How easy is it for Trinitarians to misread the scriptures?

[rrobs]

So you don’t have either a Bachelor’s or Master’s? Just grade/high school? That’s a start, but it’s all just “survey course.” Nothing very analytical or in-depth in either the systematic department or exegetical department. Sounds like you’re a disaffected RC. If so, that would explain your attitude toward anything regarding ecclesial authority.

I’m not saying that you’re not entitled to your beliefs. but I really wish you’d read and absorb the doctrine and come up with some real theological and exegetical arguments against it that support what you believe. All I’ve gotten so far is vague straw men and generalized accusations. Have you got something — anything — with meat?

Had I attended cementery, errr...I mean seminary, I would have just gotten more and bigger lies.

Given it's been over 50 years that I stopped going to church, I'm well beyond being disaffected. I never ran from the church or anything else. I just ran towards the truth of the scriptures.

If you consider scripture vague and straw man, then yes, that is all I've given you. On the other hand, I can't help but notice a distinct lack of responses to those scriptures on your part.

Just out of curiosity, can you give me an example where I used the straw man argument? That term is used a lot around here. I wonder if people know what it really means. I'm thinking they don't. It seems to be a term used when there is no other valid response to someone's else's assertion.

 

[sojourner]

on the back foot... against the wall and has nothing to say against the truth so you just squibble...!

Well, it’s to be expected.

You're projecting.

by trinity, Jesus IS the Father! You know, if there was a verse that said:

• ‘I, the Father, and the Holy Spirit, are ONE’

Again: this is a straw man. The doctrine clearly states that the Son is not the Father. You present this as the Trinity, but it isn't. You have created a false argument, set it up as the truth, and then proceed to knock it down. That's a "straw man argument."

you would be blasting this out saying, ‘See, they are the same... one God because the Father is God so if Jesus and the Father are one then Jesus must also be God... and since the Holy Spirit and Jesus and the Father are one and the Father is God, then the other two must also be God... done!’

However, Jesus only says he and the Father are one which destroys the three-God fallacy!!! Done!

The logic in this post is insane at its worst and nonexistent at best. Yes, Jesus and the Father are one -- one in essence, not in person. The doctrine makes that quite clear, if you'd bother to really read it. It's obvious that you have not, which is why I keep harping on that subject. You don't get to just make up stuff, claim that it's the "doctrine" and then call it "unintelligible." That's not how debate works.

In the passage you cite, Jesus is talking about the Father -- not the HS. It's as if you think that every time Jesus talks about who he is, all three have to be mentioned. But that's not the case. There are plenty of other places in the texts that talk about the HS. Taking one verse and building a theological construct out of it as if it includes the whole Tradition is disingenuous and irresponsible.

Yes, sojourner, commutative means that the Father is EQUAL TO THE HOLY SPIRIT...

Just so. The three are co-equal.

And the Son is EQUAL to the Holy Spirit... interesting seeing that Jesus says the Holy Spirit will take from what is his and give it to the apostles... so how are they equal if one has more than the other and another knows less than another and one grants permission to another and both sends one of them... can equality SEND another equal... but wait... why are there separate EQUALS in the first place??? All three are supposedly ALL MIGHTY so why does it take more than one to do anything?

Because this is how communities work.

But sojourner, you only refute anything said to you... and say, ‘read the doctrine’... you dismiss the truth when you read it calling it ‘straw man’... your answer to everything!!

See below. What you are posting about the doctrine is not what the doctrine says. Your posts are disingenuous and misleading.

I’m reading your answers and seeing you saying:

• “Straw man”: It’s true but I can’t let you know that I think your are right (that scriptures is right!)
• “Read the doctrine”: What you are saying is true but it’s not what the fallacy states... I’m testing you against the fallacy - why can’t you see that!!
• “This is terrible theology”: Your skill is simply swapping anything of truth to its antonym!
  • Good is bad and truth is fantasy;
  • ‘I believe’ becomes simply, ‘I don’t believe’
  • ‘It is..’ turns to ‘it’s not...’

Empty responses hide the fact that you have nowhere to go

If you would stop presenting straw man arguments, I would stop calling you out on it.
If you would read the doctrine, your posts wouldn't be outrageous.
If your theological constructions were well thought out, they wouldn't be terrible.

This is your fault -- not mine.

