- This topic is empty.
- Posts
It amazes me that when christians come to the defense of the NT they laud praise on the integrity of the very early christians.
This is usually used as one of the strongest cases for the faith. These men and women were devoured by lions in the Roman arenas.
Yet, when the issue of how they interpreted scripture and what they believe is raised then suddenly trinitarians and evangelicals question their integrity and try to distance themselves from them.
Quote It amazes me that when christians come to the defense of the NT they laud praise on the integrity of the very early christians. This is usually used as one of the strongest cases for the faith. These men and women were devoured by lions in the Roman arenas.
Yet, when the issue of how they interpreted scripture and what they believe is raised then suddenly trinitarians and evangelicals question their integrity and try to distance themselves from them.
Morning Star
May be you should change your signature!
2 Peter 1:19
And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place,
until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,
The Roman Catholic Church is a fraud of the real Catholic (Universal) Church.
Her doctrines are adhered to by most denominations.
The Trinity Doctrine is the Roman Catholic faith. I am not making this up. They admit as such.
Come out of her MY PEOPLE.
Who has ears to hear?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 12 2007,17:08) Quote It amazes me that when christians come to the defense of the NT they laud praise on the integrity of the very early christians. This is usually used as one of the strongest cases for the faith. These men and women were devoured by lions in the Roman arenas.
Yet, when the issue of how they interpreted scripture and what they believe is raised then suddenly trinitarians and evangelicals question their integrity and try to distance themselves from them.
Morning Star
May be you should change your signature!
2 Peter 1:19
And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place,
until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,
Lets be fair here.In todays world it is true that all we have for sure is scripture. It is what we follow. I agree 100%.
But, lets be honest. The church was NOT founded on scripture alone.
The apostles talk constantly about follow and keep our “traditions”. Not man made but established by Christ through the apostles.
Whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
Follow our example while we follow Christ.
That is all I am doing.
I am going back in time and picking up where the traditions passed down where still intact.
Don't accuse me a placing something before scripture.
I want to make it very clear. This is always what people resort to.
Everyone, says that all they need is scripture and the spirit. yet, none of them agree on scripture interpretation. The blind leading the blind. It is really sad that church has split into over 22,000 different denominations and it still continues with new ones popping up every week.
what does the next verse say after the that verse?
20knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.
So who really is being honest here?
Hi MS,
Catholicism says it's tradition is equal in validity to scripture[Vat2 documents]
Is this what you are saying too?
Equal to really is the same as greater than, as scripture then only becomes one of many sources.
Or are you saying we should examine other things according to scripture and if they align accept them?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 12 2007,23:05) Hi MS,
Catholicism says it's tradition is equal in validity to scripture[Vat2 documents]
Is this what you are saying too?
Equal to really is the same as greater than, as scripture then only becomes one of many sources.
Or are you saying we should examine other things according to scripture and if they align accept them?
In my opinion scripture is 100% primary source.I just think that common sense tells us to read what the early christians believed only decades after the apostles and if their understandings align with scripture and if the spirit confirms then yes accept them.
Does anyone really believe that they completely went heretical as soon as their teachers died? Did Polycarp, Ignatius and Irenaeus really all just decide to conspire together unanimously to disagree with John the apostle and preach a different gospel. Then march off to die as martyrs for their lie?
Hi MS,
Listen to Paul.
Acts 20
Acts 20:29
“I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;”Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 13 2007,07:58) Hi MS,
Listen to Paul.
Acts 20
Acts 20:29
“I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;”
I agree the wolves showed up.First the gnostics.
Then the countless other heretics, like the modalists, adoptionists and the trinitarians.
But I am talking about the disciples of the apostles.
Men who walked with the apostles.
Then we have the disciples of the disciples of the men who walked with the apostles.
And we can see through their writings they kept the same teachings as their former teachers.
We have evidence of many generations of christians all agreeing on core doctrines ever since John the apostle.Then apostacy struck on a massive scale.
To Morning Star.
Quote (Morning Star @ Jan. 14 2007,01:25) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 12 2007,23:05) Hi MS,
Catholicism says it's tradition is equal in validity to scripture[Vat2 documents]
Is this what you are saying too?
Equal to really is the same as greater than, as scripture then only becomes one of many sources.
Or are you saying we should examine other things according to scripture and if they align accept them?
In my opinion scripture is 100% primary source.I just think that common sense tells us to read what the early christians believed only decades after the apostles and if their understandings align with scripture and if the spirit confirms then yes accept them.
Does anyone really believe that they completely went heretical as soon as their teachers died? Did Polycarp, Ignatius and Irenaeus really all just decide to conspire together unanimously to disagree with John the apostle and preach a different gospel. Then march off to die as martyrs for their lie?
I personally don't think this.But it is also possible that the beginnings of the apostasy came through some of them, as it had to start somewhere.
Generally speaking I think their wisdom is good however and their letters contain good teaching. But that is my opinion and I certainly haven't read all that they wrote, only snippets.
Regardless, even if we believe that they drifted away from the faith delivered to the saints, it would at least be useful to understand their positions regarding the Word and God and it seems that they believed the Word came from God like fire comes from fire. So that there were 2 fires and the original one didn't become less because of the second one (a property you can observe when lighting a candle from a candle for example).
This understanding is completely different to the Trinity Doctrine of course. So we are left with at least these following conclusions:
- They were completely wrong and Athanasius set the record straight centuries later.
- They weren't 100% correct, but they were more correct than the apostates centuries later.
So there ideas were closer to the original faith given to the apostles.- They faithfully delivered the faith to their readers and hearers, but were men and made some mistakes.
- Their letters are scripture just the same as Paul's letters were.
