- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
I totally agree. God's word is pure and dependable. He provides all we need to know in that Word and backs it up to show detail.It is written by the Spirit and if we have the Spirit to help us read it then it becomes clear.When we get off the path of simplicity and add in human doctrines then it will not stand up to scrutiny and we can bring our faith into disrepute.
It is interesting that it says that in the last days people will not be interested in sound doctrine but will look for teachers who will tickle their ears. That scripture is applied to the Church as preachers talk to the unsaved but teachers are to develop the understanding of the members of the Church.
Quote (Guest @ Sep. 23 2004,04:47) OK, I've read through the article on the Trinity posted on this website, (as well as a half a dozen others), and I have read through some of the posts in this thread. (I realize that my comments will not fall directly in line with the current flow of thought.) As a result, I have come to this conclusion: when you approach scripture with your doctrines already defined, you will always find ways to make what you uncover fit your preconceived notions. With that in mind, I have a challenge for everyone, regardless of your particular beliefs. Anyone who has been a believer for any length of time can go to scripture and outline the plan of salvation, (or at least the plan of salvation as he understands it). In fact, one can easily use scripture alone, without any commentary, to explain salvation to someone who is a seeker. For example:….
Yes I agree. We should be able to let scripture speak for itself. But I am amazed that many cannot see the obvious truth this way and I am sure as you say that they have already made their mind up and nothing is going to change that. Because they are already full with their own understanding they leave no room for the truth. This is why we must crucify ourselves daily and empty ourselves of ourselves and let God's Spirit fill us and we should renew our minds.One word of caution would be that we can use scripture in a certain order to paint an incorrect picture if the scriptures are taken out of context.
An example of this could be:
There is no God.
What point is there to anything, all is vanity.Cults however are more subtle than that and have convinced probably most christians to serve a doctrine that is not biblically based.
I have always said that if we teach the truth then we can encompass all scripture and we are not afraid of any scripture as to leave it out of our teaching. The truth is in harmony with all scripture because scripture is inspired by God.
That said I would like to let scripture speak for itself with the following scriptures: (but I firmly believe that I could do the same thing many times over with different sciptures and it would still paint the same picture).
The theme is God and his son.
1 Timothy 6:15-16 (English-NIV)
15 which God will bring about in his own time, God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.John 1:18 (English-KJV)
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (English-NIV)
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”),
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.Ephesians 4:4-6 (English-NIV)
4 there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.John 17:3 (English-NIV)
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.1 Corinthians 11:3 (English-NIV)
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.Revelation 1:1 (English-NIV)
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,Revelation 3:12 (English-NIV)
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God.
Never again will he leave it.
I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (English-NIV)
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
27 For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that everything has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.It amazes me that this is not good enough for many. But as I said, I could bring out the same truth using a complete set of different scriptures. In fact I am confident that I could do it many times. Each time the meaning would be the same.
I will also let scripture speak on the subject of the true foundation of faith and the church. Again I could do this exercise many times with a different set of scriptures and the meaning would still be the same.
Acts 8:36-37
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?”
37 Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”John 20:31
But these are written that you may[ 20:31 Some manuscripts may continue to] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.1 John 3:23
And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.1 John 5:1
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.John 17:3 (English-NIV)
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.In Matthew 16:13-17 it says
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples,
“Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
So why o why do many have the Trinity doctrine as their foundation?Who in this forum would trust a man who was actually a ruthless opportunist and called himself a christian. What if this man presided at all pagan festivities in his area and was also responsible for murdering members of his own family. In addition to that he hasn't been baptized, but is waiting near his death to receive baptism since he believes he can't avoid committing “mortal” sin and considers such sin after baptism to be unforgivable.
Is 1:18 would you trust this man?
Yep he da man.
This was the man who forced his will upon the Nicene Council, dictated the wording of its creed, and thereby directed the doctrinal course of the Church for centuries to come. But is this the kind of man to whom we should be entrusting our most sacred beliefs?
We are taught that bad fruit comes from a bad tree. Why most christians will trust a man of such bad character and with political motives for the Roman Beast; to lay the foundation for their faith is beyond me.
Remember that the Woman Babylon rides the Beast as she is supported by the beast.
Anyway I have some quotes below that I gleaned from a writing called the Doctrine of Christ. I have never read it before, but I had heard of it but knew nothing about it. I felt that the Spirit of God wanted me to read it quite a while ago. I haven't read the whole thing, but from what I have it seems good. The quotes are below and I point out that some of these quotes may also be quotes from elsewhere.
