How could Christ have the possibility of failure?

Participant

Hi CB,
The Spirit of God does not speak on His own initiative but takes us back to and reminds us of the words of Jesus.

Since then trinity theory only evolved hundreds of years later and began as a binity, then and unequal trinity, then an equal trinity does it not seem suspicious that it did not come from the Spirit of God?

Now you have your own new different trinity theory of a godhead why would you expect us to belive it comes from the Spirit?

It sounds like the voice of a stranger to those who know and love the Master's voice.

December 11, 2006 at 12:27 am#34002

Participant

Yes the Trinity is part of the falling away from the truth.
It is the foundation for most denominations which are really divisions and we should leave that foundation and build on the true foundation.

December 11, 2006 at 12:34 am#34004

Participant

Quote

Hi t8

Again. Trinitarians believe that the Arian view or dirivations of it was a departure of the truth found in scriptures.

So should we believe your “perfect” doctrine or believe what we see in the scriptures as truth?

We can also say that you are mislead and decieved and do not follow the truth based on the scriptures.

December 11, 2006 at 1:06 am#34010

Participant

Hi W,
You can say what you will but that is not necessarily helpful.
Even you admitted that you cannot prove the trinity theory from scripture yet you defend it bitterly.

So what is your foundation?

And why do you attack those who, being berean and finding it has no scriptural proofs, have chosen to seek to walk only in the light of revealed truth?

December 11, 2006 at 1:23 am#34014

Participant

To WorshippingJesus.

Trinitarians and Arians argued to sides of a question that was set up by Greek philosophy as they believed in created and non-created.

So the inevitable question that arose and was argued by Athanasius and Arius was “is Jesus created or non-created”. God or creature.

I believe neither. I believe he was begotten as it is written.
I believe that there was an intermediary step between God and creation and that was the Word of God/the son of God. He is the mediator between God and man. He is the only way to God.

We don't need Greek philosophy to interpret scripture. We only need scripture and the Spirit to teach us its meaning.

Greek philosophy as a template for scripture is the same as trying to find out about God using our own spirit. But is is by the Spirit of God that we learn about God. God cannot be fathomed from our own spirit and understanding.

December 11, 2006 at 1:40 am#34016

david

Participant

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965: Trinity in the Bible:

“The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the OT. In the NT the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles, especially 2 Cor 13.13, and I Cor 12.4-6. In the Gospels evidence of the Trinity is found explicitly only in the baptismal formula of Mt 28.19. In the Old Testament. The mystery of the Holy Trinity was not revealed to the Chosen People of the OT. On account of the polytheistic religions of Israel's pagan neighbors it was necessary for the teachers of Israel to stress the oneness of God. In many places of the OT, however, expressions are used in which some of the Fathers of the Church saw references or foreshadowings of the Trinity. The personified use of such terms as the *Word of God [Ps 32(33).6] and the *Spirit of God (Is 63.14) is merely by way of poetic license, though it shows that the minds of God's people were being prepared for the concepts that would be involved in the forthcoming revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity. In the New Testament. The revelation of the truth of the triune life of God was first made in the NT, where the earliest references to it are in the Pauline epistles. The doctrine is most easily seen in St. Paul's recurrent use of the terms God, Lord, and Spirit. What makes his use of these terms so significant is that they appear against a strictly monotheistic background.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, “Trinity, in the Bible”, p306)

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965: Trinity:

