The Trinity

[Shiranui117]

Its the truth, the world is rejecting truth that is why few find the narrow gate to enter to walk on the cramped road leading to eternal life. Just like Jesus said--FEW will find it). Because from generation to generation from parent to child the false truth founded at catholicism councils have been handed down as truth. Satan took the people of today centuries ago.

Oh, please. Point to even one heretic who says that Jesus was the Archangel Michael. If this idea of yours was present during the start of Christianity, and isn't a 20th-century fabrication, then you should be able to find someone, ANYONE from the first THOUSAND YEARS of Christianity who says that Jesus=Archangel Michael.

 

[sojourner]

Oh, please. Point to even one heretic who says that Jesus was the Archangel Michael. If this idea of yours was present during the start of Christianity, and isn't a 20th-century fabrication, then you should be able to find someone, ANYONE from the first THOUSAND YEARS of Christianity who says that Jesus=Archangel Michael.

Have you read John D. Zizioulas? I'm not Orthodox, but I find my beliefs on the Trinity pretty close to him -- closer than Augustine; is he quintessential Orthodox, or do you know?

 

[InChrist]

yes and yes

[FONT=&quot]So if “wisdom” spoken of in Proverbs 8 is literally Jesus Christ as you say, then you must believe that in context the “wisdom” spoken of in chapters 1-9 is also literally Christ, correct?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Can you tell me then who Jesus lives with who is called “Prudence”? ([/FONT]I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, And find out knowledge and discretion. Proverbs 8:12)

In Proverbs 1:20-21 it says: “Wisdom” calls aloud outside; She raises her voice in the open squares. She cries out in the chief concourses, At the openings of the gates in the city She speaks her words…

Is Jesus a woman who cries out in the city?


If “wisdom” in these chapters of Proverbs had a beginning and is referring to Christ being produced and before such time He/wisdom did not exist, are you then saying that until that point Jehovah God did not have wisdom? What kind of a God is that?



I would like to see a reference verse that says Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel. Thanks.

 

[Shermana]

[FONT=&quot]So if “wisdom” spoken of in Proverbs 8 is literally Jesus Christ as you say, then you must believe that in context the “wisdom” spoken of in chapters 1-9 is also literally Christ, correct?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Can you tell me then who Jesus lives with who is called “Prudence”? ([/FONT]I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, And find out knowledge and discretion. Proverbs 8:12)

In Proverbs 1:20-21 it says: “Wisdom” calls aloud outside; She raises her voice in the open squares. She cries out in the chief concourses, At the openings of the gates in the city She speaks her words…

Is Jesus a woman who cries out in the city?


If “wisdom” in these chapters of Proverbs had a beginning and is referring to Christ being produced and before such time He/wisdom did not exist, are you then saying that until that point Jehovah God did not have wisdom? What kind of a God is that?



I would like to see a reference verse that says Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel. Thanks.

Again, as the Reactionary Trinitarian site Tektonics agrees (and numerous other Trinitarians) and with what Philo says, it's not so much that God didn't possess wisdom, it's that He made the personification of His wisdom as the Firstborn of Creation as a separate and independent Being who serves as the vehicle of which all things were made THROUGH (not "by" as in originated, but "By" as in the outlet/vehicle). And again, this concept was likely borrowed by the early Gnostics who considered "Sophia" to be the first being, the independent personification of Wisdom as well. We see this concept repeated in Wisdom of Solomon.

I wouldn't say Michael was this incarnation of Wisdom however.

 

[Shiranui117]

Have you read John D. Zizioulas? I'm not Orthodox, but I find my beliefs on the Trinity pretty close to him -- closer than Augustine; is he quintessential Orthodox, or do you know?

No, I haven't read his works, nor am I particularly well-acquainted with what he's said. He is widely regarded, though I don't think I would call him "quintessential" for us Orthodox. Apparently his ideas of personhood and the human person have been met with some mixed reviews, however.

If I may, could I ask what ideas he has about the Trinity, and how yours differ or are similar?

 

[james2ko]

Perhaps we can continue our discussion here from DIR thread:

False dilemma. There are more options than that.

1. And they are?

The early Christians couldn't base doctrine on something that wouldn't be compiled until 367 at the earliest.

2. Then what scriptures was Paul talking about?

Moreover, there was no such thing as Sola Scriptura before the 1500's. One cannot take Scripture out of the larger context of Sacred Tradition.

3. Funny..Christ thought it was the other way around::

Mar_7:13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."

Sorry, no room for Binitarianism there.

4. James T Dennison, Jr, Th.m, a trinitarian and Academic Dean and Professor of Church History and Biblical Theology at Northwest Theological Seminary, begs to differ:

"Finally, Arius repudiates the consubstantiality of the Son. "If the terms 'from Him' and 'from the womb' and 'I came forth from the Father and I come' be understood by some to mean as if a part of Him, being consubstantial, or as an issue, then the Father is according to them compounded and divisible." Arius opposes any consubstantial (homoousios) nature of the Son with the Father because this would topple his divine Monad and make him not Unitarian, but (at least) Binatarian (the Father is essential God and the Son is essential God, both co-essential). Arius's whole career was a repudiation of consubstantial persons in the Godhead, whether two or three. Here he states that repudiation plainly and clearly."​

KERUX V17 N2 A5

 

[Shiranui117]

1. And they are?

It was immediately clear that Who Christ was would be the first question on everyone's mind. If you noticed, all seven Ecumenical Councils were intrinsically bound up with Who Christ was, and how we should view Him. The God-man Who lived among us for 33 years, upon whose teachings and Resurrection our entire religion was founded, was certainly the first priority in defining Who He was. Since we did not have as intimate or as many experiences with the Holy Spirit as with Christ, it is only natural that the Holy Spirit was less understood in the beginning. We knew He would be the Paraclete and the Comforter, and that He would guide us after Christ ascended. However, it would be a while before anyone got around to trying to define exactly Who the Holy Spirit was, and what His relationship to God was. Before then, though, it was the person of Christ that we needed to identify.

tl;dr, the exact Personhood of the Holy Spirit wasn't as pressing an issue as the Person of Christ given the circumstances, so you'll excuse Paul if he seems to be spending more time identifying Jesus as God than the Holy Spirit.

2. Then what scriptures was Paul talking about?

"Scripture" simply means "writing." He was referring to the early Gospel texts (John's Gospel hadn't even been written at this point), and the various epistles and letters that were floating around the various churches.

Paul was also probably referring to the Septuagint with that quote. However, if you note, 2 Timothy 3:16 doesn't say that ONLY Scripture was useful for teaching, doctrine, etc. He just says that Scripture IS useful.

