Isaiah 43:11

[FerventGodSeeker]

I disagree. What reason do you have to think that when Stephen said He saw the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of God that He didn't really see what he said he saw?

You didn't quote the explanation that I gave for that statement. I explained, citing several verses, why the "right hand of God" is a figurative reference. Please go back and respond to those before asking for more.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[sojourner]

Jesus can and does have a God -- His Father. That's just one more reason why I don't accept the doctrine of the Trinity. He is not His own God.

All human beings are the offspring of God. He is the Father of our spirits. This is Biblical doctrine. Jesus Christ was God's Only Begotten Son. This means that God was the Father, not only of His spirit, but of His physical body. He was as much a literal Father to Jesus as Mary was a literal mother to Jesus.

Let's be clear here. Jesus (the human being) has a God. Christ (the divine Son) has a Father. Again, if Jesus knew that only God could forgive sin, how could Jesus be so brazen as to forgive sin, unless he knew that he was part of the Godhead? Jesus fills two distinct roles, one as fully human and one as fully divine.

All human beings are not the offspring of God. All human beings are creations of God. Only Christ is begotten of God. The whole crux of the concept of grace is that grace gives us the power to become [adopted] sons and daughters of God.

 

[Halcyon]

So are you a "real" Christian? Or do defy the Church as the pillar and ground of the truth and accept heresy?

I do accept heresy, yes. Although obviously i don't view it as heresy.
And, yes, i would say that my beliefs are more in line with Christ's actual teachings, so i would consider myself a real Christian. But i wouldn't go as far as to say that you are not a real Christian.

They also had the guidance of the Holy Spirit guiding them as the leaders of the Church, and thus had an obvious advantage.

Well, if they didn't have Gnosis then they had no guidance from any Holy Spirit, in my opinion. Power and influence are not always the result of guidance from the Holy Spirit - or do you believe that Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists all receive the same guidance as the church?

Is not the Church composed of the worldwide body of Christians?

No. The fact that there are 30,000 denominations of Cathiolic-born Christianity alone are testament to that.

What individuals may erroneously believe within the Church does not alter the authoritative declarations of the Magisterium.

And who gives them authority, God? Why do you believe that, because they say so?

Why in the world would they need proof at the time they lived? The people they were teaching when they took up their offices would have known (or at least known of) the Apostles as well. If some guy randomly claimed to be taught by the Apostles, when he wasn't, the rest of the Church would have stood up and said, "Um...no you weren't" (kinda like the Church did with the Gnostic believers of the time who claimed to have "secret" knowledge from one or more Apostles).

Offices? Church? What are you talking about? The Church as we know it today did not exist back then, back then it was a single sect, 1 amongst 3 popular sects.

When in the second generation of Christianity did the Church push its teachings onto the populace by physical force? If you don't recall, that generation of Christians were the ones being persecuted , not the ones persecuting.

Yes, they were being persecuted by the Romans, all forms of Christianity were, including the Gnostics. But the proto-orthodox sect was also busy persecuting those they saw as heretics.

I never claimed God was an ignorant little child, but if you actually claim that all men have equal access and spiritual insight into God, then I can't say you're thinking this through very thoroughly. Do you honestly believe that an atheist who completely denies that God exists, wants nothing to do with Him, and thinks that He's a huge jerk with an attitude problem if He does exist (sadly, this is a realistic view of many atheists), then God is not going to force Himself on them, and they don't and will not (if they continue in their disbelief and defiance) ever have anything to do with Him. Those sort of people obviously do not have the same level of spiritual insight or forgiveness from God that devout followers of God do.

Well, the God of the OT is an arrogant jerk with an attitude problem, hadn't you noticed? I thought all the genocide would have been a big clue.
I don't think God abandons anyone, even atheists, i honestly doubt he's that petty and childish. An athiest can gain spiritual insight if they look in the right way, Buddha showed us this was possible.

Yes, why do you ask?

Because monotheists believe in a single deity, not three different persons. Three is a group not an individual, worshipping a group makes you a polytheist.

So if the Church was founded by Peter's and the other Apostles' apostolic authority, and was guided by God, then when exactly did it become something guided solely by men? God promised never to leave His Church and that the Gates of Hades would never prevail against it. A complete deviance of truth and spiritual guidance doesn't sound like something that God established and promised to preserve, as you say He did with the Church.