Can I ask you to answer how the ‘we’ are to be ‘joint heirs with Christ Jesus’ if Jesus is almighty God? How can we be ‘joint heirs’ WITH GOD... surely an HEIR is someone IN WAITING for an inheritance? What inheritance is GOD (Jesus) awaiting?

I'll need a specific reference before I can address it.

Fact is, you don't want to debate, you want to preach. Like every other really bad preacher, instead of presenting truth, all your posts are doing is slinging accusations. They come off as ill-informed and angry. It's really sad that, as far as argument and proof goes, this is all you've got.

 

[sojourner]

So, sojourner, now you know the context of what I meant... I didn’t think I would have had to lay it out for you but I now understand that you really do know nothing about scriptures!!!!!

had you been clear and concise the first time around, you wouldn't have had to do a rewrite. I can't help it if you can't clearly write out your ideas. Perhaps a course in remedial writing might help you?

That is why it’s so easy for you to constantly say in effect:

• “I don’t believe anything you say - I only believe what the doctrine says!”

If you didn't print lies about the doctrine and misinterpretations of Biblical texts, I wouldn't have to refute them. Again: your posts whine like a mule, but you will only garner the responses you want if you fix what you post to begin with.

Remarkably you rarely ever say ‘what the doctrine says’... you just say we should read it and believe it!!!

Read and believe WHAT???

I've done my homework. It's time for you to do yours. In fact, I've reiterated what the doctrine clearly says, but you ignore it and insist that your lies are truth. I've repeatedly said that the "Father is not the Son." You keep insisting that the doctrine says that the Father is the Son. Why is that?

Yet again: Read. The. Doctrine. That will answer your "what" in big capital letters.

 

[sojourner]

Had I attended cementery, errr...I mean seminary, I would have just gotten more and bigger lies.

Aaaand anti-intellectualism raises its ugly head. It's the usual response of someone who has none to begin with. It's a "sour grapes" response to intellectual evidence. It falsely claims that knowledge is unnecessary in theological and Biblical concerns. It displays a disturbing, two-year-old response: "I can do it by-felf!!" (While stomping the foot). Don't you realize that it's only through intellect and study that you have a bible to read in the first place? Or did you think that it just sort of fell out of the sky? What a disgusting way to treat the holy texts! I guess this answers my last question to you: You have no real meat to give me in the way of argument.

Given it's been over 50 years that I stopped going to church, I'm well beyond being disaffected. I never ran from the church or anything else. I just ran towards the truth of the scriptures.

That's telling right there: "I stopped going to church." So, in effect, what you did was to turn your back on the community that -- biblically -- is the Body of Christ. You're admitting that you have effectively turned your back on Christ. You betrayed Christ for some overblown idolization of the Bible. It's no wonder the concepts you present are narrow and short-sighted, and have no basis in evidence. And then you have the gall to tell the rest of us that we're following lies.

If you consider scripture vague and straw man, then yes, that is all I've given you.

You haven't given me scripture. You've given me shallow and unfounded interpretations without the benefit of exegetical underpinning.

On the other hand, I can't help but notice a distinct lack of responses to those scriptures on your part.

I can't respond to silly presentations. There's nothing to respond to. Educating yourself in the Bible in responsible and significant ways would benefit you.

Just out of curiosity, can you give me an example where I used the straw man argument?

Any time you've mentioned something the doctrine says, it's not what the doctrine says. You put up a false argument, present it as truth, and then knock it down. Here's a great example. You said: "Even the way they capitalize the "Word" is highly misleading. In the original Greek there were no small and caps. They were all caps. The English translators, who were no doubt close to 100% Trinitarians, took it upon themselves to capitalize it to make us all think it is a proper noun, i.e. Jesus." This is a straw man argument. The translators didn't "capitalize it to make us all think it's a proper noun." They capitalized it, because "God" is capitalized, and the text plainly says, "the Word was God." The text equates "Word" with "God." You've set up a falsehood as truth, and then knock it down.

That term is used a lot around here. I wonder if people know what it really means.

There are plenty of people here who are, by your own admission, better educated than you.

It seems to be a term used when there is no other valid response to someone's else's assertion.

It seems to be a term used when the fallacy is present. It's the only valid response that an be made to such silly fallacies.