Also if you look below, Paul said to hold fast to the traditions delivered either by WORD OR Epistle. Word as in, word of mouth. λόγος is the exact word used there, and it means spoken word. In other words, the entire teaching of the Apostles is to be considered, not just what was written down, but also including oral teaching that was passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth, and oftentimes wound up in the Liturgy and in Saints' writings, homilies, debates, councils and teachings. This entire teaching of the Apostles is the Apostolic Tradition, not just the bits and pieces that became the Bible.

3. Funny..Christ thought it was the other way around::Mar_7:13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."

Context, please:

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men[c] —the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’;[d] and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’[e] 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Christ was not criticizing any concept of tradition. Rather, He was criticizing how the Pharisees had taken the Tradition handed down to them by God and delivered by Moses, and transformed it into a legalistic, man-made tradition that it was never meant to be. Contrast this with the Church, which seeks only to preserve the faith handed down by Christ, through the Apostles.

Paul talks constantly about preserving the Tradition, but not a man-made tradition, but the Tradition of Faith, the same Faith which was given to us by Christ. That Faith IS the Apostolic Tradition, and it is this Tradition, not a tradition of men, but of God, that has been transmitted from the ages, "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3)

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

2 Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus

Also, if we take Scripture out of the Tradition in which it was written, how are we supposed to interpret Scripture? Men won't understand Scripture in and of themselves, and anyone with the brain the size of a monkey's can say that the Holy Spirit inspired their interpretation. But hey, 1 Timothy 3:15, the Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth. The church founded by Christ interprets the faith taught by Christ. Amazing!

Above all, don't forget that even the Devil can quote Scripture and use it effectively.

Oh, and don't forget, we only have the canon of the Bible BECAUSE OF Tradition. The NT canon was decided by looking at what books and letters were read during the Liturgy(Liturgy being another part of Tradition). The letters and Gospels that everyone read from in church were included in the Bible, and those that were not shared by all of Christianity were left out, even if they were perfectly Orthodox, and were still used by Christians afterwards, despite them not being part of the Bible. Some great examples are the Epistles of Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Plus, I just love 1 Timothy 3:15 so much, here's the full verse so you can see:
but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

I love that line. Don't you?

4. James T Dennison, Jr, Th.m, a trinitarian and Academic Dean and Professor of Church History and Biblical Theology at Northwest Theological Seminary, begs to differ:

"Finally, Arius repudiates the consubstantiality of the Son. "If the terms 'from Him' and 'from the womb' and 'I came forth from the Father and I come' be understood by some to mean as if a part of Him, being consubstantial, or as an issue, then the Father is according to them compounded and divisible." Arius opposes any consubstantial (homoousios) nature of the Son with the Father because this would topple his divine Monad and make him not Unitarian, but (at least) Binatarian (the Father is essential God and the Son is essential God, both co-essential). Arius's whole career was a repudiation of consubstantial persons in the Godhead, whether two or three. Here he states that repudiation plainly and clearly."​

KERUX V17 N2 A5

Oh, I LOVE it when people post things that disprove their own arguments. Look at what I bolded. Arius OPPOSES the Son being consubstantial with the Father, because Arius doesn't want God to be viewed as Binitarian or Trinitarian, and he spent his entire career trying to prove that the Father was the only true God, and that the Son was not a second Person in a Binity.

You would do well to read your sources before you post something that completely disproves your own position. Mr. Dennison completely agrees with me. Arius was no Binitarian, and he would have been appalled at the idea.

 

[InChrist]

Again, as the Reactionary Trinitarian site Tektonics agrees (and numerous other Trinitarians) and with what Philo says, it's not so much that God didn't possess wisdom, it's that He made the personification of His wisdom as the Firstborn of Creation as a separate and independent Being who serves as the vehicle of which all things were made THROUGH (not "by" as in originated, but "By" as in the outlet/vehicle). And again, this concept was likely borrowed by the early Gnostics who considered "Sophia" to be the first being, the independent personification of Wisdom as well. We see this concept repeated in Wisdom of Solomon.

I wouldn't say Michael was this incarnation of Wisdom however.

[FONT=&quot]Tektonics' website and others who understand the triune nature of God and the deity of Christ may agree in the sense that the Son (who became human in the person of Jesus) embodies wisdom because wisdom is one of God’s eternal attributes and characteristics, so the Son who is the second Person of the Godhead also has this same eternal attribute of wisdom. But they do not share the Watchtower teaching, or your idea, that at some point the Son had a beginning any more than God’s wisdom had a beginning, since it is eternal, as is the Son of God.[/FONT]

 

[james2ko]

It was immediately clear that Who Christ was would be the first question on everyone's mind. If you noticed, all seven Ecumenical Councils were intrinsically bound up with Who Christ was, and how we should view Him. The God-man Who lived among us for 33 years, upon whose teachings and Resurrection our entire religion was founded, was certainly the first priority in defining Who He was. Since we did not have as intimate or as many experiences with the Holy Spirit as with Christ, it is only natural that the Holy Spirit was less understood in the beginning. We knew He would be the Paraclete and the Comforter, and that He would guide us after Christ ascended. However, it would be a while before anyone got around to trying to define exactly Who the Holy Spirit was, and what His relationship to God was. Before then, though, it was the person of Christ that we needed to identify.

tl;dr, the exact Personhood of the Holy Spirit wasn't as pressing an issue as the Person of Christ given the circumstances, so you'll excuse Paul if he seems to be spending more time identifying Jesus as God than the Holy Spirit.

1. So what you are saying is the person who communed personally with Christ and was chosen to write more of the NT than anyone else did not fully understand the nature of God. But those centuries later did???? I may have been born at night, but not last night

"Scripture" simply means "writing." He was referring to the early Gospel texts (John's Gospel hadn't even been written at this point), and the various epistles and letters that were floating around the various churches.

Paul was also probably referring to the Septuagint with that quote. However, if you note, 2 Timothy 3:16 doesn't say that ONLY Scripture was useful for teaching, doctrine, etc. He just says that Scripture IS useful.

Also if you look below, Paul said to hold fast to the traditions delivered either by WORD OR Epistle. Word as in, word of mouth. λόγος is the exact word used there, and it means spoken word. In other words, the entire teaching of the Apostles is to be considered, not just what was written down, but also including oral teaching that was passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth, and oftentimes wound up in the Liturgy and in Saints' writings, homilies, debates, councils and teachings. This entire teaching of the Apostles is the Apostolic Tradition, not just the bits and pieces that became the Bible.

2. Here's where we differ. We do not consider any writings other than what is recorded in the pages of the bible as "Holy Writ."