So, why so many denominations? Peter was not a Christ, he had no true understanding of God. He did his best to preserve the teachings of Jesus, but that was not enough to secure the true spirit of God in the church while it was being assulted through the actions of those with their own agendas and theological theories.

Really? Why?

Because excommunication is a negative thing, nothing the Holy Spirit does is negative.

So again, the entire Church, established and promised to be sustained by God, was wrong, and a random guy who was branded a heretic got it all right? How much sense does that make, Halcyon?

Valentinus? I don't agree with everything Valentinus said, he wasn't the only Gnostic you know. Gnosticism as a spiritual path is older than Christianity. Valentinus's views were a little too inclined towards the orthodox for me.
The simple truth is, God doesn't need a Church, he doesn't need intermediaries - Jesus showed us this. The true Church is in the hearts of men, it needs no building nor hierarchy of priests.

The Bishop of Rome is/was the Pope (at least in the Catholic view), so you may not be wrong. I'll have to look into it more thoroughly.

Hmmm, interesting, you learn something new everyday, thanks for clearing that up for me.

Being " messengers of God" or "employed by God" or "beloved of God" does not make something God. Rather, it denotes an obvious difference between those beings and God, unless you claim they were messengers/employees of themselves, and loved themselves (a quaint idea, but not one with seems to make much sense).

So a son of God does not 'denote an obvious difference between that being and God'?

Yes, really. How could you ask for a more direct source for teaching on Christology?

I'll just repeat myself shall I?

"Quote: earlychristianwritings.com The terminus ad quem for I John is provided by Polycarp, who presupposes I John 4:2 in Phil 7:1, and by Papias, who used texts from I John according to Eusebius in HE 3.39.17. This places the letter sometime in the first quarter of the second century "

John was unlikely to have lived to over 100 considering the average lifespan of the time.

An interesting hypothesis, but hardly supported by Scripture or Tradition. In the end of the Gospel of John (Ch. 21), the "disciple whom Jesus loved" is discussed by Peter and Christ, and Jesus says of him, "If I will that he (the beloved disciple) may remain till I come, what is that to you?" (verse 23) Then the author of the Gospel says in verse 24, "This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true." The author of the Gospel identifies himself as the beloved disciple, and also identifies his technique of referring to himself in the third person throughout his Gospel. Unless you're claiming that the Gospel of John was written by Lazarus, I don't see how you could claim he is the beloved disciple.

I think it is supported by scripture. In John 11: 3, Martha the sister of lazerus sent word to Jesus that "the one you love is sick" in reference to lazurus. Lazurus was one of his disciples, not an apostle but still a disciple.
I'm put saying this is authoritative, its just the theory that maeks more sense to me.
Its possible that the author of John worked from Lazurus's notes, i don't know.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

I do accept heresy, yes. Although obviously i don't view it as heresy.

Why not? The Church, as the pillar and ground of truth, does view it as heresy. I suppose the Holy Spirit specially gave you "secret knowledge" that gave you cause to oppose the authority of Christ's Church?

And, yes, i would say that my beliefs are more in line with Christ's actual teachings, so i would consider myself a real Christian.

That opinion is based on your personal interpretation of Christ's words. Yet there are millions of interpretations of the Bible and what Christ said in the Gospels, what makes your interpretation authoritative over all others?

Well, if they didn't have Gnosis then they had no guidance from any Holy Spirit, in my opinion.

Gnosis (the Greek word for knowledge) was and is not necesary for guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides a person and GIVES them knowledge, knowledge isn't a prerequisite. Where did you get the idea that some specific, "secret" knowledge is necesary for a person (or the Church as a whole, for that matter) to be guided by the Holy Spirit?

Power and influence are not always the result of guidance from the Holy Spirit - or do you believe that Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists all receive the same guidance as the church?

Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims were not promised to be sustained forever by Christ. The Christian Church, however, was promised as much. The guidance of the Holy Spirit is not seen in wordly influence or power; it is seen in the fact that God's One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church has been sustained for 2,000 years as the pillar and ground of truth on earth.

No. The fact that there are 30,000 denominations of Cathiolic-born Christianity alone are testament to that.

So a member of a Christian denomination cannot be a Christian? Even I, as a Catholic who opposes denominationalism, would not go that far.

And who gives them authority, God? Why do you believe that, because they say so?

