Featured 'Was' and 'Beginning' in John 1:1

Yes the words in red are my words, and it means exactly what it says.

No, the Word is FULLY God and that is a very Trinitarian thing to say. The Father is fully God and so is the Spirit. Not PART God and PART man, as in Eutychianism or Monophysitism, but FULLY God, which it Trinitarianism.

"...the word is NOT full God" is a very Arian thing to say, which of course is not what I or any Trinitarian professes.

FULLY God is not WHOLLY God. Such a distinction might be "linguistic gymnastics" to you, but as I stated earlier, Arians were rarely if ever burdened to defend Orthodoxy from heresy.

Let's go over it again:

I don't see the difficulty here. In Trinitarianism the Logos is FULLY God but is not the Father and He is not the Spirit so the Logos is not WHOLLY God!

Not so in Modalism. In Modalism their is no such distinction. The Father can manifest Himself as Jesus! All of God is Jesus, and all of God is the Father, and if a particular Modalist Christology allows for it, all of God can be the Spirit.

Now we go back earlier to my statement regarding John 1:1:

That is the defining distinction between Modalism and Trinitarianism. The distinction between each Christology is exactly as I stated it was earlier.

And no, if you go to an Arian website or simply read WT tracts and literature you will find no such distinction. @sojourner has already explained where to go and the types of material to read. You don't have to agree with the material, but at least you'll have a much deeper and richer understanding of the issues involved.

Arian publishers such as the WT simply find it more convenient to lump Modalist and Trinitarians together. Anytime an Arian asks a Trinitarian "So if Jesus is God, who was he praying to?", you can be pretty sure they've been reading a WT or similar non-scholarly publication.

 

It means before creation started. The creations (us) have a starting point, that is why it says in the beginning. The word alone (without the creation) is beyond time.

 

That's not the reason. Sorry.

 

The date of Matthew’s Gospel is far from certain. Three pieces of evidence have usually been advanced to demonstrate that Matthew wrote after 70 C.E. First, Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark and Mark is normally dated to the late 60s or early 70s. Secondly, the Gospel of Matthew has a developed Christology, which suggests a late date towards the end of the first century. Thirdly, the reference to the destruction of a city in Matt 22:7 can and should be taken as a direct reference to the Jewish War and to the destruction of Jerusalem in particular. None of these arguments is entirely persuasive.

With respect to Matthew’s use of Mark, the date of Mark is itself not certain. Some scholars date it earlier than the 60s. As for Matthew’s developed Christology, it is no more developed than Paul’s and the Pauline letters were written in the 50s. This leaves the reference to the destruction of the city in the parable of the wedding feast as the final piece of evidence for dating Matthew after the Jewish War. As the question correctly maintains, this is hardly decisive, especially when we take into account the metaphorical nature of the Gospel parables.


From the International Bible society


DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING
Some have argued on the basis of its Jewish characteristics that Matthew’s Gospel was written in the early church period, possibly the early part of a.d. 50, when the church was largely Jewish and the gospel was preached to Jews only (Ac 11:19). However, those who have concluded that both Matthew and Luke drew extensively from Mark’s Gospel date it later—after the Gospel of Mark had been in circulation for a period of time. See essay and chart, p. 1943. Accordingly, some feel that Matthew would have been written in the late 50s or in the 60s. Others, who assume that Mark was written between 65 and 70, place Matthew in the 70s or even later. However, there is insufficient evidence to be dogmatic about either view.


Their are many more quotes that could be put up but the point is that the pre 70ce date is ALSO widely held.The contention that the majority of scholars agree that Matthew is after 70ce is definitively is wrong. Although, believers usually tend to the pre 70 date while seculars go for the post 70.

If one, as a christian, does not believe that the gospels are an honest account and are a manipulation of events so they APPEAR as prophecy then i am at a loss. Surely the author of Matthew was NOT trying to deceive people into thinking that he was relating prophecy to come, when it had already happened.

