- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (seminarian @ June 28 2006,01:09) Hi Kenrch, I somehow have the impression that Nick does not speak for you.
Semmy
Kenrch,I'm sorry. I was being a wise guy here. Nick, I didn't get the impression that Kenrch hates anybody.
Now for the record, I have not joined any organization either. I agree with many unitarian beliefs but am not a Unitarian. In fact I am specifically against denominations and such divisions among the Body of Christ. I hear so many people say “I'm a Baptist or I'm Lutheran or Catholic, etc.” Yeah, well we are ALL in need of Christ's sin attoning sacrifice.
Denominational pride make us think that by our religious affiliations and knowledge we are justified. Not exactly. The Word says: “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the Law.” (Rom 3:28) Since we are no longer under the Law, many Christians think it perfectly fine to impose a “new law” disguised as church creeds, doctrines and statements of faith. No again.
So while this is not directed to anyone in particular, I thought I should be clear. I am a servant of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and his Father who sent him. No more needs to be said.
Semmy
Hi kenrch,
Most pages? This one. It still causes men to trip and fall flat on their face. The most effective tool to estrange men from their creator Satan ever found.Lode Runner,
You said: My core argument is that the doctrine of the Trinity is integral to any belief that salvation can come by believing on Christ.
Oh really? Please indicate where the word, trinity, triune, three Gods in one, One God in three is found translated in any part of Holy Scripture? Inferences are not acceptable as they are subjective. I want the actual word found in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, your choice.
You said: “God the Son is one with the Father, of the same likeness and substance, and yet a seperate person. He was not created, but begotten eternally of the Father.”
Whoops, there you go again! Our Lord and Savior is called the SON OF GOD more than 49 times in the New Testament. NOT ONCE is he EVER called God the Son as you say here. This is merely a manmade trinitarian formula which found nowhere in scripture. Also how is someone eternally begotten? Please try again.
You may wish to read the Apostles Creed which was the first written by the Roman Catholic Church,(the Apostles actually didn't write this). They clearly say God is the Father and Jesus Christ is His Son.
Next they wrote the Nicean Creed in 325 AD and MADE the Lord Jesus a God Co-equal with the Father. No mention of any Holy Ghost so I guess they forgot about him.Finally the full blown trinitarian nonsense came about in about 481 AD. Now, if this was a teaching held by the apostles and Christ, why did it develop and morph from a unitarian to a trinitarian creed centuries after the apostles died? Also why is this formula nowhere to be found in scripture?
The answers are obvious. The trinity was never believed by early Christians but reflected the pagan influnces of the Greeks, Romans, and every one else who worshipped triads of gods. The Hebrew people were fiercly monotheistic. Hear O Israel the LORD our God is ONE,(not three in one, one in three substances or any other combination.) Our God is ONE and I hope He is yours too.
Bless you,
Semmy
Quote (sandra @ June 25 2006,01:53) oh give it a rest, we are talking about the only begotten son of God, only begotten, You really believe that He had a seperate thought that was not given to HIM by HIs Father……..?
Sandra,What you are talking about is Modalism, that is Christ simply being a bodily vehicle for God's thoughts and words. This is not why Christ came according to Bible prophecy. T8 showed you that Christ had a different will at times than his Father such as in the garden when he asked that “this cup be removed from me”. Now do you think THAT was a thought from his Father? God willed Christ to die that OUR sins would be redeemed.
Christ wasn't a robot. He is the Last Adam which means he had freedom to obey or not. The difference is Adam sinned big time and Christ always stayed within his Father's will. Jesus WASN'T under mind control.
Semmy
Hi seminarian.
Here is a simple but effective test.
Replace the word 'God' in the bible with 'Trinity' (or Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and then read a random collection of verses that have the word God in them.
E.g.,
John 14:1
“Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.OK, so trust in the (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and also in me. That makes 4. Who is 'me', if the son is already mentioned?
John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.So the Trinity so loved the world that the Trinity gave his son. That makes 4. Given this reasoning there must be 2 sons.
Colossians 1:3
We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,So the Trinity is the Father of Jesus. But wait isn't Jesus part of the Trinity?