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men[c] —the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’;[d] and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’[e] 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Christ was not criticizing any concept of tradition. Rather, He was criticizing how the Pharisees had taken the Tradition handed down to them by God and delivered by Moses, and transformed it into a legalistic, man-made tradition that it was never meant to be. Contrast this with the Church, which seeks only to preserve the faith handed down by Christ, through the Apostles.

Paul talks constantly about preserving the Tradition, but not a man-made tradition, but the Tradition of Faith, the same Faith which was given to us by Christ. That Faith IS the Apostolic Tradition, and it is this Tradition, not a tradition of men, but of God, that has been transmitted from the ages, "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3)

3. He also warned about being deceived by human philosophy and traditions of man:

Col_2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.​

We believe the trinity was not taught by Christ but was concocted centuries later by human philosophy and has been transformed into a tradition of man. This is the real reason for Paul's lack of salutation of the HS with the Father and Son.

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

2Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus

4. Just as Paul delivered it to them--not Tertullian or anyone in the future.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

5. Traditions you were taught [past tense] . Paul never taught the trinity. Neither did John who wrote later.

Also, if we take Scripture out of the Tradition in which it was written, how are we supposed to interpret Scripture? Men won't understand Scripture in and of themselves, and anyone with the brain the size of a monkey's can say that the Holy Spirit inspired their interpretation. But hey, 1 Timothy 3:15, the Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth. The church founded by Christ interprets the faith taught by Christ. Amazing!

Above all, don't forget that even the Devil can quote Scripture and use it effectively.

Oh, and don't forget, we only have the canon of the Bible BECAUSE OF Tradition. The NT canon was decided by looking at what books and letters were read during the Liturgy(Liturgy being another part of Tradition). The letters and Gospels that everyone read from in church were included in the Bible, and those that were not shared by all of Christianity were left out, even if they were perfectly Orthodox, and were still used by Christians afterwards, despite them not being part of the Bible. Some great examples are the Epistles of Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Plus, I just love 1 Timothy 3:15 so much, here's the full verse so you can see:
but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

I love that line. Don't you?

6. Here's where we differ once again. We do not consider any person or group that came out of the RC church as the "church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth". Although, some of their writings do contain elements of truth.

Oh, I LOVE it when people post things that disprove their own arguments. Look at what I bolded. Arius OPPOSES the Son being consubstantial with the Father, because Arius doesn't want God to be viewed as Binitarian or Trinitarian, and he spent his entire career trying to prove that the Father was the only true God, and that the Son was not a second Person in a Binity.

You would do well to read your sources before you post something that completely disproves your own position. Mr. Dennison completely agrees with me. Arius was no Binitarian, and he would have been appalled at the idea.

7. You're right. I skimmed through the text instead of carefully reading it. Nevertheless, Arius labeled Christ as a "perfect God". Thus, by the modern definition, embracing some form of binitarianism. Here's the definition again:

Binitarianism is a Christian theology of two personae, two individuals, or two aspects in one Godhead (or God)

 

[Shiranui117]

1. So what you are saying is the person who communed personally with Christ and was chosen to write more of the NT than anyone else

What do you mean, "was chosen to write more of the NT than anyone else"? I don't think anyone had a concept that they were writing any "New Testament." They were just trying to keep the Faith straight.

did not fully understand the nature of God. But those centuries later did???? I may have been born at night, but not last night

Where did I say that Paul personally did not understand that the Holy Spirit was God? All I said was that it would take a while for an exact definition, or as exact as humans can be when speaking of God. Those who were taught by the Apostles sure had an idea that the Holy Spirit was God and was worthy of worship, as I have already demonstrated. Even if hadn't yet been clearly specified, the understanding was there.

To be honest, none of us fully understands the nature of God, not now, not in the 300's, not in the first century. God is not something we can neatly put into a box and say "This is God." All we can do is draw lines denoting Who or What God is not.

2. Here's where we differ. We do not consider any writings other than what is recorded in the pages of the bible as "Holy Writ."

Oh, believe me, Scripture is Scripture. However, one cannot have Scripture interpret Scripture to get a clear understanding of what Scripture is. You need an outside source to truly determine what the Bible teaches. And why not use the same Tradition out of which the New Testament canon arose? Do you see any other way that isn't completely subjective?

3. He also warned about being deceived by human philosophy and traditions of man:

Col_2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.​

Yes, we are not to be deceived by human philosophy and man-made traditions that contradict the Truth that Christ taught. Now where does any of this condemn using Apostolic Tradition as a vehicle by which to transmit the Faith that Jesus gave to the Apostles? Where does any of this contradict the method of using the life of the Church and the work of Christians to uphold, clarify and defend the Faith against error, or to teach it to new generations?

We believe the trinity was not taught by Christ but was concocted centuries later by human philosophy and has been transformed into a tradition of man. This is the real reason for Paul's lack of salutation of the HS with the Father and Son.

Except, there is a salutation with Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Though, I'm curious: When do you think the Church got off the tracks?

4. Just as Paul delivered it to them--not Tertullian or anyone in the future.

You act as if the students of the Apostles introduced teachings that they did not inherit from the Apostles. Yet the gates of Hell will not prevail against Christ's Church. (Matthew 16:18)

5. Traditions you were taught [past tense] . Paul never taught the trinity. Neither did John who wrote later.

At least, not explicitly in the Bible. Again, the Apostles' teachings consisted of more than just the Bible. Also look at what they taught their students.

6. Here's where we differ once again. We do not consider any person or group that came out of the RC church as the "church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth". Although, some of their writings do contain elements of truth.

The early Church was NOT Roman Catholic. Rome was only one of dozens of churches including Antioch, Alexandria, Corinth, Ephesus, Jerusalem, Galatia, Philippi, etc, and the Church as a whole was Orthodox. Rome did not start claiming a monopoly on power until the 800's, and her innovations and ambitions caused her to separate from the Orthodox Church.

Also, we owe the current NT canon to Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, who first gave the list of the NT books in the year 367. You can thank a man who came out of the Church for your neat and orderly Bible.

In other words, Christians got along for more than 300 years without a definite Biblical canon, and some held extra-Biblical writings as Sacred Scripture, such as the aforementioned Shepherd of Hermas and the 1st and 2nd Epistles of St. Clement of Rome.

How do you explain that?

7. You're right. I skimmed through the text instead of carefully reading it. Nevertheless, Arius labeled Christ as a "perfect God". Thus, by the modern definition, embracing some form of binitarianism. Here's the definition again:

Binitarianism is a Christian theology of two personae, two individuals, or two aspects in one Godhead (or God)

Tell me straight up: How does Binitarianism understand the relationship between Father and Son?

-Is the Son merely a created being in Binitarianism, as Arius taught?
-In Binitarianism, is the Son only of similar essence to the Father at best, or is the Son of a completely different essence from the Father, as Arius taught?
-In Binitarianism, does God consist of two Persons, an idea that Arius vehemently repudiated?

