[Gods Child]

I am not making a case for Trinitarianism, nor for Oneness that seems to have a lot in common with Trinitarian thinking. My Bible shows that The Son is not the Father, and the Holy Ghost is another, seperate, person in a Godhead of three individual persons whose oneness is in purpose and not in substance.

Not all the Bible is allegorical, and the eye witness report of the proto-martyr Stephen (Acts 7.55-57) identifies the seperate locations of three persons, and other passages, especially in John, which I believe you misunderstand and wrongly interpret.

The kenotic passage you quote raises significant difficulties both for your position and for the trinitarian view, where Jesus emptied himself in the incarnation. Being thus emptied [of what was he emptied?], immediately prior to his atoning crucifixion we find himself pleading to his Father, not to himself, to restore the glory he had WITH the Father before he emptied himself of it to walk as man-God among men and not be seen to be different, even though he was.

If Jesus the Son of God - emptied or otherwise - was the exact same person as God the Father, why was it necessary for Jesus to petition the Father to restore his glory, why could he not simply restore it himself by a divine act?

There are passages where Jesus prays to God the Father for wisdom before making momentous decisions, such as choosing the apostles. If he was none other than the father-God what purpose would he have in consulting himself?

Further, the Gospel of John is a delicious feast of passages in which Jesus is showm to be divine but yet dependent upon the Father-God, and, for example, turning away from himself the appellation of 'good,' directing the Rich Youn man to call none good save One, and that was not Jesus himself. John contains many similar passages where Jesus makes a sharp distinction between himself and God the Father that cannot be ignonred nor passed over, but all must be taken into account when we are trying to unravel truths about the Godhead from the pages of scripture.

What is Jesus saying when he tells Mary not to cling to him because he has not yet ascended to his Father in Heaven, but instructs her to tell the disciples that he is going to go to their God and his God, and to their father and to his father? If Jesus was the father himself, his words would be a nonsense. Only iof his Father were a separate operson do they make sense.

In John 14, he identifies the three seperate persons of the Godhead. When he goes, he will send 'another comforter.' If his disciples are faithful, then he promises that both he and the Father will abide with them. If Jesus was both the Father and the second comforter, then why didn't he simply say so? He didn't say so because it isn't true. God is not the author of confusion, so we must believe what Jesus says, take into account everything he says about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and not confuse them as being One in Oneness or One in Trinity.

The question of this thread is did Jesus ever say he was God, meaning, I assume, that he was God the father. The answer from his own mouth has to be"No!" He showed himself to be subordinate to the Father:

"Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me. nevertheless NOT MY WILL, BUT THINE BE DONE"

Here, Jesus plainly and without any absence of clarity, differentiates between his own will and the will of the Father, and chooses to subserviate his own will to that of the Father. Nothing could be more plain or incapable of being misunderstood.

I enjoy your posts, but please do not be concerned with spelling etc. As you can see, I often make mistakes. I shall read what you say, and not how you spell it.

M:)RGANITE

Morganite, you say that I have misinterpreted the scriptures but yet I can say the same about you. There is no scripture in the bible that contradicts another scripture but yet I see many that contradict the Trinity belief, you confuse me by saying that you are not trinitarian but yet you speak as one. You seem to ignore the fact that Jesus in his humanityprayed to God just like all the rest of Gods children, Jesus also had a God, why? Because of his humanity. I see no scripture that points out that there is a Trinity but I do see some scripture that make a distinction as far Spirit and Flesh like I told you in my other post. You asked "If Jesus was the Father and the second comforter, then why didnt he say so?" Didn't Jesus say that he speaks in proverbs for a reason? Yes he did in the Gospel of Mark. You seem to ignore the contradictions that I have written because you never answer for them, you only say that I am wrong and misinterpret, NOBODY ever answers the contradictions that are pointed out or either some make excuses that don't make any since at all and yet their answer contadicts other scripture. Something's wrong here. You seem to forget that Jesus was Human and God so he also prayed. You seem to forget that the trinity is confusing and just like you said, God is not the author of Confusion.