All verses that mention God and his son are rendered meaningless with a Trinitarian understanding. But Trinitarians do actually interpret God in these verses as the Father out of necessity, but not in the verses that do not mention the son.
E.g., 1 John 2:17
The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.A Trinitarian would most likely say that this was the Father, Son, & Spirit.
But they would also probably say that the following verse is only the Father.
Revelation 1
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,Isn't that the weirdest thing. God is the Trinity except when the son is also mentioned. Coincidence or simply picking and choosing the meaning depending on what their itching ears want to hear?
I leave you with the following verse for encouragement:
1 John 5
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.T8, that is just too excellent!
May I have permission to reprint this? I saw a similar rendering on the Heaven Net homepage.
As you know, the Pastor of Ed at the church I serve, grumpily gave me another stack of goofy trinitarian handouts.SO I responded with pulling out his church's own statement of beliefs which included acknowledging that Christ is begotten of the Father so you can't be co-equal and co-eternal coming out of someone else. I mean the Father had to be there first TO beget you, right?
Their Statement of Beliefs also say that after the 1,000 year reign, Christ will again be subject to the Father. This indicates that he was subject BEFORE and will be AGAIN. SO he's basically arguing with his own church AND the Bible, not me. He never answered any of my questions or provided reasons why Christ was saying he has both a God and Father. (John 20:17)
I'm working with another assistant pastor now anyway. He knows my beliefs and is content to let it drop. However, this is priceless. You don't know how glad I am to have found this oasis of sanity! It's rough out there guys.
Blessings all around,
Semmy
Hi semmy,
Be encouraged. Be strong. Rejoice.
1 Peter 5 9
” But resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your brtehren who are in the world. After you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, Who called you to his eternal glory in Christ will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you”Quote (seminarian @ July 07 2006,04:17) Lode Runner, You said: My core argument is that the doctrine of the Trinity is integral to any belief that salvation can come by believing on Christ.
Oh really? Please indicate where the word, trinity, triune, three Gods in one, One God in three is found translated in any part of Holy Scripture? Inferences are not acceptable as they are subjective. I want the actual word found in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, your choice.
You said: “God the Son is one with the Father, of the same likeness and substance, and yet a seperate person. He was not created, but begotten eternally of the Father.”
Whoops, there you go again! Our Lord and Savior is called the SON OF GOD more than 49 times in the New Testament. NOT ONCE is he EVER called God the Son as you say here. This is merely a manmade trinitarian formula which found nowhere in scripture. Also how is someone eternally begotten? Please try again.
You may wish to read the Apostles Creed which was the first written by the Roman Catholic Church,(the Apostles actually didn't write this). They clearly say God is the Father and Jesus Christ is His Son.
Next they wrote the Nicean Creed in 325 AD and MADE the Lord Jesus a God Co-equal with the Father. No mention of any Holy Ghost so I guess they forgot about him.Finally the full blown trinitarian nonsense came about in about 481 AD. Now, if this was a teaching held by the apostles and Christ, why did it develop and morph from a unitarian to a trinitarian creed centuries after the apostles died? Also why is this formula nowhere to be found in scripture?
The answers are obvious. The trinity was never believed by early Christians but reflected the pagan influnces of the Greeks, Romans, and every one else who worshipped triads of gods. The Hebrew people were fiercly monotheistic. Hear O Israel the LORD our God is ONE,(not three in one, one in three substances or any other combination.) Our God is ONE and I hope He is yours too.
Bless you,
Semmy
Amen Semmy,Our first century bretheren were undeniably unitarian. Paul constantly warned us of a GREAT apostasy or a GREAT falling away from the truth. The Nicene Creed was the beginning of such.
Shalom
Quote (t8 @ July 07 2006,14:48) Hi seminarian. Here is a simple but effective test.
Replace the word 'God' in the bible with 'Trinity' (or Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and then read a random collection of verses that have the word God in them.
E.g.,
John 14:1
“Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.OK, so trust in the (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and also in me. That makes 4. Who is 'me', if the son is already mentioned?
John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.So the Trinity so loved the world that the Trinity gave his son. That makes 4. Given this reasoning there must be 2 sons.
Colossians 1:3
We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,So the Trinity is the Father of Jesus. But wait isn't Jesus part of the Trinity?