 

[cataway]

God's actions also show a great amount of latitude for the human condition. Since religion is a cultural expression, it stands to reason that God would be known by many names and be adequately worshiped in many forms. Worship is about the heart, not the outward signs.

no not really ,there are several scriptures that say God requires exclusive devotion. which means it has to be done his way

 

[sojourner]

no not really ,there are several scriptures that say God requires exclusive devotion. which means it has to be done his way

Worship is a cultural product -- not a heavenly product. Can you think of any cultures that don't give their vision of God "exclusive devotion?" I've looked at a lot of religions. They all seem to worship deity exclusively. Unless, of course, we're looking at a humanist culture.

 

[cataway]

Worship is a cultural product -- not a heavenly product. Can you think of any cultures that don't give their vision of God "exclusive devotion?" I've looked at a lot of religions. They all seem to worship deity exclusively. Unless, of course, we're looking at a humanist culture.

ah but just because people and cultures offer worship does not mean its excitable to the most high God . its written Matthew 7:23''And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’''

 

[rrobs]

Aaaand anti-intellectualism raises its ugly head. It's the usual response of someone who has none to begin with. It's a "sour grapes" response to intellectual evidence. It falsely claims that knowledge is unnecessary in theological and Biblical concerns. It displays a disturbing, two-year-old response: "I can do it by-felf!!" (While stomping the foot). Don't you realize that it's only through intellect and study that you have a bible to read in the first place? Or did you think that it just sort of fell out of the sky? What a disgusting way to treat the holy texts! I guess this answers my last question to you: You have no real meat to give me in the way of argument.

That's telling right there: "I stopped going to church." So, in effect, what you did was to turn your back on the community that -- biblically -- is the Body of Christ. You're admitting that you have effectively turned your back on Christ. You betrayed Christ for some overblown idolization of the Bible. It's no wonder the concepts you present are narrow and short-sighted, and have no basis in evidence. And then you have the gall to tell the rest of us that we're following lies.

You haven't given me scripture. You've given me shallow and unfounded interpretations without the benefit of exegetical underpinning.

I can't respond to silly presentations. There's nothing to respond to. Educating yourself in the Bible in responsible and significant ways would benefit you.

Any time you've mentioned something the doctrine says, it's not what the doctrine says. You put up a false argument, present it as truth, and then knock it down. Here's a great example. You said: "Even the way they capitalize the "Word" is highly misleading. In the original Greek there were no small and caps. They were all caps. The English translators, who were no doubt close to 100% Trinitarians, took it upon themselves to capitalize it to make us all think it is a proper noun, i.e. Jesus." This is a straw man argument. The translators didn't "capitalize it to make us all think it's a proper noun." They capitalized it, because "God" is capitalized, and the text plainly says, "the Word was God." The text equates "Word" with "God." You've set up a falsehood as truth, and then knock it down.

There are plenty of people here who are, by your own admission, better educated than you.

It seems to be a term used when the fallacy is present. It's the only valid response that an be made to such silly fallacies.

You seem to have a preconceived idea that Jesus is God and therefore it is OK to capitalize. Shouldn't it be the other way around, that we accept the fact that there were no caps and small letters (they were all caps), and go from there, asking, why is this capitalized? Should it be capitalized?

You also seem to assume that the church is the source of all truth and that to leave it is to leave the truth. Check your premise. Did I not show you where everyone abandoned Paul before he even died (2 Tim 1:15)? I believe I also asked when did the church return to the truth Paul declared in his letters. I've done enough of my own research to understand that as of today, they are still out in left field. They value tradition over the scripture. Doesn't that mean anything to you that never once during 12 years did we open an actual Bible? I guess you might think that the Bible is only for post graduate students, but the book itself claims to be so simple that even a fool can understand it.

 

[rrobs]

That made my day!

Well, I hope it was a relatively good day for you.

 

[sojourner]

ah but just because people and cultures offer worship does not mean its excitable to the most high God . its written Matthew 7:23''And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’''

Yeah, that's not in reference to different expressions of God, though. You're misusing the text.

In the same vein of logic, just because people see God differently, and call God by a different name, does not mean that God abhors that perspective or that name.

 

[sojourner]

You seem to have a preconceived idea that Jesus is God and therefore it is OK to capitalize.

