PDA

View Full Version : Do you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Bright Raven
July 19th, 2015, 02:38 PM
Slice it, dice it any way you want.

bybee
July 19th, 2015, 02:47 PM
Slice it, dice it any way you want.

I am a Trinitarian. BUT, I do not feel competent to judge the non-Trinitarian believers.
God, in infinite mercy and love is taking care of business.

Cruciform
July 19th, 2015, 03:02 PM
I would say that one cannot knowingly deny or reject the Trinity and be considered a "Christian."

Squeaky
July 19th, 2015, 03:18 PM
I said
I have never seen how any one could believe in the trinity. We are suppose to bring every thought in our minds to the obedience of The new testament. And the only weapons we are to use is the verses. We are not suppose to even think beyond what is written, or add one thing to the verses or take one thing away from the verses.
Now trinity is not even written in scripture. It takes the imagination to even think about the trinity. We are suppose to get rid of our imagination.


2 Cor 10:3-5
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh.
4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds,
5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,
(NKJ)


1 Cor 4:6
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
(NKJ)

Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
(NKJ)

Jesus even said we have the very same God and very same Father that He has. Jesus even said the Father is the only true God.

John 20:17
17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.'"
(NKJ)

John 17:1-3

1 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You,
2 "as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.
3 "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
(NKJ)
Paul said there is only one God the Father. All that every verse YOU REJECT. And would have to reject in order to believe in your trinity doctrine.

1 Cor 8:6
6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
(NKJ)

I think satan is using you Trinitarians to glorify himself. And your letting him.
The only three in one trinity in the whole bible is here. The dragon, devil, and satan.

Rev 12:9
9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
(NKJ)

You couldn't accept the Word the Way God presented it. so God sent you strong delusions.

II Th 2:10-12
10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
(NKJ)

Grosnick Marowbe
July 19th, 2015, 03:29 PM
I said
I have never seen how any one could believe in the trinity. We are suppose to bring every thought in our minds to the obedience of The new testament. And the only weapons we are to use is the verses. We are not suppose to even think beyond what is written, or add one thing to the verses or take one thing away from the verses.
Now trinity is not even written in scripture. It takes the imagination to even think about the trinity. We are suppose to get rid of our imagination.




I'm confidant of one thing; You're ALWAYS wrong!

WonderfulLordJesus
July 19th, 2015, 03:42 PM
Slice it, dice it any way you want.

That there are Three Persons all God in scripture, this very clear, I don't know what sort of Christian denies clear scripture. Note that it's a trait of some cults to deny the Trinity, also, which is very bad, heretical company for any such "Christians" to be keeping.

People who believe false doctrines have a real spiritual problem, no doubt. The Holy Spirit should be leading a real Christian into all truth.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

WonderfulLordJesus
July 19th, 2015, 03:54 PM
I'm confidant of one thing; You're ALWAYS wrong!

People who have the most basic Christian principles wrong really aren't worth reading. They have no spiritual vision, and you can trust nothing they say.

Robert Pate
July 19th, 2015, 04:09 PM
Slice it, dice it any way you want.

No one will be saved that does not believe that Jesus has atoned for their sins. A man that is born after Adam cannot atone for the sins of another man and the sins of the world.

Jesus is the second person of the Godhead. He came to this earth through through the virgin Mary. He embraced our humanity, perfected it and took it to heaven.

"He who knew no sin, became sin for us" 2 Corinthians 5:21.

Sinners cannot save sinners, nor can sinners save themselves.

musterion
July 19th, 2015, 04:12 PM
Do I believe the Bible teaches that Christ is God? Yes.

Do I believe He had to be God in order to do all that He did? Yes.

Do I see that included as part of Paul's gospel? No.

But, as always, I'm open to biblical input.

Bright Raven
July 19th, 2015, 04:12 PM
No one will be saved that does not believe that Jesus has atoned for their sins. A man that is born after Adam cannot atone for the sins of another man and the sins of the world.

Jesus is the second person of the Godhead. He came to this earth through through the virgin Mary. He embraced our humanity, perfected it and took it to heaven.

"He who knew no sin, became sin for us" 2 Corinthians 5:21.

Sinners cannot save sinners, nor can sinners save themselves.

So is your answer yea or nay?

aikido7
July 19th, 2015, 04:18 PM
Any believer who feels (or is made to) acknowledge the Trinity theology for "membership" in the faith probably will not change his or her mind regarding the term.

For me the Trinity is a theological meaning that was devised long after Jesus died. It serves as a handy "short cut" for summing up what Jesus' later followers thought about his life and teachings and how the presence of God is to be viewed by later followers.

I tend to focus less on a "belief-based" Christianity and more on an "action-based" Christianity.

In my view, such theological statements as "Trinity," "Son of God," "born of a virgin," etc. are still important things to remember but since they are elevated and exalted TITLES of Jesus there are less important for me than his actual teachings found in his parables.

Only by endeavoring to find out what verses in the New Testament meant to their original authors helps me make the most sense of the life, death and teachings of Jesus.

Seeing things in the original, ancient context of the times is more important than the theological meanings applied to his life after his death.

I realize such a hermeneutics might come across as disruptive and even threatening to traditional believers. Maybe if those entrusted to speak to us from the pulpit should take Jesus' actual teachings more seriously than just requiring our giving our assent to a list of ancient dogmas and theological overlays.

meshak
July 19th, 2015, 04:35 PM
I am a Trinitarian. BUT, I do not feel competent to judge the non-Trinitarian believers.
God, in infinite mercy and love is taking care of business.

this is decent Christian comment.

Totton Linnet
July 19th, 2015, 05:15 PM
Only God can save.

I think somebody could be saved not understanding that Jesus Christ is God, but I cannot see how after being saved they would not have come to a proper knowledge of who He is.....

But it seems very unlikely too that anybody would really believe He is able to save if He were only a man...why would somebody trust a man who lived 2, 000 years ago to save them?

WonderfulLordJesus
July 19th, 2015, 05:55 PM
Only God can save.

I think somebody could be saved not understanding that Jesus Christ is God, but I cannot see how after being saved they would not have come to a proper knowledge of who He is.....

But it seems very unlikely too that anybody would really believe He is able to save if He were only a man...why would somebody trust a man who lived 2, 000 years ago to save them?

Agree completely, that we learn the faith better in our walk in the Spirit. But given a Christian of any maturity and of the Spirit could deny simple scripture truths, that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God, clearly so in scripture: there is definitely something wrong there.

Such a person had better examine their salvation, because, for some reason, it appears they don't have a spiritual understanding of even God's nature, spiritual knowledge of His very Person. I would add this usually involves a heretical diminution of the deity of the Lord Jesus, the very Word of God from eternity, who is also Creator and God who communed with man of the Old Testament. This they can't or refuse to see.

What is alarming is neither do the unsaved understand these things. People can even quote a Bible they don't really understand all day long. You see this all the time on message boards, too often somebody posting streams of out of context scripture verses that don't even support a point they're trying to make. This is spiritual blindness, a symptom of one without the Holy Spirit, a fake Christian.

CherubRam
July 19th, 2015, 06:09 PM
I would say that one cannot knowingly deny or reject the Trinity and be considered a "Christian."

Non-Trinitarians believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They believe Yahwah is the Father and only true God, they believe the Son is the Messiah from Heaven, they believe Holy Spirit is a name title for Yahwah our Holy Father.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

drbrumley
July 19th, 2015, 06:19 PM
I have told Meshak before, and anyone who listens, Try to explain the Trinity, and you may lose your mind; Deny it, and you may lose your soul.

Oh how I love Dr Rogers quips

CherubRam
July 19th, 2015, 06:27 PM
I have told Meshak before, and anyone who listens, Try to explain the Trinity, and you may lose your mind; Deny it, and you may lose your soul.

Oh how I love Dr Rogers quips

There have been Pagan trinities around since the day of Abraham, and that is what made the monotheism faith of Abraham unique. The Pagan trinities were also three persons revealed in one god.

CherubRam
July 19th, 2015, 06:33 PM
Non-Trinitarians believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They believe Yahwah is the Father and only true God, they believe the Son is the Messiah from Heaven, they believe Holy Spirit is a name title for Yahwah our Holy Father.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

Those involved in Philosophy were the Gnostics, they introduced the Sunday Sabbath, Trinitarianism, Hell, Messiah worship, authority of the Pope; the titles, Father, Lord, Rabbi, Teacher, Master.

There were two different groups of Gnostic's during the first centuries AD.

The first group of Gnostic's were opposed to Christianity.
The other group of Gnostic's were not opposed, and joined Pagan notions to Christianity.

The Gnostic Christians believed in Sunday Sabbath, authority of the Pope, and Trinitarianism, while the Judaizing Christians were opposed to such things as Catholicism [Universalism.]

1 Tim 6:20
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called."

The "oppositions of science falsely so called." is the opposition to Jewish and Pagan Gnosticism.

Science is "gnosis" in the Greek.

Philosophy and Gnosticism is the "profane and vain babblings" the Congregations had to combat.

Albert Pike, a high prophet of Freemasonry, spoke on the origin of Trinitarianism. In his secret book "Morals and Dogma" he says of the Kabbalist "Jews were the direct precursors of Gnosticism," their Kabbalist doctrine is derived from their captivity while in Babylon.

Philo of Alexandria was a Jew who played a key role in the development of the Trinitarian theory. Pike says, he was a Kabbalist "a initiate of the mysteries."

Philo introduced the idea of a trinity to the Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria.
Philo did not equate the three members of his trinity. He wrote that “the middle person of the three,” was Yahweh, the Father of the Universe, who is uncreated and unbegotten. God, the Father of the Universe was accompanied by two “body-guards”: the creative power and the royal power. God being greater than them. These ideas of Philo made a great impact on Christianity.

Trinity
In the fourth-century, Marcellus of Ancyra declared that the idea of the Godhead existing as three hypostases came from Plato, through the teachings of Valentinus. Valentinus is quoted as teaching that God is three, three prosopa (persons) called the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit:

These men also taught three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. It was believed he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but he was discovered to have taken this from Hermes and Plato.

Valentinus (also spelled Valentinius) (c.100 - c.160) was known as a early Christian Gnostic Theologian.

It should be noted that Nag Hammadi library Sethian text such as Trimorphic Protennoia identify Gnosticism as also professing Father, Son and feminine wisdom Sophia or as Professor John D Turner denotes, God the Father, Sophia the Mother, and Logos the Son.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

Cruciform
July 19th, 2015, 06:52 PM
Non-Trinitarians believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They believe Yahwah is the Father and only true God, they believe the Son is the Messiah from Heaven, they believe Holy Spirit is a name title for Yahwah our Holy Father.
Therefore, you would qualify as one who knowingly denies and rejects the Trinity, and who therefore cannot be considered a "Christian" (Post #3).

Cruciform
July 19th, 2015, 06:55 PM
There have been Pagan trinities around since the day of Abraham...
No there haven't. There have been tritheisms, not trinities. The doctrine of the Trinity is absolutely unique to the Christian faith.

fishrovmen
July 19th, 2015, 07:02 PM
Now trinity is not even written in scripture.
[/QUOTE]
The only three in one trinity in the whole bible is here. The dragon, devil, and satan.[/QUOTE]

Which is it Squeaky?

Lazy afternoon
July 19th, 2015, 07:03 PM
No there haven't. There have been tritheisms, not trinities. The doctrine of the Trinity is absolutely unique to the Christian faith.

Knowing Jesus heart to heart is the only means of being saved from the wrath to come. (either kind, near or far)

LA

Bright Raven
July 19th, 2015, 07:05 PM
The following is taken from CARM.org.

Do you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?
by Matt Slick

In one sense you do not have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian, but in another sense you do. Let me explain. The Bible does not tell us that we must believe in the Trinity in order to become saved, that is, to become a Christian. On the other hand, true Christians will end up believing in the Trinity because it is the proper teaching concerning God's nature that has been revealed to us in Scripture. So, though someone may not understand the Trinity when he or she becomes a Christian, eventually he will end up believing in it because he's a Christian.

The doctrine of the Trinity is the proper Biblical teaching concerning the nature of God. It is one of the defining elements of the Christian faith. The Trinity, like the deity of Christ (John 8:24; John 1:1, 14; Colossians 2:9), Christ's physical resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17), and justification by faith alone in Christ alone (Romans 3:28; 4:1-5; 5:1; Galatians 2:21) are among the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. To deny any of these is to deny what makes Christianity Christian. But, I want to make it clear that we believe these things because they are true and because the Holy Spirit who indwells Christians bears witness of truth (John 14:26; 15:26).

It is not believing in the Trinity that makes us Christian. Rather, it is being a Christian (and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit) that enables us to believe in the Trinity. So, in one sense it's not a requirement to affirm the doctrines the Trinity in order to become saved. However, the true Christian will not deny the doctrine of the Trinity because the Holy Spirit will bear witness of truth (John 15:26) in the Trinity as true. This would mean that anyone who claims to be a Christian but openly and continually rejects the doctrine of the Trinity is probably not truly saved.

glorydaz
July 19th, 2015, 07:14 PM
The following is taken from CARM.org.

Do you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?
by Matt Slick

In one sense you do not have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian, but in another sense you do. Let me explain. The Bible does not tell us that we must believe in the Trinity in order to become saved, that is, to become a Christian. On the other hand, true Christians will end up believing in the Trinity because it is the proper teaching concerning God's nature that has been revealed to us in Scripture. So, though someone may not understand the Trinity when he or she becomes a Christian, eventually he will end up believing in it because he's a Christian.

The doctrine of the Trinity is the proper Biblical teaching concerning the nature of God. It is one of the defining elements of the Christian faith. The Trinity, like the deity of Christ (John 8:24; John 1:1, 14; Colossians 2:9), Christ's physical resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17), and justification by faith alone in Christ alone (Romans 3:28; 4:1-5; 5:1; Galatians 2:21) are among the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. To deny any of these is to deny what makes Christianity Christian. But, I want to make it clear that we believe these things because they are true and because the Holy Spirit who indwells Christians bears witness of truth (John 14:26; 15:26).

It is not believing in the Trinity that makes us Christian. Rather, it is being a Christian (and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit) that enables us to believe in the Trinity. So, in one sense it's not a requirement to affirm the doctrines the Trinity in order to become saved. However, the true Christian will not deny the doctrine of the Trinity because the Holy Spirit will bear witness of truth (John 15:26) in the Trinity as true. This would mean that anyone who claims to be a Christian but openly and continually rejects the doctrine of the Trinity is probably not truly saved.