 

[james2ko]

What do you mean, "was chosen to write more of the NT than anyone else"? I don't think anyone had a concept that they were writing any "New Testament." They were just trying to keep the Faith straight.

1. I believe Paul's comment in Gal.1:11-12 comes pretty close to acknowledging the importance of his own writings.

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."​

Although, the term New Testament was not coined until much later, I believe Paul knew his writings were of great importance and demanded preservation. This is why Paul asked Timothy to bring his books and parchments which may have included, among other things, copies of his own letters. Parchment was very expensive and difficult to write on. It was mainly used for legal and important documents warranting preservation. After Paul's death, Peter, the chief apostle, equated Paul's epistles right up there with the OT:

2Pe 3:16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.​

We cannot be dogmatic about Paul knowing his writings were going to later be labeled as scripture, but Peter had no doubt Pauls writings were going to become Holy Writ.

Where did I say that Paul personally did not understand that the Holy Spirit was God? All I said was that it would take a while for an exact definition, or as exact as humans can be when speaking of God.

2. As the scriptures attest, Paul understood it perfectly enough to exhort the Corinthians to exclusively keep his teachings as he delivered them. The trinity was definitely not one of them.

Those who were taught by the Apostles sure had an idea that the Holy Spirit was God and was worthy of worship, as I have already demonstrated. Even if hadn't yet been clearly specified, the understanding was there.

3. No offense, but you have not. All you've done is presented scriptures that contain the term Holy Spirit in the same sentence as the Father and Son and saying, there you see, the apostles taught the trinity. With that logic, I guess we can make water and blood personages too:

1Jn 5:8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.​

To be honest, none of us fully understands the nature of God, not now, not in the 300's, not in the first century. God is not something we can neatly put into a box and say "This is God." All we can do is draw lines denoting Who or What God is not.

4. I disagree. That is diametrically opposite to what Christ taught:

2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.​

Terms like "procession","eternally begotten," "consubstantial," "coeternal," and "perichoretic" do not exemplify the words of Paul. They corrupt our minds from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Oh, believe me, Scripture is Scripture. However, one cannot have Scripture interpret Scripture to get a clear understanding of what Scripture is.

5. Christ used Scripture to interpret Scripture when he was tempted by the devil:

Mat 4:6 and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: 'HE SHALL GIVE HIS ANGELS CHARGE OVER YOU,' and, IN THEIR HANDS THEY SHALL BEAR YOU UP, LEST YOU DASH YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.' " Mat 4:7 Jesus said to him, "It is written again, 'YOU SHALL NOT TEMPT THE LORD YOUR GOD.' "​

If interpreting scripture with scripture to gain understanding was good enough for our Lord and Savior, it should be good enough for us today, right?

You need an outside source to truly determine what the Bible teaches. And why not use the same Tradition out of which the New Testament canon arose? Do you see any other way that isn't completely subjective?

6. What you are describing is a commentary. They can be of value but it has to be supported by scripture--In my view, the trinity is not.

Yes, we are not to be deceived by human philosophy and man-made traditions that contradict the Truth that Christ taught. Now where does any of this condemn using Apostolic Tradition as a vehicle by which to transmit the Faith that Jesus gave to the Apostles? Where does any of this contradict the method of using the life of the Church and the work of Christians to uphold, clarify and defend the Faith against error, or to teach it to new generations?

7. But that is precisely the essence of the trinity--human philosophy and man-made traditions that contradict the truth that Christ taught.

Except, there is a salutation with Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

8. see point 3

Though, I'm curious: When do you think the Church got off the tracks?

9. Topic for another day.

You act as if the students of the Apostles introduced teachings that they did not inherit from the Apostles. Yet the gates of Hell will not prevail against Christ's Church. (Matthew 16:18)

10. They did---the trinity..

The early Church was NOT Roman Catholic. Rome was only one of dozens of churches including Antioch, Alexandria, Corinth, Ephesus, Jerusalem, Galatia, Philippi, etc, and the Church as a whole was Orthodox. Rome did not start claiming a monopoly on power until the 800's, and her innovations and ambitions caused her to separate from the Orthodox Church.

11. Precisely, so the Catholics cannot be the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3)

Also, we owe the current NT canon to Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, who first gave the list of the NT books in the year 367. You can thank a man who came out of the Church for your neat and orderly Bible.

12. The reality is that while the Catholic Church likes to claim credit for “giving the world the Bible,” they really had nothing to do with it. They simply recognized the canon that was already in existence. The only thing they argued about was removing books from it. Primarily, they desired to somehow discard James, I & II John, Hebrews, the book of Revelation. However, the books were simply too widely known and recognized to be effectively discarded. The reality is the Apostles Peter and John were responsible for creating and providing the canon of the New Testament.

In other words, Christians got along for more than 300 years without a definite Biblical canon, and some held extra-Biblical writings as Sacred Scripture, such as the aforementioned Shepherd of Hermas and the 1st and 2nd Epistles of St. Clement of Rome. How do you explain that?

13. Simple. Some Christians believed these were inspired. But God obviously did not. Hence their absence from the canon.

Tell me straight up: How does Binitarianism understand the relationship between Father and Son?

-Is the Son merely a created being in Binitarianism, as Arius taught?
-In Binitarianism, is the Son only of similar essence to the Father at best, or is the Son of a completely different essence from the Father, as Arius taught?
-In Binitarianism, does God consist of two Persons, an idea that Arius vehemently repudiated?

14. I will tell you how I believe the bible describes the relationship in its simplest form. The Son is the first created being (Col 1:15) in the "God" family (Rom 8:29) of which one day, we will have the opportunity to became part of (1 joh 3:2; Joh 10:34-36). The Son is unified in thought and purpose with the Father (Joh 10:30). As the second member of the God family, He was given the responsibility to create all things. (joh 1:3)

The nature of the God family is simple. Human philosophy has transformed it into an incomprehensible mess.

 

[Shiranui117]

2. As the scriptures attest, Paul understood it perfectly enough to exhort the Corinthians to exclusively keep his teachings as he delivered them. The trinity was definitely not one of them.

3. No offense, but you have not. All you've done is presented scriptures that contain the term Holy Spirit in the same sentence as the Father and Son and saying, there you see, the apostles taught the trinity. With that logic, I guess we can make water and blood personages too:

I'm sorry, you seem to have forgotten all this from the Christianity DIR:

>>>Also, on a side note, Polycarp, one of the personal students of St. John the Apostle, sure gave glory to Father, Son and Holy Spirit:

Wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen.

We wish you, brethren, all happiness, while you walk according to the doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; with whom be glory to God the Father and the Holy Spirit, for the salvation of His holy elect, after whose example479 the blessed Polycarp suffered, following in whose steps may we too be found in the kingdom of Jesus Christ!