Whatever the answer and even in the worse case scenario, they were most likely not as far gone as the apostacy today. So their ideas about the Word/Son and God were most likely closer to the truth than we find today.
They weren't 100% correct, but they were more correct than the apostates centuries later.
So there ideas were closer to the original faith given to the apostles.They faithfully delivered the faith to their readers and hearers, but were men and made some mistakes.
Somewhere between these two is were I feel the truth lies.
However, other than being moved by the spirit. On this planet earth their is no greater source of affirmation possible than these men.
Hi mS,
I agree. But it is the little things that deceive more than the obvious ones to the young in Christ. The birds are hungry to devour any seed that does not take root immediately and the musings of rebellious theologians can be very attractive if we do not yet have a grasp of the fuller concepts of our faith.
Test all things against scripture itself.Quote I have an idea since scripture is apparently to ambiguous to decipher why don't we ask the apostles who wrote it what they meant. Oh, shoot. They died.
Well, then lets ask the churches whom they wrote the letters to. Like the church at Smyrna, Jesus was please with Smyrna.
Oh, shoot. They died too.
Well, then lets ask the second generations of christians what traditions were passed on and what their parents and prebysters taught them.
Oh, shoot. They are dead too.
BUT WAIT!
These second and third generation christians left us thousands of letters explaining all their teaching and traditions passed down to them through apostolic succession.
*read read read* Oh, I certainly don't like what they wrote so I will ignore their witness and continue to believe what Constantine and his cronies believed.
–Morning Star
I like your humour and the track that you are on. I think we would do well to take a look at those who lived right after the apostled died off. Not that what they write is the inspired word of God. But it's closer in time to the truth than what most believe today and determining what they believed is more beneficial than following the traditions of men from Constantine's time.
Conclusive Evidence that the The Holy Spirit is JEHOVAH (God)
Compare
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD(JEHOVAH) I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD (JEHOVAH): for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD (JEHOVAH) : for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.With
Heb 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.Rev 22:9 worship God.
Compare
Psa 95:7 For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. To day if ye will hear his voice,
Psa 95:8 Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
Psa 95:9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work.
Psa 95:10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:
Psa 95:11 Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.With
Heb 3:7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,
Heb 3:8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
Heb 3:9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.
Heb 3:10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.
Heb 3:11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)Compare
Isa 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.
Isa 6:9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.With
Act 28:25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
Act 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
Act 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Act 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.2Sa 23:1 Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said,
2Sa 23:2 The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.2Sa 23:3 The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.
Act 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted,
Dear Trinitarians,
I hope you will think about this. I trust that you will be as honest, with yourself as possible, when you read this. Nobody from the forums will know what you are thinking. So it's OK.
Does anyone know of any evidence that Christians between 100 AD and 200 AD (a century of Christianity after the apostles died) held the view that God was a “substance” with 3 equal and eternal multiple personalities?
Is there any evidence that the trinity doctrine, as described in the Athanasian Creed, was understood and believed?
I am not aware of any evidence. What are we left with then if indeed there is none?
The possibilities that come to my mind:
1. The Godhead was not understood by anybody, after the apostles, until 300 years later when men finally got it right. Yet, simultaneously these same inspired men founded the heretical Roman Catholic Church.
2. The apostles believed and taught the trinity and passed this knowledge down through the centuries. Yet, no evidence of an unbroken apostolic succession of this knowledge is apparently available or evidence for it was erased somehow. The writings of the early Christian disciples after the apostles were all done by heretics who unamiously agreed to supress the truth and who then were willing to be martyred for a faith they knew they were lying about.
3. The trinity is a man made doctrine that evolved over time and was not taught by the apostles or their disciples and is therefore a new foundation and a new gospel. Paul declares such new teachings accursed. Galatians 1:8
When you read the above does it not make you pause? When you consider this does any part of you think that you may indeed be misunderstanding the scriptures? Be honest, can you acknowledge this dilemma without even batting an eye?
I'm not saying you are purposefully twisting scriptures, rather you are just like every Christian searching for truth. Millions of Christians read their bible everyday and believe it to be saying different things. Millions of other Christians feel that they are being led in their understanding by the Holy Spirit. Obviously, millions of Christians are wrong since they can't all be right.
Now, before you say that none of this matters because you read your bible and it agrees with your position. These very same early Christians read their bibles too. They quoted it so many times that if we were to loose all the NT manuscripts in the world we could still piece it back together again by simply drawing the verses forth from their writings.
It is obvious that the problem is not whether someone reads and believes what the bible says, the issue is how one intereprets the information in the bible. These same early Christians teach the view of the Godhead directly from the same bible the trinitarians teach their view from.
Could I be the real fool?
Yes, I could be, but I'll be damned if I am not going to be the most honest fool I can be. Feel free to interpret that metaphorically or literally.
Quote Does anyone know of any evidence that Christians between 100 AD and 200 AD (a century of Christianity after the apostles died) held the view that God was a “substance” with 3 equal and eternal multiple personalities?
Someone should create a thread on this question. There are already lots of threads on the trinity. Having a thread on this question (a question no one wants to answer, much less discuss) might be a good idea.david
Quote Does anyone know of any evidence that Christians between 100 AD and 200 AD (a century of Christianity after the apostles died) held the view that God was a “substance” with 3 equal and eternal multiple personalities? Whether they did or did not is irrelevent, because the Bible says that there are Three.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Rev 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
” Did you catch that? That's one “holy” for each person of the Godhead!
All praise to God the Father… God the Son Jesus Christ… and God the Holy Spirit! ALL Three merit perfect praise. Holy, Holy, Holy! If there is only one God they would not have repeated the worshipful praise three times.
Holy! Holy! Holy!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