Yes, they are given authority by God, haven't I been saying that this whole time? I believe that because that is the testament of the Scriptures and Holy Tradition. ]

Offices? Church? What are you talking about?

I'm talking about the fact that second generation Church leaders didn't need to prove that they had Apostolic authority to their congregrations, because it was obvious to the people of the time. If some random guy who had never met an Apostle or been the disciple of one had suddenly stood up and claimed to have authority from the Church and Christ, everyone would have looked at him like there was something wrong with his head. If he kept insisting on this, they would have branded him a heretic and an opponent of God's true Church (which they did with the Gnostic leaders).

I'm talking about The Church as we know it today did not exist back then, back then it was a single sect, 1 amongst 3 popular sects.

Well obviously it didn't look exactly the same as it does today, it was just in the process of being formed! You didn't expect a fully formed, flourishing Church to appear out of nowhere overnight, did you? Especially not in the socio-political climate that Christianity was born into, which heavily persecuted Christians, right? The Church is not a sect...those who split off from the Church are sects, including Gnostic Christianity.

Yes, they were being persecuted by the Romans, all forms of Christianity were, including the Gnostics. But the proto-orthodox sect was also busy persecuting those they saw as heretics.

Really? Sorry, you'll have to define "proto-orthodox" and tell me which Christians were physically, violently persecuting heretics in the second generation of Christianity.

Well, the God of the OT is an arrogant jerk with an attitude problem, hadn't you noticed? I thought all the genocide would have been a big clue.

And yet your whole point in this thread is to quote the Old Testament God to prove a doctrine wrong ...you can't just conveniently pick and choose what you want to believe and don't want to believe. Either He is a big jerk who you want nothing to do with, or not. You'll have to pick a side.

I don't think God abandons anyone, even atheists, i honestly doubt he's that petty and childish.

Are you saying it's petty and childish for God not to give salvation or spiritual insight to someone who spits in His face, calls Him a jerk, and refuses to even seriously consider His existance? In that case, there is no advantage to being a Christian, or any sort of religious person at all. God's just going to forgive everyone of everything even if we don't believe in Him, and I get just as much insight as Christians do. Thanks, now both of our religions are bunk.

An athiest can gain spiritual insight if they look in the right way

Yes, if they look Christ's way. That's the point.

Buddha showed us this was possible.

No he didn't. Buddha has nothing to do with a discussion of Christianity and the Christian God.

Because monotheists believe in a single deity, not three different persons. Three is a group not an individual, worshipping a group makes you a polytheist.

Trinitarians do believe in a single deity. Believing in three Persons in One God does not mean we believe in three deities or gods. Again, see why word choice is so important in this discussion?

So, why so many denominations?

Because of man and private interpretation that Scripture condemns. (2 Peter 1:20)

Peter was not a Christ, he had no true understanding of God.

LOL. No true understanding? None at all? I guess spending three years learning from Jesus and traveling with Him just doesn't mean anything.

He did his best to preserve the teachings of Jesus, but that was not enough to secure the true spirit of God in the church while it was being assulted through the actions of those with their own agendas and theological theories.

Then you call Christ a liar, who said that He would build His Church on Peter as the Rock, and said that the Gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church, and that He would always be with them.

Because excommunication is a negative thing, nothing the Holy Spirit does is negative.

Discipline is a negative thing? Really, so you oppose punishing kids when they do something wrong? God disciplines His kids, in the hope that they will change their ways. There is nothing negative about that, unless the child refuses to obey, which is not the fault of the parent.

The simple truth is, God doesn't need a Church, he doesn't need intermediaries - Jesus showed us this.

God doesn't need ANYTHING, Halcyon, but some things do exist, and He did set up guidelines for their existence. He did create a Church, He did make Himself into a Mediator for the sins of men.

The true Church is in the hearts of men, it needs no building nor hierarchy of priests.

The Church is not in the hearts of men who deny God, plain and simple.

So a son of God does not 'denote an obvious difference between that being and God'?

Sure it does, which is why Christians see a difference between the Father and the Son as different persons in the Trinity. However, the title "Son of God" does not negate Christ's deity; Christ had and has both a completely human nature and a completely divine nature.

I'll just repeat myself shall I?