And then we have Athenagoras of Athens, writing around 180:

CHAP. X.--THE CHRISTIANS WORSHIP THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST.
That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being--I have sufficiently demonstrated. [I say "His Logos"], for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (nous kai logos) of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [nous], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [logikos]; . . . The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. "The Lord," it says, "made me, the beginning of His ways to His works." The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists? Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points

Athenagoras of Athens says, in no unclear terms, that Christians worship Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

And something else from Justin Martyr:

But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him),1776 and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.

Here's the footnote given in that quote:

This is the literal and obvious translation of Justin’s words. But from c. 13, 16, and 61, it is evident that he did not desire to inculcate the worship of angels. We are therefore driven to adopt another translation of this passage, even though it be somewhat harsh. Two such translations have been proposed: the first connecting “us” and “the host of the other good angels” as the common object of the verb “taught;” the second connecting “these things” with “the host of,” etc., and making these two together the subject taught. In the first case the translation would stand, “taught these things to us and to the host,” etc.; in the second case the translation would be, “taught us about these things, and about the host of the others who follow Him, viz. the good angels.” [I have ventured to insert parenthetic marks in the text, an obvious and simple resource to suggest the manifest intent of the author. Grabe’s note in loc. gives another and very ingenious exegesis, but the simplest is best.]

And JUST in case you think this could mean that angels are worshipped along with Father, Son and Holy Spirit, further on in St. Justin Martyr's Apology...

Whence to God alone we render worship.

So, God alone is worshipped. Yet, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are worshipped together... Hmmm...<<<

^^^IOW, the students of the Apostles clearly thought of the Holy Spirit as God

4. I disagree. That is diametrically opposite to what Christ taught:
2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.Terms like "procession","eternally begotten," "consubstantial," "coeternal," and "perichoretic" do not exemplify the words of Paul. They corrupt our minds from the simplicity that is in Christ.

I think you mean "what Paul taught." And no, it's not "diametrically opposed."

The word for "simplicity" (&#7937;&#960;&#955;&#8057;&#964;&#951;&#964;&#959;&#962; in Greek) means thus:

1. singleness, simplicity, sincerity, mental honesty
   1. the virtue of one who is free from pretence and hypocrisy
2. not self seeking, openness of heart manifesting itself by generousity

NAS Word Usage - Total: 7liberality 4, simplicity 1, sincerity 2

In other words, "simplicity" would be better rendered "honesty/single-mindedness". I will also note that this fits in with the fact that 2 Corinthians 11:3 often runs as " But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity and purity that is in Christ.

So "simplicity" here doesn't mean "without a modicum of complexity," it means "honest and not-hypocritical."

And really, the concept of the Trinity itself isn't hard to explain. It's not incredibly complicated. It's just mysterious, and like God Himself, lies outside full human comprehension. And when speaking about God, we need to choose our words carefully.

5. Christ used Scripture to interpret Scripture when he was tempted by the devil:

I don't know about you, but I'm inclined to think that God the Son understands the true meaning of Scripture far better than either of us ever will.

Though, the next question is, which Scripture do we use as our starting-point for interpreting other Scripture? Which verses are "vague," being in need of interpretation by "clear" passages? Which are clear and which are vague? The answers are left up to personal opinion. Thus the sorry condition of Christianity today. Interpreting Scripture with other Scripture has just led to endless disagreement and feuding.

Therefore, I find it appalling that anyone would look at Sola Scriptura as even a somewhat reliable system. Sola Scriptura is misguided folly, not a way to truth.

 

[Shiranui117]

6. What you are describing is a commentary. They can be of value but it has to be supported by scripture--In my view, the trinity is not.

So, the source and context of the NT canon cannot be used to interpret the NT canon? Where's the logic in that?

7. But that is precisely the essence of the trinity--human philosophy and man-made traditions that contradict the truth that Christ taught.

Really? No concern for defending the Faith? Just maliciously warping the faith taught by Christ? Good luck finding support for that outside of personal opinion.

10. They did---the trinity..

Then you must hold the opinion that the Church deviated after the death of St. John. In other words, the Church founded by Christ didn't even make it to the second generation.

11. Precisely, so the Catholics cannot be the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3)

Nope, they're not.

12. The reality is that while the Catholic Church likes to claim credit for “giving the world the Bible,” they really had nothing to do with it. They simply recognized the canon that was already in existence. The only thing they argued about was removing books from it. Primarily, they desired to somehow discard James, I & II John, Hebrews, the book of Revelation. However, the books were simply too widely known and recognized to be effectively discarded. The reality is the Apostles Peter and John were responsible for creating and providing the canon of the New Testament.

And you can also thank the Orthodox Church for officially putting out the list.
Also, it's not the Catholics who wanted to take out all those books, it was the Protestants. To this day, there are seven books missing from every Protestant's Old Testament. Even more if you look at the Septuagint, which Christ and the Apostles used.

13. Simple. Some Christians believed these were inspired. But God obviously did not. Hence their absence from the canon.

Yet they are still useful for teaching and edification, and are all perfectly doctrinally sound.

14. I will tell you how I believe the bible describes the relationship in its simplest form. The Son is the first created being (Col 1:15) in the "God" family (Rom 8:29) of which one day, we will have the opportunity to became part of (1 joh 3:2; Joh 10:34-36). The Son is unified in thought and purpose with the Father (Joh 10:30). As the second member of the God family, He was given the responsibility to create all things. (joh 1:3)

The nature of the God family is simple. Human philosophy has transformed it into an incomprehensible mess.

So basically, you're something in between a Mormon, a Gnostic and an Arian? Interesting. Not meant to be derogatory, BTW

 

[kjw47]

Oh, please. Point to even one heretic who says that Jesus was the Archangel Michael. If this idea of yours was present during the start of Christianity, and isn't a 20th-century fabrication, then you should be able to find someone, ANYONE from the first THOUSAND YEARS of Christianity who says that Jesus=Archangel Michael.

Here is one, a bible writer--- 1 thess 4:16-- when Jesus returns he comes with the voice of the archangel--his voice.

 

[kjw47]

[FONT=&quot]So if “wisdom” spoken of in Proverbs 8 is literally Jesus Christ as you say, then you must believe that in context the “wisdom” spoken of in chapters 1-9 is also literally Christ, correct?[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Can you tell me then who Jesus lives with who is called “Prudence”? ([/FONT]I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, And find out knowledge and discretion. Proverbs 8:12)

In Proverbs 1:20-21 it says: “Wisdom” calls aloud outside; She raises her voice in the open squares. She cries out in the chief concourses, At the openings of the gates in the city She speaks her words…

Is Jesus a woman who cries out in the city?