No, that's not it. I understand what the passage is saying, and I agree with the translators' justification and reason for capitalizing it. I'm sorry if it confuses you; it helps to understand what encompasses the translational process.

Shouldn't it be the other way around, that we accept the fact that there were no caps and small letters (they were all caps), and go from there, asking, why is this capitalized? Should it be capitalized?

Of course they were all caps. We recognize that. Shall we, by that reasoning, omit all spaces between words, omit all paragraphs, and omit all punctuation, as well? You see, it's necessary and appropriate when translating Koine' Greek, to figure out what was being said and utilize language demarcations conventional to English, while understanding what was conventional for the original language. The fact is that the writer equates "Word" with "God" in the passage. So it is correct to capitalize "Word" in that context.

You also seem to assume that the church is the source of all truth and that to leave it is to leave the truth.

No, I assume that the Church is the body of Christ, that the Apostles are in charge of it in Jesus' stead, and that their teaching is still in force, as Paul admonishes us to "continue in the Apostles' teaching, in the breaking of bread (something that is done in community -- not alone), and the prayers (that is, the prayers of the church). When we leave that, we're leaving behind the holy community that is God, for the Church is comprised of people who are one in Spirit.

Check your premise. Did I not show you where everyone abandoned Paul before he even died (2 Tim 1:15)? I believe I also asked when did the church return to the truth Paul declared in his letters. I've done enough of my own research to understand that as of today, they are still out in left field.

Your research is lacking. The best researchers rely on other, peer-reviewed research. you jappear to dismiss that.

They value tradition over the scripture.

Scripture is part of Tradition, but is not the whole Tradition. It's always been the case to value Tradition, and to weigh the texts.

Doesn't that mean anything to you that never once during 12 years did we open an actual Bible?

Was it a Bible study? Or was it a theological study, or a history lesson, or something else?

I guess you might think that the Bible is only for post graduate students, but the book itself claims to be so simple that even a fool can understand it.

Are the fools who read it of the same culture as those who wrote it? Do they read the languages in which it was written? do they live in the same time frame or area of the world in which it was written? All these things impose filters upon understanding that have to be stripped away before we can really arrive at a legitimate interpretation. I guarantee you that the people who translate and those who provide peer-reviewed exegetical commentaries are post-grads.

 

[Soapy]

I'll need a specific reference before I can address it.

Sojourner, are you saying that you do t know the verse I presented to you? You need to have all things EXplicitly shown to you: chapter, verse, page number, line number, and location on the line?

How are you refuting what is said to you when you have no idea of anything to do with scriptures?? I notice that in order to aid your lack of knowledge, you tend to suggest you don’t know where the presented text is found - great for not answering - Huh!!!

Fact is, you don't want to debate, you want to preach. Like every other really bad preacher, instead of presenting truth, all your posts are doing is slinging accusations. They come off as ill-informed and angry. It's really sad that, as far as argument and proof goes, this is all you've got.

Angry??? No no no!!! I’m laughing (sadly!!) I’m going to let you into a small secret... I’m a student of psychology... and your little game makes me laugh!! YES, frustrating that you do it... no lie... you are devilishly disingenuous, responding with the least information to make it seem to appear you are answering but actually you are presenting empty statements and refutations.

There is a case of a child who thought he was ‘clever’. He put a wooden measuring rule behind his back and went into the kitchen where his mother was cooking. He said, “Mom, I bet you can’t tell me what I’ve got behind me!”. Mom, who had her back to him, turned round and, not willing to play the game..., said, “It’s a ruler”......... The boy, frustrated that he had been ‘found out’, became disingenuous: “No, it’s not....!”. Mom was annoyed by the obvious ‘LIE’, smarted back at her son: “Of course it is... I can see it sticking up ... I was the one that bought it for you... why are you saying it isn’t that ruler??”. The boy, upset that his little scam hadn’t worked, decided that he couldn’t let mom win: “Its not a ruler.... it’s a piece of wood... it’s a piece of wood with marks on it!!”. Mom sent him to his room to teach him a lesson... (obviously before the days where kids have everything of indulgence in their bedrooms!).

So what the point here? Sojourner, it’s to say that you are that little boy presenting a game to us thinking you are clever!! Your presentation following the truth ring shown to you is disingenuous and you cannot admit that you can see the truth of the facts. So you squibble and respond with ‘nothing’ answers and pretences that you don’t know the scriptures shown to you.