Why would anyone look to the fourth century for truth, particularly in view of our Lord’s great prophecy covering the period of his absence and return, saying, “Take heed that no man deceive you” (Matt. 24:4)? Without a doubt, this was where the Church had lost its way. It was shamelessly prostituted before the ambitious Roman emperor. It is important to know that while Constantine accepted Christianity and became the Pontifex Maximus of the Church, he also continued to function in all the pagan ceremonies, as paganism had deep roots in the Roman Empire and would not pass away overnight. Julian succeeded Constantine to the throne, and he was a devout pagan, although a noble one. Rome became a melting pot of paganism and Christianity—not a good mix.To believe that most Church leaders were the great preservers of the “faith once delivered to the saints” is to believe the unbelievable. The Great Wall of China was built to keep out invading enemy forces. However, the wall was breached three times within the first century of its construction—in each instance from within. Once we leave the Apostolic Era and the Word of God, it becomes stormy and treacherous.
When the Church united with the Roman powers, it seemed certain that the conquest of the world lay before it. Rome was the leading power of the world, and the Church was able to march under two banners—Christ and Rome. It was seemingly invincible. Why did it fail? Hans Kung says:
“A main cause of the failure of Christianity seems to have lain in the inadequate foundation of the dogmas of christology and the Trinity. The Catholic theologian Hermann Stieglecker, who gives an admirable account of the theological controversies between Christians and Muslims in his book on The Doctrines of Islam, rightly regards this lack as one of the most serious causes of the collapse of Christianity, particularly in its homelands, in the Near East and North Africa. It was in fact simpler to believe in the One God and Muhammad, the Prophet after Jesus. In addition, however, there were also the lamentable internal divisions within Christianity.”God never ever called anyone His brother. He has no brothers or sisters. Jesus taught us to address God as “our Father.” Our resurrected Lord Jesus is not “ashamed to call us brethren.” God has given us the “Spirit of Sonship”—that makes Him “our Father.” God is not our “brother.” The Trinity concept has taken away our Lord Jesus—our Elder Brother, and we do not know what they have done with him. We cannot find him in this doctrine. God’s voice in two Gospels said, “This is my beloved Son” (Matt. 3:17; Mark 9:7). If Jesus is a Son and we are sons of God, then we are brethren. Why have they taken away our brother? What have they done with him?
Greek philosophy was a serious threat to the early Christian Church. Paul said, “Greeks seek wisdom” (1 Cor. 1:22, RSV). To counter this, Paul said, “I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom” (1 Cor. 2:1, RSV). Apparently, there were those who did. Greek philosophy was kept out of the Bible, but not out of theology. As the church fathers strove for preeminence, they found the high-sounding wisdom of Greek philosophy a cutting edge for distinguishing themselves. When the religious debates spilled over before the Roman emperors, what better tool could be used than Hellenistic philosophy interwoven with Christian doctrine? Greek and Mid-eastern philosophies were pervasive, and when someone like Constantine listened to the controversy between Arius and Athanasius, the strong pagan influence was certain to have an effect.
AFTER the Church lost the pristine vision which it held in the beginning, these last two creeds were formed. The Athanasian, or Trinitarian Creed, became the largest and most confusing creed of all. It became necessary for salvation to believe this creed—making this a threatening theological statement. Please notice the unitarian concept of God was a statement of belief without threatening overtones. Notice how the Creed becomes more foggy and “incomprehensible” as it endeavors to incorporate Trinity concepts. Additionally, as it swells to more than a statement of belief, it then threatens any not accepting this foggy concept with perishing “everlastingly.”
There is another strange fact of Trinitarian behavior. They seldom inform the laity of the host of criticisms and corrective evaluations from within the walls of religious academia. They vent most of their anger and frustration upon those who openly and honestly confess not believing the Trinity based on personal Bible study. They endeavor to malign these by calling them improper names or even failing to recognize such as Christians.
In Acts 11:26 we are told the disciples of Jesus were “called Christians first in Antioch.” If this be so, how could they be called Christians who knew nothing of the theological Trinity which did not become defined until the fifth century? How is it that those who believe in the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit are not recognized as Christians today if they say they do not believe the “incomprehensible” Trinity? Perhaps the old desire to persecute and stigmatize those who differ still exists latently in the hearts of some. Insecurity can surely lead to unchristian behavior.
The Trinitarians paradoxically operate on two levels. When reading or quoting the Bible, both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians sound alike. Both refer to the same verses, and their readings are similar. As long as the Bible is adhered to, they are hard to tell apart. But when the Bible is departed from and philosophical arguments are introduced, a wide gap soon appears. Because the Trinity is a doctrine of inference, and not of statement, it can be sustained only as long as it is continually inferred from the Bible. Whenever the Scriptures are merely read and quoted, the Trinity loses ground. Hence, every so often, the doctrine must be “injected” into the consciousness of the hearers lest they forget. The Trinity has to be piped into Scripture before it can be piped out.
