The Trinity

[jamie]

How are the Son of God and God the Father one?
This is important, because Jesus wants us to be one in the same way that the Son of God and God the Father are one.

They are of one mind and one accord, what we would think of as synchronization.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Is the Trinity biblical?
Is the Trinity taught in the Bible?

Yes the trinity is taught in the Bible.

There are many flawed doctrines of man and many erroneous interpretations of such, but the trinity as described in scripture is true.

I sincerely apologize for attempting to wrongfully divide the faithful of GOD based on doctrine and or schism.

May we all find grace under GOD and be brought to God's will by way of the Christ, blessed be his name.

With humility,

Peace.

 

[keypurr]

I'm aware that the Holy Spirit is of GOD. I'm aware that Jesus of Nazareth was put here by GOD to show us the way to Him, and pay for sins past, before we knew him.

I know that repentance of sin and not repentance of all good works for the sake of all, by God's will is the unchanged word of God since before the church fathers. Jesus, blessed be his name, is the way, by his example, teachings, and self sacrifice. The Holy Spirit, that writes on the heart of the true believer, and saved through Crist is also the way, and the same as was in the Christ, and too made available to us by the sacrifice of the pure white Lamb of GOD. He was perfect, without blemish in the sight of GOD.

You can say God is comprised of three observable parts of you want. Based on the teachings, example, and self sacrifice of the first born of GOD, before the creation of man or earth, I cannot say that the son of man was ever wholly GOD in the flesh, so much as fully of GOD. He taught utter humility, and all praise to his Father, and that is what I will abide to with my whole heart, ever seeking God's will, that he might show not only mercy to the generations to come, but utter, whole direction by the Lord's will.

In other words what are we arguing for? Can't we speak with a common goal in mind(adherence to God's word), and help one another, without damnation, condemnation, ridicule, and attempted humiliation? Can we not even see one another are of like mind due to the smoke that is deceit?

Peace

All praise is to GOD by way of his beloved, Christ. May his sacrifice not be in vain by the very will of GOD.

They do not understand that friend, they do not wish to see truth.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

They do not understand that friend, they do not wish to see truth.

See, the idea is, nobody wants to see your "made up" truth. When
one places the word of God next to your theories, one finds out that
you preach heresy. No offence intended. It's just that you're a false
teacher.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Yes the trinity is taught in the Bible.

There are many flawed doctrines of man and many erroneous interpretations of such, but the trinity as described in scripture is true.

I sincerely apologize for attempting to wrongfully divide the faithful of GOD based on doctrine and or schism.

May we all find grace under GOD and be brought to God's will by way of the Christ, blessed be his name.

With humility,

Peace.

I'm glad you've seen the error of your ways friend.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

1Clem 24:2
Let us behold, dearly beloved, the resurrection which happeneth at
its proper season.

1Clem 24:3
Day and night show unto us the resurrection. The night falleth
asleep, and day ariseth; the day departeth, and night cometh on.

1Clem 24:4
Let us mark the fruits, how and in what manner the sowing taketh
place.

1Clem 24:5
The sower goeth forth and casteth into the earth each of the
seeds; and these falling into the earth dry and bare decay: then out
of their decay the mightiness of the Master's providence raiseth them
up, and from being one they increase manifold and bear fruit.

Do these words come directly from the inspired word of God or
some other source?

 

[popsthebuilder]

Do these words come directly from the inspired word of God or
some other source?

Clement of Rome is a writing of one of the church fathers dated between 80 and 140ad. It is known as a writing of an apostolic father. It isn't Canon though should have been in my opinion. The Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Herod. And Clement 1and 2 are very revealing. Of course if one is stuck in the closed loop of thinking that the current canon bible is the only inspired word of GOD then the books I mentioned, regardless of how well they confirm scripture, will be regarded quite lowly.

Really I couldn't tell you why they aren't part of the Canon. They without a doubt are the inspired word of GOD.

Peace

 

[journey]

Clement of Rome is a writing of one of the church fathers dated between 80 and 140ad. It is known as a writing of an apostolic father. It isn't Canon though should have been in my opinion. The Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Herod. And Clement 1and 2 are very revealing. Of course if one is stuck in the closed loop of thinking that the current canon bible is the only inspired word of GOD then the books I mentioned, regardless of how well they confirm scripture, will be regarded quite lowly.

Really I couldn't tell you why they aren't part of the Canon. They without a doubt are the inspired word of GOD.

Peace

The vast majority disagrees with you. It really is just that simple.

 

[popsthebuilder]

The vast majority disagrees with you. It really is just that simple.

The vast majority disagrees with me about my personal opinion of the writings of the church fathers? Is that what you mean?

 

[journey]

The vast majority disagrees with me about my personal opinion of the writings of the church fathers? Is that what you mean?

That they are the inspired Word of God and belong in the Holy Bible.

 

[popsthebuilder]

That they are the inspired Word of God and belong in the Holy Bible.

Oh. Well seeing as all the people who where in charge of compiling and choosing which books made it in and which ones didn't are all dead, that's kind of a difficult argument. The book of Enoch isn't in the Bible either but we know that Enoch is spoken of in high regard. The fact that the book came from the actual cradle of life in Ethiopia and is considered Canon there says something to me about the reasons and the people who chose the texts to omit.

I hold the Bible in the highest regard as far as the written word is concerned, but still know that there are other scriptures that are also profitable for direction under GOD.

Just my opinion though, technically.