It IS TRUE that the wooden ruler is a STICK with marks on it.... but it is a designed strip of a stick purposely with explicit markings - not JUST [random] ones. So, Jesus is a MAN, but not just an ordinary man but one who was born without sin due to having no HUMAN FATHER just as ADAM was born not from a human Father. In fact, Both were ‘made to be alive’ by the breathe of The Father: God : YHWH.

In your ‘doctrine’ (whatever that is) Jesus, I think you said, was given a body by God... oh... BY GOD... but Jesus you say, IS GOD!! So he gave himself his body... but then there is the quote:

• ‘A BODY YOU PREPARED FOR ME’

which you attribute to Jesus saying so concerning GOD... but both the Father and the Son (Jesus) are the self-same GOD.

Why, in your doctrine, are you suggesting that Jesus, who you say is co-equal to the Father, needed the Father to create a body for him when he could have done it himself... oh, I mean, ... well, who, which of them is Jesus thanking for the creation of the body?

Just out if interest, what is your synonyms for ‘God’... and also, ‘Father’, and ‘Son’?

I need to understand how you see ‘God’, ‘Father’, and ‘Son’ fit into your doctrinal claims!

Please answer adequately as it is very important for me to understand what your doctrine is concerning!

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner, are you saying that you do t know the verse I presented to you? You need to have all things EXplicitly shown to you: chapter, verse, page number, line number, and location on the line?

There are a number of verses that speak about humanity being "heirs." I'm not a mind-reader, so you need to let me know which one you have in mind.

How are you refuting what is said to you when you have no idea of anything to do with scriptures??

How are you refuting what is said to you when you have no idea of the scriptures you wish to quote?

I notice that in order to aid your lack of knowledge, you tend to suggest you don’t know where the presented text is found - great for not answering - Huh!!!

I notice that in order to aid your lack of knowledge, you project that lack upon me to make yourself look more knowledgeable, as in the case above.

Angry??? No no no!!! I’m laughing (sadly!!)

Faux superiority.

I’m going to let you into a small secret... I’m a student of psychology...

Oooohh! A student. Keep studying. I'm going to let you in on a little secret: I'm not a "student" of the Bible; it's my profession.

There is a case of a child who thought he was ‘clever’.

Aaaaand now we get to the bottom of the barrel: an ad hominem attack, because you got nothing else.

In your ‘doctrine’ (whatever that is) Jesus, I think you said, was given a body by God

The " 'doctrine' " is the doctrine of the Trinity. Read it. Learn it. Live it.
Oh, and I never said that "Jesus was given a body by God." This is another straw man, because that ain't what happened. According to the " 'doctrine.' "

Why, in your doctrine, are you suggesting that Jesus, who you say is co-equal to the Father, needed the Father to create a body for him when he could have done it himself

See above. If you'd read the doctrine, then you'd know what it said, and you wouldn't need to post these ridiculous misrepresentations.

I need to understand how you see ‘God’, ‘Father’, and ‘Son’ fit into your doctrinal claims!

See above.

Please answer adequately as it is very important for me to understand what your doctrine is concerning!

See above. Read. The. Doctrine.

 

[rrobs]

I said,

"Check your premise. Did I not show you where everyone abandoned Paul before he even died (2 Tim 1:15)? I believe I also asked when did the church return to the truth Paul declared in his letters. I've done enough of my own research to understand that as of today, they are still out in left field."​

You replied,

Your research is lacking. The best researchers rely on other, peer-reviewed research. you appear to dismiss that.

Clement was supposedly the first Pope. As such he was presumably the first in a long line of what would eventually become the orthodox church, the one that most people followed. Here's a few things he said in his letter to the Corinthians,

1 Clem. 5:4 There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory.​

1 Clem. 5:6 having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.​

1 Clem. 6:2 By reason of jealousy women being persecuted, after that they had suffered cruel and unholy insults as Danaids and Dircae, safely reached the goal in the race of faith, and received a noble reward, feeble though they were in body.​

Clearly Clement believed in life after death, that a person doesn't really die, but instead they go to their appointed place of glory, unto a holy place, that they receive a noble reward. Notice all the verb tenses are in the past, so it must be understood by the reader that these people were already in the place of glory, the holy place where they already received a noble reward. In other words, Clement, the standard bearer for truth for what would become the the accepted doctrine of the orthodox church, believed that the dead are not really dead, that they are alive and quite well on some unnamed ethereal plane of existence enjoying glory, holiness, and rewards.