"Quote: earlychristianwritings.com The terminus ad quem for I John is provided by Polycarp, who presupposes I John 4:2 in Phil 7:1, and by Papias, who used texts from I John according to Eusebius in HE 3.39.17. This places the letter sometime in the first quarter of the second century "

John was unlikely to have lived to over 100 considering the average lifespan of the time.

Sorry, what is Phil 7:1? There are only 4 chapters in Philippians, and only 1 in Philemon.
It seems that the argument for dating is that because second century Christians cited the text, it must be from the second century. That is obviously false, since it could be from earlier and later Christians could still cite it...we still cite it today, that doesn't mean it's from the 21st century.

I think it is supported by scripture. In John 11: 3, Martha the sister of lazerus sent word to Jesus that "the one you love is sick" in reference to lazurus. Lazurus was one of his disciples, not an apostle but still a disciple.

It's not in question whether Christ loved many people, including Lazarus. However, it is clear from Scripture and Tradition that John was specially loved by Christ, as a close Apostle and Disciple.

I'm put saying this is authoritative, its just the theory that maeks more sense to me.
Its possible that the author of John worked from Lazurus's notes, i don't know

Lazarus' notes? What notes?


FerventGodSeeker

 

[bunny1ohio]

How do you know that it was God the Father speaking?


The phrase "right hand of God" (Acts 7:55) is not literal. It is symbolic of power, authority, etc.

"Your right hand, O LORD, has become glorious in power; your right hand, O LORD, has dashed the enemy in pieces." Exodus 15:6

"Now I know that the LORD saves His anointed; he will answer him from His holy heaven with the saving strength of His right hand." Psalm 20:6

"According to Your name, O God, so is Your praise to the ends of the earth; Your right hand is full of righteousness." Psalm 48:10

When Stephen saw Jesus, he saw Him in awesome power and authority. It does not mean he literally saw Jesus standing on God the Father's right side.

FerventGodSeeker

by a literal christian definition we are all literally the sons and daughters of god made flesh... because we have souls and christians view that the soul returns to heaven when the body dies... so everyone here would have to have a soul to be alive....the soul would have to have created by god for an individual person... to become that person whom the soul is designed for.... so if he designed the soul to animate these bodies and return to him... and we cannot be alive without one... then we are all living incarnations of god... or a "true son or daughter"

 

[Katzpur]

Let's be clear here. Jesus (the human being) has a God. Christ (the divine Son) has a Father. Again, if Jesus knew that only God could forgive sin, how could Jesus be so brazen as to forgive sin, unless he knew that he was part of the Godhead? Jesus fills two distinct roles, one as fully human and one as fully divine.

Yes, let's definitely be clear. We could start by listening to one another. I never implied that Jesus is not part of the Godhead. I am 100% convinced that He is, that He has been forever, and that He will be forever. I merely stated that I do not believe Him to be merely a different manifestation of the same individual. That is not to say that Jesus was not also God. "God" is a title He shares with His Father. As God, He was fully able to forgive sin. I don't believe that His relationship with His Father has changed over time. He was subservient to His Father in His pre-mortal existence, creating the universe under His Father's direction. He was subservient to His Father during His mortal life, praying to Him and always doing His will. He is subservient to Him today, as evidenced by the fact that the Father has knowledge that the Son does not have (with regards to the Second Coming). He is subservient in the relationship, but is most definintely not an inferior being. He has exactly the same divine qualities that His Father has. But, once again, He is not His own Father or His own God.

All human beings are not the offspring of God. All human beings are creations of God. Only Christ is begotten of God. The whole crux of the concept of grace is that grace gives us the power to become [adopted] sons and daughters of God.

In Acts 17:28, we are specifically referred to as His offspring. "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." And in Hebrews 12:9, we read that "...we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?" I never said that we were physically begotten by God. We aren't, of course; we were each physically begotten by our own mortal parents. As the "Only Begotten Son," of the Father, Jesus Christ is undeniably unique. On many occasions, He referred to God as being both His Father and our Father.

 

[Katzpur]

I certainly wouldn't claim that this verse is the one on which the whole doctrine of the Trinity is formulated or defined, so the fact that it doesn't offer some detailed analysis of what "one" means isn't really at issue. I was simply pointing out that the verse is conspicuously Trinitarian, and I don't know how much more detailed (other than using the exact, most common phrase used to describe the Trinity) that a single Bible verse could be in demonstrating the doctrine of the Trinity.