Do you know the truth behind the Trinity? Do you know the truth behind the Fathers of the Trinity? Bro, its really sad that many people don't see that contradictions of their belief, if you try to point out some to me, then I will answer, and believe me there are very very few scriptures that makes since of their being a trinity. I couldn't type that much because I have to go back to work, I was on my lunch break. The things that you write are nothing new because I hear the same thing from trinitarians all the time and when I give them something that contradicts what they give me, they either don't speak anymore or they just say you misinterpret it wrong without even trying to help me to understand, Somthings wrong.

[Morganite]

The word "codswallop" was new to me, so I looked it up:

cods·wal·lop (kŏdz'wŏl'əp)
n. Chiefly British Slang
Nonsense; rubbish.

said to be from 19c. (but first attested 1963), perhaps from wallop, British slang for "beer," and cod in one of its various senses, perhaps "testicles."

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper


ROFLMHO!

The dictionary has sidelined you. It has never meant testicles. The confusion of Duggie Harper probably stemmed from the term 'codpiece' that was an inverted triangular pad inserted into the front of the crotch of a gentleman's tights to make him appear masculine when nature had not privileged him. From this pretence, the term 'codding' as in "I'm only codding you," means pretending, or joking, and is closely ralated to 'kidding.'

Codswallop is water, since wallop is ale or beer, however, codfish do not drink ale, but water.

When Codswallop was used to describe ale it was used in a derogatory way to indicate that the beer was as weak as 'witches water' - which I shall not explain - having been diluted with corporation lemonade (ie - tapwater) by an avaricious host, and eventually came to be applied to articles that were inferior or not what they were purported to be. The modern term 'codwallop' meaning 'rubbish' is widely accepted in English speaking countries that have remained faithful to the older - Victorian, Gerogian, et al, forms of common English speech.

I would have been happy to explain that to you.

M:)

[Morganite]

I do have to clarify what I said about prayers maybe not being heard if they are addressed to God, but not using "in the name of Jesus" somewhere in the prayer.
Ordinaryguy gave a good example of the Lord's Prayer to show that that isn't true. In defending the deity of Christ(as what I was responding to) I did forget that the prayers of Christians are not limited to only praying in Jesus' name but to God or Father also.

[snipped for length]

I note what you say, but the Bible says that the fervent effectual prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Why argue with it? What did Paul say to the Greek pagans? "Him whom ye ignorantly worship, him do I now declare unto you." They called him "The Unknown God."

I am content to let Jesus and God decide whose prayers they hear and respond to. To do otherwise would be to suggest that I know everything they do, think, feel, say, and do, and I do not. Nor do I know any who do, although some act and speak as if they do. I regard such people with utmost suspicion.

Did God speak to the Centurion? Did Jesus accede to the request of the Jewish non-Christian Jairus? Is God an includer or an excluder? Does he love all his children or only those why know the secret words?

Christians ought to follow the example of Jesus Christ in encouraging encounters with those of other denominations and faiths. Was Jesus wrong to speak to the Samaritan woman as his apostles said, or did he have a broader vision and mission than narrow, exclusivist, Christians are capable of acknowledging? If so, do they really know jesus as they imagine they do, or do they follow a fictional character who behaves like a meanie and refuses to speak kindly to any except his own?

The call to follow Christ is a call to encounter with non-Christians as well as fellow-Christians. It is well to reflect that many of the so-called historic churches were regarded by the more historic churches as interlopers and shcismatics when they originated. This is especially true of the Baptists and Congregationalists in the sixteenth century, as it was of Lutherans and Presbyterians earlier in the same century, and of the hated Methodists and their confounded and disturbing 'enthusiasm' (en-theos = God-in-us) in the eighteenth century.

These denominations were originally hostile towards each other. Now they are seen to be them allies of the older historic churches, and it is a Christian characteristic to anticipate the judgement of history in the case of neweer movements within the Christian household.

It is a very sobering fact that all of Christendom is in fact in schism. En=ven thoughmost denominaitons are unhappy to rem,ain 'separated brethren,' the fact remains that they are separated, and so are members of other religious movements that are Christian in intention. We are allmembers of the same Christian convoy traversing the stormy waters of the rpesent, and even though we interpret the Commander-in-Chief's signals with some differences, none of us intend to flout his authority, although we debate about how faithfully some of our captains have relayed the orders.