If “wisdom” in these chapters of Proverbs had a beginning and is referring to Christ being produced and before such time He/wisdom did not exist, are you then saying that until that point Jehovah God did not have wisdom? What kind of a God is that?



I would like to see a reference verse that says Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel. Thanks.

1 thess 4:16-- When Jesus returns he comes with the voice of the archangel) --His voice or do you think he borrows Michaels voice--There is no one called Jesus in the ot, but he is there obviously--Gods #2 in command.

 

[Shiranui117]

Here is one, a bible writer--- 1 thess 4:16-- when Jesus returns he comes with the voice of the archangel--his voice.

16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God

You have to twist that verse around a LOT to make it seem like Jesus' voice is the voice of an archangel's. Does Jesus also come down shouting and holding a trumpet?

 

[james2ko]

So, God alone is worshipped. Yet, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are worshipped together... Hmmm...^^^IOW, the students of the Apostles clearly thought of the Holy Spirit as God. I'm sorry, you seem to have forgotten all this from the Christianity DIR:

1. I'm sorry you have forgotten my answer: We do not consider anything other than the current canon as profitable for doctrine.

The word for "simplicity" (&#7937;&#960;&#955;&#972;&#964;&#951;&#964;&#959;&#962; in Greek) means thus:singleness, simplicity, sincerity, mental honesty the virtue of one who is free from pretence and hypocrisy not self seeking, openness of heart manifesting itself by generousity NAS Word Usage - Total: 7liberality 4, simplicity 1, sincerity 2 In other words, "simplicity" would be better rendered "honesty/single-mindedness". I will also note that this fits in with the fact that 2 Corinthians 11:3 often runs as " But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity and purity that is in Christ. So "simplicity" here doesn't mean "without a modicum of complexity," it means "honest and not-hypocritical."

2. I disagree. All the definitions are characterized by an uncomplicated nature. Hence the translation of simplicity versus other available terms.

And really, the concept of the Trinity itself isn't hard to explain. It's not incredibly complicated. It's just mysterious, and like God Himself, lies outside full human comprehension. And when speaking about God, we need to choose our words carefully.

3. The members that make up the Godhead was not so mysterious and incomprehensible to Paul:

Col 2:2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, and attaining to all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the knowledge
of the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ, ​

If the trinity was such a mystery, Paul missed an excellent opportunity to tell us all about it or at least make a passing reference. But all he could come up with was the mystery of The Father and Son.. And once again, this was a guy who was personally chosen and trained by Christ to author the majority of the NT and have a major impact upon billions. Being the strict monotheist prior to his conversion, I'm certain, during Paul's training in Arabia, the topic must have been discussed. The verse quoted is his conclusion of the mystery of the Godhead. Two-- not one or three.

So, the source and context of the NT canon cannot be used to interpret the NT canon? Where's the logic in that

4. You tell me? You're the one asking the leading question which was never implied. What I said was that an interpretation should be well supported by scripture-- the trinity doctrine is not..

I don't know about you, but I'm inclined to think that God the Son understands the true meaning of Scripture far better than either of us ever will.

Though, the next question is, which Scripture do we use as our starting-point for interpreting other Scripture? Which verses are "vague," being in need of interpretation by "clear" passages? Which are clear and which are vague? The answers are left up to personal opinion. Thus the sorry condition of Christianity today. Interpreting Scripture with other Scripture has just led to endless disagreement and feuding.

Therefore, I find it appalling that anyone would look at Sola Scriptura as even a somewhat reliable system. Sola Scriptura is misguided folly, not a way to truth.

5. First you praise Christ for the knowledge and understanding of Sola Scriptura [bolded in red] which He inspired. And in the very same breath you implicate Him a fool for inspiring such misguided folly and untruth[bolded in blue] Where's the logic in that???

Really? No concern for defending the Faith? Just maliciously warping the faith taught by Christ? Good luck finding support for that outside of personal opinion.

6. I already have. Unless you dare to conclude Christ forgot to include it in Paul's training curriculum.

Then you must hold the opinion that the Church deviated after the death of St. John. In other words, the Church founded by Christ didn't even make it to the second generation.

7. It was beginning to apostatize during Paul's time:

Col 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
Gal 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,
​

And you can also thank the Orthodox Church for officially putting out the list.

8. God--not the church-- should receive the glory. No?

Also, it's not the Catholics who wanted to take out all those books, it was the Protestants. To this day, there are seven books missing from every Protestant's Old Testament. Even more if you look at the Septuagint, which Christ and the Apostles used.

9. The books were initially disputed by the Catholics. The dispute was merely resurrected by Martin Luther:

By the early 200s, Origen may have been using the same twenty-seven books as in the Catholic New Testament canon, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of the Letter to the Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation,[7] known as the Antilegomena.​

Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet they are still useful for teaching and edification, and are all perfectly doctrinally sound.

10. Paul said "all scripture" is profitable for doctrine. We've already determined the implication was that "all scripture" referred to the writings chosen by God for canonization.

So basically, you're something in between a Mormon, a Gnostic and an Arian? Interesting. Not meant to be derogatory, BTW

11. Nope. Just a Christian attempting to practice the faith once delivered.

 

[Shiranui117]

1. I'm sorry you have forgotten my answer: We do not consider anything other than the current canon as profitable for doctrine.

And why would that be? I've already shown that there are more sources of Apostolic teaching than just the Bible. Earlier, you were perfectly willing to show evidence from Church history that the early Christians were Binitarian, and now you're saying that we should only look at the Bible? Why the sudden shift from being willing to use extra-Biblical evidence to prove ancient Christian belief in the Binitarian God, to using Biblical interpretation alone?

2. I disagree. All the definitions are characterized by an uncomplicated nature. Hence the translation of simplicity versus other available terms.

Yes, "uncomplicated" as in "not hypocritical and sincere," as my definition clearly, without a shadow of a doubt, proves. You can argue with interpretation of Scripture, you can disregard the faith of the early Church, but you cannot ignore the plain definition of a word.

3. The members that make up the Godhead was not so mysterious and incomprehensible to Paul:

Col 2:2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, and attaining to all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the knowledge
of the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ, ​

If the trinity was such a mystery, Paul missed an excellent opportunity to tell us all about it or at least make a passing reference. But all he could come up with was the mystery of The Father and Son.. And once again, this was a guy who was personally chosen and trained by Christ to author the majority of the NT and have a major impact upon billions. Being the strict monotheist prior to his conversion, I'm certain, during Paul's training in Arabia, the topic must have been discussed. The verse quoted is his conclusion of the mystery of the Godhead. Two-- not one or three.

Hmm, strange, I don't see "both of the Father and of Christ" in the Greek.