Of course to do that, it was necessary to believe the Babylonian/Greek/Egyptian mythology stories about the immortality of the soul. Clement was not alone in following Aristotle, Plato, and other philosophers. It is a fact that most of the leaders that succeeded him also were quite fond of mixing the scriptures with Greek philosophy. It was almost a sport for them. If anyone today wants to study the immortal soul, it becomes necessary to study these philosophers because there is nothing in the scriptures about such an idea. I'll get to that in a second.

In any case, such was the foundation of what would become the orthodox church. They believed in an immortal soul, that the dead aren't really dead, that they go to a better place (or worse place I guess).

God and the devil had completely different ideas on the matter of life after death.

Gen 2:17,

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
​

That's what God said. I assume you know of the many verses that describe death as a place where there is no thoughts, no consciousness, no awareness of anything. As such it is hardly a place of glory, a holy place, or a noble reward. In 1 Corinthians 15:26 we read that God calls death an enemy, again, hardly a place of glory, holiness, or rewards. None of those things even resemble an enemy.

Gen 3:4,

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
​

That's what the devil said. It's also what Clement, the presumed founder of the orthodox church, said.

When has the orthodox church gotten back to the truth about death? Have you ever heard a sermon where minister/priest said the dead are all dead in the grave awaiting the return of Jesus when they finally will be resurrected out of the grave as the scriptures clearly declare (if you need the scriptures on that, let me know)?

If we have an immortal soul, if we don't really die, then it is a slam dunk to introduce the eternally existing Jesus, the one that lived before he was born. Once we have an eternal Jesus it is a quick step to make him God. At that point we are worshiping another God, not the one true God, but a grotesque, unknowable, three of whatever in one god. We also end up preaching another Jesus whom Paul did not preach.

When you consider that Paul declared before he even died that everyone had turned against him, as well a the blatant lie promulgated by the so-called first pope, it begs the question; when did the orthodox church return to the things Paul taught? That is a very specific question that I've yet to have answered by anyone. That is easy to explain, the orthodox church has yet to return to the truth concerning death and the savior who redeemed us from death.

So, would you care to speculate when the orthodox church got back to Paul's teaching, the one that everybody rejected during his lifetime? Please don't dance around the word structure or style of my writing. Just try to answer the simple question of when the orthodox church recovered the truth. If you have a good answer, I'll gladly reconsider my position. I don't even care if your answer is not peer reviewed.

I've highlighted the word "orthodox" in order to make it plain that I am not speaking of the church that Jesus is building, the Church of the Body of which he is the head.

Take care

 

[rrobs]

In fact, I've reiterated what the doctrine clearly says....I've repeatedly said that the "Father is not the Son."

Exactly! Now put that together with,

1Cor 8:6a,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father...
​

and explain how Jesus can be God.

 

[Soapy]

Exactly! Now put that together with, 1 Cor 8:6a,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father...
​

and explain how Jesus can be God.

Sojourner will argue that Jesus is God but not the Father... by stating that it’s what the doctrine says (Notice that we still don’t know what ‘doctrine’ he is referring to...!)

He will deny knowledge of the verse and demand you say where you got it from...Thus not actually supplying an appropriate answer.

He will claim that your ‘straw man’ is present again here because you are ‘putting together’ two disparate verses and then ‘knocking them down’!

These are the three basic strategies he is using - repeatedly!

He claims that my analogy of a child being disingenuous is an odhominem... This is the usual tactic when a trinitarian realises he’s been found out... Effectively, let’s say, like a snake in a box, or a wild animal in a cave... it’s always wise to leave room for the frightened fear filled creature to escape otherwise you put yourself in grave(!) danger.

The deceiver doesn’t like to see his children outsmarted by a truth speaker! Remember that the kingdom we are in is ruled by the GOD of it.. the ruler of this order (or mis-order) of things!