All verses that mention God and his son are rendered meaningless with a Trinitarian understanding. But Trinitarians do actually interpret God in these verses as the Father out of necessity, but not in the verses that do not mention the son.
E.g., 1 John 2:17
The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.A Trinitarian would most likely say that this was the Father, Son, & Spirit.
But they would also probably say that the following verse is only the Father.
Revelation 1
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,Isn't that the weirdest thing. God is the Trinity except when the son is also mentioned. Coincidence or simply picking and choosing the meaning depending on what their itching ears want to hear?
I leave you with the following verse for encouragement:
1 John 5
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.
Amen T8,This is out of sight. I never would have been clever to think of such. Cool beans man
Quote (seminarian @ July 08 2006,14:29) T8, that is just too excellent! May I have permission to reprint this? I saw a similar rendering on the Heaven Net homepage.
As you know, the Pastor of Ed at the church I serve, grumpily gave me another stack of goofy trinitarian handouts.SO I responded with pulling out his church's own statement of beliefs which included acknowledging that Christ is begotten of the Father so you can't be co-equal and co-eternal coming out of someone else. I mean the Father had to be there first TO beget you, right?
Their Statement of Beliefs also say that after the 1,000 year reign, Christ will again be subject to the Father. This indicates that he was subject BEFORE and will be AGAIN. SO he's basically arguing with his own church AND the Bible, not me. He never answered any of my questions or provided reasons why Christ was saying he has both a God and Father. (John 20:17)
I'm working with another assistant pastor now anyway. He knows my beliefs and is content to let it drop. However, this is priceless. You don't know how glad I am to have found this oasis of sanity! It's rough out there guys.
Blessings all around,
Semmy
Hi Semmy.Of course you or anyone can print it out.
You can print anything you want from here.It's a priviledge to help.
Quote (seminarian @ July 07 2006,04:17) Quote Lode Runner, You said: My core argument is that the doctrine of the Trinity is integral to any belief that salvation can come by believing on Christ.
Oh really? Please indicate where the word, trinity, triune, three Gods in one, One God in three is found translated in any part of Holy Scripture? Inferences are not acceptable as they are subjective. I want the actual word found in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, your choice.
seminarian, (which seminary do you attend?) your post is, not to put too sharply of a point on it, patently ridiculous, for if we followed your reasoning, since most/all of your post are phrases and words not specifically found in the original Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew, we must deny anything you write, say or teach because the phrases themselves are not exactly found in the Scriptures, and anything that you say which is not a direct quote from the original languages (or we could even grant an English text) is merely subjective inferences.The truth of the matter, and what your seminary ought to teach you if and when you ever take a class on Hermeneutics (I certainly hope you haven’t taken one yet, otherwise your seminary is very suspect as to it’s methodology) is that whenever anyone, even you!, rewords the biblical teaching, as long as they are consistent with the meaning given, so far as we can tell from the manuscripts we have, and do not directly contradict the Scriptures, then any such person is engaging in responsible Hermeneutics. Denying the Trinity simply because the word itself doesn’t occur in the Bible is infantile and shallow. For instance, here is an inference you make:
“The answers are obvious. The trinity was never believed by early Christians but reflected the pagan influnces (sic) of the Greeks, Romans, and every one else who worshipped triads of gods.”
Again, according to your reasoning, there is no reason to accept your entire post because it is nowhere found in the Bible and is the result of inferences you have made. Your whole post is filled with this type of unbiblical inferences, for you quote not one single Scripture in your entire post!
Besides, does the word “Bible” appear anywhere in the Bible? If not, you better stop using it! And examine your entire vocabulary, making sure to rid yourself of any non-biblical words! Such is the argumentum absurdum your hermeneutic methodology leads.
blessings
We do not reject the Trinity doctrine because the word 'Trinity' is not in the bible, but because this doctrine is not taught by anyone in the bible.
That is the reason, plain and simple.
The Trinity was never believed by early Christians if we use the bible as our guide as to what they believed. But pagan religions did and still have a place for trinities.
So what are we to conclude?
Hi e,
Thanks but no thanks as trinity theory is a man made myth.