We should be aware that the purpose of Christian encounter is to give freely of our convictions and of our doubts and to receive the same. We may pride ourselves on our church order as if it were part and parcel of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but it may be nothing more than the result of our absolutizing and confounding our personal preferences with the divine will for all men. No one has God's authority to do that!

We may rightly treasure our Catholicity, or Protestanticity, or our Whatevericity, and we may be grasteful for our inheritance of centuries - be they many or few - of rich Christian traditions, devotion, rites, practices, liturgies, hymnologies, and music, art,and architecture. But this inheritance is to be spent, shared, not hoarded and jealously kept like a miser's hoard. Our new friends have as much need of it as we had, and they have the same rights as we have to own and enjoy it.

Supremely, we need together to learn the art of speaking and acting the truth in love. This cannot be done without deep and mutual involvement between all those who consider themselves Christians. The language of separation is not Christian, Christlike, Godly, moral, scriptural, or even decently human, and should have no place in the vocabularies of Christians.

If the danger in the past has been speaking the truth dogmatically, as if it were OUR truth and not GOD's truth. The danger of the rpersent could be that we speak not lovingly but sentimentally and achieve only a relationshiop of cordial ambiguity, and thus fall prey to the doctrine of relitavism.

We are more likely to attain the attitude of speaking and acting the truth in love if we remember that it was as the compassionate Servant of God that jesus won his way into the hearts of men, and that he forbade his disciples tolord it over others, but directed them to serve them.

Above all, we should remember thaty Christ has sheep 'not of this fold' who hear his voice (even in strange places), and that HE knows his own - we do not know whom they are, and Christians believe that Jesus will ultimately bring them all into one fold where he will be the shepherd of all.

It is not our calling or task to erect barbed wire fences of suspicion and hostility, but to demolish tham. If we, in whatever tradition we stand, are inclined to consider God's other sheep as black sheep, or worse, wolves in sheep's clothing - a result of the terrible darkening of the inner eye that Pharisaism produces - then we must look to the wolf within us.

We all need the grace which God through Jesus Christ bestows undeservingly on each. This is the best spirit in which to work for Jesus Christ, and is, perhaps, the only way that he ,klniows and will accept at our hands. Holy attitudes must be expressed in holy actions without the hope of an earthly reward. So that we will not consider the most improbable encounter with 'others' to be an exercise in fruitless futiity. That is our charghe. That is the calling of all Christians, whether they know it or not.

[Morganite]

Morganite, you say that i have misinterpreted the scriptures but yet i can say the same about you. Their is no scripture in the bible that contradicts another scripture but yet i see many that contradict the Trinity belief, you confuse me by saying that you are not trinitarian but yet you speak as one. You seem to ignore the fact that Jesus in his humanityprayed to God just like all the rest of Gods children, Jesus also had a God, why? because of his humanity. I see no scripture that points out that their is a Trinity but i do see some scripture that make a distinction as far Spirit and Flesh like i told you in my other post. You asked "If Jesus was the Father and the second comforter, then why didnt he say so?" Didn't Jesus say that he speaks in proverbs for a reason? Yes he did in the Gospel of Mark. You seem to ignore the contradictions that i have written because you never answer for them, you only say that i am wrong and misinterpret, NOBODY ever answers the contradictions that are pointed out or either some make excuses that don't make any since at all and yet their answer contadicts other scripture. Somethings wrong here. You seem to forget that Jesus was Human and God so he also prayed. You seem to forget that the trinity is confusing and just like you said, God is not the author of Confusion.

Do you know the truth behind the Trinity? Do you know the truth behind the Fathers of the Trinity? bro, its really sad that many people dont see that contradictions of their belief, if you try to point out some to me, then i will answer, and believe me their are very very few scriptures that makes since of their being a trinity. I couldn't type that much because i have to go back to work, i was on my lunch break. The things that you write are nothing new becasue i hear the same thing from trinitarians all the time and when i give them somthing that contradicts what they give me, they either dont speak anymore or they just say you misinterpret it wrong without even trying to help me to understand, Somthings wrong.

