Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Christianity (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=421)
-   -   Did Jesus say He was God the Father? (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=35984)

  • Oct 5, 2006, 07:40 PM
    Morganite
    Did Jesus say He was God the Father?
    The Bible shows God to be a distinct personage from Jesus Christ, who is a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and from the Holy Ghost according to the New Testament. Thus, the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are separate entities, perfectly distinct and in person independent from each other. This is the doctrine clearly stated by our Saviour. It is the doctrine proclaimed by his disciples in their epistles to the ancient saints. Any doctrine to the contrary contradicts what is plainly written and is a misinterpretation of these teachings. There was no confusion in the minds of Peter, John, and Paul. Consider what is written in the scriptures.

    First, we have the occasion of the baptism of our Lord. According to Matthew, when Jesus was baptised he "went up straightway out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him; and lo, a voice from heaven saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." This scene is confirmed by Mark and Luke; but the account given by Luke is even more explicit. He says, "And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." I will refer to this event and the conclusions we must draw from it later.

    Likewise, Matthew in relating the story of the transfiguration, says that while Jesus and his three disciples were with Moses and Elias on the mount, "There came a voice out of the cloud which said, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." This is also confirmed by Mark and Luke.

    On another occasion, as related in the 12th chapter of John, when Jesus was praying to his Father he said,

    "Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it and will glorify it again."

    Some of the assembled people "said that it thundered; others said an angel spoke to him." The very nature of the answer precludes the thought that it could have been the voice of any other than his Father.

    It is impossible to harmonise such statements in the scriptures with the prevailing notion that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are not separate personages. Our Saviour was not a deceiver; he did not resort to ventriloquism to confuse and mislead those who were with him. We must if we use our sense of reason conclude that on each occasion when the Father spoke to the Son he was in some other place, and the voice was not coming in some mysterious way from the Son.

    In John 14:28, the Saviour said to his disciples: "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

    Naturally his Father would be greater because he is the Father, and this likewise teaches us the separate entities of the Father and the Son.

    Then we have the witness of Paul to the Corinthian saints, wherein he says Christ must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet, and when that time comes, he, Christ,

    "Shall have delivered up the kingdom to God the Father." Moreover, when the last enemy is destroyed and all things are put under the feet of God the Father, then, said Paul, "When all things are subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."--I Cor. 15:24-28.

    Then again, unto whom was Christ praying as recorded in the seventeenth chapter of John, when he said:

    "Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee…. And now O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

    Surely he was not praying to himself. It is absurd to say that the mysterious essence called the Son was praying to the same mysterious essence called the Father.

    In the Garden the Saviour prayed saying, "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." Consistently we cannot say that he would utter such a prayer to himself.

    When Mary came to the tomb unaware of the Lord's resurrection, she found the sepulchre empty, but the risen Lord stood by. She thought him the gardener, and said:

    Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.

    Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

    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.


    Surely if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are one person, then this remark by our Lord to Mary, is inconsistent. We must conclude, of course, that the Lord is consistent, and that only man is inconsistent.

    • Christ could not ascend to himself.
    • He could not be greater than himself.

    Said our Redeemer: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

    There is not within the covers of the Bible one single passage which can properly be construed to uphold the erroneous doctrine that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are one in substance one, and merely a spirit, or essence, without body or parts or passions, incomprehensible and invisible. To the contrary, throughout the scriptures there is ample evidence in numerous passages, teaching that the Eternal Father and his Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are separate entities, perfectly distinct and in person independent from each other. This is the doctrine clearly stated by our Saviour. Any doctrine to the contrary contradicts what is plainly written and is a misinterpretation of these teachings.

    When Stephen was being martyred he saw God: "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God." (Acts vii: 55, 56.) Nothing could be plainer and more convincing from the written Scriptures than that Stephen actually saw God, and that He and His Son were in the heavens in the presence of each other.

    Paul wrote to the Philippians as follows: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." (Phillip. ii: 5, 6.) And again in Col. 1.15, Paul said respecting the Saviour: "Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature." To the Hebrews the same apostle says, concerning Jesus: "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." (Heb. 1: 3.) These writings of Paul fully corroborate in doctrine all the quotations on the subject made from the Old and New Testaments.

    The Scriptures referred to show conclusively the personality of the Father, and a portion of the quotations presented, point to the fact that He is a separate personage, and entirely distinct in person from His Son Jesus Christ.




    MRGANITE
  • Oct 6, 2006, 06:07 AM
    RickJ
    How can humans discuss this? You rightly point to the distinctness of the persons yet the one-ness of God, or as you called Him elsewhere, the God-head.

    Am I reading you wrong to see that you, also, are agreeing to this distinctness within the one-ness?
  • Oct 6, 2006, 10:09 AM
    Morganite
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RickJ
    How can humans discuss this? You rightly point to the distinctness of the persons yet the one-ness of God, or as you called Him elsewhere, the God-head.

    Am I reading you wrong to see that you, also, are agreeing to this distinctness within the one-ness?

    You do not read me right. The Godhead is God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit, which are three separate and distinct persons acting in the unity of the Godhead but not as explained in the Doctrine of Trinity - which I reject as unbiblical - which has it that there is one God but three 'economies.'

    How can humans discuss this? That has never been a problem for humans. Jesus has said that we must not only discuss it, but that we MUST come to know God, and that we must become as he is.

    "This, then, is eternal life to know God, and Jesus Christ whom God has sent."

    "Be ye, therefore, perfect, even as you Father which is in heaven is perfect."

    Theology, is talking about God, and we do talk about God, discuss God, debate God and his nature, characteristics, attributes, being, will, mind, purposes, etc. etc.

    You are discussing the very thing you question whether human can discuss and question. Answers prove a little more elusive, but the discussions and debates are always fascinating.



    M:)
  • Oct 6, 2006, 11:31 AM
    RickJ
    Indeed. Fascinating and illuminating when done right. I'm glad you point out what I misunderstood.

    I don't understand the statement "The Godhead is God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit, which are three separate and distinct persons "acting in the unity of the Godhead".

    What other words could you use to describe this unity? What fault do you find in the historic Christian explanation of this unity (which, as you rightly point out, we call the Trinity)?

    I am curious, too... if you don't mind disclosing: Are you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
  • Oct 6, 2006, 12:48 PM
    Morganite
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RickJ
    Indeed. Fascinating and illuminating when done right. I'm glad you point out what I misunderstood.

    I don't understand the statement "The Godhead is God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit, which are three separate and distinct persons "acting in the unity of the Godhead".

