern era. This Greek tradition ultimately was and is the source for all known translations of the New Testament into other languages, ancient and modern. This includes ancient translations into Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Georgian. It also includes, of course, modern translations into countless languages around the world.

In sharp contrast, there are no ancient Hebrew manuscripts of the New Testament whatsoever. Some late-antique Jewish polemical works do include Hebrew translations of parts of the New Testament, but the earliest extant Hebrew version of a complete New Testament book is the fourteenth-century version of Matthew included in a polemical work by the Jewish scholar Shem Tov. This Hebrew version likely pre-dated Shem Tov, but it has many elements from Latin and medieval vernacular languages that prove that it is a late translation ultimately derived from the known Greek Matthew, rather than reflecting an original Hebrew version of the book.1 (The books of the New Testament have also been translated into Hebrew on multiple occasions in modern times, but these are irrelevant for the question of the original language of the New Testament.)

The situation with Aramaic is more difficult, since there are ancient copies of the New Testament in different dialects of Aramaic. Even after the first century AD, Aramaic continued to be widely spoken in the Eastern Mediterranean, Mesopotamia, and surrounding areas in a wide variety of local dialects. These dialects cannot exactly be considered “Jesus’ mother tongue,” because they changed considerably over time and varied significantly from place to place. Given the growth of Christianity in the East, it is no surprise that both the Old and New Testaments were translated into these dialects and revised multiple times between the second and the seventh centuries. These versions are usually called the “Syriac,” which is one of the most widely used and well-documented dialects of Aramaic. Another noteworthy translation was made into the Christian Palestinian Aramaic dialect, which has more Palestinian influence than the other versions. While these Aramaic New Testament versions were made already in antiquity, the scholarly consensus is clear that they were translations, mostly from the Greek, into later Aramaic dialects. They were not original Aramaic versions of the New Testament books.2 The fact that even the earliest Syriac translators had to rely on Greek manuscripts is a good indication that Hebrew or Aramaic copies of the New Testament were unavailable already in the early centuries AD. The manuscript tradition thus strongly indicates a Greek origin for all of the books of the New Testament.

Church tradition of Hebrew or Aramaic originals​

Given the manuscript evidence, why do some argue for Hebrew or Aramaic originals for at least parts of the New Testament? One of the strongest reasons is church tradition. The ancient Christian historian Eusebius cited a Christian writer from the second century named Papias who claimed, “Matthew collected/arranged the sayings [of Jesus] in the Hebrew dialect/manner, and everyone translated/interpreted them as they were able.”3

This was understood by many early Christian writers to mean that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek. Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Augustine, Jerome, and others interpreted Papias’s statement this way. But as many modern scholars have pointed out, this brief statement contains many ambiguities that make it difficult to understand and assess its veracity:

• What does it mean that Matthew “collected/arranged the sayings”? Did he simply write a document collecting sayings of Jesus that was used as a source for composing the complete Gospels? Or does it mean that he wrote in Hebrew the entire Gospel of Matthew as we know it today, including all of the narrative?
• What does “Hebrew dialect/manner” mean? Some scholars interpret this as meaning simply that Matthew arranged the sayings in a typical Jewish way; and indeed Matthew is often thought to reflect a very Jewish–Christian understanding of the life and words of Jesus. But even if Papias was referring to composition in a Semitic language, it is not entirely clear whether it would refer to Hebrew or to Aramaic. In ancient texts, the word “Hebrew” could also be used to refer to the language we now call Aramaic, with “Hebrew” perhaps better understood as “the language typical of the Hebrews/Palestinian Jews.”
• And, finally, what does the word “translated/interpreted” mean in this context? In Greek literature it is used to refer to interpretation and exposition, sometimes but not always including translation from one language to another.

Thus, while this early tradition undoubtedly merits attention due to its antiquity, it is far from obvious what Papias meant and whether he had accurate information.