GC. There are many scriptures in the Bible that contradict each other. This is a side issue that you might want to save for a later time. However, I shall be pleased to furnish proof a-plenty if you ever need it.


M:)

[Retrotia]

Morganite,
James 5:16? I don't read it the way you do. James is speaking to Christians, urging their faith in daily living. It is subtitled-The Prayer Of Faith & the key word is "righteous" anyway.

God has mercy on all but the only prayer I think He hears from the unbelieving is the prayer of repentance.

A little idealistic, your philosophy, but probably better than a lot of things.

[Morganite]

Spoiled entry - another case of alien abduction!

[Morganite]

Morganite,
James 5:16? I don't read it the way you do. James is speaking to Christians, urging their faith in daily living. It is subtitled-The Prayer Of Faith & the key word is "righteous" anyway.

God has mercy on all but the only prayer I think He hears from the unbelieving is the prayer of repentence.

A little idealistic, your philosophy, but probably better than a lot of things.

I know of nothing calculated to be more idealistic than the gospel of Jesus Christ. You are wise to acknowledge that. As to whose prayers are heard, let me provide you with an example you might be less inclined to dismiss as being irrelevant.

The apostles of Christ, being Jews, appear to have shared the common prejudices of their race against the Gentiles, and treated them for a time as if Gentiles had no lot nor part in the gospel of Christ. It was not the design of the Lord, however, to thus restrict the application of the gospel. Jesus, himself, while he had said that he was "sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," had also said: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."

The commission of the risen Christ to the Apostles sent them to "all nations." (Matt. 28i: 19; Acts 1: 8.) Hence, when Cornelius of Caesarea, a devout man, one that feared God, though a Gentile, sought the Lord by prayer and good works, he found him; for an angel was sent to Cornelius, who told him his prayers and alms were accepted of God, and that he had come to direct him to send men to Joppa for Simon Peter, who would be able to tell him what he ought to do, and the non-Christian Gentile whose prayers were heard and answered by God immediately started the messengers to find the Apostle.

Meanwhile, Saint Peter himself was prepared by a vision to go with the gospel unto one whom both he and all his race regarded as unclean. In vision he thought he beheld a great net let down from heaven, filled with all manner of four-footed beasts, fowls of the air, and creeping things. And a voice said to him, "Rise, Peter, kill and eat." "Not so, Lord," was his reply, "for I have never eaten anything that was common or unclean." "What God hath cleansed," said the voice, "that call not thou common or unclean."

This was done three times, and as he was still pondering what the vision could mean, the messengers of Cornelius were at the gate enquiring for him; and he was commanded by the Spirit to go with them, doubting nothing, for God had sent them. Peter was obedient to the inspired commandment, and went to the house of Cornelius, where he found many of the devout Gentile's friends and kinsmen gathered together in anticipation of his coming.

Cornelius having informed the apostle how he came to send for him, Peter exclaimed: "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him."

He then proceeded to preach the gospel to Cornelius and all present. As he did so the Holy Ghost fell upon them, to the astonishment of all the Jews who had accompanied Peter; for they heard them speak in new tongues and magnify God. Cornelius and his friends were baptized and thus the door of the gospel was opened to the Gentiles.

How anyone can continue to insist that God does not hear the prayers of any except Christians beggars belief. Who, being a Christian, would want to make it appear that God has closed the door on those of his children who seek him from within other traditions to the detriment of their salvations and the intentions and purposes of God and Jesus Christ?

It is Jesus who said, "For God so loved the world that he sent his Only Begotten Son that WHOSOEVER believeth in him should not perish, but should have everlasting life; because God did not send his Son into the world to be the condemner of mankind, but so that through him should all mankind be saved.

Idealistic? Yes, and we have God and Christ to thank that it is idealistic. The purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ is not mto keep men out of the kingdom of heaven, but to gather as many as can be gathered so that they can enter his kingdom, both here on earth and in the heavens where God and Christ dwell together.

Incidentally, the subtitles are late editorial editions supplied by publishers as their explanations and are not part of the original monographs. They should not be considered as having any authority as scripture. They are from secondary and extra-biblical sources and can be misleading. For example, see Canticle.