How does Jesus prophecy have any weight if was recorded after the event?

How can anyone have confidence that Jesus prophecied the destruction of the temple if the record of the prophecy came AFTER the event?

One of the main arguments of "biblical opponents" is saying that the prophecies are all written after the events to make them fit. Just like some christians on here are saying. Very strange. To think that the early, immediate, contemporary followers of Jesus, men brought up in the tradition of literary revelation in a highly literate society would not have recordered the events of Jesus life, then you are giving them little credit.

At the end of the day.....The Author of Matthew claims to be an eye witness to the events described, not some compiler of the writings of a dead man from the previous generation, i for one believe him, those that claim the book written after Matthews death imply deceit on the part of the writer. You Chose.

 

Hi.
This is from Catholic answers. How Not to Share the Trinity
The catholics sure seem to think you are not orthodox trinitarian and that you are describing modalism. ANY cathloic site that describes the trinity warns against your explanation of the trinity as a heresy.

2. “The Trinity is like how a man can be a Son, a Father, and an uncle at the same time. He’s one and three at the same time, just as God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time.”
Nope. This analogy commits the heresy of modalism. Modalism is the false belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes. Modalism is also called Sabellianism after Sabellius, an ancient theologian whom Pope Callixtus I excommunicated in A.D. 220.

I really do hate going to my catholic roots but as they are the ones who came up with the idea and you lot seem to accept the descriptions of the ecumenical councils then surely if you fall out of their, and all the main protestant branches btw, definition then how can i believe the protestations that you hold the orthodox view. The club you claim membership says you DO NOT FIT.

It seems that you are some variation, their are many, of the oneness pentecostal version as this is the very analogy that they use. Why not declare that you are not "orthodox" in your views from the start. I really do not understand the desperate attempts to argue that you fall within the Nicaean definition when you clearly don't.

Their is a real dishonesty in hiding behind the trinitarian label while not declaring your "true colours" in a debating forum. When you say you believe in the trinity i am forced to view what you believe against 5 or 6 variations of the understanding, their is a single version of mine. A catholic understanding or a oneness understanding is a completely different debate from my side. I can quote trinitarian sources that disagree with you and are able to use counter trinitarian interdenominational sources so from your own internal nicaean civil war so to not address any point made.

You trinitarians, if that's what you really are, should get your own house in order before you come after outside dissenters.
Peace.

 

Hi
I don't see the difficulty here.
In Trinitarianism the Logos is FULLY God but is not the Father and He is not the Spirit so the Logos is not WHOLLY God!
First..... in your above explanation it seems the neither The Father OR The Spirit are fully God either.
Here i'll show you using YOUR illustration......
In Trinitarianism the FATHER is FULLY God but is not the SON and He is not the Spirit so the FATHER is not WHOLLY God!
You would have to agree with that construction as you view them all as equal, but doesn't saying that the FATHER is not fully God somehow sound sacrilegious.


The dogma of the Holy Trinity
253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

The above is straight from the catholic catechism.Again your view falls outside the club. Your illustration has them sharing the one divinity, they are not wholly God in the illustration unless viewed in combination. So now we've modalist /trithiest . Both as defined by orthodox trinitarians not me.
Peace.

 

Lol! First, I'm not Catholic, but let's be clear: I never used that analogy to describe the Trinity! I used it to rebut your assertion that you can't have three things different from each other and call it one because it defied "math, logic, reason and common sense". Here it is again from post #23:

​

And here was my response, from post #24:

I offered this as a response to a specific assertion you raised. I never claimed it described the Trinity.

Please keep and refer to my responses in context.

Sorry Moz. It's you who say I don't fit, not the Catholic church. When did you start speaking for them? I appear to have missed the "...you DO NOT FIT" memo.

BTW, can you tell me when and where my church adopted the Catholic's church stance as authoritative? Don't get me wrong, I love my Catholic friends, but I seem to have missed that memo too.

