When was Jesus born, in your view?
I believe he was "born" at the annunciation. I do believe that he was "in the beginning", at least in the metaphorical sense (that Jesus was ALWAYS a part of God's plan, he was ALWAYS meant to be man's salvation, and he was ALWAYS meant to usher in God's Kingdom.) Likewise, his birth on Earth was ordained in the beginning. Do I believe that he literally existed before God created the heavens and the Earth? I honestly don't know! It's an area of study that I haven't given much thought to, to be honest. But I am open enough to the possibility (knowing that this would bring up further questions).
But all of the eunuch's interpretation of Scripture is henceforth going to be based on what Philip taught him.
You're forgetting that Phillip himself was sent by an angel of God specifically to teach this eunuch. So the eunuch didn't learn how to interpret from just ANY man, he learned from a man who was specifically tasked by an angel of the Lord. That means that we can assume Phillip's interpretation didn't come from himself, but directly from God.
Secondly, you're assuming that Phillip taught this eunuch EVERY scripture, of EVERY book throughout the ENTIRE bible. But Acts 8:35 only says that Phillip taught him a passage from the book of Isaiah and about the Gospel of Christ. It doesn't say that he interpreted EVERY scripture for him. What it does say is that he baptized him with the Holy Spirit, and then he left. This suggests that it would be the Holy Spirit that would teach the eunuch everything else that Phillip didn't. And this is the reason he no longer needed help from any man.
For example, I don't look up Patristic commentaries on every single verse of the Bible I read. Once I get an understanding of how the early Christians and the Fathers understand parts of the Bible, I can adapt and apply these understandings
You see to me, that's where people run into problems. The Holy Spirit doesn't give us permission to do that. In fact that's exactly what the bible tells us NOT to do! It says we are supposed to depend on the Holy Spirit to guide us, not early Christians and Fathers.
Proverbs 3:5-6
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.
Matthew 23:9-10
9 And do not call anyone on earth father, for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.
1 John 2:27
But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true--it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.
So to me, when we start depending on what other Christians thought (regardless of time period), or what men who called themselves "fathers" taught, we are actually going directly against scripture, and not putting our trust in the Holy Spirit.
This is not a denial of human teaching, but is showing how the Holy Spirit will work within the Church, and within its members that submit to Him. And even though we have the Holy Spirit to guide and teach us, the Holy Spirit still makes use of human teachers to convey His truth.
Yes, the Holy Spirit CAN make use of human "teachers", but the bible makes it clear that the Spirit has the final authority.
Whenever you "learn" something from men, those teachings must be tested, and only when they pass the test can they be considered of the Spirit.
1 Thessalonians 5:20-21
Do not scoff at prophecies, 21 but test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good.
1 John 4:1
Dear friends, do not believe everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit. You must test them to see if the spirit they have comes from God. For there are many false prophets in the world.
When you learn from the Spirit, nothing must be tested because you know that what the spirit teaches is true.
When you're talking about ancient beliefs/interpretations of men who are long dead, the only way to test those teachings is against the word itself. If any of their teachings contradicts the word, they are wrong (no matter how many people followed them, or how far back into history these teachings go).
Neither Jesus, nor any of his apostles spoke of a trinity or a triune God. And even if some men taught a trinity in the past, that does not imply that everyone who claimed to be an expert on Christ actually knew what they were talking about or were speaking from the Spirit. And depending on what early Christians and Church Fathers "believed" is putting a lot of trust in people you've never met before. I would rather trust the Holy Spirit and receive my instruction directly.
The Four Gospels and Paul's Epistles and the writings of the first Christians (I'm talking late first-century, early/mid second-century here) do attest to the Trinity. The basic understanding is there.
This an opinion, one that we'll have to agree to disagree on.
But the formulation of the idea, the clarification of the dogma of the Trinity, didn't come until Nicaea when the idea needed to be defended against both Sabellianism and Arianism.
That's exactly my point! And that's the reason I don't accept that as a doctrine of Christ, but a doctrine of man.
My point is, He didn't have to send down Jesus to give us a way out of this. He could have simply waited for us all to die, snap His fingers, and BAM! We're all resurrected and being judged, and we still all paid the wages of sin, which is death. No need for Jesus. But God chose to send Jesus and do all this for us.
That is not my understanding! My understanding is that Jesus dies (and atones) for our personal sins, when we accept him as our Lord and savior. Our physical death however is the result of original sin. It does not absolve us of personal sins. That is why we are all resurrected to face judgement! And those who are not absolved of their sins on Earth face a "second death", while those that are granted "eternal life". But the bible makes it clear that in order to be absolved of sin, a death is required! It can either be the death of Christ or your own "second" death.
God doesn't manifest Himself as the Trinity just for our salvation. It's simply His nature.
I find no biblical support of that. The only thing of God's "nature" that the bible tells us is that he is eternal, all-knowing, all-present, all-powerful, good/righteous, truthful, merciful, and that there is only ONE of him. That's it! Scripture does not teach us that he has a triune nature.
Yes. Dying in the flesh does not negate this, as the Proskomedia prayer I posted illustrates, and as you will learn by reading the links I gave you.
Again (yes I did read your links by the way), when the flesh dies, the soul does not continue living. It is in a sleeping state that experiences no conscious thought. And here is a link that has a much more thorough and elaborate explanation of Sheol/Hades.
The Exact Nature of Sheol, Hades and Hell.
With numerous mistranslations corrected, to boot.
Unfortunately. The BIGGEST and most misleading translation flaw throughout the entire bible (1 John 5:7) is still present in the NKJV.
Oh really? 1 Peter 3 tells a different story.
Does it? Well, let's examine that:
So Jesus goes and preaches to the spirits (i.e. dead people) who are in prison (AKA Hades) who had died in the flood.
Not exactly!
There are many interpretations and variants of this scripture (some more popular than others), but only ONE that actually makes sense in my opinion. Paraphrasing a bit: (scroll about halfway down that link)
1 Peter 3:18-22 Commentary
Disclaimer - 1Peter 3:18-22 are passages which are notoriously difficult to interpret and are reminiscent of Peter's statement about Paul's writings
The most satisfactory explanation of 1Peter 3:1920 seems rather to be one proposed long ago by Augustine: the passage refers not to something Christ did between his death and resurrection, but to what he did in the spiritual realm of existence (or through the Spirit) at the time of Noah. When Noah was building the ark, Christ in spirit was preaching through Noah to the hostile unbelievers around him. This view gains support from two other statements of Peter. In 1Peter 1:11, he says that the Spirit of Christ was speaking in the Old Testament prophets. This suggests that Peter could readily have thought that the Spirit of Christ was speaking through Noah as well. So it seems likely that when Christ preached to the spirits in prison he did so through Noah in the days before the flood. The people to whom Christ preached through Noah were unbelievers on the earth at the time of Noah, but Peter calls them spirits in prison because they are now in the prison of helleven though they were not just spirits but persons on earth when the preaching was done.
There most certainly was a Jesus while He was dead.
Or not. Consider this!
Are the Dead Conscious or Asleep? - Here a little, there a little - Commentary