Indeed, there is no evidence that any early Jewish or Christian writer ever actually had access to a Hebrew or Aramaic original of Matthew, nor does anyone cite from such a hypothetical text. In the fifth century, the famous Christian textual scholar Jerome was sent to the Holy Land and tasked with translating the Old and New Testaments from their original languages into Latin. He came across an Aramaic gospel used by the Jewish–Christian sects of the Nazarenes and Ebionites, which he subsequently translated into Greek.4 These sects claimed that their gospel—also called the Gospel according to the Hebrews—was the original version of Matthew, written in Hebrew. Though initially intrigued, Jerome appears ultimately not to have been convinced, and he translated his Latin version of Matthew instead from the canonical Greek version.

Latin was not the only language.... and while I am NOT a RCC apologist, I will say that if any protestant denominations or sects were leaning on the Catholics to learn from... all the more reason to stop reading the bible and listening to clergy.

Granted the Reformation came out of disgruntled Catholic beliefs but still...

 

[Keiw1]

JESUS Says if you believe His Truth it will set you free from the lies of satan and false teachings/watchtower.

Genesis 1:1

In the beginning
בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית (bə·rê·šîṯ)
Preposition-b | Noun - feminine singular
Strong's Hebrew 7225: 1) first, beginning, best, chief 1a) beginning 1b) first 1c) chief 1d) choice part

God
אֱלֹהִ֑ים (’ĕ·lō·hîm)
Noun - masculine plural
Strong's Hebrew 430: 1) (plural) 1a) rulers, judges 1b) divine ones 1c) angels 1d) gods 2) (plural intensive-singular meaning) 2a) god, goddess 2b) godlike one 2c) works or special possessions of God 2d) the (true) God 2e) God

Do you mean like his teaching at John 17:3 where he tells all--The one who sent him= Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD---You best take your own advice.

 

[Keiw1]

That thrills you, doesn't it. " because only Catholicism translating remained when they translated.""a non trinitarian religion"

Which Pope _____ed it up for the RCC? Because

What the Early Church Believed: The Trinity

The early Christians clearly understood, as we do today, that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God).

www.catholic.com

What the Early Church Believed: The Trinity​

The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14, Heb. 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians, who clearly understood them in the sense that we do today—that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God).

Here are examples of what early Christian writers had to say on the subject of the Trinity:

The Didache​

“After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

Ignatius of Antioch​

“[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

“For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 18:2).

Justin Martyr​

“We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein” (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).

Theophilus of Antioch​

“It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom” (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

Irenaeus​

“For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit” (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian​

“We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit” (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).

“And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (ibid.).

“Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (ibid., 9).

“Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number” (ibid., 25).

Origen​

“For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a being outside himself, so that there was a time when he [the Son] did not exist” (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).

“For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages” (ibid.).

Hippolytus​

“The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the being of God” (Refutation of All Heresies 10:29 [A.D. 228]).

Pope Dionysius​

“Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it [the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. . . . [Some heretics] proclaim that there are in some way three gods, when they divide the sacred unity into three substances foreign to each other and completely separate” (Letter to Dionysius of Alexandria 1 [A.D. 262]).

“Therefore, the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in one, a summit, as it were, I mean the omnipotent God of the universe. . . . It is blasphemy, then, and not a common one but the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork [creature]. . . . But if the Son came into being [was created], there was a time when these attributes did not exist; and, consequently, there was a time when God was without them, which is utterly absurd” (ibid., 1–2).

“Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine unity. . . . Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. ‘For,’ he says, ‘The Father and I are one,’ and ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in me’” (ibid., 3).

Gregory the Wonderworker​

“There is one God. . . . There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever” (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).

Sechnall of Ireland​

“Hymns, with Revelation and the Psalms of God [Patrick] sings, and does expound the same for the edifying of God’s people. This law he holds in the Trinity of the sacred Name and teaches one being in three persons” (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 22 [A.D. 444]).