You are too funny Moz! A few posts ago you couldn't tell a Modalist from a Trinitarian and didn't see a lick of difference between the two until I took the time to explain it in painstaking detail!

Now you're a pro!

Nah. There's a is real dishonesty when you lift my responses from their proper context.

Your arguments and assertions were razed Moz. But that's what happens when you argue from the shallow resources and pseudo scholarship of Arian websites and publications. Your desperate attempt to lift my comments from their proper context simply tells me you have become embarrassed, because you failed to understand the difference between "fully" and "wholly" God, and labeling key theological differences as nothing more than "linguistic gymnastics".

In any event, I was happy to converse with you and explain some rather basic, historic, and Orthodox view of the Trinity as well as my understanding of Modalism, and the fact you consider yourself a pro now tells me our conversation hasn't been a complete loss.

But before you declare Catholic doctrine authoritative and binding on Protestants, I strongly urge you to Calvin's letter to Saldoleto, and why Calvin felt Saldoleto distorted the Trinity.

Then, when you can explain justification and transubstantiation just like you now feel able to explain Trinitarianism and Modalism, we'll talk.

Oh, we have Moz. After all, you are an outside dissenter. In the book of Kings, the prophets of Baal assembled on Mount Carmel to determine whose Deity was in control of Israel, and it wasn't Elijah who went home claiming all of Israel had gone "apostate".

The prophets of Arius also assembled, but this time it was a contest over the church rather than Israel. So in much the same way, I suppose one could say the Arians had their Mount Carmel at Nicea.

 

Hi.
You used it to to rebut the assertion that you can't have three things different from each other and call it one because it defied "math, logic, reason and common sense".
So you used it to prove that three can be one . That is the trinity isnt it?

Clear this up for me please,

Do you agree with the catholic site quoted that says the Father, Son ,Brother analogy is modalist?

Do you agree with the catholic site quoted that says each of them is God whole and entire?

Does that agree with your statement that the Logos is not WHOLLY God?

Please give made an analogy that actually describes what you believe if one exists.

BTW, can you tell me when and where my church adopted the Catholic's church stance as authoritative?

Ok easy... from your crowing about the victory at Nicaea i took it to confirm that you hold to that councils authority. You protestants forget, i think, that you were catholic for the first 700 years.
But here just so we both know where we are....
Do you affirm the Ecumenical councils? A simple Yes or No

It would also be nice to get a straight yes or no on the Oneness thing or a reference to an authoritive site that explains your particular view, seems only fair.
Peace.

 

Jesus is a King and a High Priest.....since his rulership is over the earth, it is his co-rulers whom he calls his "brothers".....It was to these, and about these, that the NT was written. Not all Christians go to heaven. Only 144,000 are chosen for life in heaven as kings and priests. (Revelation 7:4; Revelation 14:1-5; Revelation 20:6)

According to Matthew 25:31-40...

“When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will put the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world. 35 For I became hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably. . . .the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me."

There is Christ....his "brothers" and those who do good deeds for them. There are two ways to "inherit the Kingdom"....as 'chosen ones' who will rule with Christ in heaven.....and there are those who will become citizens of the Kingdom here on earth. (Revelation 21:2-4)

The 'chosen ones' are parties to the "new covenant" instituted by Jesus on the night before his death, and there are the beneficiaries of that covenant who will reap blessings from their rulership, bringing redeemed mankind back in to a reconciliation with God during the 1,000 years of their rulership.

Not all in the first century had the gifts of the spirit. They were used to persuade people that God had shifted his favor to a new arrangement....but Paul indicated that they would be done away with once they had accomplished their purpose.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians....
"But if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with. . . . .When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, to think as a child, to reason as a child; but now that I have become a man, I have done away with the traits of a child. . . . Now, however, these three remain: faith, hope, love; but the greatest of these is love."

Once the apostles died, the spiritual gifts were no longer necessary....as the Christian Congregation grew to maturity, the more important qualities of "faith, hope and love" became the identifying marks of Christ's followers.