Everyone knows you do not get cider from cotton. Yet, in fact, you can squeeze cider from cotton. However, you must first soak the cotton with cider, and then, lo, and behold, you can squeeze cider from cotton. That is how you may extract the Trinity doctrine from the Bible. First, saturate the Bible texts to be used with the concept; then squeeze it out. That is why Dr. Pelikan, who has been called “perhaps the foremost living student of Church history,” said, in effect, no one could find the Trinity by just reading the New Testament (see p. 8). You need the theologians to superimpose their theology upon the Word before you can find it there.
Hi t8,
How are you? Regarding the Origen's commentary, I guess I would have to say I thought it sounded reasonable, but like I said before i've read equally articulate and compelling writings that argue the opposite. So i'm reserving judgement until I can offer a well-researched opinion. I'm sure you can respect that.Quote (t8 @ Sep. 23 2004,03:30) Who in this forum would trust a man who was actually a ruthless opportunist and called himself a christian. What if this man presided at all pagan festivities in his area and was also responsible for murdering members of his own family. In addition to that he hasn't been baptized, but is waiting near his death to receive baptism since he believes he can't avoid committing “mortal” sin and considers such sin after baptism to be unforgivable. Is 1:18 would you trust this man?
Well I guess I would need to know what, specifically, I am trusting him with.
Would I trust him to pastor my church? No
Would I trust him to manage my finances? Probably not
Would I trust him to babysit my kids? Ummmm, definately notBut seriously though, I can't legitimately pass judgement on a person's truths based on their character. There are plenty of writers of the Old Testament with very questionable moral records. Look at Solomon, David and Moses for instance. A polygamist and hedonist, an adulterer, and a murderer. Yet we accept every word they wrote as sacred. Also look at some of the US tv-evangelists, as sycophantic and hypocritical as they might seem (to me anyway), they also are vessels of God's truth (some more than others). I just don't think you can make a case for writing off a truth, based on its proponent's moral character. After all “None is righteous, no not one” (Rom 3:9).
Having said all that – I really don't care who initially advocated the trinity or who continues to do so. I don't take that into account when assessing its validity, at all. It's this simple t8: when I read the Bible I find it presents Jesus as God and the Holy Spirit also as God. I don't have a system to make it all fit conveniently into a box for you. Given that I am a mere finite human (and an average one at that) trying to understand an awesome infinite universe-creating God, my inadequacies in this regard are hardly surprising.
God Bless
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 24 2004,21:40) But seriously though, I can't legitimately pass judgement on a person's truths based on their character. There are plenty of writers of the Old Testament with very questionable moral records. Look at Solomon, David and Moses for instance.
I think that these men did some bad things, but their hearts were for God, otherwise God wouldn't have used them. But I really have to question Constantine's motives throughout his life. History paints a bleak picture at least.It doesn't show a man after God's own heart or a man who would lead God's people to freedom. In fact he enslaved the Church and pronounced that anyone found with Arius's teachings must burn them or suffer death.
I think Constantine brought in the Dark Ages for the Church which culminated in the death of millions.
Constantine sounds to me like a typical Roman Emperor in a lot of respects. Moses, David and Solomon were ruled by carnal nature at times, but they all loved God and served him well despite their faults (even serious faults).
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 24 2004,21:40) Hi t8,
How are you? Regarding the Origen's commentary, I guess I would have to say I thought it sounded reasonable, but like I said before i've read equally articulate and compelling writings that argue the opposite. So i'm reserving judgement until I can offer a well-researched opinion. I'm sure you can respect that.
I can respect that.In the gospels Jesus often told his listeners to “pray to God” ” Put your trust in God” In fact He spoke of God constantly. Was that confusing to His hearers? Did they question if they meant Himself or the Holy Spirit or a trinity?
No. It was simple. They knew He was talking about the Father.
Did He ever say pray to Me? Or pray to the Holy Spirit? No.
Yes the Father wants us to honor the Son as they honor the Father but that does not change their relationship.
Nothing has changed and we are not cleverer than the chosen people. We too worship and pray to the Father.