    What other words could you use to describe this unity? What fault do you find in the historic Christian explanation of this unity (which, as you rightly point out, we call the Trinity)?

    I am curious, too...if you don't mind disclosing: Are you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

    When I use the term 'Godhead,' I mean the combination of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost.

    The unity to which I refer is of purpose and not persons. There are three persons in the Godhead who act in concert - hence unity of purpose and intent - although each has his separate being, and individual, discrete and independent personality and will, but the three Persons are not merely modes of activity of one indivisible God.

    The traditional Christian Trinity holds that there are not three separate distinct and individual persons in the Trinity, but God in one Person who sometimes behaves as God the Father, sometimes as the God the Son of the Father, and sometimes as the God the Holy Spirit, but whatever modality they act in at any given moment they are the one and same person.

    My objections to this traditional nonbiblical view is that it is a contradiction, and God is not the author of confusion; that the Trinity per se is not supportable from scripture; and that events recorded in the Bible militate powerfully against God and the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost being the same person or persons. Cogent examples are have provided in the posts divided into three parts on account of its length, and to which your refer in your questions.

    While it is sometimes possible to guess from content of posts the leaning or denomination of a poster, it is my experience that such revelations often cloud more important issues and head us into entirely wrong directions.

    The name of the church in your question was changed some six or seven years back to "The Community Of Christ" although they were previously styled as you have it.

    Please feel free to respond as you think .


    M:)RGANITE
  • Oct 6, 2006, 05:01 PM
    beautifuldiva
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Morganite
    My objections to this traditional nonbiblical view is that it is a contradiction, and God is not the author of confusion; that the Trinity per se is not supportable from scripture; and that events recorded in the Bible militate powerfully against God and the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost being the same person or persons. Cogent examples are have provided in the posts divided into three parts on account of its length, and to which your refer in your questions.

    Totally agree... What scripture is that from morganite? "God is not a God of confusion" hmmmm :confused: I cannot think of it!
  • Oct 6, 2006, 05:25 PM
    Morganite
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by beautifuldiva
    Totally agree... What scripture is that from morganite? "God is not a God of confusion" hmmmm :confused: I cannot think of it!


    1 Corinthians 14:33a

    33 For God is not [the author*] of confusion [... ]

    * the words in brackets are supplied to make sense of the Greek.



    M:)
  • Oct 6, 2006, 05:28 PM
    beautifuldiva
    Ah yes.. lol thanks! It was driving me nuts.. I thought is was Corinthians
  • Oct 6, 2006, 06:05 PM
    Starman
    Not all Christians believe the holy spirit is a person. There are Christians who believe it to be the force God used to create the universe, which he also uses to strengthen, inspire, encourage, enlighten, his worshippers. This is not to say I am seeking debate on this issue since this is not a debating forum and debates rarely are productive and the debators rarely if ever accept the opposing view. Only to say that there are divergeant opinions on this matter.

    Example of the opposing viewpoint can be found at the following websites:

    Excerpt:
    The Scriptures speak of the Holy Spirit in many ways that demonstrate that it is not a divine person. For example, the Holy Spirit is referred to as a gift (Acts 10:45; 1 Timothy 4:14). We are told that it can be quenched (1 Thessalonians 5:19), that it can be poured out (Acts 2:17; 10:45), and that we are baptized with it (Matthew 3:11). It must be stirred up within us (2 Timothy 1:6), and it also renews us (Titus 3:5). These are certainly not attributes of a person.


    IS THE HOLY SPIRIT A PERSON?
    http://www.ucgportland.org/popups/tl9.html


    What Is the Holy Spirit?

    http://www.guardian-ministries.org/nholyspirit.htm
  • Oct 6, 2006, 06:28 PM
    Morganite
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Starman
    The Scriptures speak of the Holy Spirit in many ways that demonstrate that it is not a divine person.

    And in some ways that demonstrate that he is:


    John 14:26
    26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

    Early Christian art shows a three-faced God, one of whom is the Holy Ghost. This can be found on the front cover of Mircea Eliade's "The Sacred and the Profane," in the softback edition.

    I regret I have not time at present to provide further examples, but the creeds describe the Holy Ghost as a 'person' and that must speak for itself.

    M:)
  • Oct 7, 2006, 04:40 AM
    RickJ
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by morganite
    The traditional Christian Trinity holds that there are not three separate distinct and individual persons in the Trinity, but God in one Person who sometimes behaves as God the Father, sometimes as the God the Son of the Father, and sometimes as the God the Holy Spirit, but whatever modality they act in at any given moment they are the one and same person.

    Absolutely incorrect. The above is not the teaching of the Catholic faith nor of most Protestant groups.

    This is one of the problems with debates whereby one asserts knowledge of the other's position.

    Thankfully, the doctrine of the Trinity is shared by Catholics and most Protestants.

    From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

    "The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system." For more, read here.

    And for an even deeper understanding of each of the Three - and their relationship, start reading here.
  • Oct 7, 2006, 10:07 AM
    Starman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Morganite
    And in some ways that demonstrate that he is:


    John 14:26
    26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

    Early Christian art shows a three-faced God, one of whom is the Holy Ghost. This can be found on the front cover of Mircea Eliade's "The Sacred and the Profane," in the softback edition.

    I regret I have not time at present to provide further examples, but the creeds describe the Holy Ghost as a 'person' and that must speak for itself.

    M:)

    My computer programs teach me many things and it are just tools.
    Nano tech might eventually produce chips which might be implanted into the brain to teach us. Some programs even speaks its instructions as it teaches. My chess program does that.

    About the art and creeds, such as the Nicene (325/381) and Athanasian (circa 500), they are viewed as the result of a slow inexorable turning away from Christian original teachings as predicted by the apostle Paul. A warning unheeded.

    2 Thessalonians 2:15
    So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.


    Also, one reason that the three-personed God is rejected it is that it poses an affront to OT and its writers. According to the Trinitarian view Abraham, Moses, Daniel, in short, all major and minor prophets were wrong in their view of who God really is. The viewpoint posits that they were inspired into error. Christians, mind you, have never accused the OT or the writers of the OT of being uninspired which is paradoxical to say the least. So the idea of a triune God creates contradiction which Christendom seems reluctant to face via ignoring it or continuing to accuse the Jews of misunderstanding their own sacred writings to the degree of not really knowing who the God they worshipped really was during all that time prior to Christianity. That viewpoint contradicts both Jesus' and the Apostles' respect the OT as evidenced by the frequency that it is quoted and the and referred to as the inspired Word of God which is part of the light that God shone on the minds of men prior to the coming of Jesus.