Patrick of Ireland​

“I bind to myself today the strong power of an invocation of the Trinity—the faith of the Trinity in unity, the Creator of the universe” (The Breastplate of St. Patrick 1 [A.D. 447]).

“[T]here is no other God, nor has there been heretofore, nor will there be hereafter, except God the Father unbegotten, without beginning, from whom is all beginning, upholding all things, as we say, and his Son Jesus Christ, whom we likewise to confess to have always been with the Father—before the world’s beginning. . . . Jesus Christ is the Lord and God in whom we believe . . . and who has poured out on us abundantly the Holy Spirit . . . whom we confess and adore as one God in the Trinity of the sacred Name” (Confession of St. Patrick 4 [A.D. 452]).

Augustine​

“All the Catholic interpreters of the divine books of the Old and New Testaments whom I have been able to read, who wrote before me about the Trinity, which is God, intended to teach in accord with the Scriptures that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one and the same substance constituting a divine unity with an inseparable equality; and therefore there are not three gods but one God, although the Father begot the Son, and therefore he who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, himself, too, coequal to the Father and to the Son and belonging to the unity of the Trinity” (The Trinity1:4:7 [A.D. 408]).

Fulgence of Ruspe​

“See, in short you have it that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another; in Person, each is other, but in nature they are not other. In this regard he says: ‘The Father and I, we are one’ (John 10:30). He teaches us that one refers to their nature, and we are to their Persons. In like manner it is said: ‘There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and these three are one’ (1 John 5:7)” (The Trinity 4:1–2 [c. A.D. 515]).

“But in the one true God and Trinity it is naturally true not only that God is one but also that he is a Trinity, for the reason that the true God himself is a Trinity of Persons and one in nature. Through this natural unity the whole Father is in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, and the whole Holy Spirit, too, is in the Father and in the Son. None of these is outside any of the others; because no one of them precedes any other of them in eternity or exceeds any other in greatness, or is superior to any other in power” (The Rule of Faith 4 [c. A.D. 523).

I am dumbfounded how one can make a definitively false claim about Elohim.

Learn:

Hebrew for Christians

https://hebrew4christians.com › Names_of_G-d › Elohim › elohim.html

The Hebrew Name for God - Elohim - Hebrew for Christians​

The word Elohim is the plural of El (or possibly of Eloah) and is the first name for God given in the Tanakh: "In the beginning, God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1): The name Elohim is unique to Hebraic thinking: it occurs only in Hebrew and in no other ancient Semitic language.

The rest of the article I cannot copy........

Elohim - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Elohim​

44 languages

This article is about the Hebrew word. For other uses, see Elohim (disambiguation).
Elohim in Hebrew script. The letters are, right-to-left: aleph-lamed-he-yud-mem.
Elohim (Hebrew: אֱלֹהִים, romanized: ʾĔlōhīm: [(ʔ)eloˈ(h)im]), the plural of אֱלוֹהַּ (ʾĔlōah), is a Hebrew word meaning "gods" or "godhood". Although the word is plural in form, in the Hebrew Bible it most often takes singular verbal or pronominal agreement and refers to a single deity, particularly but not always the God of Israel. In other verses it takes plural agreement and refers to gods in the plural.

Morphologically, the word is the plural form of the word אֱלוֹהַּ<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#cite_note-1"><span>[</span>a<span>]</span></a> (eloah) and related to el. It is cognate to the word 'l-h-m which is found in Ugaritic, where it is used as the pantheon for Canaanite gods, the children of El, and conventionally vocalized as "Elohim". Most uses of the term Elohim in the later Hebrew text imply a view that is at least monolatrist at the time of writing, and such usage (in the singular), as a proper title for Deity, is distinct from generic usage as elohim, "gods" (plural, simple noun).