M:)RGANITE

[ordinaryguy]

I am content to let Jesus and God decide whose prayers they hear and respond to.

Is God an includer or an excluder? Does he love all his children or only those why know the secret words?

The language of separation is not Christian, Christlike, Godly, moral, scriptural, or even decently human, and should have no place in the vocabularies of Christians.

Above all, we should remember thaty Christ has sheep 'not of this fold' who hear his voice (even in strange places), and that HE knows his own

Would that all who profess to follow Jesus were as true to his inclusive vision.

[Morganite]

God's Child

You confuse me by saying that you are not trinitarian but yet you speak as one.


You seem to forget that Jesus was Human and God so he also prayed. You seem to forget that the trinity is confusing and just like you said, God is not the author of Confusion.

Do you know the truth behind the Trinity? Do you know the truth behind the Fathers of the Trinity?

God's Child,

I don't see where I speak as a trinitarian, because I am not one. I may illustrate what trinitarians believe in some instances, but that must not be taken as acceptance of the teaching.

Neither do I see where you say I forget that Jesus was Man and God. I will put that statement on my mystery shelf.

I believe I do understand how the doctrine or dogma of the Holy Trinity developed and the reasons behind its development. I am reasonably au fait with the Greek and Latin Patrologies, and so have most of the arguments for and against trinitarian teaching close to hand.

I will say again that I am not a Trinitarian, nor a Unitarian of any kind, but that does not preclude me from havging an interest in all forms of belief about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and all forms of creed, theologies, Christilogies, etc, etc. But it is not to be taken that because I talk of them that I necessarily accept them. If I recall correctly, and I could be mistaken, then I did say that the Trinity was confusing. It has been called 'a contradiction' by an eminent theologian and patrologist. He said that to me during a discussion we had some years ago. This same man now lectures at the Union Theological Seminary, and is a Christian minister, formerly a Roman, now an Orthodox, priest.

What I will insist on is that the only person who knows everything about God is God Himself. Unless you are God then it must, perforce, follow that much of what you (or anyone else) thinks about God has to be wrong. Why? Because God is transcendent, and all that humanity can know about God is what God chooses to reveal to us through his involvement inhuman history and in the incarnation of his Only Begotten and Firstborn Son Jesus Christ. For anyone to claim that they have sole access to the truth about God is fulminatingly conceited and has to be wrong, or else God is not transcendent but just one of your pals who tells you everything there is to know.

As to the scriptures being incontrovertible, inerrant, and non-contradictory, it is because they are at times and in divers places all three - controvertible, contradicory, and errant, that the rising tide of sectarianism has shaken Christanity since Jesus first expounded it sprincipls and the apostles proclaimed its basic truths.

How did we get to this pass? Through the inability of sensible (sometimes), sane (sometimes), and informed (sometimes) people to come to simple agreement about that the Book of Books means by what it says. QED!

I wish you well on your journey towards spiritual enlightenemt, but gently remind you that it is a journey you are on, not a destination that you are at.


M:)RGANITE



.

[Morganite]

Morganite,
James 5:16? I don't read it the way you do. James is speaking to Christians, urging their faith in daily living. It is subtitled-The Prayer Of Faith & the key word is "righteous" anyway.

God has mercy on all but the only prayer I think He hears from the unbelieving is the prayer of repentence.

A little idealistic, your philosophy, but probably better than a lot of things.

I'm still trying to figure out how an unbeliever comes to repentance without first becoming a believer in which case he is no klobnger an unbeliever. God reac he's out to all - believer and unbeleiver - but if he does not hear the prayers of unbelievers how are they to become believers? That seems skew-wiff.

Whilst I agree that James is whipping the community of believers into line, none of the NT writers seems to want their Christian church to be an exclusiove club that won't take people in or try to help them or enocurage them to pray to God until they are fully converted. They are anxiously engaged in missionary endeavours encouraging pagans and heathens alike to come to know God and Jesus Christ. How can they do this if God will not hear their earnest petitions for light? Is there a back door for unebelievers that doe not involve prayer?