What successors? After the death of the apostles, a great apostasy was to occur, which means that any "successors" would in time become apostate. The church itself by its despicable conduct proved that Jesus' words were true. (Acts 20:28-30)

It is humans that are imperfect, but God has always used imperfect men to carry out his will.....he had no choice.
As long as they obeyed him, he blessed their efforts, but when they disobeyed, they felt his hot displeasure.

Tell me when "the church" after the first century obeyed Christ's teachings. The more time went on, the more corrupt they became. Is it any wonder that Christ says to those hypocrites..."I NEVER knew you"....."never" means "not ever". I don't believe that Christ has ever set foot in Christendom.

Really? IMO, your Bible knowledge is sadly lacking, going by what you have posted to date.

Jesus never called the people "hypocrites and snakes"...only the religious leaders. But since they held such powerful authority in Judaism, many simply followed what they had been taught by them....Jesus called it "leaven"...corrupted. The people who hailed Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, were a week later clambering for his death. Who you listen to makes a big difference to your attitude.

By and large, the Pharisees were trying to find something against him. He was making them look bad.

Just when the sect of the Pharisees had their beginning is not precisely known. The writings of the Jewish historian Josephus indicate that in the time of John Hyrcanus I (latter half of the second century B.C.E.) the Pharisees already formed an influential body. Josephus wrote: “And so great is their influence with the masses that even when they speak against a king or high priest, they immediately gain credence.”—Jewish Antiquities, XIII, 288 (x, 5).

During Jesus' earthly ministry, the Pharisees exerted such great influence that prominent ones among them were afraid to confess wanting to follow him openly. (John 12:42-43) One of such fearful ones evidently was Nicodemus. (John 3:1-2; John 7:47-52; John 19:39) There may also have been Pharisees who did not manifest bitter opposition or who later became Christians. Gamaliel for example, counseled against interfering with the work of Christians (Acts 5:34-39) and Saul of Tarsus (Paul) who became an apostle of Jesus Christ. (Acts 26:5; Philippians 3:5)

Not all will qualify to gain entry to the marriage feast.

In Matthew 22, Jesus gives another illustration about a wedding feast given by a King....
"When the king came in to inspect the guests [the reclining ones] he caught sight there of a man not clothed with a marriage garment. So he said to him, ‘Fellow, how did you get in here not having on a marriage garment?’ He was rendered speechless.” (Matthew 22:11-12)

This is picturing the "marriage of the Lamb", (the son of the King,) with his "bride". (Revelation 19:9)

The king had provided a marriage garment for every guest to wear at the wedding festivities, and so there was no excuse for the man to be without one. Jesus does not say that the man put it on to get in and then took it off. The king did not ask him, ‘Why did you take off the marriage garment?’ but, “How did you get in here not having on a marriage garment?” He refused to wear it. He declined to wear it at the feast table. He did not meet the requirements for being there at the table, and he did not belong there.

Verse 13 tells us the end for this man....
"Then the king said to his servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and throw him into the darkness outside. There is where his weeping and the gnashing of his teeth will be.’

14 “For there are many invited, but few chosen.”

I'm afraid he does. (Matthew 7:21-23)

Really.....? You have the secret code then do you? Where will I find that in scripture?
This is clearly Jesus judging false Christians who believe that they are doing good works "in Jesus name", yet are not "doing the will of the Father".

Read it....
“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!"

There is no code...just outright rejection of those who got it all wrong and could not be corrected.

We get thrown under the bus every day......it goes with being a Christian. (John 15:18-21) What I am defending is the truth.
There is just one interpretation, and one judgment.....only one road leads to life (Matthew 7:13-14)...if we fail, there is no second chance. The only other road leads to destruction.

Bullying? Really?
Telling you that I believe that you are on the wrong road is really an act of love because I want you to see the truth. Isn't that why Jesus preached to "the lost sheep"?...to save them?