I myself do not believe in the Trinity,Yet I do believe Jesus to be God in the Flesh. We must understand that since the Lord was in flesh (which is what the word Begotten means) due to his word he can never claim equality as God in parental relationship(The Father). Jesus did however claim equality symbolicaly and through his nature. Jesus had two natures, his humanity, and his diety. He spoke from both natures and you can clearly tell the two apart. Jesus excepted worship, and early on in the book of John it tells us that “He was in the world and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not”. Also we learn from what he told the Jews ” Before abraham was, I AM”. we learn that Jesus did pre-exist before creation, and if so, either this proves the trinity doctrine, or it means that The one true living God manifests himself redemptively as The Father(God in parental relationship) The Son( God in Human relationship) The holy spirit( God in spiritual action).I myself believe in the redemptive manifestations of the Lord, He has definately done it through out the entire Bible, even if it's as the High priest melchisidek, or as Jesus, The Lord is omnipresent and we can not count him as three,four or fifty because he is so much Greater! The Lord can do all this and never leave his throne, my Lord is without limit and He can not be counted. We also learn in the book of hebrews that Jesus recieved his name by inheritence,so what does he mean when he says ” I AM come in my Fathers name”? What does it really mean in the book of Mathew when He said to be baptised in the “Name” of the Father, Son and of the Holy Ghost? I have had the pleasure of going through the entire new testiment and I can clearly tell you that if this was a command from the Lord, not one person in the entire bible did as he asked. Not one person was baptized in three different names, it was all one name, Jesus!
Why? because A) Jesus recieved his name by inheritence from the The Father.
B) The Father sends the comforter(Holy ghost) in his sons name.
C) Jesus has come in his Fathers Name
So if you have Jesus you have the fullness of God. Jesus is the right Hand of God(God in authority, because God's authority is in his word, Jesus, The personification of God Speaking)
Welcome to the site,
The reason the apostles did not obey the instruction to baptise in the trinity is that they were not told to. As I understand it that scripture at the end of Matthew read” in My Name ” till altered around 2-300 ad.
There is a separation between the Father and the Son with the Son being the exact image of the Father.They are united in heart and purpose and the Son was filled with the Spirit of God but they have separate identity.Yes he came to earth in the Father's name and to do the Father's will.Yes He deserved and accepted Worship but He wanted to get us to worship His Father and our Father.
Yes Jesus existed with the Father before His physical birth and He was the instrument of creation. Jesus left His position of glory to be as us and now is again AT the right hand of the Father-but is not THE right hand.
Hebrews tells us Jesus is HEIR of all things but doesn't say He received His name by inheritence? Jesus said He would send the comforter, not the Father would.
Keep posting.I can see how people got to think there was a trinity and it wasn't a problem for me for many years. You worship and pray to God as the Father Son and Holy Spirit. It seemed just like any other religion-God was out there and we prayed to Him just like the muslims and hinndus and other religions of the world.
But after I was born again and started to understand what had happened to me from reading the bible then it started to get confusing.
The bible told me I had been baptised into Jesus [Coll 2. 9-13]and that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to be my teacher and comforter[jn 14 an 16].In fact the book of Collosians [3.1-3] told me I was in Christ seated at God's right hand.
Now here was the problem. How could I worship and pray to Jesus when I was part of Him. The bible never told me to worship or pray to Him but to the Father alone?. Should I pray to my teacher as nowhere were we told to worship or pray to the Holy Spirit?
I found the trinity concept added to my confusion so when I found this site it showed me I was not alone in being uncomfortable with the trinity concept.
Hope this helps someone.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 28 2004,16:54) As I understand it that scripture at the end of Matthew read” in My Name ” till altered around 2-300 ad.
Prove it.Hi,
One of the problems is that there are no known versions of Matthew's gospel that predate 300a.d. All the Greek versions use the triune form.The best evidence is in the work of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea. He was an important writer [300-336] who had access to a library of older documents. In 17 places in his works he quotes Matt28.19 as”.. Baptise them in my name.” up until the council of Nice.
After that council he is quoted as using the traditional triune formula on 5 occasions. One would have to question the reason for this change but consider the religious environment. This was a time when intense doctrinal pressure was being applied to the church to conform to the trinity belief.
You can check these things by reading the work of Eusebius or searching Matthew 28.19 on the net.
Re Matthew 28:19
Further evidence for the reading “in my name” is that in every record in the Book of Acts, the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, not in the name of the the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.
This bolsters the argument that Eusebius must have had access to earlier, more accurate manuscripts.
Thats not proof. Its speculation based on spurious evidence.
Quite so Elisha. Otherwise the apostles were traitors to their Master.
The church of the time went from the frying pan into the fire as having suffered the greatest persecution under Diocetian[284-305]and his fellow emporors along comes Constantine who made “peace” by compromising the teachings with those of the world and separating from the Head-Jesus-and introducing foreign teachings such as trinity.
Only a remnant of true believers must have remained faithful.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