[Retrotia]

Morganite,
It is known that God hears all because he is not deaf. As far as responding or answering prayer- that may be different when considering "the sinners prayer"/ or conversion from unbeliever to believer. I believe that someone calling out to the Lord, in a prayer or statement-if the Lord knows that that is going to lead them to salvation- then I think He answers those prayers.
So coming to confess & receive Christ IS a prayer that the Lord answers unbelievers. (we all have done that at sometime) It is both a prayer & an action.
The prayers of the unrighteous is what I believe doesn't get answered. That is what it says in the Bible, right?
The Centurion in the Bible wasn't a Christian but he was a righteous man. Jesus gives an example of what is righteous in Matt.25-46. King David was righteous & obeyed God & prayed for forgiveness when he sinned. The Lord heard his prayers.
The question remains to whether God hears the sinner in general (as if they would be inclined to pray!) I'm talking about the unsaved/without Christ.
Since we are in Christ, in these last days, I have to say no. Unless someone be in Christ as an act of their will-much of what is done is lost eventually to this world.
But I didn't come here to play judge or martyr- I'm just saying one should 'come out from them' and be sanctified, repent of their sins, by the blood of Jesus- and renew their soul & spirit, for God's glory!

[Morganite]

Morganite,
It is known that God hears all bc he is not deaf. As far as responding or answering prayer- that may be different when considering "the sinners prayer"/ or conversion from unbeliever to believer. I believe that someone calling out to the Lord, in a prayer or statement-if the Lord knows that that is going to lead them to salvation- then I think He answers those prayers.
So coming to confess & receive Christ IS a prayer that the Lord answers unbelievers. (we all have done that at sometime) It is both a prayer & an action.
The prayers of the unrighteous is what I believe doesn't get answered. That is what it says in the Bible, right?
The Centurion in the Bible wasn't a Christian but he was a righteous man. Jesus gives an example of what is righteous in Matt.25-46. King David was righteous & obeyed God & prayed for forgiveness when he sinned. The Lord heard his prayers.
The question remains to whether God hears the sinner in general (as if they would be inclined to pray!) I'm talking about the unsaved/without Christ.
Since we are in Christ, in these last days, I have to say no. Unless someone be in Christ as an act of their will-much of what is done is lost eventually to this world.
But I didn't come here to play judge or martyr- I'm just saying one should 'come out from them' and be sanctified, repent of their sins, by the blood of Jesus- and renew their soul & spirit, for God's glory!

David was righteous right up to the moment he committed adultery and arramged the death of Uriah. After that, we must leave him to God to deal with.

Well, Retrotia, it seems we do have a meeting of the minds in the case of the fervent effectual prayer of a righteous person availing much, huh?

As to the fine points of prayer and whose prayer that you try to deal with, why do you even try to sytematise something that is dealt with by God and which ultimately is known only to God? Are you suggesting that we should dissuade non Christians from praying because God is not listening to them? That advice runs counter to the Bible. We should encourage all to pray and then leave it up to God as to who he hears and how he answers.

As to what you call 'The Sinner' Prayer,' where did it come from, and what was the position of sinners and prayer before it was composed, and who is there that is NOT a sinner, so are not all our prayers the prayers of sinners?

Remember that in judging Cornelius as 'righteous' he cannot have been said to be righteous in the same way that Christians understand righteousness, but he was righteous according to the light that was in him. He was evidently not a cryptochristian, but a pagan in need of help, and God heard him and answered with blessings.

Whom among us will be the arbiter of who God will and who God will not hear or answer? However interesting the discussion might be, the real and pressing problem arises when what is discussed and proffered as a scripturally and spirit inspired notion is then passed off as being Christian doctrine that must be believed or else. Who is it that has the authority to determine what is right and wrong as sanctioned by God and God alone? Isn't it a bit daring (even, possibly, blasphemous?) for anyone to presume to speak on these things and claim them as the mind and will of God?

What you seem to be saying - but surely you cannot mean it as it is written - is that God hears only the prayers of Christians. Tough on Jews, Muslims, Hindoos, Sikhs, Kun Fuchiites, Wiccans, etc, etc, because if God will not hear their prayers and will not answer them even if he does manage to catch a few of their words, how can they be brought into the fold of the Good Shepherd? Your seem to have embraced a strange and errant doctrine quite out of harmony with the teachings of Jesus and the rest of the Bible.

