J
JoshuaJ
Guest
sandusky,
Is there a difference between the Lord and God? What is the name of the Father?
Is there a difference between the Lord and God? What is the name of the Father?
- Status
S
sandusky
Guest
:yawn:
JoshuaJ:
I am not interested Joshua.
I am interested in an explation of your position; if you don’t want to explain it, then don’t.
I am not interested Joshua.
I am interested in an explation of your position; if you don’t want to explain it, then don’t.
A
alwaysreforming
Guest
The objection here is that unless the Bible uses terms like “trinity” or “homoousios” then these are invalid for Protestants because to use them would violate Sola Scriptura.
In reality this argument fails to take these two facts in consideration:
In reality this argument fails to take these two facts in consideration:
- The actual words trinity, homoousios, hypostatic, etc. are not things that would not be binding on the Christian conscience. The words are extremely helpful, but the significance is in what these words mean. That is, it is the concepts (which can be fully drawn from Scripture, I might add) that are significant, not the words use to describe them.
- To use historic descriptions to describe beliefs does not violate sola scriptura. Looking to the Chruch fathers does not in and of itself violate sola scriptura. What sola scriptura denies is looking to them as an infallible rule fo faith.
S
Scholastic17
Guest
Luke 10:16
Jesus the Lord:
In this verse, he grants dogmatic infallibility to his apostles and their successors thereof.
The magisterium and Papa have firmly set down the Trinity as an article of the Faith.
Therefore, the Trinity exists.
Papa and the Church have spoken. Nuff said. Subject closed. Boomshakalaka.
M
mesher
Guest
sorry but quoting Luke 10:16 out of context… in the beginning of the chapter it was mentioned that Jesus christ appointed 72… only 72…
Luke 10:1
After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go.
you cannot find in the whole chapter that it includes thier successor. Are you saying that it was the pope who establish the idea of trinity? Is he one of the 72 mentioned in this chapter of Luke? so the verse Luke 10:16 does not apply to him or the rest of them.
S
Scholastic17
Guest
Sacred Tradition holds that it was inferred that their successors are guaranteed the same doctrinal infallibility. As a Catholic, i am free to draw from Magisterial teaching, Papal infallibility, Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture. Very simply put:
Papa and the Church say that the trinity exists; therefore it exists. No further argument is necessary.
Can the point be argued without invoking papal and magisterial infallibility? Sure. But why bother?
J
JoshuaJ
Guest
sandusky,
It doesn’t surprise me you aren’t interested. I believe I have explained my understanding of the scriptures through the scriptures mentioned. There is truly only one God. A God who manifests in various forms. I don’t believe there is one instance in the Word of God where there are 3 bodily forms manifest at the same time. The scriptures are clear.
Isa. 9:6 The son (Jesus) is called Wonderful, Counselor(Comforter), The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 63:16 “Doubtless thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our Father, our Redeemer: thy name is from everlasting.”
Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”
1Cor. 8:6 “but to us there is but one God, the Father…”
2Cor. 3:17 “Now the Lord is that Spirit…”
1Tim. 3:16 “…God was manifest in the flesh…”
Jon 14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, **I am ** they way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
John 14:16-18 “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for **he dwelleth with ** you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.”
Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:”
I
It doesn’t surprise me you aren’t interested. I believe I have explained my understanding of the scriptures through the scriptures mentioned. There is truly only one God. A God who manifests in various forms. I don’t believe there is one instance in the Word of God where there are 3 bodily forms manifest at the same time. The scriptures are clear.
Isa. 9:6 The son (Jesus) is called Wonderful, Counselor(Comforter), The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 63:16 “Doubtless thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our Father, our Redeemer: thy name is from everlasting.”
Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”
1Cor. 8:6 “but to us there is but one God, the Father…”
2Cor. 3:17 “Now the Lord is that Spirit…”
1Tim. 3:16 “…God was manifest in the flesh…”
Jon 14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, **I am ** they way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
John 14:16-18 “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for **he dwelleth with ** you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.”
Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:”
I
S
sandusky
Guest
Thank you, Joshua. You are then, as I suspected, a “modalist.” Seeing that you claim that the Son is a manifestation of God; are you a Pentecostal?
I again remind you that modalism, which pre-dates Arianism, was declared heretical teaching, and that there is “nothing new under the sun.”
I have offered a few scriptures, with explanation, that show that your “modalist” conception of God is incorrect, and all you have done is lob further scriptures at me while offering no explanation as to why you believe what you do, nor do you explain how those scriptures support your position.
I would urge you to read the early church writings, particularly Clement in his first epistle to the Corinthians, and Ignatius in his epistle to the Ephesians in which they speak of God in clearly Trinitarian language.
I would also urge you to read the 5th Century Athanasian Creed for a clearer understanding of historical church teaching. You can read that creed Here.
So you argue from the negative; that is a weak argument in light of scripture, and history. In Matthew 3 we have three distinct “persons” present. We hear the voice of the Father speaking to the Son, and the Spirit “as a dove.”
The question that must be asked of the Trinity is does is matter if we understand it correctly? I would say that it does. After all, Christ tells us that “God is Spirit.” He further tells us that those who worship God, “***must ***worship Him in spirit and in truth.”
Jesus is, John tells us in his gospel in chapter 1 verse 18, the “exegeomai,” of God. That is, Jesus “explained” God to us; part of His explanation is that God is three separate, distinct, and equal persons within the one Godhead.
J
JoshuaJ
Guest
sandusky,
You label me a modalist. A man made term.