    BTW
    I agree with you that Jesus is not his own father and that Jesus and his Father are two persons and that their unity referred to is that of purpose and mind. The following scriptures along with the OT viewpoint should make that clear. The bolds are mine.


    John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."


    John 14:28: "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

    John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."


    1Corinthians 8:5-6: "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), [b]yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

    Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."

    1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"
  • Oct 7, 2006, 10:20 AM
    Morganite
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RickJ
    Absolutely incorrect. The above is not the teaching of the Catholic faith nor of most Protestant groups.

    This is one of the problems with debates whereby one asserts knowledge of the other's position.

    Thankfully, the doctrine of the Trinity is shared by Catholics and most Protestants.

    From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

    "The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system." For more, read here.

    And for an even deeper understanding of each of the Three - and their relationship, start reading here.


    You have posted the words, but I have posted their meaning. As the creed stands it is a direct contradiction. It says that there are three separate and distinct iPersons eaxch of which is God, and then contradicts that statement by insisting that these three truly distinct Persons, each of which is God, are not three Gods but One God. Calling a contradiction a 'mystery' does not clear up either the contradiction or the confusion. The implications of the creed are not supported by the Bible, and that is the point we need to come to terms with.

    The introduction of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was not the result of a journey arriving at a theological credal statement of belief, but the result of attempts to thwart pagan and Jewish taunts that Christians were polytheistic, while claiming they were monotheistic, because some Christians elevated Jesus to the same level as God, and some said he was the Father as well as the Son. It was a philosophic al destination embraced byChristian theologians in disarray that proceeded toward the compromise of the Holy Trinity. However, as previously stated, it does not rest on a secure scriptural foundation, rather it sits on a foundation of necessity. With the appearance of Konstantin on the scene, the doctrine also took a politoco-philosophical turn.

    In respect of this, Clement, he of the 'Clementine Recognitions,' speaking of philosophy's inroads into Christianity in his own time, said:

    "Most rightly, I said, has the omnipotent God hidden his will from you, knowing you to be unworthy from the first--as should be clear to any thinking person from your present behavior. For when you see preachers of the will of God coming to you, if their speech displays no familiarity with the grammatic art, but instead they tell you God's commands in simple unpolished phrases, so that anyone who hears them can follow and understand what they say, you make fun of these ministers and messengers of your salvation, forgetting . . . that a knowledge of the truth may be found among rustics and barbarians; yet you won't accept it unless it comes by one of your town and in your vernacular; and that is proof enough that you are not friends of truth and philosophers [seekers after wisdom] at all, but the dupes of men with big mouths, babblers yourselves, who believe that truth must dwell not in simple words but in shrewd and clever language."

    Even at this early day, Christianity and philosophy are on opposite sides of the fence, as Roman Catholic scholar Etienne Gilson has incontrovertibly shown. But it was not to be so for long. S. V. McCasland has noted that

    "[T]he older unspeculative conception of the creation of man in the image of God" was the original Christian doctrine, as witnessed "by unambiguous passages in the Clementine Homilies," which show how early that doctrine fell into disrepute.

    J. Morris has written, [/i]

    [Theophilus of Antioch] "altogether avoided mentioning that God had a son, let alone that a Crucifixion was involved."

    "With perfect impunity and the greatest of ease they proceeded to do violence to the scriptures,"
    writes Eusebius of the period, "blithely disregarding the original teaching. . . . They never consulted the scriptures, but busily worked out elaborate structures of syllogisms. . . . They deserted the holy scripture for Euclid, Aristotle, and Theophrastus. . . . They cultivated the arts of the unbelievers and took to hair-splitting discussions about the once simple faith of the Holy Writ."

    They became imitators of Seneca, whose specialty, as Cochrane describes it, was "clothing in scintillating phrases the commonplaces of a shallow optimism, the beautiful day-dream of human perfectability and brotherhood under the Caesars"--later, we might add, under the imperial church.

    Justin Martyr, though he recognized the superiority of prophecy to philosophy, never gave up his philosopher's garb, of which he was very proud, and went all out to show that Plato, after all, taught no differently than Moses and Christ, that Heraclitus taught the same morality as Moses, and even that Plato's areté is nothing other than the Holy Ghost!

    At the same time, Irenaeus accused the Gnostics of dragging philosophy into the church. Their works, he says, "read like a patchwork made up from the philosophers as all those call themselves who do not know the true God, piecing together a doctrine from philosophical shreds and tatters with high-sounding eloquence."

    All the attributes of God, he notes, they derive from the philosophers, "and they hold forth with hairsplitting subtlety on philosophical questions, introducing, as it were, Aristotle into the faith."

    "O miserable Aristotle!" cried Tertullian shortly after, "who taught them [the Christians] dialectic, the art of proving and disproving, the cunning turn of sentences, forced conjectures, tough arguments, contrary even to itself."

    All heresies are suborned by philosophy, he says: from the philosophers they get the idea that the flesh is not resurrected - a thing on which all philosophers agree; hence, too, they get the doctrine of the baseness of matter and such set questions as whence is evil and why? - because these are old chestnuts in the Greek schools.

    Paul knew philosophy at Athens, Tertullian observes, and was not impressed by it. "What have Athens and Jerusalem in common?" he asks in a famous passage. "What the Academy and the Church?"

    But by the next century, Minucius Felix sees no difference between the teaching of the prophets and those of the philosophers and concludes "either that the Christians are now philosophers, or that the ancient philosophers were already Christians." And Clement of Alexandria sees in philosophy God's preparation of the human race for the Jesus' gospel: "Philosophy prepares the work that Christ completes."

    Yet that work having been consummated, it is not philosophy but the gospel that bows out of the picture, for Clement himself never mentions the millennium, softpedals the second coming of Christ, and allegorizes the resurrection.

    In a book on Clement of Alexandria, Walter Voelker writes:

    "In Clement of Alexandria, Stoic, Platonist, Mystic, etc., constantly shove against and overlap on each other and entangle themselves often in a narrow compass into a completely inextricable mess."

    Origen was just as bad, completely rejecting the old faith, as Schmidt notes, in favor of philosophy.