This is not about me being right....its about those on the wrong road being dead. Believe it or not...I care.
I am under obligation to sound the warning. (Ezekiel 3:18)

That is what the preaching work that Jesus commanded is for.....
"And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come." (Matthew 24:14)

This is about delivering a "witness to all the nations" before Christ comes to end the rot. We have to know that what we believe is the truth because there is no time for second guessing. Our decisions are ours to make....when we choose the path, we choose the destination.

I am informing you about what I believe to be the truth from God's word....I am forcing nothing on anyone. I am giving people information from the Bible, which they are free to accept....or to ignore.

There is only one truth....if you believe that you have it, then nothing I say should have any impact on you.
If it makes you uncomfortable then perhaps you need to re-evaluate what you believe?

 

This right here is the only pertinent and valuable statement in your whole tiresome epistle, because it encapsulates the problem as I see it. YOU have the truth, and if THAT truth “makes me uncomfortable,” the perhaps I should reevaluate what I believe (in order to conform to what you believe).

No room for error; no spirit of accommodation; no willingness to acknowledge differences. “God said it — I believe it — that settles it.” MY beliefs, MY knowledge, MY MY MY.

It’s entitlement in the name of religion.

When are going to learn that this is not YOUR playground? AFAIC, Xy isn’t about being egocentric.

 

It was my response to the points you raised in your post. What "playground" are we talking about here? This is life and death...there is no "playground" or ego-tripping. Jesus sent his disciples on a rescue mission....but not all want to get in the lifeboat. It's their choice.

Did I give my own personal opinion about anything, or did I give you scripture to contemplate in responding to you? How much scripture have you ignored in my posts? Most of it. And what you did address was simply a hand wave with a very feeble excuse to dismiss it. That is your prerogative of course....but at the end of the day, you cannot plead ignorance and say to God "nobody told me". I have delivered the message....what you do with it is entirely up to you.

If people have doubts about what they believe, then they don't have the truth. It is God's spirit that gives us strong conviction.

James 1:5-8...
"5 So if any one of you is lacking in wisdom, let him keep asking God, for he gives generously to all and without reproaching, and it will be given him. 6 But let him keep asking in faith, not doubting at all, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind and blown about. 7 In fact, that man should not expect to receive anything from Jehovah; 8 he is an indecisive man, unsteady in all his ways."

Doubting leaves a person open to all kinds of influences....the devil has radar for those kinds of doubt. There is no room for many 'versions' of the truth, as if there are many paths to God....the Bible says there can be only one. (Matthew 7:13-14) If you have found it, then go in peace, I can shake the dust from my feet....and so can you. (Matthew 10:11-14)

 

According to you. (See how this works?)

The scriptures you selected reflect your opinion. They're rarely appropriate and rarely interpreted appropriately.

Because most of it was see above.

I'm not ignorant (Can't imagine why you think I am). What makes you think you're the "designated delivery-boy?"

Not according to Fowler. Doubt is an important part of our spiritual development. It's our own egos that give us strong conviction, until we've progressed to a certain point that you've not displayed adequately here.

 

And you posts reflect your opinion....so what?

According to you.....

Sorry I must have missed it....

Do you know what ignorance is in this context? It doesn't mean lacking knowledge per se, but being misinformed, a person clings to the misinterpreted knowledge as if it is the truth. We each must make a decision about what is a misinterpretation. Having the courage of one's convictions doesn't necessarily lead to life because as Paul said....
2 Thessalonians 2:11....
"That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness."

If we love the lies more than the truth, God will allow us to keep our delusion. We will go down because we did not respond to the truth when we heard it.


"1. Ignorant, illiterate, unlettered, uneducated meaning, lacking in knowledge or in training. Ignorant may mean knowing little or nothing, or it may mean uninformed about a particular subject: An ignorant person can be dangerous."

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"......we all know what that means....but misapplied knowledge is even more dangerous.