:thumb:

Squeaky
July 19th, 2015, 07:14 PM
I said
How can reasonably intelligent people believe in something that is contrary to scripture. And just blindly accept it. The Word says the Word of God is perfect and reveals everything we want to know. That there is NOTHING HIDDEN that will not be revealed.

Heb 4:12-13
12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.
(NKJ)

Mark 4:22-23
22 "For there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed, nor has anything been kept secret but that it should come to light.
23 "If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."
(NKJ)

I think you all are the true definition of the blind sheep. You admit you cant explain it. You admit no one really knows. And yet you blindly stand up for it.

Eeset
July 19th, 2015, 07:18 PM
This would mean that anyone who claims to be a Christian but openly and continually rejects the doctrine of the Trinity is probably not truly saved.
Probably? How weak can you be? Are you willing to remove that word from the sentence and stand by what remains?

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 19th, 2015, 07:19 PM
I have told Meshak before, and anyone who listens, Try to explain the Trinity, and you may lose your mind; Deny it, and you may lose your soul.

Oh how I love Dr Rogers quips

This really is the silliest kind of statement ever.

The Trinity doctrine is extensively formulated, and every detail can be understood from that standpoint whether one affirms or denies the doctrine.

Most don't bother to even know the depths and details of a knowable doctrine formulated by men that can be understood; instead making supercilious over-simplified comments like those from allegedly profound Baptist icons.

When a professing Trinitarian can cogently discuss fontal plenitude/innascibility, paternity/filiation, and spiration/procession with some stewardship of history and applied exegesis for an apologetic, I'll take them seriously enough to argue minutiae of Theology Proper.

This simple pronounced bare assertion of a simpleton preacher is fallacious, and it fosters and condones laziness, lethargy, ignorance, and indoctrination.

I guess all the Trinitarian theologians lost their mind in explaining the Trinity. Denying the doctrinal formulaic of men is not the criteria for "losing one's soul".

(This is not personal about you, just the inane quote.)

Bright Raven
July 19th, 2015, 07:21 PM
Probably? How weak can you be? Are you willing to remove that word from the sentence and stand by what remains?

Why should I change it? I didn't write it.

Lazy afternoon
July 19th, 2015, 07:29 PM
I said
How can reasonably intelligent people believe in something that is contrary to scripture. And just blindly accept it. The Word says the Word of God is perfect and reveals everything we want to know. That there is NOTHING HIDDEN that will not be revealed.

Heb 4:12-13
12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.
(NKJ)

Mark 4:22-23
22 "For there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed, nor has anything been kept secret but that it should come to light.
23 "If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."
(NKJ)

I think you all are the true definition of the blind sheep. You admit you cant explain it. You admit no one really knows. And yet you blindly stand up for it.

I heard a TV preacher tell that the Holy Spirit said to him that He was not comfortable with being referred to as a spirit.

The TV preacher did not get it, because he is a trinitarian.

Do you all get it?

(the same preacher claims aborted fetuses will be saved?)

LA

oatmeal
July 19th, 2015, 07:33 PM
There are many things you do not have to believe in to be a Christian.

You do not have to believe in the Devil, although you could.

You do not have to believe in Noah's adventures, although you could.

You do not have to believe in speaking in tongues, though you could.

You do not have to believe that if you click your heels together, while wearing ruby slippers and repeating, "there's no place like home", though that has nothing to do with being a Christian.

You do not have to believe that Peter walked on water.

You do not have to believe in a trinity, and click your heels together.

For clarification purposes, do you mean

a. become a Christian, if so, in that case all you have to do is do Romans 10:9-10 to become a Christian

b. live the lifestyle of a Christian as scripture teaches

what are you asking?

glorydaz
July 19th, 2015, 07:55 PM
There are many things you do not have to believe in to be a Christian.

You do not have to believe in the Devil, although you could.

You do not have to believe in Noah's adventures, although you could.

You do not have to believe in speaking in tongues, though you could.

You do not have to believe that if you click your heels together, while wearing ruby slippers and repeating, "there's no place like home", though that has nothing to do with being a Christian.

You do not have to believe that Peter walked on water.

You do not have to believe in a trinity, and click your heels together.

For clarification purposes, do you mean

a. become a Christian, if so, in that case all you have to do is do Romans 10:9-10 to become a Christian

b. live the lifestyle of a Christian as scripture teaches

what are you asking?

In other words, you don't believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. Why am I not surprised?

CherubRam
July 19th, 2015, 08:51 PM
Those involved in Philosophy were the Gnostics, they introduced the Sunday Sabbath, Trinitarianism, Hell, Messiah worship, authority of the Pope; the titles, Father, Lord, Rabbi, Teacher, Master.

There were two different groups of Gnostic's during the first centuries AD.

The first group of Gnostic's were opposed to Christianity.
The other group of Gnostic's were not opposed, and joined Pagan notions to Christianity.

The Gnostic Christians believed in Sunday Sabbath, authority of the Pope, and Trinitarianism, while the Judaizing Christians were opposed to such things as Catholicism [Universalism.]

1 Tim 6:20
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called."

The "oppositions of science falsely so called." is the opposition to Jewish and Pagan Gnosticism.

Science is "gnosis" in the Greek.

Philosophy and Gnosticism is the "profane and vain babblings" the Congregations had to combat.

Albert Pike, a high prophet of Freemasonry, spoke on the origin of Trinitarianism. In his secret book "Morals and Dogma" he says of the Kabbalist "Jews were the direct precursors of Gnosticism," their Kabbalist doctrine is derived from their captivity while in Babylon.

Philo of Alexandria was a Jew who played a key role in the development of the Trinitarian theory. Pike says, he was a Kabbalist "a initiate of the mysteries."

Philo introduced the idea of a trinity to the Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria.
Philo did not equate the three members of his trinity. He wrote that “the middle person of the three,” was Yahweh, the Father of the Universe, who is uncreated and unbegotten. God, the Father of the Universe was accompanied by two “body-guards”: the creative power and the royal power. God being greater than them. These ideas of Philo made a great impact on Christianity.

Trinity
In the fourth-century, Marcellus of Ancyra declared that the idea of the Godhead existing as three hypostases came from Plato, through the teachings of Valentinus. Valentinus is quoted as teaching that God is three, three prosopa (persons) called the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit:

These men also taught three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. It was believed he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but he was discovered to have taken this from Hermes and Plato.

Valentinus (also spelled Valentinius) (c.100 - c.160) was known as a early Christian Gnostic Theologian.

It should be noted that Nag Hammadi library Sethian text such as Trimorphic Protennoia identify Gnosticism as also professing Father, Son and feminine wisdom Sophia or as Professor John D Turner denotes, God the Father, Sophia the Mother, and Logos the Son.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
Have you ever studied about Pagan trinities during the days of Abraham?

The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine
by Cher-El L. Hagensick

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm

Daniel1611
July 19th, 2015, 08:54 PM
Have you ever studied about Pagan trinities during the days of Abraham?

The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine
by Cher-El L. Hagensick

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm

I'll ask. ... So what?

meshak
July 19th, 2015, 09:03 PM
I'll ask. ... So what?

So you are following pagan religion.

CherubRam
July 19th, 2015, 09:03 PM
I'll ask. ... So what?

So read the link.

The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine
by Cher-El L. Hagensick

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm

Daniel1611
July 19th, 2015, 09:05 PM
So read the link.

The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine
by Cher-El L. Hagensick

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Content...%20Trinity.htm

I can't. It keeps saying link cannot be found. But I think I know where you're going with this. But I dont want to assume. So that's why I asked, so what?

Daniel1611
July 19th, 2015, 09:06 PM
So you are following pagan religion.

Says the watchtower. Lol.

meshak
July 19th, 2015, 09:09 PM
Says the watchtower. Lol.

this is what you do when you cannot rebuttal.

so typical.

drbrumley
July 19th, 2015, 09:24 PM
Luke 1:35

And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.”

Question 1: How many persons are seen in this verse?

meshak
July 19th, 2015, 09:32 PM
Luke 1:35

And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.”

Question 1: How many persons are seen in this verse?

It is not saying anything about Father, Son and HS make one God.

You project things to suit your doctrine.

drbrumley
July 19th, 2015, 09:37 PM
It is not saying anything about Father, Son and HS make one God.

You project things to suit your doctrine.

Great answer if you actually answered the question. The question is how many are in that verse?

CherubRam
July 19th, 2015, 09:41 PM
I can't. It keeps saying link cannot be found. But I think I know where you're going with this. But I dont want to assume. So that's why I asked, so what?
I tested this link to make sure it is working.
The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine
by Cher-El L. Hagensick

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm

meshak
July 19th, 2015, 09:44 PM
Great answer if you actually answered the question. The question is how many are in that verse?

This is manipulative and trick question. It is not an honest question, dear.

You are trinity believer, what else is new?

CherubRam
July 19th, 2015, 09:45 PM
This link has been tested also.

The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine
by Cher-El L. Hagensick

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm

meshak
July 19th, 2015, 09:46 PM
I tested this link to make sure it is working.
The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine
by Cher-El L. Hagensick

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm

that is some lengthy link.

CherubRam
July 19th, 2015, 09:49 PM
that is some lengthy link.

Well, there is a lot of history in regards to trinitarianism.

The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine
by Cher-El L. Hagensick

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm

Link tested.

drbrumley
July 19th, 2015, 09:50 PM
This is manipulative and trick question. It is not an honest question, dear.

You are trinity believer, what else is new?

No, just a question. I have no idea what your answer will be. Maybe you see one person. I really dont know what goes on in that head of yours

CherubRam
July 19th, 2015, 09:51 PM
Those involved in Philosophy were the Gnostics, they introduced the Sunday Sabbath, Trinitarianism, Hell, Messiah worship, authority of the Pope; the titles, Father, Lord, Rabbi, Teacher, Master.

There were two different groups of Gnostic's during the first centuries AD.

The first group of Gnostic's were opposed to Christianity.
The other group of Gnostic's were not opposed, and joined Pagan notions to Christianity.

The Gnostic Christians believed in Sunday Sabbath, authority of the Pope, and Trinitarianism, while the Judaizing Christians were opposed to such things as Catholicism [Universalism.]

1 Tim 6:20
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called."

The "oppositions of science falsely so called." is the opposition to Jewish and Pagan Gnosticism.

Science is "gnosis" in the Greek.

Philosophy and Gnosticism is the "profane and vain babblings" the Congregations had to combat.

Albert Pike, a high prophet of Freemasonry, spoke on the origin of Trinitarianism. In his secret book "Morals and Dogma" he says of the Kabbalist "Jews were the direct precursors of Gnosticism," their Kabbalist doctrine is derived from their captivity while in Babylon.

Philo of Alexandria was a Jew who played a key role in the development of the Trinitarian theory. Pike says, he was a Kabbalist "a initiate of the mysteries."

Philo introduced the idea of a trinity to the Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria.
Philo did not equate the three members of his trinity. He wrote that “the middle person of the three,” was Yahweh, the Father of the Universe, who is uncreated and unbegotten. God, the Father of the Universe was accompanied by two “body-guards”: the creative power and the royal power. God being greater than them. These ideas of Philo made a great impact on Christianity.

Trinity
In the fourth-century, Marcellus of Ancyra declared that the idea of the Godhead existing as three hypostases came from Plato, through the teachings of Valentinus. Valentinus is quoted as teaching that God is three, three prosopa (persons) called the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit:

These men also taught three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. It was believed he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but he was discovered to have taken this from Hermes and Plato.

Valentinus (also spelled Valentinius) (c.100 - c.160) was known as a early Christian Gnostic Theologian.

It should be noted that Nag Hammadi library Sethian text such as Trimorphic Protennoia identify Gnosticism as also professing Father, Son and feminine wisdom Sophia or as Professor John D Turner denotes, God the Father, Sophia the Mother, and Logos the Son.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

Have you ever studied about Pagan trinities during the days of Abraham?

The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine
by Cher-El L. Hagensick

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm

This link has also been tested.

meshak
July 19th, 2015, 10:05 PM
No, just a question. I have no idea what your answer will be. Maybe you see one person. I really dont know what goes on in that head of yours

I don't play your manipulative game for your doctrine.

drbrumley
July 19th, 2015, 10:09 PM
I don't play your manipulative game for your doctrine.

Good bye. Your now on ignore

meshak
July 19th, 2015, 10:09 PM
Jesus nor any of His disciple did not say you have to believe in the trinity to be saved.

It is that simple. Why do you make your doctrine to ostracize Jesus' followers just because they don't agree with your doctrine? Jesus did not do it, why should you?

keypurr
July 19th, 2015, 10:10 PM
Have you ever studied about Pagan trinities during the days of Abraham?

The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine
by Cher-El L. Hagensick

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm

This link has also been tested.

Excellent Link my friend.

drbrumley
July 19th, 2015, 10:12 PM
Anyone else care to answer the question? Obviously meshak is theatened by the question for some reason

meshak
July 19th, 2015, 10:14 PM
Jesus nor any of His disciple did not say you have to believe in the trinity to be saved.

It is that simple. Why do you make your doctrine to ostracize Jesus' followers just because they don't agree with your doctrine? Jesus did not do it, why should you?

bump

Grosnick Marowbe
July 19th, 2015, 10:16 PM
Jesus nor any of His disciple did not say you have to believe in the trinity to be saved.

It is that simple. Why do you make your doctrine to ostracize Jesus' followers just because they don't agree with your doctrine? Jesus did not do it, why should you?

Who gave you such a BIG word as, "Ostracize?" Seems too big a word
coming from someone who can barely speak English?

drbrumley
July 19th, 2015, 10:16 PM
Is meshak trying to reply to me after her rudeness

meshak
July 19th, 2015, 10:21 PM
Is meshak trying to reply to me after her rudeness



I am sorry if I offended you. I just don't play manipulative games.

Cruciform
July 19th, 2015, 10:21 PM
Knowing Jesus heart to heart is the only means of being saved from the wrath to come.
Your comment here fails to address the OP's question, which I've answered in Post #3 above.

Grosnick Marowbe
July 19th, 2015, 10:24 PM
I am sorry if I offended you. I just don't play manipulative games.

You're just here to make yourself look silly.

Dan Emanuel
July 19th, 2015, 10:28 PM
Jesus nor any of His disciple did not say you have to believe in the trinity to be saved.

It is that simple. Why do you make your doctrine to ostracize Jesus' followers just because they don't agree with your doctrine? Jesus did not do it, why should you?You have to believe in Jesus. And to believe in Jesus, mean's that you want to be the best Christian you can be, not the best person; but the best Christian you can be. (You can be the best person you can be, without believing in Jesus. People try to do that all the time.)