    "In his way of life," wrote Porphyry of Origen, "he lived like a Christian, which was misleading, since in actual fact and in his teachings about God he was a thoroughgoing Hellenist." It was he who introduced logic and dialectic into the church--those two obsessions of declining antiquity of which the early church had so prided itself of being free. It was he, you may recall, who told the pagan Celsus that all Christians would do nothing but study philosophy if they did not have to take time off to earn a living. Step by step we can trace the infiltration of philosophy into the church and its core beliefs, but freom the beginning it was not so.

    What was once a simple truth delivered by Jesus about his dependent and submissive relationship with the Father - "My Father and your Father, My God and Your God!" developed by the fourth Christian century in the crucible of bitter argument into the Trinity. A doctrine that is confusing, contradictory, and contrary to all that is found in the Bible.

    Whilst I agree that those not of a particular denomination do not always understand what it teaches, it is far from the truth to say that they cannot understand what it teaches. The issues, whilst far from clear or conscise are suifficiently well and reliably documented by those within and without the Catholic Church. Anyone sufficiently familiar with the history and literature can make valid statements.




    M:)RGANITE




    .
  • Oct 7, 2006, 10:50 AM
    RickJ
    Thankfully we have Christ's Church - and 2000 years of exposition and discussion - to help us with all of this.

    As for me, I am with the historic Christian faith that recognizes in the New Testament the mysterious Trinity: One God in three Persons; separate and distinct yet one.
  • Oct 7, 2006, 01:01 PM
    Morganite
    What you refer to as "Christ's Church" along with the two thousand years of exposition have failed to satisfy the subject of the nature of God. Therefore it is a relevant subject for debate, speculation, discussion, and further exploration, but if your mind is satisfied then I am happy for you, but you will recognise that for some the questions are far from settled.

    I am surprised that a supermoderator, a person one expects to be neutral on dogmatic and doctrinal grounds, seeks to limit discussion on a subject of such great importance.

    As I write, dissenters have often paid a price for daring to challenge the accepted view of insitutional Christianity. It is not too many years since some of the most brilliant theological minds of our times, massive intellects like Hans Kung and Edward Schillebecx, dared to dissent and were removed.

    If the subject embarrasses anyone, they need not respond, but there are many who are interested in the Trinity and its obvious contradictions and who, unless this forum is closed to them, should feel free to express themselves without the persecutions that marked the Inquistions. No one has to agree, but should we not at least expect contributors to the thread to add something to the debate?

    Vatican II opened the eyes of ordinary people to study theology, and the Council fathers' recognition of the myriad voices opened many fields of debate that had been closed for centuries. It would be sad indeed if the spirit of Vatican II was buried under slavish devotion to creeds that make no sense to many of the world's people.

    The Late pope decided should be a synod on Christian marriage. Why? Hadn't the matter been settled for two-thousand years? Hadn't it been put to the test by theologians and scholars and laid to rest? Apparently not, and the pope recognised this. He could have simply hjeld uyp his hand and said, "No discussion necessary. It is settled!" Instead, he recognised contrary opinions evenwihtin his own ranks. There were dissident theologians - even dissident bishops - who needed to be heard.

    Consequently, he calles a Synod, and to his amazement the synod considered views markedly dissimilar to his own. They concluded that the fact that Catholics don't practice birth control was something that must be given consideration. The synod could have said, 'Well these people are all misguided' or 'They're all sinners'; but such a response to what is undeniably a pressing situation would not serve the interests of the Catholic people well. They deserved better. The synod, against papal expectations, began from the real situation of the Catholic people, and tried to understand and help them. They could have said, 'Everything will be solved by your obedience to what had been decreed before. Go home and behave yourselves!" Sadly, despite the urging of the synond, the second was what the pope announced in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor . And this perhaps is one of the most unusual features of the pontificate.

    But perhaps the important encouraging thing is that he called the council and set them free to discuss ways and means, and that spirit of free enquiry is too precious to be squashed, whether by decree ex cathedra, or any other means, for it is that spirit that has moved the development of all the doctrines and dogmas of traditional Christianity. and which is yet active within the RCC in movements such as Liberation Theology, and the abandonment of Limbo, and it continues to question whether the Trinity is supported by the Bible.

    " ... he that is not against us is on our part."


    M:)RGANITE
  • Oct 7, 2006, 03:06 PM
    Morganite
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Starman
    My computer programs teach me many things and it are just tools.
    Nano tech might eventually produce chips which might be implanted into the brain to teach us. Some programs even speaks its instructions as it teaches. My chess program does that.

    About the art and creeds, such as the Nicene (325/381) and Athanasian (circa 500), they are viewed as the result of a slow inexorable turning away from Christian original teachings as predicted by the apostle Paul. A warning unheeded.

    2 Thessalonians 2:15
    So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.


    Also, one reason that the three-personed God is rejected it is that it poses an affront to OT and its writers. According to the Trinitarian view Abraham, Moses, Daniel, in short, all major and minor prophets were wrong in their view of who God really is. The viewpoint posits that they were inspired into error. Christians, mind you, have never accused the OT or the writers of the OT of being uninspired which is paradoxical to say the least. So the idea of a triune God creates contradiction which Christendom seems reluctant to face via ignoring it or continuing to accuse the Jews of misunderstanding their own sacred writings to the degree of not really knowing who the God they worshipped really was during all that time prior to Christianity. That viewpoint contradicts both Jesus' and the Apostles' respect the OT as evidenced by the frequency that it is quoted and the and referred to as the inspired Word of God which is part of the light that God shone on the minds of men prior to the coming of Jesus.


    BTW
    I agree with you that Jesus is not his own father and that Jesus and his Father are two persons and that their unity referred to is that of purpose and mind. The following scriptures along with the OT viewpoint should make that clear. The bolds are mine.


    John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."


    John 14:28: "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

    John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."


    1Corinthians 8:5-6: "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), [b]yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

    Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."

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

    The only passage in the Bible that speaks of God, Jesus, and the Spirit as one God is a forgery. It is not found in the oldest manuscripts and modern translations leave it out.


    M:)
  • Oct 8, 2006, 06:24 AM
    RickJ
    How can you deny "institutional" Christianity. You yourself are putting forth the teachings of an "institution" aren't you?

    Aren't you here putting forth the teachings of the Mormons?
  • Oct 8, 2006, 11:37 AM
    Morganite
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RickJ
    How can you deny "institutional" Christianity. You yourself are putting forth the teachings of an "institution" aren't you?

    Aren't you here putting forth the teachings of the Mormons?

    I have not 'denied institutional Christianity.' I have commented on it from an historical perspective. If you have arguments against what I have written, why not lay them out and let us discuss them on their merits. Mormons will probably agree with most of what I have set out, here but so will many others.