The Pharisees were not ignorant in their own assessment of their beliefs, but Jesus highlighted just how far off base they had allowed themselves to become over the 400 years since God's last prophet was sent to correct them. Judaism in Jesus' day was not a reflection of the ancient Jewish faith at all, but a complete departure, based on the traditions of men.....just as Christendom is a complete departure from original Christianity.

Who the heck is "Fowler"? Someone I should substitute for Jesus Christ? Did Jesus teach us to doubt? James addresses the "doubter" (James 1:5-8) He will receive nothing from God.

But this conversation is just going round in circles...suit yourself. Your beliefs are your choice.

 

I don’t pretend that my opinions are absolute truth.

According to universally-accepted standards of scholarship and research.

Pot...?

Not so. Interpretation is best undertaken in the context of an informed community.

Here: James W. Fowler - Wikipedia

But I imagine you’ll just dis him too, like you do everyone who threatens your ideas.

 

Hi Moz,

I suppose we could consider Father, Brother and Son to be Triune but I would not call it a trinity.

Remember, Modalists consider God Triune also. In fact, I believe there's was a Modalist who opened up an entire thread on the subject. Unfortunately I did not have time to read it or get involved.

I'll try. Remember, we all see through a glass darkly. (1 Cor 13:12) "We" includes me.

Yes and No!

I would say that it’s a excellent illustration of Modalism although its technically incorrect. In the analogy the Father Son and Brother all exist at the same time, whereas in classical Seballianism, or modalistic monarchism this never occurs because the "trimanifestations" are successive.

It’s not that they believe God can’t exist in all 3 modes at once, it just that He's never chosen to do so. As such, if you get in a discussion with a classical Modalist they may disagree with the analogy.

On the other hand, if you're talking with a Oneness Pentecostal, they may tell you that all 3 manifestation occurred simultaneously so there's nothing wrong with the analogy at all.

We have both schools of thought on this forum.

Absolutely! Each is God whole and entire. So each…the Father, Son and Spirit, are fully God.

Absolutely! "Whole" and "wholly" are not the same. They are used under different contexts.

“Whole” means “fully or complete without missing parts”. So the Logos is God whole and entire. He is fully God, not half God with half a God part missing, nor half man, with half his humanity missing.

That is entirely different from using the word “wholly”… an adverb, which means “to the furthest possible extent to the exclusion of others” (see links above).

God cannot possibly be wholly the Logos in Trinitarian theology, because we do not exclude the Spirit or the Father from the Godhead

As an example, “I ate the whole pie” means I consumed the entire, full pie without leaving any parts untouched.

But if I say “I ate wholly pie” it means I ate nothing but pie to the exclusion of other edible items.

The Catholic website you sited uses “whole” to describe the Logos as full and complete without missing parts, but not as “wholly” God which by definition excludes the Spirit and/or the Father.

Yes I was crowing and I apologize. The idea is to get reasoned debate so we can exchange views and ideas. Not to crow.

That’s the point though Moz, and one I can’t seem to get across to the JW’s. It’s highly likely that their ancestors were part of the historic church, so they not only condemn us but their own ancestors. Had God treated their ancestors back then with the same flying meteors they pray for us now none of them would even be here.

Each generation says “I would not have done that” or “I would not have believed that”. Yet had we lived during that time in that locale we would have most likely towed the party line. In fact, given the lack of educational resources, the fortune it cost for a bible, and the dearth of printing presses, I don't see how anyone could know anything BUT the party line.

Push come to shove, I think a lot of JW's will find their ancestors were just as catholic as anybody else's.

No, but I prefer not leave this as a simple Yes or No.

There have been over 20 (?) Ecumenical councils and to be honest I’m not aware of any church denomination that affirms them all.

I’m not sure what you mean by yes or no. As a Trinitarian I would most certainly disagree with Oneness Christology so it would be “No” to Oneness Christology for me.

 

Hi.
I appreciate the clarifications.