 

[sojourner]

Clement was supposedly the first Pope. As such he was presumably the first in a long line of what would eventually become the orthodox church, the one that most people followed. Here's a few things he said in his letter to the Corinthians,

1 Clem. 5:4 There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory.​

1 Clem. 5:6 having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.​

1 Clem. 6:2 By reason of jealousy women being persecuted, after that they had suffered cruel and unholy insults as Danaids and Dircae, safely reached the goal in the race of faith, and received a noble reward, feeble though they were in body.​

Clearly Clement believed in life after death, that a person doesn't really die, but instead they go to their appointed place of glory, unto a holy place, that they receive a noble reward. Notice all the verb tenses are in the past, so it must be understood by the reader that these people were already in the place of glory, the holy place where they already received a noble reward. In other words, Clement, the standard bearer for truth for what would become the the accepted doctrine of the orthodox church, believed that the dead are not really dead, that they are alive and quite well on some unnamed ethereal plane of existence enjoying glory, holiness, and rewards.

Of course to do that, it was necessary to believe the Babylonian/Greek/Egyptian mythology stories about the immortality of the soul. Clement was not alone in following Aristotle, Plato, and other philosophers. It is a fact that most of the leaders that succeeded him also were quite fond of mixing the scriptures with Greek philosophy. It was almost a sport for them. If anyone today wants to study the immortal soul, it becomes necessary to study these philosophers because there is nothing in the scriptures about such an idea. I'll get to that in a second.

In any case, such was the foundation of what would become the orthodox church. They believed in an immortal soul, that the dead aren't really dead, that they go to a better place (or worse place I guess).

God and the devil had completely different ideas on the matter of life after death.

Gen 2:17,

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
​

That's what God said. I assume you know of the many verses that describe death as a place where there is no thoughts, no consciousness, no awareness of anything. As such it is hardly a place of glory, a holy place, or a noble reward. In 1 Corinthians 15:26 we read that God calls death an enemy, again, hardly a place of glory, holiness, or rewards. None of those things even resemble an enemy.

Gen 3:4,

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
​

That's what the devil said. It's also what Clement, the presumed founder of the orthodox church, said.

When has the orthodox church gotten back to the truth about death? Have you ever heard a sermon where minister/priest said the dead are all dead in the grave awaiting the return of Jesus when they finally will be resurrected out of the grave as the scriptures clearly declare (if you need the scriptures on that, let me know)?

If we have an immortal soul, if we don't really die, then it is a slam dunk to introduce the eternally existing Jesus, the one that lived before he was born. Once we have an eternal Jesus it is a quick step to make him God. At that point we are worshiping another God, not the one true God, but a grotesque, unknowable, three of whatever in one god. We also end up preaching another Jesus whom Paul did not preach.

When you consider that Paul declared before he even died that everyone had turned against him, as well a the blatant lie promulgated by the so-called first pope, it begs the question; when did the orthodox church return to the things Paul taught? That is a very specific question that I've yet to have answered by anyone. That is easy to explain, the orthodox church has yet to return to the truth concerning death and the savior who redeemed us from death.

So, would you care to speculate when the orthodox church got back to Paul's teaching, the one that everybody rejected during his lifetime? Please don't dance around the word structure or style of my writing. Just try to answer the simple question of when the orthodox church recovered the truth. If you have a good answer, I'll gladly reconsider my position. I don't even care if your answer is not peer reviewed.

I've highlighted the word "orthodox" in order to make it plain that I am not speaking of the church that Jesus is building, the Church of the Body of which he is the head.

Take care

1) You're no bible scholar, religious history scholar, or theologian, so you've got no street cred here.
2) The orthodox Faith is within the Apostolic Faith, so your highlighting means nothing.
3) You're probably not aware that the Gospels were written after Paul's confirmed writings, and both Paul and the Gospels are heavily influenced by Platonism.
4) Satan patently does not appear in Genesis, and to infer that the character is there shows a lack of concern for what the texts actually say. Satan is a pagan character -- not a Hebrew character.
5) Clement was not the first Bishop of Rome. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, followed by Linus (who was Roman) and then Anacletus (who was Greek).

The teachings of the Church in this particular regard never changed from that of Apostolic teaching, so "going back" to Paul is a moot question. I don't know where you got this cock and bull that we don't have an immortal soul, but you've clearly been misled. Jesus said from the cross that the thief would be with him that day in paradise. Jesus told his disciples that he was going to prepare a place for them, where they would follow. In fact, he told them the story of Lazarus and the rich man, indicating a sentient life after death.

