- This topic is empty.
- Posts
You need to put in some qualifiers, Ed. I and II Clement are not part of the Apocrypha. In Catholicism and early Protestantism, the Apocrypha is viewed as inspired. That’s why the Catholic church retains it. KJV initially included it, thereby considering it inspired and canon. However, by the 16 forties, the English divines had changed their minds here, considered it a work of the Devil, and banished it. Luther also retained it in his original Bible, though later Lutheran divines did drop it. Authorship has ha little to do with whether a work was considered canonical or not. Also, actually, inspiration had little to do with it. I and II Clement, “the Shepherd of Hermes,” “Paul and the Acts of Teekel,” and a whole host of other extra-canonical works, were thought of as inspired in the sense they were viewed as profitable for study and so were widely read and esteemed by early Christians. Later, Calvin said that he would not have believed, had he no read the teachings of Augustine. Luther said that the ” Theologia Germanica” should be read along with Scripture.
Did you read Clement1 (The first epistle of Clement to the Corinthians)?
Hi Hoghead1,
Was that a “No”?
Yes, and also 2. That was essential for my dissertation because I needed information on early Christian views on the Spirit.
You are getting way, way off topic here. Let’s get back to the Trinity. Also, I believed I have already answered your question.
Well, Nick, aren’t you the one who is doing this? Right here, you are doing nothing more than entering your own opinions into the dialogue. If you feel this is wrong to do, why are you doing it?
Hi hoghead,
This is a bible study site.
If you expect an audience please share from the bible.
The speculations of men offer nothing of any value.
I have already done that, Nick. Also, let me remind you that this is a discussion o the Trinity, and that the Trinitarian doctrines are essentially extra-biblical formulations applied to providing a coherent metaphysic of the Trinity. If you want to deal meaningfully with Trinity, you have to deal wit it both on a biblical level and also on a metaphysical one as well.
Hi Hoghead,
So it is just a purely intellectual and theoretical exercise?
You want us to discuss your human theories and not learn from the bible?
Vanity, vanity all is vanity.
God is one.
Hi hoghead,
The scriptures are a foundation of rock.
But the sand of speculation is strong enough for you?
Nick, we are here to discuss the Trinity. These and most other of your recent posts are way, way off topic.
Hi hoghead,
Before we can discuss your theory we need some sound biblical teaching to support it.
If you can offer none what is there to discuss?
I already showed you , Nick, why the Trinity is sound biblical teachings. Before we go any further, you need to show some evidence to support your outrageous claims that there is no Trinity. Well, where is it? All you’ve done so far is hurl insults and Trinitarians and provided not one shred of biblical evidence in support of your theory.
Hi hoghead,
You have not produced one verse that says God is any form of trinity.
God pours of His Spirit.
Does God pour God?
Actually , yes, God does do that. The Bible says that God is omnipresent. Also, I believe I asked you some questions earlier. So now it is your turn. The Bible says that Christ is our Savior. Are you saying that someone other than God can save us? Also, I have brought up passages Trinitarians refer to. Now, since you feel they do not. Then why don’t you run down the list, showing how your speculations disprove any Trinitarian inferences?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