    Although some denominations require their members to profess faith in the trinity, most mainline denominations have taken a "hands-off" policy on the subject of the trinity, realizing that since personal study and free thought have been encouraged for years, it is not surprising that some of the conclusions reached would be nontrinitarian.

    The recognition here is that the trinity is tool for pointing to a greater truth. In other words, Christianity has historically sought to look beyond its doctrines to the greater truth they are intended to address, IE God.

    It is not uncommon for a Methodist, Presbyterian, or Anglican to profess non-trinitarian views, even among the clergy. The response from the governing bodies of those denominations is usually neutral, so long as the disagreement is voiced in respect.

    Non-Trintarian groups - some of which are ancient, not modern objections, to Trinitarian position - include:

    * Monarchianism
    * Arianism
    * Arian Catholic Church
    * Socinianism
    * Church of the Blessed Hope (Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith)
    * Christadelphians
    * Jehovah's Witnesses
    * Bible Students
    * The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)
    * Unitarian Christians
    * American Unitarian Conference
    * Living Church of God
    * Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship
    * Magi Network
    * Church of Christ, Scientist
    * Oneness Pentecostals
    * Unification Church
    * The Way The Church of Yahweh in Christ Jesus
    * Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith)
    * Polish Brethren
    * Doukhobors
    * Molokan
    * The Way International
    * Gospel Assembly Church
    * New Church
    * The Church of Jesus Christ
    * Creation Seventh Day Adventism
    * Iglesia ni Cristo
    * True Jesus Church


    Nontrinitarian people include:

    * Natalius[1], ~200
    * Sabellius, ~220
    * Paul of Samosata, 269
    * Arius, 336
    * Eusebius of Nicomedia, 341, who baptized Constantine
    * Constantius II, Byzantine Emperor, 361
    * Antipope Felix II, 365
    * Aëtius, 367
    * Ulfilas, Apostle to the Goths, 383
    * Priscillian, 385
    * Muhammad, 632,
    * Ludwig Haetzer, 1529
    * Juan de Valdés, 1541
    * Michael Servetus, 1553, kindly burned at the stake under John Calvin
    * Sebastian Castellio, 1563
    * Ferenc Dávid, 1579
    * Fausto Paolo Sozzini, 1604
    * John Biddle, 1662
    * John Locke, 1704
    * Sir Isaac Newton, 1727
    * William Whiston, 1752
    * Jonathan Mayhew, 1766
    * Emanuel Swedenborg,1772 (The New Church)
    * Benjamin Franklin, 1790
    * Joseph Priestley, 1804
    * Joseph Smith, 1805 (Mormon)
    * Thomas Paine, 1809
    * Thomas Jefferson, 1826
    * James Madison, 1836
    * William Ellery Channing, 1842
    * Robert Hibbert, 1849
    * Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1882
    * James Martineau, 1900
    * Charles Taze Russell, 1916 (Watchtower Co)
    * Neville Chamberlain, 1940
    * William Branham, 1965
    * Herbert W. Armstrong, 1986 (Church of God)
    * &c.


    Non-Trintarianism (I prefer that term to anti-Trinitariansim, because rejection does not mean hostility towards Trinitarianism, merely disbelief in it) is not confined to a single denomnation, person, or movement, but has been widespread since non-trinitarianism, the NT view, was overtaken centuries later by Trinitarianism.

    I am not, as you appear to believe, trying to start a war. I am openly positing the foundation for respectful and informed discussion by setting before you the non-Trinitatian position supported by cogent historical support, and I regret that you are unwilling to respond in that spirit. Opinions, however passionately and sincerely held, do not contribute to free and frank discussion unless they are supported, and while I am the first to welcome variant opinions, calling to each other across a divide without offering the light of explanation and evidentiary support is nothing but an exchange of heat, and I am not willing to engage in that kind of attack.


    M:)RGANITE



    .
  • Oct 9, 2006, 03:57 AM
    RickJ
    I don't see any heat or attacking. This sort of engagement is why I've started my own site that presents things as I see them.

    With all respect, if this were just a discussion of what the writers of the NT really meant by their various descriptions of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then that would be one thing... but in your case aren't you arguing from the position of a group that claims special revelation regarding this issue and many others?

    With this being the case, then we pretty much have to leave history out of it, don't we?

    To get a fuller understanding of your position, I would like to read how your Church presents it. I couldn't find it at lds.org. Can you point me to something?
  • Oct 9, 2006, 08:06 AM
    Morganite
    I do not represent any church or denomination.


    M:)
  • Oct 21, 2006, 09:59 AM
    Jesus4me
    Yes, Jesus is god-the Father.Isaiah 9:6 says that he is the everlasting father.Is this just because he has the same substance as the father, no.If it did, it would be funny how two members of the trinity have the same name, father.Malachi 2:10 states that we have one father.In John 14:9 Jesus said that he was the father.In John 12:44-45, Jesus said again that he was the father.if Jesus is not the father, then we run into many problems.Isaiah 63:16 says that the Lord is our Father.Ephesians 4:4-6 says that there is one Lord.Luke 2:11 says that there would be born a savior that day called christ the Lord.So if you look at all three of these verses, you will see that Jesus is the father.John 1:1 says thaty the word was with god.The meaning of word in the greek is logos.Which means a plan in one's mind.rEVELATIONS 13:8 SAYS THAT THE LAMB WAS SLAIN BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.WELL, HOW could this be he wasn't slain until the new testament.God had this plan in mind before he created man.he knew that man would sin which would separate our communion with him.so he planned on coming down himself in the flesh to save his people.there was no one worth to do it.We needed a sinless man to do it.That man was jesus christ.what about Genesis 1:26.Well, it doesn't say the father, it doesn't say the son, and it doesn't say the Holy Ghost.Jews say that he was communicating with the angels.Job 38:7 staes that the angels were present at creation.Well, I have to go, Ihope this helped you out.God bless.
  • Oct 21, 2006, 03:12 PM
    shygrneyzs
    Jesus said, "I and the Father are One". You can argue the Trinity until the last days. I used to be a Roman Catholic and during a period a time, a United Pentecostal, finally finding home in Assembly of God. I believe in the Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost and it is all God.
  • Oct 24, 2006, 10:06 PM
    Starman
    Quote:

    The Scriptures referred to show conclusively the personality of the Father, and a portion of the quotations presented, point to the fact that He is a separate personage, and entirely distinct in person from His Son Jesus Christ.