If it was conspicuously Trinitarian, I'd interpret it the way you do! As I said before, "these three are one" can easily mean something other than "physically one." Haven't you ever seen a wedding greeting card that says something like, "Congratulations on your marriage. Now you two are one."? To me, the word "one" is obviously not speaking of a physical unity at all.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

If it was conspicuously Trinitarian, I'd interpret it the way you do! As I said before, "these three are one" can easily mean something other than "physically one." Haven't you ever seen a wedding greeting card that says something like, "Congratulations on your marriage. Now you two are one."? To me, the word "one" is obviously not speaking of a physical unity at all.

Seeing as the Trinitarian God is not physical (other than the physical body that Jesus took on when He came to earth as a human and took back with Him to heaven), obviously the Trinitarian interpretation of "One" in relation to the Persons of the Trinity is not physical either.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

by a literal christian definition we are all literally the sons and daughters of god made flesh... because we have souls and christians view that the soul returns to heaven when the body dies... so everyone here would have to have a soul to be alive....the soul would have to have created by god for an individual person... to become that person whom the soul is designed for.... so if he designed the soul to animate these bodies and return to him... and we cannot be alive without one... then we are all living incarnations of god... or a "true son or daughter"

I have no idea what that has to do with my explanation for the meaning of "right hand of God", but I'll respond anyways. Yes, God does animate our souls, and our souls (if we are saved) do ascend to heaven apart from our bodies when we die. However, none of that makes us LITERALLY children of God. I do hope you know where babies come from , and God doesn't have sex. Christians are sons and daughters of God by adoption, not by literal physicality:

"to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons." Galatians 4:5
"having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, " Ephesians 1:5

FerventGodSeeker

 

[d.]

In that case, there is no advantage to being a Christian, or any sort of religious person at all.

:spit:

wouldn't that just be awful.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

:spit:

Trust me, I found it rather amusing myself. I've never understood how anyone could embrace Gnosticism, sorry, lol.

It would be rather awful, actually...I would hate to serve or believe in a God who gave everyone everything equally, regardless of their faith, attitude, beliefs, or actions. It would be completely unjust and would leave no reason or rationality for anyone to believe anything or act morally. It's basically spiritual communism...which we all know doesn't work.

FGS

 

[Katzpur]

Seeing as the Trinitarian God is not physical (other than the physical body that Jesus took on when He came to earth as a human and took back with Him to heaven), obviously the Trinitarian interpretation of "One" in relation to the Persons of the Trinity is not physical either.

Well, if it's not physical, what is it? If you wouldn't mind, please just try to explain exactly what "three persons in one God" really means to you. Scott1 has contended that LDS doctrine really isn't all that different from Catholic doctrine after all. I'm willing to consider the possibility that he's right. I realize it's not an easy concept to put into words, but do your best, and I'll sincerely try to understand.

Also, I'd appreciate a clarification on this: You say that "the Trinitarian God is not physical (other than the physical body that Jesus took on when He came to earth as a human and took back with Him to heaven)." To me, that sounds like a huge contradiction. If Jesus still has his body, then at least one of the "persons" in the Trinity is clearly physical.

 

[Halcyon]

I suppose the Holy Spirit specially gave you "secret knowledge" that gave you cause to oppose the authority of Christ's Church?

Not secret knowledge, its blatantly obvious that the current Church is against Christ's teachings and distorts his nature, the smallest bit of research would show you that. But first you need to loose that blind faith of yours.

That opinion is based on your personal interpretation of Christ's words. Yet there are millions of interpretations of the Bible and what Christ said in the Gospels, what makes your interpretation authoritative over all others?

Erm, no there aren't. There is one interpretation of Christs teachings and his nature that has spread across the globe, on the surface it may be as diverse as the differences between Roman Catholics and Mormons, but the underlying beliefs are identical.
"My" interpretation isn't authoritative over all, i just read what's there.

Gnosis (the Greek word for knowledge) was and is not necesary for guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides a person and GIVES them knowledge, knowledge isn't a prerequisite. Where did you get the idea that some specific, "secret" knowledge is necesary for a person (or the Church as a whole, for that matter) to be guided by the Holy Spirit?

Firsty, you need to understand that Gnosis isn't knowledge in the common sense of the word, it is more akin to insight or enlightenment.
Secondly, you need Gnosis to be able to recognise the difference between understanding from God and your own ignorant mental concoctions.