If you believe in the Trinity, but you don't want to be the best Christian you can be, you should wonder if you really believe in Jesus.

And stop saying "Jesus' follower's," its creepy. 'Sound's like zombie's.


Daniel

Ask Mr. Religion
July 19th, 2015, 11:10 PM
Given that God is not a liar and has clearly laid out the fact of the Triune Godhead, and that it is God that is doing the saving of His children, it is impossible for there to be a person so regenerated by God that denies the Trinity. This would in effect be a house divided.

All Christians are Trinitarians.
All non-Trinitarians are not Christians.

AMR

CherubRam
July 19th, 2015, 11:28 PM
Given that God is not a liar and has clearly laid out the fact of the Triune Godhead, and that it is God that is doing the saving of His children, it is impossible for there to be a person so regenerated by God that denies the Trinity. This would in effect be a house divided.

All Christians are Trinitarians.
All non-Trinitarians are not Christians.

AMR
Let us see some scripture that supports that? Where does God say He is a Trinity. As for the word "Godhead," that is a recent man made term. It is not biblical.

CherubRam
July 19th, 2015, 11:30 PM
Those involved in Philosophy were the Gnostics, they introduced the Sunday Sabbath, Trinitarianism, Hell, Messiah worship, authority of the Pope; the titles, Father, Lord, Rabbi, Teacher, Master.

There were two different groups of Gnostic's during the first centuries AD.

The first group of Gnostic's were opposed to Christianity.
The other group of Gnostic's were not opposed, and joined Pagan notions to Christianity.

The Gnostic Christians believed in Sunday Sabbath, authority of the Pope, and Trinitarianism, while the Judaizing Christians were opposed to such things as Catholicism [Universalism.]

1 Tim 6:20
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called."

The "oppositions of science falsely so called." is the opposition to Jewish and Pagan Gnosticism.

Science is "gnosis" in the Greek.

Philosophy and Gnosticism is the "profane and vain babblings" the Congregations had to combat.

Albert Pike, a high prophet of Freemasonry, spoke on the origin of Trinitarianism. In his secret book "Morals and Dogma" he says of the Kabbalist "Jews were the direct precursors of Gnosticism," their Kabbalist doctrine is derived from their captivity while in Babylon.

Philo of Alexandria was a Jew who played a key role in the development of the Trinitarian theory. Pike says, he was a Kabbalist "a initiate of the mysteries."

Philo introduced the idea of a trinity to the Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria.
Philo did not equate the three members of his trinity. He wrote that “the middle person of the three,” was Yahweh, the Father of the Universe, who is uncreated and unbegotten. God, the Father of the Universe was accompanied by two “body-guards”: the creative power and the royal power. God being greater than them. These ideas of Philo made a great impact on Christianity.

Trinity
In the fourth-century, Marcellus of Ancyra declared that the idea of the Godhead existing as three hypostases came from Plato, through the teachings of Valentinus. Valentinus is quoted as teaching that God is three, three prosopa (persons) called the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit:

These men also taught three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. It was believed he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but he was discovered to have taken this from Hermes and Plato.

Valentinus (also spelled Valentinius) (c.100 - c.160) was known as a early Christian Gnostic Theologian.

It should be noted that Nag Hammadi library Sethian text such as Trimorphic Protennoia identify Gnosticism as also professing Father, Son and feminine wisdom Sophia or as Professor John D Turner denotes, God the Father, Sophia the Mother, and Logos the Son.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

Have you ever studied about Pagan trinities during the days of Abraham?

The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine
by Cher-El L. Hagensick

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm

This link has been tested.

CherubRam
July 19th, 2015, 11:34 PM
Excellent Link my friend.
Thanks.
The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine
by Cher-El L. Hagensick

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm

This link has also been tested.

Ask Mr. Religion
July 19th, 2015, 11:38 PM
Given that God is not a liar and has clearly laid out the fact of the Triune Godhead, and that it is God that is doing the saving of His children, it is impossible for there to be a person so regenerated by God that denies the Trinity. This would in effect be a house divided.

All Christians are Trinitarians.
All non-Trinitarians are not Christians.

AMR


Let us see some scripture that supports that? Where does God say He is a Trinity. As for the word "Godhead," that is a recent man made term. It is not biblical.

Q. E. D.

By my post above, a non-Trinitarian is obligated to declare all Trinitarians as non-believers as the Scripture cannot support a contradiction. Either God and His special revelation—Scripture—teaches the Godhead is Triune or the Godhead is not. So believing a lie is not believing the truth of Scripture. Those that believe (i.e., faith - knowledge, assent, trust) the truth of Scripture are Christians, those that believe anything else are not Christians.

Giving a "Christian" pass to this or that person under the guise that they are merely "confused" is effectively claiming that the God who saves and is saving has a divided house on matters essential to the faith.

AMR

CherubRam
July 19th, 2015, 11:54 PM
Q. E. D.

By my post above, a non-Trinitarian is obligated to declare all Trinitarians as non-believers as the Scripture cannot support a contradiction. Either God and His special revelation—Scripture—teaches the Godhead is Triune or the Godhead is not. So believing a lie is not believing the truth of Scripture. Those that believe (i.e., faith - knowledge, assent, trust) the truth of Scripture are Christians, those that believe anything else are not Christians.

Giving a "Christian" pass to this or that person under the guise that they are merely "confused" is effectively claiming that the God who saves and is saving has a divided house on matters essential to the faith.

AMR

I asked for proof and you came here empty handed.

Adding to scriptures and joining Paganism to God does not make a biblical truth.

oatmeal
July 20th, 2015, 04:00 AM
I'm confidant of one thing; You're ALWAYS wrong!

As usual, you ignore the scriptures, and offer opinions, but no scripture.

Where is your evidence from scripture?

oatmeal
July 20th, 2015, 04:06 AM
In other words, you don't believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. Why am I not surprised?

That is a very strange conclusion.

Are you saying you have to know scripture, inside and out, forward and backwards, perfectly, as perfectly as the author, God, knows scripture before you can be a Christian?

Well, that would take all the wisdom of God to know God's words perfectly through and through.

That would take more than a life time of learning, of very, very hard work to achieve that.

That is a lot of hard work to simply become a Christian.

Is your salvation dependent on the accomplishments of Jesus Christ, God's grace to you

or is your salvation dependent on your works and your works alone?

Who died for you? Did you die for your own sins?

Or did Jesus Christ die for your sins?

How many verses does a person have to know perfectly in order to become a Christian?

a. all of them

b. your favorite verses

c. none of them, they just have to do Romans 10:9 to receive salvation

do you know the difference between receiving salvation and doing what God wants you to do with it?

iamaberean
July 20th, 2015, 04:19 AM
Slice it, dice it any way you want.

I worship the same God that the Jews worshiped in the Old Testament. If you do, how would you explain trinity to them?

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 20th, 2015, 09:15 AM
Luke 1:35

And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.”

Question 1: How many persons are seen in this verse?


None.

God is not a "person" per the English definition.
The Holy Spirit is not an individuated hypostasis (nor is the Son).
And the Son is yet to be born as the Incarnate Logos.

Threeness is not automatically a Trinity according to the fallacious historical formulaic.

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 20th, 2015, 09:52 AM
Q. E. D.

By my post above, a non-Trinitarian is obligated to declare all Trinitarians as non-believers as the Scripture cannot support a contradiction. Either God and His special revelation—Scripture—teaches the Godhead is Triune or the Godhead is not. So believing a lie is not believing the truth of Scripture. Those that believe (i.e., faith - knowledge, assent, trust) the truth of Scripture are Christians, those that believe anything else are not Christians.

The real problem with this "analysis" is that many conceptualize the alleged "persons" as "beings" or "manifestations" and have no idea what their actual professed doctrine IS.

For most, their nominal understanding is just a short semi-descriptive sentence with a handful of English terms they redefine in their own ignorant minds. A good many are functional Tritheists or Modalists, with the occasional Arian or Unitarian/Adoptionist tossed in.

I was lost for 28 years as a professing Trinitarian, and it was because of the modern dilutions of the doctrine.

So... Since I deny the erroneous orthodox Multi-Hypostatic Uni-Phenomenal Trinity while professing all that I do... am I a non-Christian by your presented standard?

Seeing as how, in my personal experience, the vast majority of professing Protestant Trinitarians AREN'T, your standard is quite a scathing impugnment of most modern Christians' salvation.


Giving a "Christian" pass to this or that person under the guise that they are merely "confused" is effectively claiming that the God who saves and is saving has a divided house on matters essential to the faith.

AMR

So... Since so few could thoroughly recite, recount, and outline details such as fontal plenitude/innascibility, paternity/filiation, spiration/procession, and other minutiae, then they likely aren't saved.

How simple can a misunderstood profession of the Trinity be? Can someone just regurgitate a sentence including three "persons" and that's the criteria?

Or can someone examine and oppose the paradoxes of the deepest Scholastic delineations and be led of the Spirit that there are omissions and inclusions that are misplaced, etc.?

Wouldn't it be more fitting if the threshold were a bit farther back? Deity of Christ, perhaps? To insist on a Trinity that is widely minimalized, hybridized, misrepresented, and misunderstood is naive.

By that standard, I was saved when lost and now lost when saved. Unacceptable.

I'd say anyone who considers the alleged three "persons" to have eternal individuated centers of sentient volitional consciousness is a Tritheist; and that cast net gathers most professing Trinitarians.

Ben Masada
July 20th, 2015, 09:56 AM
No, all you need is to believe that Jesus was Christ. That's what makes of a believer a Christian.

achduke
July 20th, 2015, 09:56 AM
Slice it, dice it any way you want.

No.

Dan Emanuel
July 20th, 2015, 09:58 AM
I worship the same God that the Jews worshiped in the Old Testament. If you do, how would you explain trinity to them?
The Trinity is the same God that the Jew's worshiped in the Old Testament.


Daniel

iamaberean
July 20th, 2015, 10:27 AM
The Trinity is the same God that the Jew's worshiped in the Old Testament.
Daniel

And how many scriptures do you have to mark out to come to that conclusion.

I find 1,479 scriptures where LORD and God are used, that means Jehovah God. They worshiped only one God and his name is Jehovah.

Ask a Jew and they will tell you there are many gods, but only one Jehovah.

Ben Masada
July 20th, 2015, 10:30 AM
The Trinity is the same God that the Jew's worshiped in the Old Testament.


Daniel

That's a lie with the intent to vandalize the Jewish Faith. To us, the Oneness of HaShem is absolute.

The Absolute Oneness of God

Isaiah says that, absolutely, God cannot be compared with anyone or anything, as we read Isaiah 46:5. "To whom will ye liken Me, and make Me equal to , or compare Me with, that we may be alike?"

Therefore, more than one God would have been unable to produce the world; one would have impeded the work of the other, unless this could be avoided by a suitable division of labor.

More than one Divine Being would have one element in common, and would differ in another; each would thus consist of two elements, and would not be God.

More than one God are moved to action by will; the will, without a substratum, could not act simultaneously in more than one being.

Therefore, the existence of one God is proved; the existence of more than one God cannot be proved. One could suggest that it would be possible; but since as possibility is inapplicable to God, there does not exist more than one God. So, the possibility of ascertaining the existence of God is here confounded with potentiality of existence.

Again, if one God suffices, a second or third God would be superfluous; if one God is not sufficient, he is not perfect, and cannot be a deity.

Now, besides being God absolutely One, He is incorporeal. If God were corporeal, He would consist of atoms, and would not be one; or he would be comparable to other beings; but a comparison implies the existence of similar and of dissimilar elements, and God would thus not be One. A corporeal God would be finite, and an external power would be required to define those limits.

Dan Emanuel
July 20th, 2015, 10:30 AM
And how many scriptures do you have to mark out to come to that conclusion...Plenty if your accepting the New Testament. The scriptural support for the Trinity in the Old Testament is less clear of course, which is only natural, since the Trinity had not yet become a man.

... I find 1,479 scriptures where LORD and God are used, that means Jehovah God. They worshiped only one God and his name is Jehovah.

Ask a Jew and they will tell you there are many gods, but only one Jehovah.Jehovah God is the Trinity. The Trinity is Jehovah God. Numbers 6:24-26 KJV


Daniel

Dan Emanuel
July 20th, 2015, 10:44 AM
That's a lie with the intent to vandalize the Jewish Faith...Relax. Every religion with competing claim's has to call every other religions contradictory claim's a lie. If you thought it was true, you'd be a Christian. So all your saying is, "I'm not a Christian."

Unless you believe in Jesus as creature's believe in there Creator.

...To us, the Oneness of HaShem is absolute...Same with the Trinity.

...The Absolute Oneness of God

Isaiah says that, absolutely, God cannot be compared with anyone or anything, as we read Isaiah 46:5. "To whom will ye liken Me, and make Me equal to , or compare Me with, that we may be alike?"...The Trinity is absolutely unique.

...Therefore, more than one God would have been unable to produce the world; one would have impeded the work of the other, unless this could be avoided by a suitable division of labor.

More than one Divine Being would have one element in common, and would differ in another; each would thus consist of two elements, and would not be God.

More than one God are moved to action by will; the will, without a substratum, could not act simultaneously in more than one being.

Therefore, the existence of one God is proved; the existence of more than one God cannot be proved. One could suggest that it would be possible; but since as possibility is inapplicable to God, there does not exist more than one God. So, the possibility of ascertaining the existence of God is here confounded with potentiality of existence.

Again, if one God suffices, a second or third God would be superfluous; if one God is not sufficient, he is not perfect, and cannot be a deity...Huge straw man since the Trinity is 1 God.

...Now, besides being God absolutely One, He is incorporeal. If God were corporeal, He would consist of atoms, and would not be one; or he would be comparable to other beings; but a comparison implies the existence of similar and of dissimilar elements, and God would thus not be One. A corporeal God would be finite, and an external power would be required to define those limits.The Trinity is not corporeal.


Daniel

meshak
July 20th, 2015, 10:52 AM
You have to believe in Jesus.

What makes you think I don't?

Jesus says He is Son of God and Savior of the world. I believe it.

Why do you trin people add your own qualification for salvation even though Jesus did not?

It sounds more like you are putting the word into Jesus' mouth.

How arrogant of you, people.

Dan Emanuel
July 20th, 2015, 10:57 AM
What makes you think I don't?...I didn't say you don't. What I said to you was:

And stop saying "Jesus' follower's," its creepy. 'Sound's like zombie's.


Daniel

meshak
July 20th, 2015, 11:00 AM
I didn't say you don't. What I said to you was:



Daniel

You should complain to Jesus because He says to follow Him.