God is good, so good in fact that we can hardly conceive the depth and richness of his goodness. He is just, so just that we simply cannot comprehend the fairness of his justice. I am sure that no mortal will ever fail to receive every blessing and glory which he merits. God is a personal being, the Father of our spirits, and that He loves His children and hears and answers their righteous prayers. But he is not restricted only to answering the prayers of the faithful in his fold. If he is then I have not come across it in God's Word, and I do not believe that it is there.

God is a living God, a God of today, not of yesterday; that he lives and loves his children, he hears and answers prayers, he will not let his children wander in darkness and sin without a light and every man is entitled to that light by which to guide his feet through life. In a changing world is children may still come to him and he will speak to them in the noon-day sun or in the quiet watches of the night, in a language they will understand whether they are in th fold or in need of being brought in from wherever it is that they are at present.

A famous Logion of Jesus, now attested in the Gospel of Thomas, enjoins all to be diligent seekers: "Let not him who seeks the Father cease until he finds him; and having found him, let him be amazed; and being amazed he shall reign, and reigning he shall rest."

In that connection, forestalling any possible objection to the source of the saying, I offer:

"Truth is truth wherever found,
On heathen or on Christian ground."

My recommendation is to encourage all people in every or no religious tradition to cease not to call on God, however he might be perceived, for it is extremely likely that apart from Jesus and the Holy Spirit there is only one God, and if he is on the line when they call on him, he will hear and respond.

Can you agree that we need to be as careful about what we say about access to God's ear through prayer as we are in making a determination of exactly who and what God is, and what he does and does not do, in terms that sound dangerously absolutist and exclusivist.

M:)

[Retrotia]

Morganite,
I think there is a difference between God's mercy for all and God hearing the prayers of one in a religion that God considers idolatry...
Now that is in the Bible.
You know what the sinner's prayer is don't you? It's the term used to describe when a person understands that he/she is a sinner and is in need of a Savior. Yes, we are all sinners, but not all saved.
Now, I wish I could sugar-coat hell too but it wouldn't true.
I only gave my opinion from my own experiences-otherwise I would be a liar(or someone to oppressed to even mention it)
How are they supposed to come to God/Jesus? That's what Christians are for- to reproduce disciples. There's other avenues too. One might get to the Lord on there own. By reading the Bible and hearing the Word from Christian radio or T.V. and then reciting the sinner's prayer-between them and God.

Christ is" the way" to the Father. Why would our prayers be any different?

If one prays to God to take the darkness away(which can include many things) I'm living testimony to say He did--- and I didn't believe in Jesus then either--but look where it brought me to---Born-again!
So when you say someone should have that light- think about me. wouldya?! :)
God Bless you all.

[Gods Child]

God's Child,

I don't see where I speak as a trinitarian, because I am not one. I may illustrate what trinitarians believe in some instances, but that must not be taken as acceptance of the teaching.

Neither do I see where you say I forget that Jesus was Man and God. I will put that statement on my mystery shelf.

I believe I do understand how the doctrine or dogma of the Holy Trinity developed and the reasons behind its development. I am reasonably au fait with the Greek and Latin Patrologies, and so have most of the arguments for and against trinitarian teaching close to hand.

I will say again that I am not a Trinitarian, nor a Unitarian of any kind, but that does not preclude me from havging an interest in all forms of belief about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, anmd all forms of creed, theologies, Christilogies, etc, etc. But it is not to be taken that because I talk of them that I necessarily accept them. If I recall correctly, and I could be mistaken, then I did say that the Trinity was confusing. It has been called 'a contradiction' by an eminent theologian and patrologist. He said that to me during a discussion we had some years ago. This same man now lectures at the Union Theological Seminary, and is a Christian minister, formerly a Roman, now an Orthodox, priest.

What I will insist on is that the only person who knows everything about God is God Himself. Unless you are God then it must, perforce, follow that much of what you (or anyone else) thinks about God has to be wrong. Why? Because God is transcendent, and all that humanity can know about God is what God chooses to reveal to us through his involvement inhuman history and in the incarnation of his Only Begotten and Firstborn Son Jesus Christ. For anyone to claim that they have sole access to the truth about God is fulminatingly conceited and has to be wrong, or else God is not transcendent but just one of your pals who tells you everything there is to know.