    MRGANITE

    I totally agree with you on this one. I would also like to commend you the skillful usage of scripture which is the foundation of Christian doctrine. Incidentally, the expression God the Father which is so often brandished about as if it were somewhere in the Bible is nowhere to be found within its pages. So I will assume that the expression began to be used only after the Trinitarian view became predominant within Christendom.
  • Oct 26, 2006, 05:02 PM
    Morganite
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jesus4me

    Yes, Jesus is god-the Father.Isaiah 9:6 says that he is the everlasting father.Is this just because he has the same substance as the father, no.If it did, it would be funny how two members of the trinity have the same name, father.Malachi 2:10 states that we have one father.In John 14:9 Jesus said that he was the father.In John 12:44-45, Jesus said again that he was the father.if Jesus is not the father, then we run into many problems.Isaiah 63:16 says that the Lord is our Father.Ephesians 4:4-6 says that there is one Lord.Luke 2:11 says that there would be born a savior that day called christ the Lord.So if you look at all three of these verses, you will see that Jesus is the father.John 1:1 says thaty the word was with god.The meaning of word in the greek is logos.Which means a plan in one's mind.rEVELATIONS 13:8 SAYS THAT THE LAMB WAS SLAIN BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.WELL, HOW could this be he wasn't slain until the new testament.God had this plan in mind before he created man.he knew that man would sin which would seperate our communion with him.so he planned on coming down himself in the flesh to save his people.there was no one worth to do it.We needed a sinless man to do it.That man was jesus christ.what about Genesis 1:26.Well, it doesn't say the father, it doesn't say the son, and it doesn't say the Holy Ghost.Jews say that he was communicating with the angels.Job 38:7 staes that the angels were present at creation.Well, I have to go, Ihope this helped you out.God bless.



    Isaiah 9:6

    For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.


    There is nothing in this verse indicative of any trinity.

    The Jewish translation of verses 6 (Heb. 5), and 7 (Heb. 6), is:


    Chapter 9

    (6) 5 For a child has been born to us, A son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders.

    He has been named "The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler" —

    (7) 6 In token of abundant authority And of peace without limit Upon David's throne and kingdom, That it may be firmly established In justice and in equity Now and evermore.

    The zeal of the Lord of Hosts Shall bring this to pass.


    The Hebrew version provides an interesting reading, but there is absolutely no trinitarian content whether in the Christian rendition or in the Jewish one.



    M:)RGANITE



    .
  • Oct 26, 2006, 05:06 PM
    Morganite
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by shygrneyzs
    Jesus said, "I and the Father are One". You can argue the Trinity until the last days. I used to be a Roman Catholic and during a period a time, a United Pentecostal, finally finding home in Assembly of God. I believe in the Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost and it is all God.


    Jesus also said, "My Father is greater than I," and speaking directly to the Father, he said, "Not my will, but thine be done." etc. etc.

    In many other passages Jesus stressed the unity of purpose and intent that exists between himself and the Father, but at the same time made significant differentiation between himself and the Father.

    "Why callest thou me good?" he asked the rich young man, adding, "There is no one good except One." Clearly, although he said he was from God, he did not claim to be his own Father.





    M:)
  • Oct 27, 2006, 01:30 AM
    krystal22
    Jesus was God in the flesh. That is why the Bible calls this a mystery. He exists as three entities, yet is One.
  • Oct 27, 2006, 10:37 AM
    Morganite
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by krystal22
    Jesus was God in the flesh. That is why the Bible calls this a mystery. He exists as three entities, yet is One.

    Jesus was [IS] the Son of God, incarnate. The Bible does not promote, speak of, indicate, hint at, or otherwise support a trinitarian godhead.

    Of course people believe otherwise, and that is their privilege, but they have to move outside the pages of the Bible to do so. That's all.

    M:)
  • Oct 27, 2006, 11:03 AM
    DrJ
    Are we not all the Son of God incarnate? Didn't Jesus himself say that He is no different than you or I?
  • Oct 27, 2006, 04:37 PM
    Morganite
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DrJizzle
    Are we not all the Son of God incarnate? Didn't Jesus himself say that He is no different than you or I?

    Do you have a reference for that?


    M:)
  • Oct 30, 2006, 12:40 PM
    DrJ
    Are you saying that you don't?

    Hmmm... I bet I can find it first
  • Oct 30, 2006, 09:14 PM
    Morganite
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DrJizzle
    Are you saying that you dont??

    Hmmm... I bet I can find it first



    Didn't Jesus himself say that He is no different than you or I?


    Where is it? I cannot recall him saying anything like that. "I am no different from any other man, etc"

    I look forward to you kindly pointing it out to me.


    M:)



    .
  • Mar 16, 2007, 06:53 PM
    Gods Child
    Ok, most christians in believe in the trinity, I on the other hand am far from believing in the trinity. Jesus is God according to Isaiah 9:6, 1 Timothy 3: 16.

    Trinitarians say that God the Son manifested himself in flesh but this is not true. 1 Cor 8: 6 claims the Father is the ONLY ONE God... and God (Father) manifested himself in flesh which is Jesus Christ according to 1 Timothy 3:16 and in Jesus dwells the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Jesus is God but not by the so called God the Son manifesting himself in Jesus. The Father is the Only God, God is the Father.

    Many have misinterpreted the bible with their own opinion instead of letting the Holy Spirit give them understanding. Jesus revealed that he was the Father to the apostles in
    John 14: 9-10, he told the apostles that he was the Father because they had been with Jesus along time and should have figured it out but they didn't until Philip asked Jesus to "Shew us the Father" Jesus told him "have i not been with you so long Philip? Jesus said "from now on you shall know that the Father is IN me. Some trinitarians ask "If he is the Father, then why didn't he just say so plainly"? The same reason why he never told the public he was "God". Jesus never put himself out as if he knew and could do anything (Philippians 2: 6-8).

    John 8: 19, 24-25, 27 ~ The said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also. 24... for if ye believe not that I am HE, ye shall die in your sins. 25 Then they said unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus said to them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. 27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

    Jesus said "when you see me, you see the Father"
  • Mar 16, 2007, 08:14 PM
    Gods Child
    When it comes down to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the question is "Who rose Jesus?"

    Was it the Father?

    Was it the Spirit?

    Was it Jesus himself?

    Lets search the scriptures:

    John 2: 19, 21 ~Jesus said, Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.

    21 ... he spoke of the temple of his body.