Dan Emanuel
July 20th, 2015, 11:16 AM
You should complain to Jesus because He says to follow Him.No, I'll complain to you. What do you have against calling yourself a "Christian?" Why do you have to call yourself out as different from the rest of us, by identifying as "Jesuses follower?" Are you saying your better than other's who only call ourselve's "Christian?"

Did you call me arrogant?


Daniel

Ben Masada
July 20th, 2015, 11:25 AM
Relax. Every religion with competing claim's has to call every other religions contradictory claim's a lie. If you thought it was true, you'd be a Christian. So all your saying is, "I'm not a Christian."

Unless you believe in Jesus as creature's believe in there Creator.
Same with the Trinity.
The Trinity is absolutely unique.
Huge straw man since the Trinity is 1 God.
The Trinity is not corporeal.

Daniel

Really! Where did Jesus leave his body before he went back to heaven to sit at the right hand of God? Nowhere. He took his body with him and became different from the Father and the Holy Ghost. Now, how could three be one? That's a paradox that makes no sense. I have refuted that doctrine with The Absolute Oneness of HaShem. But you are not ready for the Truth.

meshak
July 20th, 2015, 11:29 AM
No, I'll complain to you.

I am only trying to follow what Jesus says. Jesus says to follow Him, and I am replying Him by saying, yes, Lord. I will follow you.

So I am Jesus' follower.

It is your problem with Jesus, not mine.

Dan Emanuel
July 20th, 2015, 12:00 PM
Really! Where did Jesus leave his body before he went back to heaven to sit at the right hand of God? Nowhere. He took his body with him and became different from the Father and the Holy Ghost. Now, how could three be one? That's a paradox that makes no sense. I have refuted that doctrine with The Absolute Oneness of HaShem. But you are not ready for the Truth.The Trinity explain's our Lord Jesus Christ perfectly well, and maintain's the absolute uniqueness and unity of God.


Daniel

Dan Emanuel
July 20th, 2015, 12:01 PM
I am only trying to follow what Jesus says. Jesus says to follow Him, and I am replying Him by saying, yes, Lord. I will follow you.

So I am Jesus' follower.

It is your problem with Jesus, not mine.All right. I was just asking.


Daniel

meshak
July 20th, 2015, 12:07 PM
All right. I was just asking.


Daniel

:)

Ben Masada
July 20th, 2015, 12:08 PM
The Trinity explain's our Lord Jesus Christ perfectly well, and maintain's the absolute uniqueness and unity of God.


Daniel

Again! How can exist absolute uniqueness when the Father is in Spirit and the son is in body? You must be kidding!

Dan Emanuel
July 20th, 2015, 12:17 PM
Again! How can exist absolute uniqueness when the Father is in Spirit and the son is in body? You must be kidding!I don't know what you mean by "the Father is in Spirit."

As for the Son, we talk about the hypostatic union between His divine essence or nature, and His human nature.

All Is are dotted and all Ts are crossed. The doctrine has no hole's. Its air tight.


Daniel

genuineoriginal
July 20th, 2015, 12:50 PM
I would say that one cannot knowingly deny or reject the Trinity and be considered a "Christian."

You would also say would say that one cannot knowingly deny or reject the Pope and be considered a "Christian."

The real question is not whether the Church of Rome will accept a person as a "Christian" but what does the Bible state as being necessary for salvation.

Ben Masada
July 20th, 2015, 12:54 PM
I don't know what you mean by "the Father is in Spirit."

As for the Son, we talk about the hypostatic union between His divine essence or nature, and His human nature.

All Is are dotted and all Ts are crossed. The doctrine has no hole's. Its air tight.

Daniel

You don't know what I mean because you do not read your own NT. Read John 4:24. Jesus himself said that God is a Spirit. Spirits are incorporeal. If Jesus is in flesh, they can't be the same. So the Trinity is more than one and, as the name says, three.

aikido7
July 20th, 2015, 12:58 PM
Who gave you such a BIG word as, "Ostracize?" Seems too big a word
coming from someone who can barely speak English?Why the cruelty, Grosnick?

What sort of family did you grow up in?

In my view, you seem unacquainted with respect, fairness and caring.

genuineoriginal
July 20th, 2015, 01:01 PM
Given that God is not a liar and has clearly laid out the fact of the Triune Godhead, and that it is God that is doing the saving of His children, it is impossible for there to be a person so regenerated by God that denies the Trinity. This would in effect be a house divided.

All Christians are Trinitarians.
All non-Trinitarians are not Christians.

AMR

Given that the Church of Rome did not lay out the doctrine of the Triune Godhead until the Council of Constantinople in 360 CE, you don't know what you are talking about.

iamaberean
July 20th, 2015, 03:21 PM
Plenty if your accepting the New Testament. The scriptural support for the Trinity in the Old Testament is less clear of course, which is only natural, since the Trinity had not yet become a man.
Jehovah God is the Trinity. The Trinity is Jehovah God. Numbers 6:24-26 KJV


Daniel

You say the same thing all trinity believers say. God is trinity because my pastor says so!

But the truth is, God is one because the bible says so.

Sancocho
July 20th, 2015, 03:25 PM
You don't know what I mean because you do not read your own NT. Read John 4:24. Jesus himself said that God is a Spirit. Spirits are incorporeal. If Jesus is in flesh, they can't be the same. So the Trinity is more than one and, as the name says, three.

You as a Jew are not required to believe in the New Testament. However, we who call Christ the messiah have this:

"And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth."

Daniel1611
July 20th, 2015, 04:14 PM
You say the same thing all trinity believers say. God is trinity because my pastor says so!

But the truth is, God is one because the bible says so.

I believe in the Trinity because it is in the Bible. Genesis 1. 1 John 5:7. 2 Timothy 3:16. I could go on.

meshak
July 20th, 2015, 04:20 PM
The real question is not whether the Church of Rome will accept a person as a "Christian" but what does the Bible state as being necessary for salvation.

We know very well that the Bible does not say such thing.

CherubRam
July 20th, 2015, 04:23 PM
I believe in the Trinity because it is in the Bible. Genesis 1. 1 John 5:7. 2 Timothy 3:16. I could go on.
You desperately need a study bible.

NIV Study Bible
Footnotes:
a. 1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)

Daniel1611
July 20th, 2015, 04:25 PM
You desperately need a study bible.

NIV Study Bible
Footnotes:
a.1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)

So the Bible is not reliable? No need for you to answer. I know your stance on anything that is part of orthodox Christianity. I'm not interested in Judaism or Judaizers like westcott and hort or their jewish masters.

Daniel1611
July 20th, 2015, 04:30 PM
By the way, Cherubram, I'm not fooled by your lies. Tertullian referenced 1 John 5:7 as early as 200 AD.

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 20th, 2015, 04:52 PM
I believe in the Trinity because it is in the Bible. Genesis 1. 1 John 5:7. 2 Timothy 3:16. I could go on.

There aren't three hypostases in those verses... or any others.

Wouldn't it be more prudent to admit the inference, deduction, and compilation of terms for the classic Trinity as an implicit formulaic rather than an explicit declaration of scripture?

Arians, Sabellians, Unitarians, Binitarians, and all the rest have to admit the same thing.

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 20th, 2015, 05:08 PM
So the Bible is not reliable? No need for you to answer. I know your stance on anything that is part of orthodox Christianity. I'm not interested in Judaism or Judaizers like westcott and hort or their jewish masters.

Wouldn't you say the consideration of the Comma Johanneum as potentially spurious is appropriate lower textual criticism? It only appears in three codices and in (scribal) marginal notes of four others.


By the way, Cherubram, I'm not fooled by your lies. Tertullian referenced 1 John 5:7 as early as 200 AD.

Tertullian was also a Subordinationist (Semi-Arian), and fell into Montanism and was considered by many as anathema.

oatmeal
July 20th, 2015, 05:11 PM
Given that God is not a liar and has clearly laid out the fact of the Triune Godhead, and that it is God that is doing the saving of His children, it is impossible for there to be a person so regenerated by God that denies the Trinity. This would in effect be a house divided.

All Christians are Trinitarians.
All non-Trinitarians are not Christians.

AMR

Chapter and verse?

Daniel1611
July 20th, 2015, 05:13 PM
Wouldn't you say the consideration of the Comma Johanneum as potentially spurious is appropriate lower textual criticism? It only appears in three codices and in (scribal) marginal notes of four others.



Tertullian was also a Subordinationist (Semi-Arian), and fell into Montanism and was considered by many as anathema.

There are still references to the "three are one" as early as the second century. Tertullian isn't the only one. If there are references to it, it is not a new doctrine like cherubram implies that it is.

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 20th, 2015, 05:20 PM
There are still references to the "three are one" as early as the second century. Tertullian isn't the only one. If there are references to it, it is not a new doctrine like cherubram implies that it is.

The earliest and most common "three are one" reference would be "God, His Word, and His Wisdom" per Hippolytus and several others.

The real question is... Three "what"? And so few professing Trinitarians have ANY idea of the minutiae of their own purported doctrine, it's no wonder so many are functional Tritheists and Modalists.

No, it's not a new doctrine. But the Comma Johanneum is highly in question as spurious. And it's not really necessary as a proof-text.

I wouldn't want to be approaching non-Trinitarians with certain such proof-texts as a foundation. (And Genesis 1:26 is no better, really.)

oatmeal
July 20th, 2015, 05:21 PM
By the way, Cherubram, I'm not fooled by your lies. Tertullian referenced 1 John 5:7 as early as 200 AD.

According to EW Bullinger, in his Companion Bible, in which he supports the trinity, I John 5:7-8 should read


" For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

He states that the words " in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8And there are three that bear witness in earth, " do not appear in any Greek text before the sixteenth century. "they were first scene in the margins of some Latin copies.

The ASV reads, "And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one."

oatmeal
July 20th, 2015, 05:25 PM
Anyone else care to answer the question? Obviously meshak is theatened by the question for some reason

That would be like me asking you how many persons do you count in Psalm 18:2?

The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.

The Lord is

my rock,

and my fortress,

and my deliverer;

my God,

my strength in whom I will trust;

my buckler,

and the horn of my salvation,

and my high tower.

How many do you count? Eight? Nine?

three?

Zeke
July 20th, 2015, 05:33 PM
This really is the silliest kind of statement ever.

The Trinity doctrine is extensively formulated, and every detail can be understood from that standpoint whether one affirms or denies the doctrine.

Most don't bother to even know the depths and details of a knowable doctrine formulated by men that can be understood; instead making supercilious over-simplified comments like those from allegedly profound Baptist icons.

When a professing Trinitarian can cogently discuss fontal plenitude/innascibility, paternity/filiation, and spiration/procession with some stewardship of history and applied exegesis for an apologetic, I'll take them seriously enough to argue minutiae of Theology Proper.

This simple pronounced bare assertion of a simpleton preacher is fallacious, and it fosters and condones laziness, lethargy, ignorance, and indoctrination.

I guess all the Trinitarian theologians lost their mind in explaining the Trinity. Denying the doctrinal formulaic of men is not the criteria for "losing one's soul".

(This is not personal about you, just the inane quote.)

The allegorical twins through scripture (wrongly thought to be historic siblings in two separated bodies) being reconciled into one harmonious unit by the Divine Conscience is the point being taught by the lives of those two opposite natures explained by dramatized and symbolic teachings. Galatians 4:26 isn't about a birth of the earthly first born of the flesh Galatians 4:24, which hosts the Divine Seed/Pearl/buried treasure etc... as in ONE that falls from above and dies/sleeps in the field/flesh/whale until the Divine rain awakens it from its intellectually bound mind, stuck in theologies quicksand of literal interpretations chasing historic phantoms.

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 20th, 2015, 05:37 PM
The allegorical twins through scripture (wrongly thought to be historic siblings in two separated bodies) being reconciled into one harmonious unit by the Divine Conscience is the point being taught by the lives of those two opposite natures explained in those dramatized and symbolic teachings. Galatians 4:26 isn't about a birth of the earthly first born of the flesh Galatians 4:24, which hosts the Divine Seed/Pearl/buried treasure etc... as in ONE that falls from above and dies/sleeps in the field/flesh/whale until the Divine rain awakens it from its intellectually bound mind, stuck in theologies quicksand of literal interpretations chasing historic phantoms.

Wow. You're still smokin' that schtuff? Your brain is gonna rot from that.:jump:

Esoteric mumbo jumbo...

daqq
July 20th, 2015, 06:25 PM
The allegorical twins through scripture (wrongly thought to be historic siblings in two separated bodies) being reconciled into one harmonious unit by the Divine Conscience is the point being taught by the lives of those two opposite natures explained by dramatized and symbolic teachings. Galatians 4:26 isn't about a birth of the earthly first born of the flesh Galatians 4:24, which hosts the Divine Seed/Pearl/buried treasure etc... as in ONE that falls from above and dies/sleeps in the field/flesh/whale until the Divine rain awakens it from its intellectually bound mind, stuck in theologies quicksand of literal interpretations chasing historic phantoms.

Hmmm, not sure I would agree with "harmonious" because the one is a son of perdition, (the old man nature or "Esau man", if you will) which is a vessel fitted for destruction and in the end goes into the fire. The other, a vessel fitted for honor to the glory of the Father, is tried in the process and instead brought through the fire, (tried in the fire like the precious metals as described in various passages). :)

Dan Emanuel
July 20th, 2015, 06:36 PM
You say the same thing all trinity believers say. God is trinity because my pastor says so!

But the truth is, God is one because the bible says so.My pastor is actually in the Bible. Peter.


Daniel

Dan Emanuel
July 20th, 2015, 06:43 PM
You as a Jew are not required to believe in the New Testament....What? Can you back that up with Scripture? Or anything?


Daniel

Dan Emanuel
July 20th, 2015, 06:51 PM
...Genesis 1:26 is no better....What do you think about Genesis 3:22 KJV? When the LORD God speak's, He speak's His Word, correct?


Daniel

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 20th, 2015, 09:27 PM
What do you think about Genesis 3:22 KJV? When the LORD God speak's, He speak's His Word, correct?


Daniel


I think we'd have to have an in-depth discussion of the lexicographical definitions of the Hebrew and Greek terms.

Logos (Word) is much more than expression.

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 20th, 2015, 09:34 PM
My pastor is actually in the Bible. Peter.


Daniel

Really? Then you better get him out of there before he suffocates. He may already have been crushed to death in there.

:jump:

1Mind1Spirit
July 20th, 2015, 10:24 PM
Originally Posted by PneumaPsucheSoma
...Genesis 1:26 is no better....