I say God manifest in flesh because 1Timothy 3:16 says God manifest in the flesh. Not my own words. Who am I to add to that which is already written. The scriptures speak for themselves. I’m not affiliated with any organized denomination. I don’t believe you’ve addressed the scriptures that I’ve presented.
You say the trinity is 3 persons. Does a voice = a person in bodily form? Does a dove = a person?
Why is it so hard to understand what Jesus said in John 3:13? He was bodily standing in front of Nicodemus yet he said the son of man which IS in heaven. Is God not omnipresent? Can He not manifest in more than 1 form at the same time? The trinity is only a mystery to those who believe in it. For it is written. The mystery was made manifest unto his saints. God’s name and his identiy were a mystery until He manifest Himself in the flesh. It is written, My people shall know my name. Do you know what the name of the Father is?
You label me a modalist. A man made term.
I say God manifest in flesh because 1Timothy 3:16 says God manifest in the flesh. Not my own words. Who am I to add to that which is already written. The scriptures speak for themselves. I’m not affiliated with any organized denomination. I don’t believe you’ve addressed the scriptures that I’ve presented.
You say the trinity is 3 persons. Does a voice = a person in bodily form? Does a dove = a person?
Why is it so hard to understand what Jesus said in John 3:13? He was bodily standing in front of Nicodemus yet he said the son of man which IS in heaven. Is God not omnipresent? Can He not manifest in more than 1 form at the same time? The trinity is only a mystery to those who believe in it. For it is written. The mystery was made manifest unto his saints. God’s name and his identiy were a mystery until He manifest Himself in the flesh. It is written, My people shall know my name. Do you know what the name of the Father is?
M
mesher
Guest
sacred tradition? when does tradition of men became sacred or approved by God?
Mark 7:6-9
6He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.
8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”
9And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!
Trinity is not the bible, however there is God the father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
J
jim1130
Guest
What is the origin of the Bible? Which came first, the Bible or the Church?
M
mesher
Guest
have you also considered the verses that we have presented?
M
mesher
Guest
which church? the church mentioned in the bible or the roman catholic church?
E
exoflare
Guest
What a strawman you’ve decided to pull out here… we’re talking about THE ONE unified Church teaching, which existed for at least the first thousand years of Christianity before schisms began to take place. Call it whatever you prefer, but in any case just answer the question.
M
mesher
Guest
the church mentioned in the bible is labeled “church of god” sometimes “church of god in christ jesus.” the early christians pray only to God through His son Jesus Christ and no other.
example:
1 Corinthians 1:2
To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:
Galatians 1:13
For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.
1 Thessalonians 1:1
Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you.
was christianity from jerusalem or rome?
strawman as I humble myself before God…
S
sandusky
Guest
You are not denying it.
Joshua, I am not out to “bust your chops,” but to steer you to the truth concerning this doctrine; as I have stated, what you are presenting was declared heretical in the fourth century. My only concern is that you come to a knowledge of the truth.
That said, let me steer you to B.B. Warfield’s, The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity.
Here is Warfield’s opening paragraph:
The term “Trinity” is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such unBiblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity lies in Scripture in solution; when it is crystallized from its solvent it does not cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer view. Or, to speak without figure, the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture, not in formulated definition, but in fragmentary allusions; when we assembled the disjecta membra into their organic unity, we are not passing from Scripture, but entering more thoroughly into the meaning of Scripture. We may state the doctrine in technical terms, supplied by philosophical reflection; but the doctrine stated is a genuinely Scriptural doctrine.
Warfield deals with what can be gleaned from the O.T., and the further revelation of the N.T. You can read the complete article online here, and they have a printer friendly version if you care to print it out and work through it, Bible in hand.
I disagree with the interpretation you have given of John 3:13, for more in formation on that, read what A.T. Robertson, a renowned Greek scholar, says about that verse here.
Using the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, a wooden, literal translation of that verse would read: and no one has gone up into the heaven except the out of the heaven one having gone down, the son of man. There is no wording that says, “the Son of Man IS in heaven.”
I hope you read what I linked, and pray about.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Maybe someone has already mentioned this, but it sounds like Joshua is a Oneness Pentecostal.
E
exoflare
Guest
Has anyone noticed these people love to just throw around the term “man made” like some kind of meaningless cliche?
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Sure have. But I wonder if they’ve examined their man made beliefs of sola scriptura, etc.?
S
Scholastic17
Guest
Bah humbugh. The bible is nothing more than the traditions of the apostles set to pen. Read the last line of the gospel of John. He states that there are not enough books and not enough pages in the world to record all that Jesus said and did. Think about this for a moment:
What has been revealed to us? God. How? Through Jesus. How did he reveal himself? He preached. To whom? The apostles. How did the apostles teach? They preached. Part of what they preached was set to pen. That is what we call Sacred Scripture. A lot of what they preached -wasn’t- set to pen. What they didn’t preach was imparted to their successors. This is what we call sacred tradition. You cannot interpret the bible by Sacred Scripture alone because the Scriptures were not meant or intended to be understood by themselves. Apostolic tradition (sacred Tradition) is absolutely necessary in understanding matters of the Faith. Sacred Tradition holds the forestated view on the verse that i gave.
Are you illiterate? Can you not read in context? He was talking to the Pharisees. That doesn’t apply to the apostles and their successors. The traditions of the Apostles are the traditions imparted by the apostles and to the apostles by Christ himself. They are no more “Tradition of men” than the bible.
Who cares? The Church has set a doctrine; that doctrine must be accepted. That is the fact of the matter.
- Status