We are meant to avoid such foolish intellectual speculations as it is shallow and offends the Lord God.Semmy, in answer to “Also how is someone eternally begotten?”
Again… your argumentation is very superficial, its easy to see how the eternal Son of God can be eternally “begotten”;“G3439
μονογενής
monogenēs
Thayer Definition:
1) single of its kind, only
1a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
1b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God”So it is very very simple for Jesus to be eternally begotten since only He is God’s Son by nature, while any believer becomes a Son or daughter through adoption. So “mongenes” is telling us that Jesus had a unique – one of a kind relationship to the Father, one that no other person ever had or will have.
blessings
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 20 2006,00:59) Hi e,
Thanks but no thanks as trinity theory is a man made myth.
We are meant to avoid such foolish intellectual speculations as it is shallow and offends the Lord God.
you can dodge the truth all you like Nick, but remember, the darkness is just a speck in the light, so He will eventually find you with the truth….Quote (epistemaniac @ July 20 2006,01:03) Semmy, in answer to “Also how is someone eternally begotten?”
Again… your argumentation is very superficial, its easy to see how the eternal Son of God can be eternally “begotten”;“G3439
μονογενής
monogenēs
Thayer Definition:
1) single of its kind, only
1a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
1b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God”So it is very very simple for Jesus to be eternally begotten since only He is God’s Son by nature, while any believer becomes a Son or daughter through adoption. So “mongenes” is telling us that Jesus had a unique – one of a kind relationship to the Father, one that no other person ever had or will have.
blessings
Hi E,
So Jesus is a son of God by “nature”
What does this mean?
Does it mean he was begotten as another divine being in the beginning?
Does it mean he never was begotten of God but because he is of divine substance in God as a person he is somehow a son by that situation?
That is hard to grasp. is not a son separate from his father?Surely he would not be a son at all by that logic?
Quote (t8 @ July 20 2006,00:56) We do not reject the Trinity doctrine because the word 'Trinity' is not in the bible, but because this doctrine is not taught by anyone in the bible. That is the reason, plain and simple.
The Trinity was never believed by early Christians if we use the bible as our guide as to what they believed. But pagan religions did and still have a place for trinities.
So what are we to conclude?
I was responding to semmy's reason for rejecting the Trinity, or, at least one of them t8…. sorry you did not see that that was the person who I was in particular, addressing.as far as the rest of your post goes, I would say that I accept the doctrine of the Trinity because it is found throughout the Bible, plain and simple.
The Trinity was not that much of an issue in the early church, so just as you do not see really early serious debates about which books were canonical, because that issue was not taken care of until the 300's because thats when it became an issue of debate. So too, the doctrine of God which eventuated in understanding that God's nature was triune, did not come up until the Arian heretics began to deny what the church had believed concerning God's triune nature, though I readily admit that it was very close, one Pope was an Arian for awhile, so your Arianism was once held by the Roman Catholics (ooooohhhhh… bad Arians…. Baaaddd Arians)….
at any rate, one cannot dismiss the doctrine of the Trinity simply because it was codified at a certain time in early church history, for if you do, in order to be consistent, you must also deny the books that are in the canon for they were settled about the same time as the doctrine of the Trinity became official Church doctrine. The gospels were agreed upon around 185, but the rest was not settled until much later.
“The Nicene Creed – This creed was first formulated at the First Ecumenical Council, held at Nicea, located in what is now Turkey, in 325, as a response to the Arian heresy, which denied the divinity of Christ. It was revised at the Second Ecumenical Council, held at Constantinople in 381 as a response to the Macedonian or Pneumatomachian heresy, which denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit.” (Intro to the Creeds)
So what are we to conclude? That the early church eventually, as the issue came up and it needed to be dealt with clearly and specifically, became Trinitarian because in reading the scriptures, this is what they believed the Scriptures to teach.
blessings
Btw t8, if you dismiss or deny the Trinity simply because other religions held similar doctrines, then you must deny Christianity because other religions believed in a single deity.
blessings
Hi e,
This is a public forum and all are invited to participate in all discussions.
Our God is one and has a son.
Do you follow the church or Christ?
Would you defend Christ's church against these evil and new doctrina nonbiblical additions such as trinity?
Or would you defend the church tradition against truth??
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