This should help.

Epistle of Barnabas capter 6


11 Since then he made us new by the remission of sins he made us another type, that we should have the soul of children, as though he were creating us afresh.

12 For it is concerning us that the scripture says that he says to the Son, "Let us make man after our image and likeness, and let them rule the beasts of the earth, and the birds of heaven, and the fishes of the sea." And the Lord said, when he saw our fair creation, "Increase and multiply and fill the earth"; these things were spoken to the Son.

1Mind1Spirit
July 20th, 2015, 10:34 PM
Hmmm, not sure I would agree with "harmonious" because the one is a son of perdition, (the old man nature or "Esau man", if you will) which is a vessel fitted for destruction and in the end goes into the fire. The other, a vessel fitted for honor to the glory of the Father, is tried in the process and instead brought through the fire, (tried in the fire like the precious metals as described in various passages). :)



:thumb:

Dan Emanuel
July 21st, 2015, 12:34 AM
I think we'd have to have an in-depth discussion of the lexicographical definitions of the Hebrew and Greek terms.

Logos (Word) is much more than expression.Is the Word of God present in Genesis 1:26 KJV and in Genesis 3:22 KJV?


Daniel

Dan Emanuel
July 21st, 2015, 12:39 AM
Really? Then you better get him out of there before he suffocates. He may already have been crushed to death in there.

:jump:His upside-down crucifixion is not explicitly depicted in Scripture (John 21:18 KJV), but his cross (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_St._Peter) is the upside-down cross, the Cross of St. Peter, and thats why, because he requested to be crucified upside-down, because he wasn't worthy enough to even die in the same manner as Jesus.

That tradition is as reliable as the Scripture.


Daniel

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 21st, 2015, 12:54 AM
Is the Word of God present in Genesis 1:26 KJV and in Genesis 3:22 KJV?


Daniel


The Logos of God is eternal.

What do you mean by "present"? I don't much care for diluted English terms translating Hebrew and Greek terms. Too much ambiguity.

What are you attempting to present as Theology Proper?

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 21st, 2015, 12:55 AM
His upside-down crucifixion is not explicitly depicted in Scripture (John 21:18 KJV), but his cross (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_St._Peter) is the upside-down cross, the Cross of St. Peter, and thats why, because he requested to be crucified upside-down, because he wasn't worthy enough to even die in the same manner as Jesus.

That tradition is as reliable as the Scripture.


Daniel

I don't think anyone who has much knowledge of Church history would doubt the account of Peter's death.

My comment was purely light-hearted humor.

Dan Emanuel
July 21st, 2015, 12:56 AM
The Logos of God is eternal.

What do you mean by "present"? I don't much care for diluted English terms translating Hebrew and Greek terms. Too much ambiguity.

What are you attempting to present as Theology Proper?No, they're are word's in they're, that indicate that God is quoted; "God said," twice. "God said." Does God say His Word in Genesis 1:26 KJV and Genesis 3:22 KJV?


Daniel

Dan Emanuel
July 21st, 2015, 12:57 AM
I don't think anyone who has much knowledge of Church history would doubt the account of Peter's death.

My comment was purely light-hearted humor.:e4e:

Thank you.


Daniel

Ask Mr. Religion
July 21st, 2015, 12:57 AM
The real problem with this "analysis" is that many conceptualize the alleged "persons" as "beings" or "manifestations" and have no idea what their actual professed doctrine IS.

It is disappointing that you would inject into this discussion matters of nuanced distinctions and perhaps spoil the well. It is a disservice to the basic premise of the OP and something that belongs in an exclusively Christian discussion—not in this "Religion" forum. I know you know this and it troubles me you would take the OP as an opportunity to beat your usual drums about the topic. To every thing there is a season...no?

The basics of the Trinity are accessible to anyone who claims to be a Christian. Of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, if we say anything, we must say:

1. The Father is God;
2. the Son is God;
3. the Holy Spirit is God;
4. the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit;
5. the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit;
6. the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son; and
7. they are not three gods, but one God.

No we can, have, and perhaps will wax eloquent on the finer points of the plain statements above—but not herein.

That said, these simple statements amply suffice as starting points, each of which must be affirmed if one claims "Christian" describes their position.

If you can affirm these seven simple statements, then you have the obvious answer to your direct question as to how I view your claim to be "Christian".

AMR

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 21st, 2015, 01:08 AM
It is disappointing that you would inject into this discussion matters of nuanced distinctions and perhaps spoil the well. It is a disservice to the basic premise of the OP and something that belongs in an exclusively Christian discussion—not in this "Religion" forum. I know you know this and it troubles me you would take the OP as an opportunity to beat your usual drums about the topic. To every thing there is a season...no?

The basics of the Trinity are accessible to anyone who claims to be a Christian. Of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, if we say anything, we must say:

1. The Father is God;
2. the Son is God;
3. the Holy Spirit is God;
4. the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit;
5. the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit;
6. the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son; and
7. they are not three gods, but one God.

No we can, have, and perhaps will wax eloquent on the finer points of the plain statements above—but not herein.

That said, these simple statements amply suffice as starting points, each of which must be affirmed if one claims "Christian" describes their position.

If you can affirm these seven simple statements, then you have the obvious answer to your direct question as to how I view your claim to be "Christian".

AMR

I thought you were truly grouping me with non-/anti-Trinitarians and (potentially) non-Christians.

Your above response has clarified the threshold I was concerned about. Thank you, and I'll abstain from my approach.

:jump:

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 21st, 2015, 01:10 AM
No, they're are word's in they're, that indicate that God is quoted; "God said," twice. "God said." Does God say His Word in Genesis 1:26 KJV and Genesis 3:22 KJV?


Daniel

As I said, this will require some mutual understanding of the depth of Hebrew and Greek terms rather than English dilutions.

Logos is not merely God "saying".

Ask Mr. Religion
July 21st, 2015, 01:13 AM
I thought you were truly grouping me with non-/anti-Trinitarians and (potentially) non-Christians.

Your above response has clarified the threshold I was concerned about. Thank you, and I'll abstain from my approach.

:jump:
No problem, brother.

AMR

iamaberean
July 21st, 2015, 01:36 AM
I believe in the Trinity because it is in the Bible. Genesis 1. 1 John 5:7. 2 Timothy 3:16. I could go on.

I am a son, husband and father. I am one person, not three.

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 21st, 2015, 03:14 AM
This should help.

Epistle of Barnabas capter 6

11 Since then he made us new by the remission of sins he made us another type, that we should have the soul of children, as though he were creating us afresh.

12 For it is concerning us that the scripture says that he says to the Son, "Let us make man after our image and likeness, and let them rule the beasts of the earth, and the birds of heaven, and the fishes of the sea." And the Lord said, when he saw our fair creation, "Increase and multiply and fill the earth"; these things were spoken to the Son.

No. Why would the Epistle of Barnabas help?


:thumb:

Wow. I had no idea you were a hyper-Allegoricist. Interesting.

Ben Masada
July 21st, 2015, 03:35 AM
You as a Jew are not required to believe in the New Testament. However, we who call Christ the messiah have this:

"And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth."

You have forgotten that Jesus was a Jew too and you are using a Jew to preach a Christian doctrine when Jesus never had any thing to do with it. Jesus never even dreamed that the NT would ever be written. Every time he referred to the Word of God or the Truth, he had the Tanach in his mind. If you read the NT with a scientific mind you ought to know that Paul was the one who fabricated the idea that Jesus was "Christ" the Messiah. (II Tim. 2:8) And that he was the son of God when the only reference to God's son is in the Torah under Exod. 4:22,23. "Israel is My son..."

oatmeal
July 21st, 2015, 03:57 AM
Do you have to be a Roman Catholic to be a Christian?

Do you have to be a Baptist to be a Christian?

Do you have to be a Pentecostal to be a Christian?

oatmeal
July 21st, 2015, 03:59 AM
What do you mean by

"be a Christian"

a. become a Christian

b. live the scriptures like a disciple should

???

Ben Masada
July 21st, 2015, 04:02 AM
Do you have to be a Roman Catholic to be a Christian?

Do you have to be a Baptist to be a Christian?

Do you have to be a Pentecostal to be a Christian?

No, whatever you are or become, if you believe that Jesus was "Christ" you are a Christian. That's all it takes.

Ben Masada
July 21st, 2015, 04:04 AM
What do you mean by

"be a Christian"

a. become a Christian

b. live the scriptures like a disciple should

???

Again, you don't even have to live the Scriptures like a disciple should. All you have to do is to believe that Jesus was "Christ." (Acts 11:26) It is like in Islam, if you confess that Allah is One and Mohamed His prophet, you become a Moslem.

Daniel1611
July 21st, 2015, 04:09 AM
I am a son, husband and father. I am one person, not three.

Exactly. The three are one. God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and he is one. Great analogy, iamberean!

1Mind1Spirit
July 21st, 2015, 11:28 AM
No. Why would the Epistle of Barnabas help?


Barnabas knew all too well how to compare spiritual with spiritual.





Wow. I had no idea you were a hyper-Allegoricist. Interesting.




John 3:8 KJV


8 The wind bloweth where it listeth , and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh , and whither it goeth : so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

meshak
July 21st, 2015, 11:33 AM
Exactly. The three are one. God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and he is one. Great analogy, iamberean!

You are missing his point.

Angel4Truth
July 21st, 2015, 11:33 AM
Slice it, dice it any way you want.

John 8:24 That is why I told you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM, you'll die in your sins."

I Am is the name of God given to moses.

Looks like Christ is saying if you dont believe He is God, you will die in your sins.

Scripture also states that only God can forgive sin.

Mark 2:7 "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Isaiah 43:25
"I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.

meshak
July 21st, 2015, 11:36 AM
It is disappointing that you would inject into this discussion matters of nuanced distinctions and perhaps spoil the well. It is a disservice to the basic premise of the OP and something that belongs in an exclusively Christian discussion—not in this "Religion" forum. I know you know this and it troubles me you would take the OP as an opportunity to beat your usual drums about the topic. To every thing there is a season...no?

The basics of the Trinity are accessible to anyone who claims to be a Christian. Of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, if we say anything, we must say:

1. The Father is God;
2. the Son is God;
3. the Holy Spirit is God;
4. the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit;
5. the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit;
6. the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son; and
7. they are not three gods, but one God.

No we can, have, and perhaps will wax eloquent on the finer points of the plain statements above—but not herein.

That said, these simple statements amply suffice as starting points, each of which must be affirmed if one claims "Christian" describes their position.

If you can affirm these seven simple statements, then you have the obvious answer to your direct question as to how I view your claim to be "Christian".

AMR

You usurp Jesus' authority. You set up your own qualification for salvation.

How arrogant. Your don't have spirit of Jesus. Your Lord is not Jesus.

daqq
July 21st, 2015, 11:51 AM
His upside-down crucifixion is not explicitly depicted in Scripture (John 21:18 KJV), but his cross (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_St._Peter) is the upside-down cross, the Cross of St. Peter, and thats why, because he requested to be crucified upside-down, because he wasn't worthy enough to even die in the same manner as Jesus.

That tradition is as reliable as the Scripture.

Daniel

Your tradition is "as reliable as the Scripture"? Not for me:

John 21:18 = Acts 12:6


John 3:8 KJV
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth , and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh , and whither it goeth : so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Perhaps you might find this useful in the "Exclusively Christian Theology" board in your arguments because they all appear to assume that the debate over whether pneuma is spirit, wind, or breath, when and where, is done and over, and thus, everywhere it is rendered inaccurately has caused much misunderstanding. By the Testimony of Yeshua we read that testimony itself is spirit because he says that the words that he speaks, they are spirit, and they are life. The debate is not over on this subject, except for the close-minded, and this is one of the huge gaping holes in their theories and postulations. :)

John 3:8 KJV
8. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

John 3:8 YLT
8. the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.'

Dan Emanuel
July 21st, 2015, 12:07 PM
As I said, this will require some mutual understanding of the depth of Hebrew and Greek terms rather than English dilutions...I'll follow you're lead on that.

...Logos is not merely God "saying".Right, He can't be, because otherwise Who is speaking in Matthew 17:5 KJV? Its not Jesus.


Daniel

Dan Emanuel
July 21st, 2015, 12:09 PM
Your tradition is "as reliable as the Scripture"? Not for me:

John 21:18 = Acts 12:6Maybe you should give it another look, since John 21:19 KJV =/= Acts 12:6 KJV?


Daniel

aikido7
July 21st, 2015, 12:22 PM
To be a Christian is too follow Jesus and take him seriously. Jesus never taught anything in dogmatic, propositional theology.

The doctrine of the trinity was devised long after Jesus died.

A belief in its existence has nothing to do with being a Christian.

meshak
July 21st, 2015, 12:25 PM
To be a Christian is too follow Jesus and take him seriously. Jesus never taught anything in dogmatic, propositional theology.

The doctrine of the trinity was devised long after Jesus died.

A belief in its existence has nothing to do with being a Christian.

Yes, they don't get this simple logic.

daqq
July 21st, 2015, 12:37 PM
Maybe you should give it another look, since John 21:19 KJV =/= Acts 12:6 KJV?


Daniel

Do you not believe that the authors believed every word of the Master Teacher? The authors therefore do not see physical death in their writings because Yeshua Says:

John 8:51
51. Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.

If you do not understand that the authors of the apostolic writings keep all of the sayings of Yeshua then how can you possibly understand what they themselves have written? They do not "see" physical death because also Yeshua says that "the flesh profits nothing" in the passage which was just referenced in my previous statements above:

John 6:63 KJV
63. It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Now therefore you have a carnal tradition of the physical upside down crucifixion of Peter and you say that glorifies the Father? Who exactly is your Father? Mine is Love and He does not seek to have His people brutally physically murdered for His glory. Therefore it is your flesh man paradigm and your fellows here like PPS calling others here "hyper allegorists" that can see no light because your flesh has blinded you to supernal things written in the holy Scripture:

John 21:18-19 KJV
18. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, [the old man nature] thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, [between two chains] and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
19. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

Acts 12:6-8
6. And when Herod would have brought him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains: [hands spread apart] and the keepers before the door kept the prison.
7. And, behold, an Angel of YHWH came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter in the side, [literally the rib] and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly! And his chains fell off from his hands.
8. And the Angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And he said unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me!

:sheep:

aikido7
July 21st, 2015, 12:50 PM
Yes, they don't get this simple logic.
But often on these forums belief trumps logic.

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 21st, 2015, 01:01 PM
Barnabas knew all too well how to compare spiritual with spiritual.

Of course he did.

Now all you have to do is provide the veracity of the Epistle of Barnabas.