1. “It is difficult, in the second half of the 20th century, to offer a clear, objective, and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and theological elaboration of the mystery of the Trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened
2. . There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma “one God in three Persons” became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought. Herein lies the difficulty. On the one hand, it was the dogmatic formula “one God in three Persons” that would henceforth for more than 15 centuries structure and guide the Trinitarian essence of the Christian message, both in the profession of faith and in theological dialectic. On the other hand, the formula itself does not reflect the immediate consciousness of the period of origins; ; it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development. But current preoccupation and current emphasis is far less with the subsequent articulations of Christian dogma than with the primitive sources, chiefly the Biblical. It is this contemporary return to the sources that is ultimately responsible for the unsteady silhouette. Thus in present-day theological literature, relatively little is being written on Trinitarian theology as commonly categorized, although a significant number of studies, in various New Testament categories, are devoted either in whole or in part to what might justly be called the elemental Trinitarianism of the period of Christian origins.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p295) “Question of Continuity and Elemental Trinitarianism:
3. From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century inventionIn a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. Triadic Consciousness in the Primitive Revelation. The formulation “one God in three Persons” was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the 2d-century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead. Not before Tertullian and Origen, early in the century following, had an attempt been made to solve the problem once raised by replying to the double question: in what sense is God one, in what sense three? And even then, results had been far from decisive. It is also true that, especially in the first decades of the 20th century, an excessively cautious Roman Catholic apologetics tended to whittle down these dividing lines by demonstrating another way of saying the same thing. “One God in three Persons” was simply a restatement, a legitimately condensed and compact version of the more loosely organized NT teaching. Key texts were cited in support, particularly the well-known mandate put on the lips of Christ in Mt 28.19-“baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived. In the second half of the 20th century, with serious consequences for the ecumenical dialogue, two factors have combined to effect a significant change in attitude. First, NT exegesis is now accepted as having shown that not only the verbal idiom but even the patterns of thought characteristic of the patristic and conciliar development would have been quite foreign to the mind and culture of the NT writers. As Lonergan (De Deo trino 2:7–64) has interpreted the general transcultural phenomenon, but frequently appealing to the as a particular instance, the revealed truth, while remaining the same ultimate truth and mystery, had nevertheless undergone transformation, and this, not merely in verbal or literary expression, but in concept and understanding. Second, as already suggested, a far more candid principle of doctrinal development has been incorporated and is now operative in Roman Catholic historical and systematic theology (see DOCTRINE, DEVELOPMENT OF). Another way of saying the same thing, however, is not the only oversimplified interpretation possible in this matter. If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins. Contemporary studies on the ancient Christian creeds have done much to bring this out. In a famous monograph, Les Premieres confessions de foi chretiennes, 0. Cullmann argued his thesis of Christocentrism as against Trinitarianism in the NT revelation. Seven years later, in a study (Early Christian Creeds 25-29) destined to become equally well-known, J. N. D. Kelly, whose companion volume on the development of Christian doctrines has been used extensively in the preceding historical survey, contested this thesis. What is of interest at the moment, aside from the fact that neither of these theologians is a Roman Catholic, is that a strictly elemental Trinitarianism is not at issue in the controversy, but presupposed by both parties. Cullmann's point is not at all that there is no inclusion of Father and Spirit in the NT, nor even that a deliberately triadic ground plan is lacking in the quasi-creedal forms incorporated by the sacred writers at least into this literature's later compositions. True, he insists that these triadic formulas are liturgical, and not to be
counted among confessions of faith in the stricter sense. But the distinction does not affect elemental Trinitarianism. For Cullmann would not dispute A. W. Wainwright's neat rejoinder (The Trinity in the New Testament, 246) to the effect that the same tripartite forms, even if not strictly confessional, nevertheless demonstrate the primitive community's belief in Father, Son, and Spirit. Cullmann's point is rather that both Father and Spirit are introduced in function, so to speak, of the Son. This is what is most ancient and most prevailing. When the Father is revealed, it is as the Father of His Christ. When the Spirit is revealed, it is as the Spirit of Christ. But the center, the NT center of gravity, is first, last, and always Christ. For Cullmann, then, triadic consciousness throughout the period of origins and as reflected in the entire NT literature is and remains, on closer view, Christological. Kelly, on the other hand, does not see the need for this qualification. Strictly triadic formulas and the triadic frame of mind so clearly mark at least later NT compositions, that the exegete and the historian must recognize a quasi-independent Trinitarianism coexisting with the purer and simpler forms of NT Christology. From the way Kelly speaks, one may see suggested that elemental Trinitarianism is actually more than that. At the level of a priori requirement, the continuity and apostolic authenticity of Trinitarian doctrine would rest securely on simple triadic consciousness. It would not matter, so to speak, if a formally Trinitarian problem arose only in the late 2d or early 3d century. Wainwright (3-14, 237-267), however, asks directly after the question of fact, and concludes that three of the sacred writers-Paul and the author of Hebrews, in part; John, fully-were aware of a Trinitarian problem and at least attempted, though without formalized statement, a Trinitarian solution. The exegetical question cannot be explored here, nor the effect of Ingo Hermann's recent revival (Kyrios und Pneuma) of the problem of spirit in Paul. Where the Johannine writings are concerned, however, Wainwright argues shrewdly that the attempt to express specifically and consistently the relationship of Christ and Spirit to the Godhead is not merely the raw material for a Trinitarian problem, but actual consciousness of such a problem together with a solution that merits to be called a Trinitarian doctrine. The insight, if valid, underscores the care that should be taken to avoid a too neat and simplified view of the continuity that exists between historical development and the primitive revelation. Wainwright does not suggest, however, that John had anticipated the later problem of plurality within unity: in what sense is God one, in what sense yet three? This problem, moreover, leading to the formulation of Trinitarian doctrine in the historically stricter sense, would have been posed by, not in, John's account of relationships. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p299-300) TRINITARIAN PROBLEM AS POSED TODAY This article may now return to the contemporary scene in an attempt to pinpoint problem and perspective. The Pastoral Question.
4. There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, “But how does one preach the Trinity?” And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors. If “the Trinity” here means Trinitarian theology, the best answer would be that one does not preach it at all -not, it should be added, because the audience is insufficiently prepared, but because the sermon, and especially the Biblical homily, is the place for the word of God, not its theological elaboration. . . . .

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA
“Trinity, the doctrine of God taught by Christianity that asserts that God is one in essence but three in “person,” Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear, 0 Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut. 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presence and power of God among them-i.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of the Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them mi the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (II Cor. 13:14). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Old Testament and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman paganism seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism); the second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness 'as “persons” (modalism). . It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons. The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is “of the same essence [homoousios] as the Father,” even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Trinity, Vol. X, p.126)

December 11, 2006 at 1:55 am#34017

Participant

Quote

To WorshippingJesus.