Rabbinic scholar Maimonides wrote that Elohim "Divinity" and elohim "gods" are commonly understood to be homonyms.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#cite_note-maimonides-2"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a> One modern theory suggests that the notion of divinity underwent radical changes in the early period of Israelite identity and development of Ancient Hebrew religion. In this view, the ambiguity of the term elohim is the result of such changes, cast in terms of "vertical translatability", i.e. the re-interpretation of the gods of the earliest recalled period as the national god of monolatrism as it emerged in the 7th to 6th century BCE in the Kingdom of Judah and during the Babylonian captivity, and further in terms of monotheism by the emergence of Rabbinical Judaism in the 2nd century CE.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#cite_note-FOOTNOTESmith201019-3"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a> Another theory, building on an idea by Gesenius, argues that even before Hebrew became a distinct language, the plural elohim had both a plural meaning of "gods" and an abstract meaning of "godhood" or "divinity", much as the plural of "father", avot, can mean either "fathers" or "fatherhood". Elohim then came to be used so frequently in reference to specific deities, both male and female, domestic and foreign (for instance, the goddess of the Sidonians in 1 Kings 11:33), that it came to be concretized from meaning "divinity" to meaning "deity", though still occasionally used adjectivally as "divine".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBurnett2001-4"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a>

What is the meaning of "Elohim"?

Elohim is a Hebrew term that appears frequently in the Old Testament, often translated into English as “God.” In Hebrew script, the word is spelled אֱלֹהִים (ʾĕlōhîm). It is a plural form of the more general term for deity, “El” (אֵל), yet when referring to the one true God in Scripture, it is normally used with singular grammatical forms.

What Does the Name Elohim Teach Us about God?

Elohim is the third word in the Bible in its original Hebrew. So what does it mean?

www.christianity.com

Where Did the Word Elohim Come from?​

Elohim is the plural form of the Canaanite and Hebrew word El, which means mighty one. El is a general name for a deity throughout the Old Testament. Look for it in place names as a reference for God. For example, Bethel, where Jacob had his vision of angels ascending and descending from heaven, means house of God. Beth means house, and el means god.

Elohim is NOT a name, its a Hebrew word that carries various meanings.
Elijah=Elohim is Jehovah--Thus did NOT originate with Cannanites as you are mislead to believe or God would not have put it in his bible. Nor would he ever be called that.

 

[Keiw1]

Have you even read what you wrote. I just caught this even though I replied yesterday.

YOU wrote.....

Yes Peter= one of the little flock=anointed. He is with the 1 religion that has Jesus, a non trinitarian religion. God was never a trinity.
So you are using the Catholic religion of Peter as a non-trintarian religion and confirm it
by saying God was never a trinity.
Then
Catholicism kept the bible in latin until the 1300,s at least. Few knew that language thus could not read the bible. Once translating was allowed, the protestants saw clearly Jesus was NEVER with Catholicism( 2 Thess 2:3)--

So you are saying that the Protestants were not with the Catholics as you claim Jesus was not.... (Who the ____ was that Peter guy that Jesus built His church on?) and if that 1 religion had Jesus, in a non-trinitarian religion.....well!!!!!!!

they couldn't fix much because only Catholicism translating remained when they translated.

Say what? No one could translate Latin.... One reason why the RCC among others kept mass in Latin until not too long ago because only doctors would know what they were saying.
But why in the world did they not hit the good old Koine Greek, and Aramaic?
Why in the world did they not jump on



Latin was not the only language.... and while I am NOT a RCC apologist, I will say that if any protestant denominations or sects were leaning on the Catholics to learn from... all the more reason to stop reading the bible and listening to clergy.

Granted the Reformation came out of disgruntled Catholic beliefs but still...

Are you insane-Jesus was never with Catholicism, they are the great apostasy=2Thess 2:3
Catholic religion burned humans alive for trying to translate from Latin to the language of the day, a man named Hus was one. That is not Jesus, it is satan.

 

[MTMattie]

Are you insane-Jesus was never with Catholicism, they are the great apostasy=2Thess 2:3
Catholic religion burned humans alive for trying to translate from Latin to the language of the day, a man named Hus was one. That is not Jesus, it is satan.

Jesus chose Peter.

Latin was not the only available language.