    John 10: 18 ~ No man taketh it from me, but i lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down and i have power to take it up again. This commandment have i recieved from my father.


    IN THESE TWO VERSES JESUS IS SAID TO HAVE ROSE HIMSELF.

    Gal 1:1 ~ ...but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;

    Rom 8: 11 ~ ...that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father

    IN THESE TWO VERSES THE FATHER IS SAID TO HAVE ROSE JESUS.

    Rom 8: 11 ~ But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead...

    IN THIS VERSE THE SPIRIT IS SAID TO HAVE ROSE JESUS.

    Now we see that God the Father, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit rose Jesus.
    If these three are distinct, why would they need to all raise him at the same time, that seems unnessecary, WE CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT JESUS HAS A LAW FROM THE FATHER TO RAISE HIMSELF BUT YET THE FATHER ROSE HIM BUT YET THE SPIRIT ROSE HIM. This would be confusing to trinitarians but to oneness, this is simple.

    The Father and Holy Ghost are the same person. The Holy Spirit gives life, the holy spirit proceeds from the Father. The Holy Ghost is the God in action, notice that in every instance of the Holy Ghost, he is always doing something.

    JESUS IS ALSO THE HOLY GHOST

    John 14: 17-26 ~ Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot recieve, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 19 Yet in a little while
    Verse 26 goes on to say the comforter is the Holy Ghost and the Father will send him.

    Notice that the Holy Spirit has many nick names (Spirit of God, Spirit of truth, Spirit of Christ etc. The bible also says that there is only ONE spirit, if the Father has a Spirit and Jesus has the Spirit of Christ and they are three distinct person as trinitarians claim then their would be more than one Spirit, we would have more 3 spirits in us but theirs only ONE. Jesus said in the above verses that " i will come to you yet in a little while" and he also said "the spirit of truth is with the you", now take heed to this "I will not leave you comfortless, i will come to you". The apostles were in comfort because they had the Spirit of Truth but the Spirit was soon to leave this is why Jesus said I will not leave you comfortless, the Holy Spirit is Jesus come back to comfort us. The Holy Ghost was not considered a person of the Trinity until it was decided upon hundreds of years after the death of Christ

    If the Trinity is True and God the Son is equal to God the Father then why does God the Father speaks through Jesus rather than God the Son speak? Isn't God the Son all powerful? Isn't God the Son all knowing? Isn't God the Son no less than the Father? God the Son doesn't speak because there is no God the Son, Jesus is the I AM because the FATHER IS SPEAKING and in Jesus (flesh) not a God the son. Doesn't Jesus say only the Father speaks? Does Jesus ever say God the Son speaks through the flesh of Jesus? No

    Trinitarians admit that the concept of their belief is hard to comprehend and is a mystery. The bible never says God is a mystery, it only says "The wisdom of God is a mystery" the assets of God is a mystery not the nature of him. The Council of Nicea has messed up everything, its funny how constantine already believe he was God incarnated and was the leader of the council, he also believed in pagan gods. Turtillian and the rest of the Fathers of the Trinity all over a period was never established on the concept of the trinity until many years later others have put the final touches on the belief. Some of the Fathers of the Trinity took their aspects from pagan philosophers and tried to fix it in with the christian belief, the final result was God was three in one which makes no since anyway.

    We all need to continue to study the word and study history and not be deceived by philosophy and vain deceit. God bless
  • Mar 17, 2007, 09:47 AM
    Morganite
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DrJizzle
    Are you saying that you dont??

    Hmmm... I bet I can find it first

    Have you found it yet, Dr Jizzle? It still eludes me.


    M:).
  • Mar 17, 2007, 04:05 PM
    Retrotia
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gods Child
    Ok, most christians in believe in the trinity, i on the other hand am far from believing in the trinity. Jesus is God according to Isaiah 9:6, 1 Timothy 3: 16.

    How can a Christian not be a Trinitarian? Do you not believe in the Deity of Christ?http://http://www.neirr.org/believeint
    rinity.htm
  • Mar 17, 2007, 08:27 PM
    Morganite
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Retrotia
    How can a Christian not be a Trinitarian? Do you not believe in the Deity of Christ?http://http://www.neirr.org/believeint
    rinity.htm


    The Trinity and Trinitarian formulations are not found in the Bible except by the expediency [?}of special pleading and reading back, both of which are unreliable. It comes down to a choice of believing either the creeds or believing the Bible. Which of these is the most reliable?

    Being a Christian has nothing to do with the trinity, as the person you responded to indicated clearly that he/she was a Christian but not a trinitarian. It is extremely unlikely that any early Christian even heard of the trinity. God is not, says the scripture, the author of confusion. What is more confusing than the doctrine of the trinity?

    Being a Christian has to do with believing that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, the Redeemer and Saviour of mankind. The trinity is a late-comer into the Christian fold compared with the clear teaching of the New Testament writers and the testimony of Jesus himself that he is the Son of God, not the Father, and that he submits his will to the will of the Father when his will differs from that of his Father.
  • Mar 18, 2007, 07:02 AM
    Retrotia
    Morganite,
    Yes, I can see it is one's choice to believe in the Trinity or not. But if some wanted to claim otherwise, why do they so with established doctrine? Did you read all of my link? I never heard of this Unitarian belief from a Christian. What about the authority Jesus has when you are JUDGED? What about John 5: 19-30?

    All these other beliefs do is divide us on doctrine. I know the basic elements for being a Christian, like you said. I just hate to see something like "unitarian" mentioned at all!
    Just as there came to be so many denominations of Christianity- God never gave approval to dividing his church. The church is supposed to be one body(Eph.4:3-6) with Christ as its Head (Coloss.1:18)

    If you just stick to answering your original question from Scripture- the answer is no. But to go on and say that Jesus was not God in the flesh- oh, I could just pinch someone. La, who do you think is inside you? HINT: the same Spirit!
    I don't like the watered-down version of the PEACE & POWER. Amen.
  • Mar 19, 2007, 01:41 PM
    Gods Child
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Retrotia
    Morganite,
    Yes, I can see it is one's choice to believe in the Trinity or not. But if some wanted to claim otherwise, why do they so with established doctrine? Did you read all of my link? I never heard of this Unitarian belief from a Christian. What about the authority Jesus has when you are JUDGED? What about John 5: 19-30?