The guidance of the Holy Spirit is not seen in wordly influence or power; it is seen in the fact that God's One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church has been sustained for 2,000 years as the pillar and ground of truth on earth.

We were talking about the authority of the people of the Council of Nicea, their authority was worldly power, they had more influence to push their beliefs through and make them doctrine. The Holy Spirit wasn't involved.

So a member of a Christian denomination cannot be a Christian? Even I, as a Catholic who opposes denominationalism, would not go that far.

You keep talking about "the Chuch", yet you don't specify which one. 30,000 different versions of Catholic teaching, which is the true Church. And if there is only one, how can the whole Christian global population be a member of it?

Yes, they are given authority by God, haven't I been saying that this whole time? I believe that because that is the testament of the Scriptures and Holy Tradition.

Holy Tradition? That's possibly the daftest thing i've heard all week. Just because something is traditional doesn't make it Holy or sacred or correct.

I'm talking about the fact that second generation Church leaders didn't need to prove that they had Apostolic authority to their congregrations, because it was obvious to the people of the time. ... If he kept insisting on this, they would have branded him a heretic and an opponent of God's true Church (which they did with the Gnostic leaders).

Obvious, how?

Oh, and you must realise how slap happy the church was when it came to classing individuals as heretics. They did so for political reasons as well as spiritual, remember Meister Eckhart?

The Church is not a sect...those who split off from the Church are sects, including Gnostic Christianity.

No, the proto-orthodox, the Gnostics and the Ebionites all coexisted - there was no spliting.

Really? Sorry, you'll have to define "proto-orthodox" and tell me which Christians were physically, violently persecuting heretics in the second generation of Christianity.

Proto-orthodox = the members of the Christian sect which placed emphasis on the death and resurrection of Christ over his actual teachings. Those people that belonged to the group that would become the orthodox Church, people like Irenaeous.

What was the punishment for heresy in ancient times? Why are there no Gnostics left except the Mandaens?

And yet your whole point in this thread is to quote the Old Testament God to prove a doctrine wrong ...you can't just conveniently pick and choose what you want to believe and don't want to believe. Either He is a big jerk who you want nothing to do with, or not. You'll have to pick a side.

i don't believe the god of the OT is actually God, no. But you do. I chose a quote in your sacred scripture that contradicts a basic belief of your religion.

Are you saying it's petty and childish for God not to give salvation or spiritual insight to someone who spits in His face, calls Him a jerk, and refuses to even seriously consider His existance?

Exactly.

In that case, there is no advantage to being a Christian, or any sort of religious person at all.

No, there are advantages - inner peace, love of your fellow man etc. You don't need to believe in God to get these, especially not an arrogant God.

God's just going to forgive everyone of everything even if we don't believe in Him, and get just as much insight as Christians do.

You only get forgiveness if you are worthy of forgiveness, belief has nothing to do with it.

Thanks, now both of our religions are bunk.

Well, mine's still looking good.

Yes, if they look Christ's way. That's the point.

No he didn't. Buddha has nothing to do with a discussion of Christianity and the Christian God.

You can get spiritual enlightenment without Christ, that's why i mentioned Buddha. but if you do accept Christs teachings and have faith in them, its a lot easier.

Trinitarians do believe in a single deity. Believing in three Persons in One God does not mean we believe in three deities or gods.

Yes, yes it does. Three forms of one God i can still see as monotheistic, because God is simply manifesting in different forms. But three persons are three individuals, by definition you are polytheistic.

Because of man and private interpretation that Scripture condemns. (2 Peter 1:20)

So, you are willing to describe the beliefs of other denominations as the work of men, and yet not those of your own church fathers? Do you see the hypocrasy that i do?

LOL. No true understanding? I guess spending three years learning from Jesus and traveling with Him just doesn't mean anything.

Oh it means something, it means that he had all the understanding he needed to become a Christ, he just didn't (as far as i know). It means he preserved the teachings of Jesus well, but could not stop other men corrupting their meaning.

Then you call Christ a liar, who said that He would build His Church on Peter as the Rock, and said that the Gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church, and that He would always be with them.

No, Christ is not a liar - like a said the true Church is in the hearts of men and that Christ is also in the hearts of all men, but you need Gnosis to truely understand that.