 

[sojourner]

Exactly! Now put that together with,

1Cor 8:6a,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father...
​

and explain how Jesus can be God.

Jesus is God because Philippians 2 tells us so: Jesus, though he was in the form of God ... being found in human form, became obedient to death on a cross.

 

[rrobs]

Sojourner will argue that Jesus is God but not the Father... by stating that it’s what the doctrine says (Notice that we still don’t know what ‘doctrine’ he is referring to...!)

He will deny knowledge of the verse and demand you say where you got it from...Thus not actually supplying an appropriate answer.

He will claim that your ‘straw man’ is present again here because you are ‘putting together’ two disparate verses and then ‘knocking them down’!

These are the three basic strategies he is using - repeatedly!

He claims that my analogy of a child being disingenuous is an odhominem... This is the usual tactic when a trinitarian realises he’s been found out... Effectively, let’s say, like a snake in a box, or a wild animal in a cave... it’s always wise to leave room for the frightened fear filled creature to escape otherwise you put yourself in grave(!) danger.

The deceiver doesn’t like to see his children outsmarted by a truth speaker!

Aughhhh, you're just a student so what can you know?

We need the "professionals" to tell us what's what in the scriptures? I don't think so. It reminds me of what Paul thought about his higher education, " and do count them [but] dung,"

Remember that the kingdom we are in is ruled by the GOD of it.. the ruler of this order (or mis-order) of things!

I was talking to a brother about the current state of affairs in the world. He said, "Yeah, but we must remember God is in control." Yuck, yuck, yuck! Don't be telling me my God is responsible for the current state of affairs!

What do Christians mean by saying God is in control? Do they think God is up there making a mess of everything while the devil sits back and enjoys the show? When they say, "God took little Johnny because He wanted another flower in heaven," all I hear them saying is, "God murdered little Johnny because He is selfish and couldn't care less about little Johnny's parents." I mean, what's the difference? And that's what they spew from the pulpit at every funeral. The same lie the devil told Eve, "ye shall not surely die." With that as a doctrinal starting point, it's no wonder they don't even know the true God and His son, Jesus Christ.

Who's in charge? Well, for those who don't claim the promises of God, Christians included, the devil is in charge. God wants to do things for us, but He gave His dominion to Adam who in turn gave it to Satan.

But once someone confesses Jesus as Lord and believes God raised him from among the dead (Rom 10:9-10), they have a say in what happens to them. I wish I could remember where I learned this, but it's always stuck with me:

A Christian always has God voting for them while the devil is always voting against them. It is up to the individual Christian to break the tie!​

Sadly way to many vote for the devil. The born again believer who understand the power they have in Christ, is the one in charge of what happens in their life as well as shining a light for the entire world that no amount of darkness can extinguish. People should be calling Christians heroes. We're the only thing saving their butt from a much worse-off world than we have now.

God bless.

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner will argue that Jesus is God but not the Father... by stating that it’s what the doctrine says (Notice that we still don’t know what ‘doctrine’ he is referring to...!)

Notice that there is a thing called the Doctrine of the Trinity. That's the doctrine I'm speaking of. It's written out specifically, and contains specific theological ideas. If you don't know what you're arguing against (the doctrine), how can you argue effectively?

He will deny knowledge of the verse and demand you say where you got it from...Thus not actually supplying an appropriate answer.

In fact, I acknowledged that there are several verses such as the one you mentioned, so this is an outright lie.

He will claim that your ‘straw man’ is present again here because you are ‘putting together’ two disparate verses and then ‘knocking them down’!

That's not what I claimed. I claimed that you were making untrue statements about the doctrine, claiming them to be true, and then knocking down those untruths.

He claims that my analogy of a child being disingenuous is an odhominem

And so it is.

Effectively, let’s say, like a snake in a box, or a wild animal in a cave... it’s always wise to leave room for the frightened fear filled creature to escape otherwise you put yourself in grave(!) danger.

Please! More faux superiority.

The deceiver doesn’t like to see his children outsmarted by a truth speaker! Remember that the kingdom we are in is ruled by the GOD of it.. the ruler of this order (or mis-order) of things!

Someone here is a deceiver, but it ain't me. This post alone is full of deceit and lies.