Trinitarians and Arians argued to sides of a question that was set up by Greek philosophy as they believed in created and non-created.

So the inevitable question that arose and was argued by Athanasius and Arius was “is Jesus created or non-created”. God or creature.

We don't need Greek philosophy to interpret scripture. We only need scripture and the Spirit to teach us its meaning.

Greek philosophy as a template for scripture is the same as trying to find out about God using our own spirit. But is is by the Spirit of God that we learn about God.

Where do you find this hog wash in scripture that God had an intermediate step between him and creation?

Gen 1:1
1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Again you call it what you want, but I see it as a derivation of the Arian view that Jesus was not God. That was and is still the debate.

Creator God and created.There is no step between. So you believe that Jesus the Word was born or he was created, either way that would make him part of the creation. ALL things were made by him and for him.

Creator and created!

Isa 45:18
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else.

Eph 3:9
And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

December 11, 2006 at 2:04 am#34018

Participant

Quote

It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons. The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is “of the same essence [homoousios] as the Father,” even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Trinity, Vol. X, p.126)

David

The catholics also believe in the virgin birth, and the death and burial and resurrection of our Lord, and the blood of the Lamb, and Jesus the Son, and many other truths. So does this mean because the Catholics believes thes truths we should just thow them out because they are part of thier doctrine?

December 11, 2006 at 2:10 am#34021

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 11 2006,20:55)

Where do you find this hog wash in scripture that God had an intermediate step between him and creation?

To WorshippingJesus.

It's not hogwash.

It is written that God created all things through Christ.
It is written that the head of the woman is man, the head of the man is Christ, and head of Christ is God. i.e., God > Christ > Man
It is written that there is one mediator between God and Man.
It is written that Christ is the Word and the Word was WITH God in the beginning.
It is written that man cannot interface with God, but only through Christ.
It is written that we are the branches, Jesus the vine, the Father is the gardener or vine dresser.

Notice how Christ is between God and man/creation?
That is why he is the only way to the Father/God.
That is why he is also called the ONLY begotten of the Father.

He is the image of God. We are made in the image of God.

It isn't hogwash, it is the essense of the gospel, to know who Christ is.

He is our saviour, our Lord, our mediator, high priest, brother, judge, etc.
But he isn't the most High God. For the Most High is also the God of Jesus.

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

Revelation 1:6
and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

So if you think it is hogwash, then you think scripture is hogwash and you judge and speak badly of the one from where scripture came.

December 11, 2006 at 2:17 am#34022

Participant

Hi W,
You quote
Eph 3:9
And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

So who created? God
How? through Jesus
the unique Son, the firstborn of creation, through who came all creation.

December 11, 2006 at 2:22 am#34024

Participant

Quote

To WorshippingJesus.

It's not hogwash.

Notice how Christ is between God and man/creation?
That is why he is the only way to the Father/God.
That is why he is also caleld the ONLY begotten of the Father.

He is the image of God. We are made in the image of God.

It isn't hogwash, it is the essense of the gospel, to know who Christ is.

He is our saviour, our Lord, our mediator, high priest, brother, judge, etc.
But he isn't the most High God. For the Most High is also the God of Jesus.

So it is hogwash. If you think it is, then you think scriptuer is hogwash and you judge the one from where scripture came.

It is hog wash to think that Jesus had a beginning therefore he is the intermediate step to all creation.

The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost preseint at creation of all things, always was and is God the creator.

Prove to me by the scriptures that Jesus had a begining and I will repent and change my doctrine.

Therefore if all things were made by him and for him. Then he is no less than God!

The narrow view that most here have is that Jesus was just the Son of God born a man by a virgin. When he is the creator God in the flesh.

How long have I been with you that you do not know me Philip?

Jn 14:6
7] If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

December 11, 2006 at 2:25 am#34026

Participant

Hi W,
You quote
“How long have I been with you that you do not know me Philip?

Jn 14:6
7] If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

Two beings.

His beginning?

Ps 2
” 7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. “

December 11, 2006 at 2:25 am#34027

Participant

To WorshippingJesus.

OK so you say it is hogwash to say that Jesus had a beginning, then I can only assume that you agree with my post as I never mentioned a beginning.

If you agree with it, then why don't you teach these truths instead of opposing them?

December 11, 2006 at 2:29 am#34028

Participant

Hi W,
You say
“The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost preseint at creation of all things, always was and is God the creator.”
You continue to be a mouthpiece for men, not the Word of God.

December 11, 2006 at 2:42 am#34033

Participant

Quote

Hi W,
You quote
“How long have I been with you that you do not know me Philip?

Jn 14:6
7] If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

Two beings.

His beginning?

Ps 2
” 7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. ”

And the blind shall lead the blind!

December 11, 2006 at 2:43 am#34034

Participant

Quote

Hi W,
You say
“The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost preseint at creation of all things, always was and is God the creator.”
You continue to be a mouthpiece for men, not the Word of God.

And I think you also should speak the words of God and not men. Do you know him NH?

December 11, 2006 at 2:44 am#34035