John 3:8 KJV

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth , and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh , and whither it goeth : so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

I guess you're a full-blown esotericist. Wow, who knew?

genuineoriginal
July 21st, 2015, 02:15 PM
We know very well that the Bible does not say such thing.

The Bible does state what is necessary for salvation.
Belief in the trinity is nowhere to be found in the list.

oatmeal
July 21st, 2015, 03:48 PM
John 8:24 That is why I told you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM, you'll die in your sins."

I Am is the name of God given to moses.

Looks like Christ is saying if you dont believe He is God, you will die in your sins.

Scripture also states that only God can forgive sin.

Mark 2:7 "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Isaiah 43:25
"I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.

Ever read Mathew 6:9-13?

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

11 Give us this day our daily bread.

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Jesus made it very clear that they were to forgive as part of that gospel period.

Matthew 18:21-22

21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

Luke 6:37

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

What about us?

Ephesians 4:32

And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

In our case we are to forgive because God for Christ's sake, has forgiven us.


2 Corinthians 2:7

So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.

2 Corinthians 2:10

To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;

Evidently, the people in

Mark 2:7 "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! [B]Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

were not educated in who can forgive.

They did not know

Totton Linnet
July 21st, 2015, 04:44 PM
We can forgive sins committed against US
Only God can forgive sins committed against God


...got it now?

genuineoriginal
July 21st, 2015, 04:53 PM
Only God can forgive sins committed against God
Both God and His appointed representative can forgive sins committed against God.

This is one of the lessons shown in Luke 16, The parable of the shrewd manager.

The Gospels also make it clear who the appointed representative of God is.

John 5:22
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

meshak
July 21st, 2015, 05:39 PM
But often on these forums belief trumps logic.

so true, sadly.

That's why they make up their own doctrines to divide His followers, and they don't even recognize it.

meshak
July 21st, 2015, 05:41 PM
The Bible does state what is necessary for salvation.
Belief in the trinity is nowhere to be found in the list.

You are right.

George Affleck
July 21st, 2015, 07:15 PM
I wonder what the understanding of the thief on the cross was with regard to trinitarian doctrine?

drbrumley
July 21st, 2015, 07:25 PM
Belief in the trinity is nowhere to be found in the list.

The question must be asked, who is Christ?

drbrumley
July 21st, 2015, 07:36 PM
Both God and His appointed representative can forgive sins committed against God.

This is one of the lessons shown in Luke 16, The parable of the shrewd manager.

The Gospels also make it clear who the appointed representative of God is.

John 5:22
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

Maybe a reading of Hebrews 1 is in order for you.

genuineoriginal
July 21st, 2015, 08:02 PM
The question must be asked, who is Christ?

What does scripture say?

Matthew 16:13-17King James Version (KJV)
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Do you believe this?

genuineoriginal
July 21st, 2015, 08:04 PM
Maybe a reading of Hebrews 1 is in order for you.
Maybe you should read it again.

Hebrews 1:1-2
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

drbrumley
July 21st, 2015, 08:27 PM
Hebrews 1:1-2
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

That's right. But let's continue reading farther...

1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

meshak
July 21st, 2015, 08:35 PM
The question must be asked, who is Christ?



Jesus, who else?

drbrumley
July 21st, 2015, 08:36 PM
What does scripture say?

Matthew 16:13-17King James Version (KJV)
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Do you believe this?

Yes I do. Also Luke 1:35 that I referenced yesterday.

And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.” (v. 35)

This verse answers the question who is the Christ as well. Now I am gonna go out on the limb here and say I know you think this verse defends your position. So I helped you out.

meshak
July 21st, 2015, 08:36 PM
That's right. But let's continue reading farther...

1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

this is questionable verse. It is out of the context with Jesus' word.

drbrumley
July 21st, 2015, 08:37 PM
Jesus, who else?

Answered in post #159.

And your right, BTW it is Jesus.

oatmeal
July 21st, 2015, 08:37 PM
We can forgive sins committed against US
Only God can forgive sins committed against God


...got it now?

Oh, well then, please point out in that record where sins against God or sins against US is specifically stated?

Since you cannot, you, as your manner is, point that out because you did not bother to read the scripture and its context. You cannot point it out because that information is not given.

Have you ever considered reading scripture before spouting off your opinions?

As far as I can tell, you rarely bother with scripture.

Shame on you!

Mark 2:1-12

And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.

2 And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them.

3 And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four.

4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.

5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,

7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?

8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?

9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?

10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)

11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.

12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

drbrumley
July 21st, 2015, 08:38 PM
this is questionable verse. It is out of the context with Jesus' word.

Actually it isn't, but suit yourself.

oatmeal
July 21st, 2015, 08:39 PM
The question must be asked, who is Christ?

Christ means anointed.

Acts 2:22, Jesus a man, approved of God, was anointed by God, Acts 10:38

drbrumley
July 21st, 2015, 08:41 PM
Christ means anointed.

Acts 2:22, Jesus a man, approved of God, was anointed by God, Acts 10:38

Agreed. Do you agree with Hebrews 1:8?

meshak
July 21st, 2015, 08:45 PM
Actually it isn't, but suit yourself.

Then show us where Jesus says He is God.

oatmeal
July 21st, 2015, 08:46 PM
That's right. But let's continue reading farther...

1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

If indeed Jesus is God, then God appointed himself heir of all things.

If Jesus is indeed God, then he already had all things, so why appoint himself heir of what he already has?

However, since Jesus is the son of God, not God himself, then it makes sense that God would appoint His son heir of those things that God could pass on to His son.

God is eternal, He is not expected to die, so the son is not appointed heir because the Father is expecting to die.

Oh, Hebrews 1:8

God calls His son god, no surprise.

Just remember Exodus 7:1 KJV God made Moses a god to Pharaoh

Jesus being a prophet like unto Moses, it would sense for Jesus the greatest prophet of all to be referred to as god as well.

Oh, and don't forget that Jesus acknowledges that God calls many men god. John 10:34-35

Who are those men who God calls gods?

drbrumley
July 21st, 2015, 08:46 PM
Then show us where Jesus says He is God.

God said so, Heb 1:8

meshak
July 21st, 2015, 08:47 PM
God said so, Heb 1:8

that's not what Jesus said.

meshak
July 21st, 2015, 08:50 PM
BTW, everyone.

read the OP. this is not about the trinity.

It is about whether believe in doctrine of trinity is requirement for salvation or not.

Nick M
July 21st, 2015, 08:51 PM
I wonder what the understanding of the thief on the cross was with regard to trinitarian doctrine?

42 Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.”

43 And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

Whose kingdom and how many thrones does it have?

Nick M
July 21st, 2015, 08:52 PM
Jesus, who else?

Don't take the Lord's name in vain you wench.

drbrumley
July 21st, 2015, 08:59 PM
that's not what Jesus said.

Jesus said He was the I AM.....If you have a problem with that, I suggest taking it up with Jesus...

drbrumley
July 21st, 2015, 09:02 PM
If indeed Jesus is God, then God appointed himself heir of all things.

If Jesus is indeed God, then he already had all things, so why appoint himself heir of what he already has?

However, since Jesus is the son of God, not God himself, then it makes sense that God would appoint His son heir of those things that God could pass on to His son.

God is eternal, He is not expected to die, so the son is not appointed heir because the Father is expecting to die.

Oh, Hebrews 1:8

God calls His son god, no surprise.

Just remember Exodus 7:1 KJV God made Moses a god to Pharaoh

Jesus being a prophet like unto Moses, it would sense for Jesus the greatest prophet of all to be referred to as god as well.

Oh, and don't forget that Jesus acknowledges that God calls many men god. John 10:34-35

Who are those men who God calls gods?

Reading comprehension not a strong suit my friend?

8But unto the Son (Jesus) he (God the Father) saith, Thy (Jesus) throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy(Jesus) kingdom.

Nick M
July 21st, 2015, 09:04 PM
Then show us where Jesus says He is God.

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty...And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last.

“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.

And just for good measure;

Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

Tambora
July 21st, 2015, 09:06 PM
God said so, Heb 1:8

that's not what Jesus said.Apparently, Meshak believes Jesus disagrees with His Father.

drbrumley
July 21st, 2015, 09:07 PM
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty...And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last.

“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.

And just for good measure;

Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

BOOM!!!!

drbrumley
July 21st, 2015, 09:10 PM
Apparently, Meshak believes Jesus disagrees with His Father.

Apparently so..since the only books she believes (doubtful at that) is the Gospels.

meshak
July 21st, 2015, 09:11 PM
Where does the Bible say you have to believe in the trinity to be saved?

drbrumley
July 21st, 2015, 09:14 PM
Where does the Bible say you have to believe in the trinity to be saved?

God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), God the Holy Spirit as evidenced in Genesis thru Revelation. Just read it.

meshak
July 21st, 2015, 09:19 PM
God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), God the Holy Spirit as evidenced in Genesis thru Revelation. Just read it.

It does not say "you have to believe in the trinity to be saved".

You are making up your own qualification of salvation. You are not Lord, Jesus is.

Tambora
July 21st, 2015, 09:27 PM
that's not what Jesus said.Jesus never said He was the Savior.

So, according to Meshak, anyone that said that Jesus is the Savior in the bible must be suspect, because Jesus Himself did not say it.

That's messed up!

drbrumley
July 21st, 2015, 09:31 PM
It does not say "you have to believe in the trinity to be saved".

You are making up your own qualification of salvation. You are not Lord, Jesus is.

So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship--and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

JESUS

meshak
July 21st, 2015, 09:34 PM
So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship--and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

JESUS

I have been proclaiming Jesus all along.

I know Jesus very well. You guys don't honor His word much but I do.

drbrumley
July 21st, 2015, 09:36 PM
I have been proclaiming Jesus all along.

I know Jesus very well. You guys don't honor His word much but I do.

Then spell it out for me Meshak...Who is Jesus?

meshak
July 21st, 2015, 09:39 PM
Then spell it out for me Meshak...Who is Jesus?
I already told you but I don't mind repeating it.

Jesus is Son of God and Savior of the world. You will be saved if you love Him with your action and with your word.

Jesus says "if you love Me, keep my commands."

This is requirement for salvation that you guys dismissing.

drbrumley
July 21st, 2015, 09:45 PM
I already told you but I don't mind repeating it.


Great!!!


Jesus is Son of God and Savior of the world. You will be saved if you love Him with your action and with your word.


Ok, He is the Son of God. I'm happy you know that much.

Question for you. Why did the Pharisees pick up rocks to stone him when He said Before Abraham was, I AM? Why is that?

Totton Linnet
July 21st, 2015, 10:03 PM
Both God and His appointed representative can forgive sins committed against God.

This is one of the lessons shown in Luke 16, The parable of the shrewd manager.

The Gospels also make it clear who the appointed representative of God is.

John 5:22
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

...the Son

Do YOU have a son? what is he a rabbit? rabbits beget rabbits. Men beget men.

God begot God

Every time He is called Son of the living God it declares that He is God. Were you born into the womb of a virgin? were you CONCIEVED of the Holy Ghost.....As for me and my house I will honour the Son as I honour the Father...I honour the Father as God.

Totton Linnet
July 21st, 2015, 10:06 PM
I already told you but I don't mind repeating it.

Jesus is Son of God and Savior of the world. You will be saved if you love Him with your action and with your word.

Jesus says "if you love Me, keep my commands."

This is requirement for salvation that you guys dismissing.

But you don't keep His commands.

If any man say he loves God but hate his brethren he is a liar, this is the spirit of Cain who was a murderer.

God PROVED that His word is true.

Totton Linnet
July 21st, 2015, 10:10 PM
Where does the Bible say you have to believe in the trinity to be saved?

You testify yourself that you are not a true Christian, not saved.

You cannot serve God and Satan.....

daqq
July 21st, 2015, 10:50 PM
Jesus said He was the I AM.....If you have a problem with that, I suggest taking it up with Jesus...


I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty...And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last.

“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.

And just for good measure;

Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”


BOOM!!!!

Simply not true. The author of John did not have the text which has been quoted because the Masoretic Text was not in existence at the time of writing. In fact the Masoretic Hebrew Text was not compiled for about another 900 years after the Gospel of John was written. The author of John quotes from either the Septuagint or some other heretofore unknown manuscript or codex. In John 12:38 we see clear evidence of this fact:

John 12:38 KJV
38. That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?

The word for "Lord" highlighted in the above quote, (which would have been either YHWH, or Adonay, or more likely Adon because it is Kurie in the Greek) is not present in the Masoretic Hebrew Text:

Isaiah 53:1 KJV
1. Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?

However the Greek quote in John 12:38 matches the Septuagint word for word as if it was copied straight from the Septuagint:

John 12:38 W/H 1881
ἵνα ὁ λόγος Ἠσαίου τοῦ προφήτου πληρωθῇ ὃν εἶπεν Κύριε, τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν; καὶ ὁ βραχίων Κυρίου τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη;
http://biblehub.com/text/john/12-38.htm

John 12:38 T/R 1550
ἵνα ὁ λόγος Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου πληρωθῇ ὃν εἶπεν Κύριε τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν καὶ ὁ βραχίων κυρίου τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη
http://biblehub.com/text/john/12-38.htm

Esaias 53:1 LXX-Septuagint
Κύριε, τίς ἐπίστευσε τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν; καὶ ὁ βραχίων Κυρίου τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη;
http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=43&page=53

Esaias 53:1 LXX-Septuagint (Brenton Translation)
1 O Lord, who has believed our report? and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=43&page=53

And again the quote in John 12:38 is word for word from the Septuagint:

JN 12:38
Κύριε, τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν; καὶ ὁ βραχίων Κυρίου τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη;

Esaias 53:1 LXX-Septuagint
Κύριε, τίς ἐπίστευσε τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν; καὶ ὁ βραχίων Κυρίου τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη;

Now perhaps you both might go read Exodus 3:14 from the Septuagint and you will find that it does not say "Ego eimi ["I AM"] has sent me to you" but rather "HO ON ["HE WHO IS"] has sent me to you". This is the foundational portion of a title of the Father, (YHWH) in Greek which is "ho-on-kai-ho-en-kai-ho-erchomenos" and is again referenced twice in the opening statements of Revelation, (Rev 1:4 and Rev 1:8). In other words the KJV and all translations which followed suite, (and use the Masoretic Text) are nothing more than trinitarian interpretations when it comes to this passage because the LXX-Septuagint rendering gives the meaning of 'EHYEH, (Hebrew transliteration) not as "Ego eimi" (Greek "I am") but rather as "HO ON" in the Greek, (which could also mean "THE BEING" as Brenton renders it).