Colossians 2:1-5 For I want you to know how great a struggle I have on your behalf and for those who are at Laodicea, and for all those who have not personally seen my face, 2 that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God&#8217;s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I say this so that no one will delude you with persuasive argument. 5 For even though I am absent in body, nevertheless I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good discipline and the stability of your faith in Christ.

See how that fits in better with the context?

&#7989;&#957;&#945; &#960;&#945;&#961;&#945;&#954;&#955;&#951;&#952;&#8182;&#963;&#953;&#957; &#945;&#7985; &#954;&#945;&#961;&#948;&#8055;&#945;&#953; &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#8182;&#957;, &#963;&#965;&#956;&#946;&#953;&#946;&#945;&#963;&#952;&#8051;&#957;&#964;&#949;&#962; &#7952;&#957; &#7936;&#947;&#8049;&#960;&#8131; &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#949;&#7984;&#962; &#960;&#8118;&#957; &#960;&#955;&#959;&#8166;&#964;&#959;&#962; &#964;&#8134;&#962; &#960;&#955;&#951;&#961;&#959;&#966;&#959;&#961;&#8055;&#945;&#962; &#964;&#8134;&#962; &#963;&#965;&#957;&#8051;&#963;&#949;&#969;&#962;, &#949;&#7984;&#962; &#7952;&#960;&#8055;&#947;&#957;&#969;&#963;&#953;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#8166; &#956;&#965;&#963;&#964;&#951;&#961;&#8055;&#959;&#965; &#964;&#959;&#8166; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#8166;, &#935;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#959;&#8166;, See how the Father isn't even mentioned in the original Greek? It just reads "knowledge of the mystery of God, Christ."

But, by your logic...

Romans 15:30Now I beg you, brethren, through the Lord Jesus Christ, and through the love of the Spirit, that you strive together with me in prayers to God for me,

See? We have the Son and the Spirit mentioned, with the Son being called Lord, and the love of the Spirit being mentioned, yet the Father's left out from both of these characterizations. Hmmm... Must mean the Father isn't either Lord or loving, right?

Do you see the problem with this logic?

4. You tell me? You're the one asking the leading question which was never implied. What I said was that an interpretation should be well supported by scripture-- the trinity doctrine is not..

So you think. You handwave my interpretation just as I disregard yours. Without an outside source, how do we know which one of us is right? In a case where it's one man's interpretation vs. another, it cannot always be agreed whose interpretation is right. So how do we solve it...

Oh yeah, we already have our answer from the Bible. The Church can make the correct judgment when her leaders are gathered together, since the Church is led by the Spirit.

5. First you praise Christ for the knowledge and understanding of Sola Scriptura [bolded in red] which He inspired. And in the very same breath you implicate Him a fool for inspiring such misguided folly and untruth[bolded in blue] Where's the logic in that???

You DO realize that Jesus is the "Word" of God, right? He IS the Logos, after all. I think Jesus, being the omniscient God Whom the Scriptures are all about in the first place, is on a different playing field from your fallen, imperfect, ignorant human. Jesus doesn't NEED to worry about how to interpret the Scriptures, because He IS the Truth, and He already knows everything about them.

But for us children, we do not have the same knowledge that Christ has. We are capable of incorrectly interpreting the Scriptures, very possibly to our eternal detriment. Therefore, we need a guideline by which we can interpret them. What better way than looking at those who wrote and compiled the Scriptures, and kept the Christian faith alive, handing it down from Apostle to student of Apostle?

6. I already have. Unless you dare to conclude Christ forgot to include it in Paul's training curriculum.

Hah, you think my only option is saying that Christ "forgot" it? You have offered no evidence that the Faith was ever corrupted outside from a few exhortations of "Be careful!" that prove nothing about what happened afterwards, and your own assertions about what you think the early Christians believed.

7. It was beginning to apostatize during Paul's time:

Col 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
Gal 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,​

The Galatians bit was about the Judaizing heresy (the requirement for Gentiles to be circumcised and follow Jewish law or else they won't be saved), not about the introduction of the Trinity. You would do well to go and read Galatians. It talks a lot about exactly how the Galatians were turning away from the Gospel--and to the Judaizers.

Also, if you think a couple exhortations of "Be careful!" are proof of any Great Apostasy, you're reading too much into it. Telling someone to "be careful lest you get lost in the woods" by no means implies that they WILL get lost in the woods. For the record, if you're going to try and prove the "Great Apostasy" with more verses like Colossians 2:8, I'd recommend you save yourself the trouble. You're not proving anything aside from the fact that Paul told people to watch out, much less that any "great apostasy" happened.

8. God--not the church-- should receive the glory. No?

9. The books were initially disputed by the Catholics. The dispute was merely resurrected by Martin Luther:

By the early 200s, Origen may have been using the same twenty-seven books as in the Catholic New Testament canon, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of the Letter to the Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation,[7] known as the Antilegomena.​

Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, Luther just wanted to take those books out because they disproved his position. Nothing new.

Also keep in mind that, in the 200's, the Biblical canon had not been formed yet, so there were no "canons" or "official books" to dispute.

10. Paul said "all scripture" is profitable for doctrine. We've already determined the implication was that "all scripture" referred to the writings chosen by God for canonization.

Yes, but I have shown that it doesn't mean that just the Bible is useful. There is the rest of the Apostolic literature, and the writings of the students of the Apostles, like St. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp, two personal students of St. John.

 

[james2ko]

And why would that be? I've already shown that there are more sources of Apostolic teaching than just the Bible.

1. And I've already shown, through the writings of Peter and Paul, how the sola scriptura is the only source.

Earlier, you were perfectly willing to show evidence from Church history that the early Christians were Binitarian, and now you're saying that we should only look at the Bible? Why the sudden shift from being willing to use extra-Biblical evidence to prove ancient Christian belief in the Binitarian God, to using Biblical interpretation alone?

2. You do realize there is a difference between establishing historicity and establishing doctrine?

Yes, "uncomplicated" as in "not hypocritical and sincere," as my definition clearly, without a shadow of a doubt, proves. You can argue with interpretation of Scripture, you can disregard the faith of the early Church, but you cannot ignore the plain definition of a word.

3. Nope, uncomplicated as in God gave Adam and Eve simple, uncomplicated instructions not to eat from a certain tree. If sincerity were the theme, either one of these appropriate Greek terms-- &#947;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#953;&#959;&#957; or &#949;&#953;&#955;&#953;&#954;&#961;&#953;&#957;&#949;&#953;&#945;-- would have been inspired.

Hmm, strange, I don't see "both of the Father and of Christ" in the Greek.