God cannot possibly be wholly the Logos in Trinitarian theology, because we do not exclude the Spirit or the Father from the Godhead

This is still just word play and philosophical tricks to explain the unexplainable as far as i can see, it is unecessary in my view. The WHOLE of Jesus is God but he is not WHOLLY God.

So is the Godhead (I loath that word) only WHOLLY God when the three of them are together?

I simply take Jesus at his word when he says the Father is his Father and have no need of any of this fancy wordplay.
You are the son of the living God is answer enough for me.

 

If what you believe is not absolute truth then why bother holding onto something that isn't?
What happens if you are wrong, based on Matthew 7:21-23?

What University did Jesus or his apostles attend? The only educated apostle was Paul....and he had to let go of a good deal of what he had been taught in the Rabbinical schools.

"Universally accepted"?...you mean like the majority views held by those who followed the teachings of the Pharisees?......or Christendom's doctrines? Its not about the numbers....it never was. (Matthew 7:13-14) "Few" are on the road to life according to Jesus. That means its about a minority.

Kettle?

I couldn't agree more....which community did you have in mind?

Hmmmm....
"James W. Fowler III (October 12, 1940 – October 16, 2015) was an American theologian who was Professor of Theology and Human Development at Emory University. He was director of both the Center for Research on Faith and Moral Development and the Center for Ethics until he retired in 2005. He was a minister in the United Methodist Church.

Fowler's model has inspired a considerable body of empirical research into faith development, although little of such research was ever conducted by Fowler himself."

Yes, I see...a minister of the United Methodist Church....someone that I would take note of....I hardly think so.

I'll leave it there...

 

Hi

It’s highly likely that their ancestors were part of the historic church, so they not only condemn us but their own ancestors. Had God treated their ancestors back then with the same flying meteors they pray for us now none of them would even be here.

Well their a couple of answers to this none of them are difficult to understand but here goes.....

1. The followers of Jesus realised that their ancestoral faith had run its course, they had to choose between how their Grandfathers viewed the faith against how Jesus directed them.
They were forced to realise that religious teachers had corrupted and distorted the truth to such an extent that they killed the Son of God as a blasphemer They had to Choose.

2. The Jw's, as far as i can tell, do not condemn past relatives to a fiery everlasting hell because they were taught falsehoods by the religious establishment. I'm pretty sure they consider all those in line for the resurrection into the 1000 years.
Orthodox on the other hand have to look back on entire family lines condemned to hell because they were pagan or born in a time before christ and will get to watch them tortured eternally from their heavenly boxseats. The rich man and Lazurus teach this don't they.

3 From the wheat and weeds discussion it seems the Jws, believe that false as well as true Christians would co-exist in the same congregations until the time of the end. So maybe they have solace that their ancestors were wheat and not weeds.

So that is my guess on why they are not bothered by the point you brought up.

I suppose it is loyalty to ones ancestors or loyalty to God, that is the real question.

Their are many practices that i'm sure my ancestors participated in that i unreservedly condemn, i'm sure your the same.

There have been over 20 (?) Ecumenical councils and to be honest I’m not aware of any church denomination that affirms them all.
The big 7 of course. you do affirm Nicaea, so Constantinople 1,2,3, Chalcedon, Ephesus and Nicaea 2.


Btw... since the subject was touched on... what is your view on our ancestors who have never heard the bible... or an Australian aboriginal 2500 bce .... Is it Romans and God judges their heart or is it Calvin and straight to hell?
Peace

 

Thank you Moz...excellent points once again.

The one thing I would like to add is Jesus' teaching of the two roads in Matthew 7:13-14, where he said....
"Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it."

If we pause for a moment and picture in our minds what this means, we will get a clearer view of his point.

There are two "gates"....one is broad and one is narrow. We all have the option of entering either one. So what precipitates our choice?

One road has a wide gate and the road is spacious....easy, with no obstacles or hindrances to impede progress, and it makes no real demands on anyone.....that is inviting as you see many traveling this road along with you....you don't even need a map....its a multi-lane superhighway with no curves or sharp bends because it leads in only one direction and everyone is welcome, believer or not.....but its a dead end.