This is much more critical than any here may wish to acknowledge but the reason it is so critical is because it is extremely compelling evidence that this is what the author of the Gospel of John would have believed because this is what he had before him. And again the Masoretic Text was not even in existence until about 900 years later circa 1000AD. Hope this helps, (BOOM!!!!!!!). :)

:sheep:

daqq
July 21st, 2015, 11:27 PM
Better yet here is Exodus 3:14 from the Septuagint with a link:

Exodus 3:14 LXX-Septuagint
14 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων· ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. καὶ εἶπεν· οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς ᾿Ισραήλ· ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=2&page=3

Exodus 3:14 LXX-Septuagint (Brenton Translation)
14 And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you.
http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=2&page=3

"ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν" = "I am THE BEING"
"ὁ ὤν" = "HO ON" = "THE BEING" = "HE WHO IS"

:sheep:

meshak
July 22nd, 2015, 05:57 AM
Question for you. Why did the Pharisees pick up rocks to stone him when He said Before Abraham was, I AM? Why is that?

Because they don't know Jesus. Like you trin people, they assumed what Jesus said.

Jesus never said He is God.

genuineoriginal
July 22nd, 2015, 07:05 AM
That's right. But let's continue reading farther...

1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

You keep skipping parts of the chapter.


Hebrews 1:5-6
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Hebrews 1:9
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

iamaberean
July 22nd, 2015, 07:19 AM
Because they don't know Jesus. Like you trin people, they assumed what Jesus said.

Jesus never said He is God.

The Jews said he claimed to be God.

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Don't back off meshak, you had it right, Jesus is God!

CherubRam
July 22nd, 2015, 07:21 AM
Then spell it out for me Meshak...Who is Jesus?

Jesus is not the name of Christ, because it is a recent invention. Yahshua is his name.

CherubRam
July 22nd, 2015, 07:32 AM
By the way, Cherubram, I'm not fooled by your lies. Tertullian referenced 1 John 5:7 as early as 200 AD.

It is wise to look both ways before crossing the street. The Gnostics and Pagans were Trinitarians. When the disciples passed away, the Gnostics and Pagans stepped it to take control of Christianity. The Judaizing Christians had the original letters, they were killed, and the letters burned; and the Catholics replaced them with their own versions. P.S. The Judaizing Christians believed that joining Paganism to God is a sin.

CherubRam
July 22nd, 2015, 07:37 AM
It is wise to look both ways before crossing the street. The Gnostics and Pagans were Trinitarians. When the disciples passed away, the Gnostics and Pagans stepped it to take control of Christianity. The Judaizing Christians had the original letters, they were killed, and the letters burned; and the Catholics replaced them with their own versions. P.S. The Judaizing Christians believed that joining Paganism to God is a sin.

Yahwah's name was in the original New Testament scriptures

After killing Hebrew Christians, the Jews would take the New testament scripture written in Hebrew, and carefully cut the name of God out. Then they would place the divine name in a safe place to keep. Following that, they then would burn the remainder of the scrolls in a fire. Rabbi Yose who lived during the second century AD states that, "One cuts out the reference to the Divine Name which are in them [the New Testament writings] and stores them away, and the rest burns." One of his characteristic sayings is, "He who proclaimed the coming of the Messiah,[John] and he who hated scholars [Yahshua] and his disciples; and that false prophet and those slanderers, will have no part in the future world."

According to Wilhelm Bacher this was directed against the Hebrew Christians. And so it is an established fact then, that the disciples of Christ did in fact write the Holy Name of God into the original New Testament.

John 17:11
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.

Hebrews 2:12
He says, “I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises.”

Where do you see the name Yahwah in the New Testament?

PneumaPsucheSoma
July 22nd, 2015, 07:47 AM
Simply not true. The author of John did not have the text which has been quoted because the Masoretic Text was not in existence at the time of writing. In fact the Masoretic Hebrew Text was not compiled for about another 900 years after the Gospel of John was written. The author of John quotes from either the Septuagint or some other heretofore unknown manuscript or codex. In John 12:38 we see clear evidence of this fact:

John 12:38 KJV
38. That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?

The word for "Lord" highlighted in the above quote, (which would have been either YHWH, or Adonay, or more likely Adon because it is Kurie in the Greek) is not present in the Masoretic Hebrew Text:

Isaiah 53:1 KJV
1. Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?

However the Greek quote in John 12:38 matches the Septuagint word for word as if it was copied straight from the Septuagint:

John 12:38 W/H 1881
ἵνα ὁ λόγος Ἠσαίου τοῦ προφήτου πληρωθῇ ὃν εἶπεν Κύριε, τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν; καὶ ὁ βραχίων Κυρίου τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη;
http://biblehub.com/text/john/12-38.htm

John 12:38 T/R 1550
ἵνα ὁ λόγος Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου πληρωθῇ ὃν εἶπεν Κύριε τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν καὶ ὁ βραχίων κυρίου τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη
http://biblehub.com/text/john/12-38.htm

Esaias 53:1 LXX-Septuagint
Κύριε, τίς ἐπίστευσε τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν; καὶ ὁ βραχίων Κυρίου τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη;
http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=43&page=53

Esaias 53:1 LXX-Septuagint (Brenton Translation)
1 O Lord, who has believed our report? and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=43&page=53

And again the quote in John 12:38 is word for word from the Septuagint:

JN 12:38
Κύριε, τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν; καὶ ὁ βραχίων Κυρίου τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη;

Esaias 53:1 LXX-Septuagint
Κύριε, τίς ἐπίστευσε τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν; καὶ ὁ βραχίων Κυρίου τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη;

Now perhaps you both might go read Exodus 3:14 from the Septuagint and you will find that it does not say "Ego eimi ["I AM"] has sent me to you" but rather "HO ON ["HE WHO IS"] has sent me to you". This is the foundational portion of a title of the Father, (YHWH) in Greek which is "ho-on-kai-ho-en-kai-ho-erchomenos" and is again referenced twice in the opening statements of Revelation, (Rev 1:4 and Rev 1:8). In other words the KJV and all translations which followed suite, (and use the Masoretic Text) are nothing more than trinitarian interpretations when it comes to this passage because the LXX-Septuagint rendering gives the meaning of 'EHYEH, (Hebrew transliteration) not as "Ego eimi" (Greek "I am") but rather as "HO ON" in the Greek, (which could also mean "THE BEING" as Brenton renders it).

This is much more critical than any here may wish to acknowledge but the reason it is so critical is because it is extremely compelling evidence that this is what the author of the Gospel of John would have believed because this is what he had before him. And again the Masoretic Text was not even in existence until about 900 years later circa 1000AD. Hope this helps, (BOOM!!!!!!!). :)

:sheep:




Better yet here is Exodus 3:14 from the Septuagint with a link:

Exodus 3:14 LXX-Septuagint
14 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων· ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. καὶ εἶπεν· οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς ᾿Ισραήλ· ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=2&page=3

Exodus 3:14 LXX-Septuagint (Brenton Translation)
14 And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you.
http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=2&page=3

"ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν" = "I am THE BEING"
"ὁ ὤν" = "HO ON" = "THE BEING" = "HE WHO IS"

:sheep:

So what ultimate conclusion have you reached from applying this to Theology Proper?

Is your point merely that Jesus was not reiterating God's statement to Moses verbatim? Or are you suggesting something else entirely?

Is this your assertion against the Deity of Christ in some way? Or are you simply pointing out that the Greek written record of Jesus saying "Ego eimi" is not a direct parallel to the Hebrew text for God saying "I Am" to Moses in Exodus?

CherubRam
July 22nd, 2015, 07:53 AM
In Hebrew there is the word "I," but there is no such words as "I am."

"I am" is an interpretation for "I Lived" also here in John 8. I Lived" is the trans-literal.

John 8:58
New International Version (NIV)
58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

In Matthew 26 and Mark 14 we have the same story with two different acknowledgements.

Matthew 26
62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?"

63 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."

64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Mark 14:60
Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?"

61. But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"

62. "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Yahshua was asked if he was the messiah, for which he answered, yes.

Tambora
July 22nd, 2015, 09:52 AM
Because they don't know Jesus. Like you trin people, they assumed what Jesus said.

Jesus never said He is God.You don't even follow your own hype!

You can search the red letters and see that Jesus never said He was the Savior.
And yet you readily assume Jesus is the Savior.


I already told you but I don't mind repeating it.

Jesus is Son of God and Savior of the world. How did you arrive at the conclusion that Jesus is the Savior if He never said He was the Savior?

aikido7
July 22nd, 2015, 11:36 AM
Being a Christian--the way I view it anyway--is to see the presence of God in Jesus. And since Jesus never uttered the word "Trinity," one does not have to be a trinitarian to be a believer.

meshak
July 22nd, 2015, 11:50 AM
The Jews said he claimed to be God.

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Don't back off meshak, you had it right, Jesus is God!

Those verses are not saying Jesus is God. It is your assumption.

Jesus never said He is God.

meshak
July 22nd, 2015, 11:53 AM
Everyone,

this thread is not about trnity, Please get back to topic.

And no one coming up to support your claim of "You have to believe in the trinity to be saved."

You cannot because it is not there. Jesus did not claim it, nor any of His disciples.

daqq
July 22nd, 2015, 12:51 PM
So what ultimate conclusion have you reached from applying this to Theology Proper?

Is your point merely that Jesus was not reiterating God's statement to Moses verbatim? Or are you suggesting something else entirely?

Is this your assertion against the Deity of Christ in some way? Or are you simply pointing out that the Greek written record of Jesus saying "Ego eimi" is not a direct parallel to the Hebrew text for God saying "I Am" to Moses in Exodus?

What does "theology proper" mean to you? In my opinion theology proper is Torah, Prophets, and Writings understood through the lenses of the Testimony of Yeshua. This goes back to what I said previously, (and what I said in what you have quoted builds upon what I said previously) because in my understanding testimony is pneuma-breath-wind-spirit. Therefore if one does not have the Testimony of Yeshua, and hold it in uprightness according to Torah and Tanach, then the same neither has Spirit Holy. Is it therefore "theology proper" to misinterpret critical statements and words in Torah so as to make a theological statement out of something in the Apostolic writings that actually is not there? Yeshua was not even referencing Exodus 3:14 in the statement of John 8:58. It is a blatant misapplication to form a doctrine out of thin air. There is clearly no such thing as "the great I AM" statement in John 8:58 because the whole idea is based in a false interpretation of the name in Exodus 3:14. In addition there is even more compelling evidence in that 'anokiy is used in the same passage to say "I am" while 'EHYEH is rendered as "HO ON" in the Septuagint.

Exodus 3:6 Transliterated Unaccented
6. Wayo'mer, 'Anokiy 'Elohey 'abiyka; 'Elohey 'Abraham, 'Elohey Yitschaq, we-'Elohey Ya`qob.Wayacter Mosheh panayw kiy yare' mehabiyT 'el-ha-'Elohiym.

Exodus 3:6 KJV
6. Moreover he said, I am [HSN#0595 'anokiy] the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

It is the "I AM" crowd that are propagating a fraudulent theology based in misinterpretations of key words from key phrases while their scholarship clearly had previous information laid out for them in the Septuagint which they know was rendered some three hundred years before the advent of Messiah, (at least the Torah portions) and was therefore rendered with neither a messianic nor an anti-messianic bias because Messiah had not yet come when the Septuagint was rendered from the Hebrew of that time.

1) The Testimony of Yeshua is the Spirit.
2) There is no great "I AM" statement.

In regards to what I said previously about pneuma in this thread:

John 7:39 KJV
39. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet *given*; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

John 7:39 YLT
39. and this he said of the Spirit, which those believing in him were about to receive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Can you provide at least one Greek text which states or implies that the Spirit was not yet *given* in this passage? There are none but rather the word given has been inserted into nearly all English texts. It says pretty much exactly what the Young's Literal Bible Translation says: The Spirit was NOT YET because Yeshua was NOT YET glorified. And where was Yeshua glorified? Would that not be when he was lifted up at Golgotha? Therefore this statement explicitly teaches the reader that the Testimony of Yeshua is the Spirit. The reason the Spirit was not yet is because the Testimony of Yeshua was not yet compete until he said "IT IS FINISHED", commended his Spirit into the hands of the Father, and breathed out his last. Theology proper does not add or insert words into key places so as to force a preconceived dogma into the text. And as I also said previously this is a gaping hole in modern Trinitarian theology because the assumption that pneuma is always a literal entity is not proven and, in fact, refuted by the above and by the Testimony of Yeshua who tells us that his words are Spirit. The Testimony of Yeshua is Holy Spirit and therefore anyone who does not have and hold it in uprightness neither has Spirit Holy but is rather fooling himself or herself.

genuineoriginal
July 22nd, 2015, 02:29 PM
What does "theology proper" mean to you?
I looked it up for you:

"Theology Proper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_proper) is the sub-discipline of Systematic Theology which deals specifically with the being, attributes and works of God."


In my opinion theology proper is Torah, Prophets, and Writings understood through the lenses of the Testimony of Yeshua.
That would be the normally used meaning of theology, which is why the term "theology proper" was created to distinguish between the study of scriptures (theology) and the study of God Himself (theology proper).

CherubRam
July 22nd, 2015, 02:33 PM
Anokiy

Definition
1. I (first pers. sing.)

King James Word Usage - Total: 3
I, which, me.

"I am" is a English language thingy. It is not in Greek or Hebrew.

CherubRam
July 22nd, 2015, 02:40 PM
The part in bold is a curiosity, because it does not agree with the Old Testament. There was no reason for waiting. Perhaps the translation is out of order.

John 7:39 KJV
39. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet *given*; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

daqq
July 22nd, 2015, 02:44 PM
I looked it up for you:
"Theology Proper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_proper) is the sub-discipline of Systematic Theology which deals specifically with the being, attributes and works of God."
That would be the normally used meaning of theology, which is why the term "theology proper" was created to distinguish between the study of scriptures (theology) and the study of God Himself (theology proper).

Thank you for looking that up.
You and I are at least on the same page now.
Note "THE BEING" highlighted in your post, (Exodus 3:14 Septuagint). :)

CherubRam
July 22nd, 2015, 02:52 PM
Oh, I see now why it is in brackets. It is because it is a late addition.

John 7:38. KJV

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet...


This is how it should read.
John 7

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet...

genuineoriginal
July 22nd, 2015, 02:53 PM
Thank you for looking that up.
You and I are at least on the same page now.
Note "THE BEING" highlighted in your post, (Exodus 3:14 Septuagint). :)

That could be the topic of a new thread.