Discipline is a negative thing? Really, so you oppose punishing kids when they do something wrong? God disciplines His kids, in the hope that they will change their ways.

Excommunication is no more discipline than execution, its getting rid of those who think differently to you.

... and He did set up guidelines for their existence. He did create a Church, He did make Himself into a Mediator for the sins of men.

He didn't set up a physical church, men did. He didn't appoint mediaries between men and God, because none are necessary, men did that too.

The Church is not in the hearts of men who deny God...

Yes it is. Just because they are ignorant of it does not mean that it is not there.

Sure it does, which is why Christians see a difference between the Father and the Son as different persons in the Trinity.

See, now your contradicting your earlier statement. Either there is no difference between Jesus and the Father, and they are a single deity. Or there is a difference between them and they are separate deities which makes you polytheistic - which is it?

Sorry, what is Phil 7:1? There are only 4 chapters in Philippians, and only 1 in Philemon.
It seems that the argument for dating is that because second century Christians cited the text, it must be from the second century. That is obviously false, since it could be from earlier and later Christians could still cite it...we still cite it today, that doesn't mean it's from the 21st century.

The Phil they are referencing is Polycarp's own letter to the Philippians.

I don't know, i'm no scholar of ancient texts. But if learned people who have studied these texts are drawing those conclusions, then i yield to their superior knowledge.

It's not in question whether Christ loved many people, including Lazarus. However, it is clear from Scripture and Tradition that John was specially loved by Christ, as a close Apostle and Disciple.

Not from scripture, just from tradition. The Gospel of John, although it is ascribed to him, is anonymously written.

Lazarus' notes? What notes?

Pffft, i dunno. I'm just speculating.
[/quote]

 

[Halcyon]

Trust me, I found it rather amusing myself. I've never understood how anyone could embrace Gnosticism, sorry, lol.

That's because you don't understand it.

It would be rather awful, actually...I would hate to serve or believe in a God who gave everyone everything equally, regardless of their faith, attitude, beliefs, or actions. It would be completely unjust and would leave no reason or rationality for anyone to believe anything or act morally. It's basically spiritual communism...which we all know doesn't work.

Communisim does work when those in authority are not corrupt, God is not corrupt.

What would be unjust is to deny people spiritual experience because they have some common sense. God as depicted by modern Christianity does not make sense.

 

[bunny1ohio]

That's because you don't understand it.

Communisim does work when those in authority are not corrupt, God is not corrupt.

What would be unjust is to deny people spiritual experience because they have some common sense. God as depicted by modern Christianity does not make sense.

:clap Hal... I like the way yo u describe things...

I am non-religious... but if I was, just from reading these couple posts by you I think I would be gnostic gnostic christian I could never be though... because I don't believe the story of Christ... but gnostic in the way you describe all the other aspects :angel2:

 

[bunny1ohio]

It would be rather awful, actually...I would hate to serve or believe in a God who gave everyone everything equally, regardless of their faith, attitude, beliefs, or actions. It would be completely unjust and would leave no reason or rationality for anyone to believe anything or act morally. It's basically spiritual communism...which we all know doesn't work.

Judge not my friend.... that's God's job. And even men in all their errant wisdom have determined that "all men are created equal"...and unjust for whom? For the sinners?.... aren't we all sinners? So what makes you any better than anyone else? Your own beliefs say that you need only ask to be forgiven...

 

[Halcyon]

:clap Hal... I like the way yo u describe things...

Thank you.

I am non-religious... but if I was, just from reading these couple posts by you I think I would be gnostic gnostic christian I could never be though... because I don't believe the story of Christ... but gnostic in the way you describe all the other aspects :angel2:

That's cool. The story isn't as important as the message anyway.

 

[wmam]

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...All things were made by him...He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not...And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" John 1:1, 3, 10, 14

Why does it have to be Yahshua that this name "Word" reflects? By whose rules do we have to go by in accepting this way of interpretation? I disagree and rather look at this as referring to one of the two covering cherubim. I believe His name is "Israel". He did the works of YAH by those words uttered by the Most High. He also is the Spirit (Malak) that abode (possessed) in Yahshua at the time of purification (baptism). a covering cherubim are higher in status than a arch cherubim. Where cherubims do the work of the Most High YAH as seraphims do service to the throne.