The other is a narrow gate, hard for someone with lots of excess baggage to even get through, so you have to strip them off and leave them behind, then proceed with difficulty because this is a cramped road, with many obstacles and pitfalls....impossible to navigate without a map, and you can't see many on this road with you, but those who are, help one another along the difficult path.

This is, I believe the situation as God sees it. We are all on either one road or the other. Many of us have chosen our path of our own volition...but others may have inherited a 'passenger' seat along with their parents. Does that mean that we are stuck on the path that others have chosen for us? No...because the gates are two-way. We can exit one gate and choose to enter the other.

For those who see through the hypocrisy of Christendom's teachings but who feel obligated to stay because of family loyalty, there is a decision to be made. No one can choose a spiritual path for us...we must do that individually for ourselves. (Matthew 10:32-39) Jesus even said that our choice might divide families.

To my understanding, this ties in with the command in Revelation 18:4-5....
"And I heard another voice out of heaven say: “Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues. 5 For her sins have massed together clear up to heaven, and God has called her acts of injustice to mind."

"Babylon the great" is what we are told to "get out of". This is satan's world empire of false worship and includes Christendom as its most reprehensible part.......whatever worship does not go to the true God, goes to the devil by default. No matter what anyone else does or says, we have to make that choice for ourselves. Both gates are still there to the end. Those who are on the broad road with lots of company can exit and find the narrow gate that leads to life whilst there is still opportunity to change course.

We are all put on notice that we each must evaluate what we believe because 'who we believe' can become more important than 'what we believe'.

I see Christendom as the 'weeds' of Jesus parable and that they took over Christianity almost two thousand years ago. In these last days, the choices have never been clearer....the gates and the roads that they lead to have never been more identifiable.

Having ancestors that were part of "the historic church" was inevitable since it was the only "Christianity" in existence until the last days began and Christ led his disciples out of that dark place....just as he led the "lost sheep" out of Judaism.

History repeats, but we don't lose the lesson if we pay attention.

 

Hi.
Yep, history repeats, or at least it ryhmes.

It seems that the Jew's exposure to Greek thinking in the "acedemies" of Babylon not only produced the Septuagint but so much fuzzy thinking that when the messiah appeared the religious leaders were so wrapped up in factional philosophical arguments that they missed the entire significance of the times. The Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and so on were so taken up with winning the philosophical differences they missed the real thing when it came along. Yep History Repeats.

I've noticed you running in to the "theology" bug bear, me too. I think i know what the problem with their theology is and it's real simple. If you ever read some of the church Fathers of the 3rd and 4th centuries with any sort of education you find that, for the most part, they were not very bright people. Unfortunately it was them who set the rules and for the next 1700 years we've had people trying to arrange their flawed ideas into something coherent.

Augustines "City of God" for example is the seminal work much of the "christian" conduct and theology of the last 1600 years has been based on. Much horror has been wrought by that mad reasoning. Yet theologians must consider and contend with this hot air gas bag. The whole reformation got bogged down over the different takes on Augustine. He was a third rate thinker at best, his arguments are purile, anti scriptual pro Imperial propoganda. Christendom is caught in the mire of its own making, it can not embrace the truth without condeming its heroes so it has created an ouroboros monster

The Newton project has put up much of the correspondence around Nicaea and the following decades. Letters and decrees between the Bishoprics and Athanasius that Isaac Newton translated from the Latin. These were not deep thinkers debating deep spiritual truths, they were, for the most part, very venial men worrying about the political ramifications of living in an empire swinging back and forth between Arianism and Nicaea. It is interesting that some of those men faced the Great Persecution under Diocletian and stayed true but 30 years later the Imperial offices handed out to the new Imperial bishopric caused them to bend whatever way kept the Imperial largess flowing. Torture failed, Luxury broke them.
Peace.