    All these other beliefs do is divide us on doctrine. I know the basic elements for being a Christian, like you said. I just hate to see something like "unitarian" mentioned at all!
    Just as there came to be so many denominations of Christianity- God never gave approval to dividing his church. The church is supposed to be one body(Eph.4:3-6) with Christ as its Head (Coloss.1:18)

    If you just stick to answering your original question from Scripture- the answer is no. But to go on and say that Jesus was not God in the flesh- oh, I could just pinch someone. La, who do you think is inside you? HINT: the same Spirit!
    I don't like the watered-down version of the PEACE & POWER. Amen.

    I wrote a whole bunch but it got erased because I went back and then forward and it was erased but I will tell you this. Everyone who is a christian does not believe in a trinity, We believe Jesus is God but not by second person. We believe The Father is the only God (1 Cor 8: 6) who manifested himself in flesh which is Jesus (1 Tim 3: 16) and in Jesus dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Colo 2: 9). There is much to tell you and I would love you to ask me some questions. I am a 20 year old Apostolic man and my name is Troy, I am young but God has blessed me with the gift of knowledge and I have studied hard on both Trinity and Oneness. Please ask me some questions. I will leave you some sites to check out in my next post. God bless
  • Mar 19, 2007, 01:45 PM
    Gods Child
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Retrotia
    Morganite,
    Yes, I can see it is one's choice to believe in the Trinity or not. But if some wanted to claim otherwise, why do they so with established doctrine? Did you read all of my link? I never heard of this Unitarian belief from a Christian. What about the authority Jesus has when you are JUDGED? What about John 5: 19-30?

    All these other beliefs do is divide us on doctrine. I know the basic elements for being a Christian, like you said. I just hate to see something like "unitarian" mentioned at all!
    Just as there came to be so many denominations of Christianity- God never gave approval to dividing his church. The church is supposed to be one body(Eph.4:3-6) with Christ as its Head (Coloss.1:18)

    If you just stick to answering your original question from Scripture- the answer is no. But to go on and say that Jesus was not God in the flesh- oh, I could just pinch someone. La, who do you think is inside you? HINT: the same Spirit!
    I don't like the watered-down version of the PEACE & POWER. Amen.

    PLEASE CHECK OUT THIS SITE:
    226 Questions - Table of Contents

    I will talk to you later. God bless
  • Mar 19, 2007, 02:22 PM
    Morganite
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gods Child
    When it comes down to the ressurection of Jesus Christ, the question is "Who rose Jesus?"

    Was it the Father?

    Was it the Spirit?

    Was it Jesus himself?

    Lets search the scriptures:

    John 2: 19, 21 ~Jesus said, Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.

    21 ... he spoke of the temple of his body.

    John 10: 18 ~ No man taketh it from me, but i lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down and i have power to take it up again. This commandment have i recieved from my father.


    IN THESE TWO VERSES JESUS IS SAID TO HAVE ROSE HIMSELF.

    Gal 1:1 ~ ...but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;

    Rom 8: 11 ~ ...that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father

    IN THESE TWO VERSES THE FATHER IS SAID TO HAVE ROSE JESUS.

    Rom 8: 11 ~ But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead...

    IN THIS VERSE THE SPIRIT IS SAID TO HAVE ROSE JESUS.

    Now we see that God the Father, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit rose Jesus.
    If these three are distinct, why would they need to all raise him at the same time, that seems unnessecary, WE CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT JESUS HAS A LAW FROM THE FATHER TO RAISE HIMSELF BUT YET THE FATHER ROSE HIM BUT YET THE SPIRIT ROSE HIM. This would be confusing to trinitarians but to oneness, this is simple.

    The Father and Holy Ghost are the same person. the Holy Spirit gives life, the holy spirit proceeds from the Father. The Holy Ghost is the God in action, notice that in every instance of the Holy Ghost, he is always doing somthing.

    JESUS IS ALSO THE HOLY GHOST

    John 14: 17-26 ~ Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot recieve, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 19 Yet in a little while
    verse 26 goes on to say the comforter is the Holy Ghost and the Father will send him.

    Notice that the Holy Spirit has many nick names (Spirit of God, Spirit of truth, Spirit of Christ etc. The bible also says that their is only ONE spirit, if the Father has a Spirit and Jesus has the Spirit of Christ and they are three distinct person as trinitarians claim then their would be more than one Spirit, we would have more 3 spirits in us but theirs only ONE. Jesus said in the above verses that " i will come to you yet in a little while" and he also said "the spirit of truth is with the you", now take heed to this "I will not leave you comfortless, i will come to you". The apostles were in comfort because they had the Spirit of Truth but the Spirit was soon to leave this is why Jesus said I will not leave you comfortless, the Holy Spirit is Jesus come back to comfort us. The Holy Ghost was not considered a person of the Trinity until it was decided upon hundreds of years after the death of Christ

    If the Trinity is True and God the Son is equal to God the Father then why does God the Father speaks through Jesus rather than God the Son speak? Isn't God the Son all powerful? Isn't God the Son all knowing? Isn't God the Son no less than the Father? God the Son doesn't speak because their is no God the Son, Jesus is the I AM because the FATHER IS SPEAKING and in Jesus (flesh) not a God the son. Doesn't Jesus say only the Father speaks? Does Jesus ever say God the Son speaks through the flesh of Jesus? No

    Trinitarians admit that the concept of their belief is hard to comprehend and is a mystery. The bible never says God is a mystery, it only says "The wisdom of God is a mystery" the assets of God is a mystery not the nature of him. The Council of Nicea has messed up everything, its funny how constantine already believe he was God incarnated and was the leader of the council, he also believed in pagan gods. Turtillian and the rest of the Fathers of the Trinity all over a period of time was never established on the concept of the trinity until many years later others have put the final touches on the belief. Some of the Fathers of the Trinity took their aspects from pagan philosophers and tryed to fix it in with the christian belief, the final result was God was three in one which makes no since anyway.

    We all need to continue to study the word and study history and not be decieved by philosophy and vain deceit. God bless

    Who rose Jesus - that is, who was the engineer of his resurrection - is of less importance than the question of whether Jesus literally rose from the dead and whether others will also rise from the dead to everlasting life.

    Who does what in these matter seems to be of much less significance than whether these events have taken and will take place for all mankind at a future time.

    Your thoughts on the Trinity or NOT the Trinity are interesting but, and please forgive me for saying this, they appear a little confused and confusing. Although I am not a believer in the Trinity of the creeds, I find your arguments against the credal Trinity less than convincing. Principally because it appears that you interpret your prooftexts in peculiar ways.

    M:)RGANITE

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:47 PM.