"I and my Father are one". John 10:30

Yes....... One in as a Father and Son here are one. I am my fathers son therefore I am one with him. I carry his cells. Yahshua not only carries the same cells from Adam as all men do but He also carries the word of Elohim in His whole being therefore He was born of the word and therefore word which came of the Father. All men that are born of the word of Elohim are sons of Elohim. That would make them also one with the Father.

I hope that helped more than confuse.

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." John 8:58

Yes, but Yahshua was not speaking of Himself here but rather YAH Elohim.......

Exo 3:14 And Elohim said unto Moses, I AM1961 THAT834 I AM:1961 and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM1961 hath sent me unto you.

Strongs........

hâyâh H1961 'ăsher H834 hâyâh H1961

hâ being the definite article here where YAH is the name of the Most High Elohim.

So "I AM" I agree was before Abraham as was He before all.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7

Well........... I show where this verse was added and was not a part of the original text.

Where all of these text that you have posted are used by main stream christianity to try and prove their agenda, one only needs to either read a little before, or a little after, or even read in the correct context, or even do a little study and discern the true meaning by way of the Hebrew language, to find the deceit that has been handed down for nearly 2,000 years. This again is only my own personal opinion. Please do not take this as either an attack on you or your beliefs for it was not the intent but rather to show another way of understanding. You are free to disagree.

 

[Buttercup]

Why does it have to be Yahshua that this name "Word" reflects? By whose rules do we have to go by in accepting this way of interpretation? I disagree and rather look at this as referring to one of the two covering cherubim. I believe His name is "Israel". He did the works of YAH by those words uttered by the Most High. He also is the Spirit (Malak) that abode (possessed) in Yahshua at the time of purification (baptism). a covering cherubim are higher in status than a arch cherubim. Where cherubims do the work of the Most High YAH as seraphims do service to the throne.

Interesting.....please tell me where you derived this particular interpretation?

Yes....... One in as a Father and Son here are one. I am my fathers son therefore I am one with him. I carry his cells. Yahshua not only carries the same cells from Adam as all men do but He also carries the word of Elohim in His whole being therefore He was born of the word and therefore word which came of the Father. All men that are born of the word of Elohim are sons of Elohim. That would make them also one with the Father.

I hope that helped more than confuse.

Except that you left out the very salient point of Jesus having authority to forgive sin...the same as The Father. They are equal in power and vision.

Yes, but Yahshua was not speaking of Himself here but rather YAH Elohim.......[/quote} He was not speaking of him self in this verse?......"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." John 8:58

Sorry, I think most of Christianity will disagree with you here. Jesus is equating himself with God. Simple sentence construction would tell you he is speaking of himself.

Well........... I show where this verse was added and was not a part of the original text.

What version is that? Mine doesn't say it was added later.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Well, if it's not physical, what is it?

It is One in essence or nature. They are both divine, having all the qualities of deity.

If you wouldn't mind, please just try to explain exactly what "three persons in one God" really means to you.

It means that there is One God and One only in all of existence, and that God has revealed Himself as three distinct persons, who each have a mind and will and act interdependently of one another, yet are all one and the same God.

Scott1 has contended that LDS doctrine really isn't all that different from Catholic doctrine after all. I'm willing to consider the possibility that he's right. I realize it's not an easy concept to put into words, but do your best, and I'll sincerely try to understand.

As I understand it, Mormonism teaches that each member of the Godhead is in fact a separate god or deity, which Catholicism does not teach. They are all One God, not three Gods or three thirds that together make one whole God. They are each fully God all by themselves, yet they are all the same God. Have I thoroughly confused you yet?

Also, I'd appreciate a clarification on this: You say that "the Trinitarian God is not physical (other than the physical body that Jesus took on when He came to earth as a human and took back with Him to heaven)." To me, that sounds like a huge contradiction. If Jesus still has his body, then at least one of the "persons" in the Trinity is clearly physical.

Jesus is unique among the Persons of the Trinity in that only He came to earth and took on a human nature. That is, He took on a human physical body, a human will, human emotions, etc. Thus, Christ had/has two natures, one divine and one human, and can act in the realm of either one. Thus, we have certain Biblical verses where Christ is clearly seen as a human, and others where He is clearly seen to be divine. His physical body is a part of His human nature, and was resurrected and glorified three days after the crucifixion, and thus remains with Him in heaven.

FerventGodSeeker