As to the scriptures being incontrovertible, inerrant, and non-contradictory, it is because they are at times and in divers places all three - controvertible, contradicory, and errant, that the rising tide of sectarianism has shaken Christanity since Jesus first expounded it sprincipls and the apostles proclaimed its basic truths.

How did we get to this pass? Through the inability of sensible (sometimes), sane (sometimes), and informed (sometimes) people to come to simple agreement about that the Book of Books means by what it says. QED!

I wish you well on your journey towards spiritual enlightenemt, but gently remind you that it is a journey you are on, not a destination that you are at.


M:)RGANITE



.

Morganite, I haven't been up here in a while cause I been busy, I am also neither Trinitarian nor Unitarian, I am Oneness and that is different from Unitarians, They don't believe that Jesus is God. The early church Fathers also did not teach a Trinitarian prospective until it was fully established at the Council of Nicea, Justin Martyr is Considered to be one of the greatest of the church Fathers but yet people lack knowledge, Justin was a man who tried to mix Christianity and Philosophy together and he also considered Plato and philio to be pre-Christians before Christ was born. He looked at the concept of the Trinity only because he also believe in more than one God but yet he also said that there is no separate person in the Godhead.

Ireanus a disiple of John the apostle also said that the fulness is only the Father and if their was another then the Father would not be the fulness. This is the Fulness that is in Jesus Christ (Colo 2: 9). Trinitarians look at this scripture to mean that Father, son and Holy ghost dwell in Jesus But this man Ireanus thought otherwise, he only believed the Father to be the One and Only God and he was the Fulness and if their was another then he would not be God nor the Fulness. Although Ireanus was the first to say God was a Mystery, He never believed the Holy Ghost to be a separate person.

Tutillian (a man in the 3rd century) admitted that the "majority of Christians in his day was Oneness" but many trinitarians don't know that he admitted this in the present times because of lack of knowledge, They rather go by faith that God is a Trinity when the bible speaks specifically of who God is. Oneness was dominant in the apostolic days, in modern day Trinitarian belief is dominant, which was dominant first after Jesus ascended? Trinitarian scholars admit to this and they make an excuse as to say "The trinity wasn't taught in the early church days but it was a nessity to to put a trinity into concept". Hmmm,

Jesus once said "My people parish for the lack of Knowledge". We need to study and understand the word for what it is. Their were scriptures added to the bible but with studies we can weed them out and dispose of them. If the Early church Fathers taught the trinity as some claim then they would contadict themselves as well.

[Gods Child]

Morganite,
I think there is a difference between God's mercy for all and God hearing the prayers of one in a religion that God considers idolatry...
Now that is in the Bible.
You know what the sinner's prayer is don't you? It's the term used to describe when a person understands that he/she is a sinner and is in need of a Savior. Yes, we are all sinners, but not all saved.
Now, I wish I could sugar-coat hell too but it wouldn't true.
I only gave my opinion from my own experiences-otherwise I would be a liar(or someone to oppressed to even mention it)
How are they supposed to come to God/Jesus? That's what Christians are for- to reproduce disciples. There's other avenues too. One might get to the Lord on there own. By reading the Bible and hearing the Word from Christian radio or T.V. and then reciting the sinner's prayer-between them and God.

Christ is" the way" to the Father. Why would our prayers be any different?

If one prays to God to take the darkness away(which can include many things) I'm living testimony to say He did--- and I didn't believe in Jesus then either--but look where it brought me to---Born-again!
So when you say someone should have that light- think about me.,wouldya?!!! :)
God Bless you all.

Amen to that. I agree that we all need to go out a make disiples in Jesus name. Theirs a lot of arguing and debate about who God is but we are suppose to be united and go out a preach. The reason why we debate the trinity and oneness is because a trinitarian might talk to one person one day and then a oneness person might talk to that same person the next day and they might get confused. We all need to continue to study and agree so that we can go out as united and spread the gospel without debate. God bless