CherubRam
July 22nd, 2015, 02:54 PM
Anokiy

Definition
1. I (first pers. sing.)

King James Word Usage - Total: 3
I, which, me.

"I am" is a English language thingy. It is not in Greek or Hebrew.


The part in bold is a curiosity, because it does not agree with the Old Testament. There was no reason for waiting. Perhaps the translation is out of order.

John 7:39 KJV
39. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet *given*; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Recap.

Daniel1611
July 22nd, 2015, 03:30 PM
Thank you cherubram for fixing the Bible and correcting all of the Translators who worked on putting the Bible into English. You must be a genius.

To answer the OP, if you don't believe in the deity of Christ, you are not saved but condemned.

StanJ
July 22nd, 2015, 03:31 PM
Yes, because that is who God is. If you don't believe that way then you don't believe the God of the Bible of who our REAL God and Savior is.

True Christians are 100% Trinity believers.

achduke
July 22nd, 2015, 03:43 PM
Yes, because that is who God is. If you don't believe that way then you don't believe the God of the Bible of who our REAL God and Savior is.

True Christians are 100% Trinity believers.

That is your opinion. Do you have any scripture to back this up?

Acts 16:30 And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

Acts 16:31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."

daqq
July 22nd, 2015, 03:46 PM
Oh, I see now why it is in brackets. It is because it is a late addition.

John 7:38. KJV

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet...


This is how it should read.
John 7

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet...

I do not know of any scholarship or commentator who agrees with your assertion. In fact they all seem to agree that John 7:39 is commentary from the author as it clearly appears to be:


Matthew Poole's Commentary
For the evangelist tells us, that this referred to the Spirit, which believers were to receive after that Christ should be ascended into heaven.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
But this spake he of the Spirit,.... These are the words of the evangelist, explaining the figurative expressions of Christ; showing, that by rivers of living water, he meant the Spirit in his gifts and graces; and which is the plain sense of the passages referred to by him, particularly Isaiah 44:3, and which, as before observed, the Jews supposed were intimated by their drawing and pouring water at the feast of tabernacles.

Meyer's NT Commentary
John 7:39. Not an interpolated gloss (Scholten), but an observation by John in explanation of this saying. He shows that Jesus meant that the outward effect of which He spoke, the flowing forth, was not at once to occur, but was to commence upon the reception of the Spirit after His glorification.

Expositor's Greek Testament
But the appended clause, οὔπω γὰρ ἦν Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον, is difficult. The best attested reading (see critical note) gives the meaning: “The Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet [οὔπω, not οὐδέπω] glorified” ἐδοξάσθη with John signifies the entire process of glorification, beginning with and including His death (see chap. John 12:23; John 12:32-33);

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
39. this spake he of the Spirit] S. John’s interpretation is to be accepted, whatever may be our theory of inspiration, (1) because no better interpreter of Christ’s words ever lived, even among the Apostles; (2) because it is the result of his own inmost experience.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/7-39.htm


You cannot just toss aside what you do not like and call it a later addition without anyone or anything to support your conclusion. Well, you can, but then I have no need to take you seriously if you are willing to do such a thing. :)

genuineoriginal
July 22nd, 2015, 04:02 PM
To answer the OP, if you don't believe in the deity of Christ, you are not saved but condemned.
The OP asks whether you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian.

There are many people who believe in the deity of Christ without believing in the Trinity.

There are many people that are accepted as Christians that are not saved but are condemned.

Daniel1611
July 22nd, 2015, 04:04 PM
The OP asks whether you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian.

There are many people who believe in the deity of Christ without believing in the Trinity.

There are many people that are accepted as Christians that are not saved but are condemned.

I count saved as Christian and Christian as saved.

genuineoriginal
July 22nd, 2015, 04:05 PM
Yes, because that is who God is. If you don't believe that way then you don't believe the God of the Bible of who our REAL God and Savior is.
Since the Trinity is not a Biblical doctrine, but is an extra-Biblical doctrine, it is possible to believe every word written in the Bible about God without believing in the Trinity.


True Christians are 100% Trinity believers.

You are probably right.

There are many "True Christians" who are going to be burned in the lake of fire who are 100% Trinity believers, and there are many believers in God that are not "True Christians" who will be welcomed into the kingdom of God with open arms despite not believing in the Trinity.

genuineoriginal
July 22nd, 2015, 04:06 PM
I count saved as Christian and Christian as saved.

You have miscounted.

CherubRam
July 22nd, 2015, 04:12 PM
Yes, because that is who God is. If you don't believe that way then you don't believe the God of the Bible of who our REAL God and Savior is.

True Christians are 100% Trinity believers.

I think you are just playing dumb in order to get a reaction.

CherubRam
July 22nd, 2015, 04:22 PM
I do not know of any scholarship or commentator who agrees with your assertion. In fact they all seem to agree that John 7:39 is commentary from the author as it clearly appears to be:

You cannot just toss aside what you do not like and call it a later addition without anyone or anything to support your conclusion. Well, you can, but then I have no need to take you seriously if you are willing to do such a thing. :)

Yahwah our Holy Father is the Holy Spirit, He can commune with people at any time He wants. "Waiting" did not fulfill any prophecy. It is illogical. The comment does not agree with the Old Testament. Why do you think there are italics, foot notes, and brackets in study bibles?

daqq
July 22nd, 2015, 04:31 PM
Yahwah our Holy Father is the Holy Spirit, He can commune with people at any time He wants. "Waiting" did not fulfill any prophecy. It is illogical. The comment does not agree with the Old Testament. Why do you think there are italics, foot notes, and brackets in study bibles?

You apparently added more to what I have said and therefore did not receive the full import of what I have said. I did not say that pneuma is never Spirit. Neither did I say that pneuma is never entity. Neither did I say that the Son is not entity. Now I have given you several negative assertions and I will not be surprised if you misconstrue them also. :crackup:

:sheep:

meshak
July 22nd, 2015, 04:31 PM
You have miscounted.

:)

achduke
July 22nd, 2015, 04:32 PM
Yahwah our Holy Father is the Holy Spirit, He can commune with people at any time He wants. "Waiting" did not fulfill any prophecy. It is illogical. The comment does not agree with the Old Testament. Why do you think there are italics, foot notes, and brackets in study bibles?

That is not what the bible says. It says the Father will send the holy spirit.

John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

John 16:13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

CherubRam
July 22nd, 2015, 04:54 PM
That is not what the bible says. It says the Father will send the holy spirit.

John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

John 16:13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

Believe what you want.

achduke
July 22nd, 2015, 05:03 PM
Believe what you want.

Is there a reason for me not to believe the bible?

StanJ
July 22nd, 2015, 05:32 PM
I think you are just playing dumb in order to get a reaction.

I don't play period, and you are obviously either actually ignorant or a troll. I vote troll.

oatmeal
July 22nd, 2015, 05:35 PM
Everyone,

this thread is not about trnity, Please get back to topic.

And no one coming up to support your claim of "You have to believe in the trinity to be saved."

You cannot because it is not there. Jesus did not claim it, nor any of His disciples.

Good call.

StanJ
July 22nd, 2015, 05:37 PM
Since the Trinity is not a Biblical doctrine, but is an extra-Biblical doctrine, it is possible to believe every word written in the Bible about God without believing in the Trinity.
You are probably right.
There are many "True Christians" who are going to be burned in the lake of fire who are 100% Trinity believers, and there are many believers in God that are not "True Christians" who will be welcomed into the kingdom of God with open arms despite not believing in the Trinity.

The triune nature of God is indeed biblical. The word may not be there but the concept definitely is, just as the concepts of Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnipresence are there.

The issue is NOT what makes a real Christian, it is what a real Christians believes, and as such the Trinity is what a REAL Christians believes. Real Christians don't go to hell. Real Christians are the sheep that will be separated from the goats. Real Christians will NOT be surprised where they awaken when Jesus returns.

StanJ
July 22nd, 2015, 05:40 PM
Everyone,
this thread is not about trnity, Please get back to topic.
And no one coming up to support your claim of "You have to believe in the trinity to be saved."
You cannot because it is not there. Jesus did not claim it, nor any of His disciples.

I see your reading skills are as lacking as your language skills.

Do you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian? is the thread or OP title.

Obviously, it IS about the Trinity.

StanJ
July 22nd, 2015, 05:43 PM
There are many people who believe in the deity of Christ without believing in the Trinity.
There are many people that are accepted as Christians that are not saved but are condemned.

Yes, they are with the UPC and are also not Christians but a cult.
Yes, and that is also not the point.
True/Real Christians believe and accept the Triune nature of God because the scriptures teach it.

oatmeal
July 22nd, 2015, 05:44 PM
Reading comprehension not a strong suit my friend?

8But unto the Son (Jesus) he (God the Father) saith, Thy (Jesus) throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy(Jesus) kingdom.

Hebrews 1:8 is truth

I have no problem with reading Hebrews or any book of the Bible, but have you read?

Exodus 7:1 KJV

And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

the Lord made Moses a god to Pharaoh.

Moses is god.

John 10:34-35

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Is Jesus Christ speaking the truth?

God called many people god, those unto whom the word of God came.

Unto how many people did the word of God come? It came to the prophets who delivered it to the children of Israel. That could amount to millions.

It is you that needs to read more, there are not a few verses that demonstrate that God calls humans gods.

Why do you not take those into account?

Trinitarianism is but another denomination like Baptists, Roman Catholicism, Pentecostalism, etc.....

God does not require that anyone belong to any denomination to become saved

oatmeal
July 22nd, 2015, 05:45 PM
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty...And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last.

“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.

And just for good measure;

Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

Nice try!

but her question is quite clear, and you did not answer it.

Am I pointing that out?

I am!

Am I being clear enough?

I am!

Am I named oatmeal?

I am!

Are you Nick M?

StanJ
July 22nd, 2015, 05:50 PM
Hebrews 1:8 is truth
I have no problem with reading Hebrews or any book of the Bible, but have you read?

and yet you ignore and refuse to address them and counter with others you takes OUT of context or equivocate on. I'd say you have a lot of trouble reading scripture with proper hermeneutical understanding.

Matt 10:33 (NIV)

StanJ
July 22nd, 2015, 05:52 PM
Nice try!


More hide and seek on your part oatmeal?

John 8:58 (MOUNCE)
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came to be, I am!”

freelight
July 22nd, 2015, 05:59 PM
Slice it, dice it any way you want.

Since the 'Trinity' was only more formally defined, articulated and made 'orthodox' by later church councils, and may not truly reflect the belief of the earliest followers and apostles of Jesus, then the answer is 'NO', since such a claimed 'qualification' to be a so called 'christian' was formulated or 'assumed' later as the doctrine become more acceptable as church creed, encoded by the powers that be (church-state).

Now as to a believer in Jesus learning more about a 'Trinity' concept of an eternal 'Godhead' and Jesus relationship to it (assumed in various fashions depending upon school of thought...pick your school), that is fine as one grows in religious knowledge, concepts and ideals. One may adopt a Trinitarian or more Unitarian Christology,..but can just as well be a true devotee of the principles and teachings of Jesus, regarding his person, and living out the religion HE LIVED as our exemplar. That is what makes one a true 'christian' (if we must use the 'term' so glibly paraded)....as to what quality of character and spiritual fruit one bears in his life. That's the standard,...NOT just an assumed intellectual acceptance of a 'trinity-concept' of 'God' or some other creed or dogma worshipped as being 'orthodox'. Lets be sure to recognize what is essential as far as 'true religion' is concerned. - all else are but words.



pj

THall
July 22nd, 2015, 06:20 PM
Slice it, dice it any way you want.

simple. You must continue in the word of
Christ to be a disciple of Christ.

Nick M
July 22nd, 2015, 07:33 PM
Where does the Bible say you have to believe in the trinity to be saved?

Your rejection of the divine nature of the Lord Jesus Christ is evidence you do not have his mind nor are you indwelt as Christians are.

Nick M
July 22nd, 2015, 07:38 PM
Simply not true.

Go to hell you Christ rejecting pervert.

glorydaz
July 22nd, 2015, 07:51 PM
Your rejection of the divine nature of the Lord Jesus Christ is evidence you do not have his mind nor are you indwelt as Christians are.

Yep. :thumb:

daqq
July 22nd, 2015, 07:56 PM
Go to hell you Christ rejecting pervert.

Haha, you already said that to me once in your negative rep, and wow, you have lotsa power to kill! But the Kingdom of God comes with Power and thank God you are not the Judge you think you are! :crackup:

:sheep:

meshak
July 22nd, 2015, 08:17 PM
Haha, you already said that to me once in your negative rep, and wow, you have lotsa power to kill! But the Kingdom of God comes with Power and thank God you are not the Judge you think you are! :crackup:

:sheep:

He has been doing that to me ever since I joined this site.

He does not realize he does not have power to judge anyone.

meshak
July 22nd, 2015, 08:19 PM
simple. You must continue in the word of
Christ to be a disciple of Christ.

I like simple and to the point.:)

Too many mumble jumble in man-made doctrines.

Dan Emanuel
July 22nd, 2015, 08:24 PM
Moses:

Genesis 1

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.Numbers 6

24 The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
25 The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
26 The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
The Apostle Matthew:

Matthew 28

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Luke:

Luke 3

21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
The Apostle Paul:

2 Corinthians 13

14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
The Apostle Peter:

1 Peter 1

2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
The Apostle John:

1 John 5

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.


Daniel

glorydaz
July 22nd, 2015, 08:27 PM
He has been doing that to me ever since I joined this site.

He does not realize he does not have power to judge anyone.

1 Cor. 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Cor. 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

1 Cor. 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

oatmeal
July 22nd, 2015, 08:28 PM
The Jews said he claimed to be God.

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Don't back off meshak, you had it right, Jesus is God!

Context doesn't matter to you?

The people whose testimony about what Jesus words mean, did not even believe he was the Messiah!

John 10:24

Did they not accuse him of blasphemy?

You really want to believe the judgement of people who accuse Jesus Christ of blasphemy?

John 10:34-36

oatmeal
July 22nd, 2015, 08:33 PM
and yet you ignore and refuse to address them and counter with others you takes OUT of context or equivocate on. I'd say you have a lot of trouble reading scripture with proper hermeneutical understanding.

Matt 10:33 (NIV)

Why don't you read and reply to the rest of my post?

It because you would rather ignore all those verses that show your conclusions to be faulty and groundless.

It is sad that you would ignore those verses and the others like it.

Too bad you have to reject those verses so that you can keep your traditions.