4. Cherry picking in a debate is never a good idea:

2:1-5 For I want you to know how great a struggle I have on your behalf and for those who are at Laodicea, and for all those who have not personally seen my face, 2 that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I say this so that no one will delude you with persuasive argument. 5 For even though I am absent in body, nevertheless I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good discipline and the stability of your faith in Christ.See how that fits in better with the context?

&#7989;&#957;&#945; &#960;&#945;&#961;&#945;&#954;&#955;&#951;&#952;&#8182;&#963;&#953;&#957; &#945;&#7985; &#954;&#945;&#961;&#948;&#943;&#945;&#953; &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#8182;&#957;, &#963;&#965;&#956;&#946;&#953;&#946;&#945;&#963;&#952;&#941;&#957;&#964;&#949;&#962; &#7952;&#957; &#7936;&#947;&#940;&#960;&#8131; &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#949;&#7984;&#962; &#960;&#8118;&#957; &#960;&#955;&#959;&#8166;&#964;&#959;&#962; &#964;&#8134;&#962; &#960;&#955;&#951;&#961;&#959;&#966;&#959;&#961;&#943;&#945;&#962; &#964;&#8134;&#962; &#963;&#965;&#957;&#941;&#963;&#949;&#969;&#962;, &#949;&#7984;&#962; &#7952;&#960;&#943;&#947;&#957;&#969;&#963;&#953;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#8166; &#956;&#965;&#963;&#964;&#951;&#961;&#943;&#959;&#965; &#964;&#959;&#8166; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#8166;, &#935;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#959;&#8166;, See how the Father isn't even mentioned in the original Greek? It just reads "knowledge of the mystery of God, Christ."

6. Hmmm strange. I dont see the term "Himself" in the Greek text YOU posted. Refuting yourself isn't a good idea either.

But, by your logic...Romans 15:30Now I beg you, brethren, through the Lord Jesus Christ, and through the love of the Spirit, that you strive together with me in prayers to God for me, See? We have the Son and the Spirit mentioned, with the Son being called Lord, and the love of the Spirit being mentioned, yet the Father's left out from both of these characterizations. Hmmm... Must mean the Father isn't either Lord or loving, right? Do you see the problem with this logic?

7. Yes I do. Your trinitarian bias will not allow you to see the difference between the person of Christ and the love exemplified "THROUGH" someone filled with the Spirit.

You DO realize that Jesus is the "Word" of God, right? He IS the Logos, after all. I think Jesus, being the omniscient God Whom the Scriptures are all about in the first place, is on a different playing field from your fallen, imperfect, ignorant human. Jesus doesn't NEED to worry about how to interpret the Scriptures, because He IS the Truth, and He already knows everything about them.

8. You DO realize you are engaging in more kettle logic. Now you're saying Christ and His Word (sola scriptura) is the truth. But you mentioned earlier that the sola scriptura is not a way to truth.

But for us children, we do not have the same knowledge that Christ has. We are capable of incorrectly interpreting the Scriptures, very possibly to our eternal detriment. Therefore, we need a guideline by which we can interpret them. What better way than looking at those who wrote and compiled the Scriptures, and kept the Christian faith alive, handing it down from Apostle to student of Apostle?

9. I am also a student of the original apostles and I can read and comprehend just as much as they could.

The Galatians bit was about the Judaizing heresy (the requirement for Gentiles to be circumcised and follow Jewish law or else they won't be saved), not about the introduction of the Trinity. You would do well to go and read Galatians. It talks a lot about exactly how the Galatians were turning away from the Gospel--and to the Judaizers.

10. Is that not still an apostasy?

Also, if you think a couple exhortations of "Be careful!" are proof of any Great Apostasy, you're reading too much into it. Telling someone to "be careful lest you get lost in the woods" by no means implies that they WILL get lost in the woods. For the record, if you're going to try and prove the "Great Apostasy" with more verses like Colossians 2:8, I'd recommend you save yourself the trouble. You're not proving anything aside from the fact that Paul told people to watch out, much less that any "great apostasy" happened.

11. And apparently, you're not reading enough...Paul earnestly warned the elders that from their own number some would depart from the faith (Acts 20:29,30). False apostles and false brethren arose within local church assemblies (1 cor 11: 13-15,26). Soon they outnumbered the faithful who made up the true church. Several years before the apostle John died he had to write his third letter about the fact that the few faithful brethren that were left were being put out of the local assembly (3 John 9,10). So yes there was an apostasy.

Yeah, Luther just wanted to take those books out because they disproved his position. Nothing new. Also keep in mind that, in the 200's, the Biblical canon had not been formed yet, so there were no "canons" or "official books" to dispute.

12. I figured you were informed enough on the topic to realize that was implicit in my statement.

, you think my only option is saying that Christ "forgot" it? You have offered no evidence that the Faith was ever corrupted outside from a few exhortations of "Be careful!" that prove nothing about what happened afterwards, and your own assertions about what you think the early Christians believed.

13. see point 11

Yes, but I have shown that it doesn't mean that just the Bible is useful. There is the rest of the Apostolic literature, and the writings of the students of the Apostles, like St. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp, two personal students of St. John.

14. You have shown nothing of the sort from the sola scriptura--only from your own biases and prejudices. Unless I missed something terribly, I don't see the Epistles of Polycarp or Ignatius in any of the 40+ bibles in my library.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God
You have to twist that verse around a LOT to make it seem like Jesus' voice is the voice of an archangel's. Does Jesus also come down shouting and holding a trumpet?

Please notice Matthew 24 v 31.
The minor fulfillment of Matthew chapter 24 happened in the year 70 with Jerusalem's destruction. The MAJOR fulfillment is for our day or time frame. Please note in verse 31 that the 'he' mentioned is the Son of man of verse 30 or Christ Jesus.
Jesus sends forth angels with a great sound [shout ] of a trumpet.
That great sound or shout would be a COMMANDING CALL.
Trumpet blasts were used in Scripture to summon something or taking action.
-2nd Chronicles 13 vs 12-14
Jesus takes the action of 1st Thess. [4 v 16] to use his power of the resurrection [ Rev. 1 v 18 ] and the 'dead in Christ' rise First [Rev. 20 v 6]. Meaning Jesus 'brothers' of 1st Thess. [4 v 13 ] are part of the first or earlier resurrection of Revelation 20 v 6.
Please also note 1st Corinthians 15 v 52.
There the 'trumpet sound' [commanding call] is also in connection to the resurrection.
Jesus voice is also LOUD [shout/ commanding call] at John 11 v 43.

Just as a trumpet in Scripture can be used in various ways or meanings, so too with the word: worship [proskyne'o]. 'Absolute worship' belongs only to God. Whereas a relative worship in the from of obeisance or bow down before as in pay homage is in harmony with Scripture.