2¢

Peace

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Clement of Rome is a writing of one of the church fathers dated between 80 and 140ad. It is known as a writing of an apostolic father. It isn't Canon though should have been in my opinion. The Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Herod. And Clement 1and 2 are very revealing. Of course if one is stuck in the closed loop of thinking that the current canon bible is the only inspired word of GOD then the books I mentioned, regardless of how well they confirm scripture, will be regarded quite lowly.

Really I couldn't tell you why they aren't part of the Canon. They without a doubt are the inspired word of GOD.

Peace

I believe the Holy Spirit inspired the written word of God and
therefore, had a hand in the final decision of what went into it.

We mustn't forget that. You must accept that the Bible is complete
and not try to do battle with the final decisions made.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I believe the Holy Spirit inspired the written word of God and
therefore, had a hand in the final decision of what went into it.

We mustn't forget that. You must accept that the Bible is complete
and not try to do battle with the final decisions made.

I don't consider the bible to be lacking, and surely God allowed those books to be omitted for a reason. The ones I mentioned are also the inspired word of GOD though and compliment the Bible nicely in my opinion.

Surely all happens for a reason by God's will. I do not and will not ever refute that.

Peace

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I don't consider the bible to be lacking, and surely God allowed those books to be omitted for a reason. The ones I mentioned are also the inspired word of GOD though and compliment the Bible nicely in my opinion.

Surely all happens for a reason by God's will. I do not and will not ever refute that.

Peace

If those books you speak of were truly God inspired, why were
they not included in your opinion?

 

[popsthebuilder]

If those books you speak of were truly God inspired, why were
they not included in your opinion?

Firstly; the will of God. Secondly; they are to clear and concise to keep people sufficiently confused as to the direction of God and what we are to do and how we are to act. Many things that seem negative are actually so we can learn from them. Even the Torah is disassembled and placed in the Bible in a different order than it was originally remembered.

I know the majority who compiled the Bible had only the best intentions, but I also know that not a single person has walked without fault since Christ. With that being the case; some books could have been left out, or changed chronologically. Just look at how the chapters are divided. Often the actual start of the topic at hand is in the previous chapter and they seem to start in he middle of the topic.
I believe the Bible to b the inspired word of GOD. I believe men however are callable regardless of their best intentions in general.

I'm sure I angered some with that. It wasn't my intention.

Respectfully,

Peace

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Firstly; the will of God. Secondly; they are to clear and concise to keep people sufficiently confused as to the direction of God and what we are to do and how we are to act. Many things that seem negative are actually so we can learn from them. Even the Torah is disassembled and placed in the Bible in a different order than it was originally remembered.

I know the majority who compiled the Bible had only the best intentions, but I also know that not a single person has walked without fault since Christ. With that being the case; some books could have been left out, or changed chronologically. Just look at how the chapters are divided. Often the actual start of the topic at hand is in the previous chapter and they seem to start in he middle of the topic.
I believe the Bible to b the inspired word of GOD. I believe men however are callable regardless of their best intentions in general.

I'm sure I angered some with that. It wasn't my intention.

Respectfully,

Peace

I think it best to not criticize the Holy inspired word of God. If you
don't like the order it's written in, go on ahead and read it in the
order you think it should be in. At least you're reading it.

 

[Krsto]

The vast majority disagrees with you. It really is just that simple.

Well that settles it then. The majority is always right. Except when Luther was around.

 

[Krsto]

Clement of Rome is a writing of one of the church fathers dated between 80 and 140ad. It is known as a writing of an apostolic father. It isn't Canon though should have been in my opinion. The Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Herod. And Clement 1and 2 are very revealing. Of course if one is stuck in the closed loop of thinking that the current canon bible is the only inspired word of GOD then the books I mentioned, regardless of how well they confirm scripture, will be regarded quite lowly.

Really I couldn't tell you why they aren't part of the Canon. They without a doubt are the inspired word of GOD.

Peace

If "inspired" doesn't mean "infallible writer" then why not? There are many degrees of inspiration and the bible never says inspiration = without error. We find Paul to be an inspired writer, and some consider him to be infallible, but at the end of the day it was fallible man who decided which writings were approved, and we have no way of knowing whether they picked the "right ones" or if those so chosen were inerrant. Clement's epistles were considered for inclusion in the canon, and didn't make the cut probably because he had some ideas that didn't square with the committee doing the picking, who BTW, were just as fallible as anyone. Many of us Protestants think the canon chosen contains inerrant Words of God, but would never admit the ones doing the choosing in the 4th century were infallible, so how do we know they got the "right" scriptures? And why in God's name would they include such a confusing book like Revelation, for Pete's sake?

 

[TulipBee]

If "inspired" doesn't mean "infallible writer" then why not? There are many degrees of inspiration and the bible never says inspiration = without error. We find Paul to be an inspired writer, and some consider him to be infallible, but at the end of the day it was fallible man who decided which writings were approved, and we have no way of knowing whether they picked the "right ones" or if those so chosen were inerrant. Clement's epistles were considered for inclusion in the canon, and didn't make the cut probably because he had some ideas that didn't square with the committee doing the picking, who BTW, were just as fallible as anyone. Many of us Protestants think the canon chosen contains inerrant Words of God, but would never admit the ones doing the choosing in the 4th century were infallible, so how do we know they got the "right" scriptures? And why in God's name would they include such a confusing book like Revelation, for Pete's sake?

Many degrees?
How about 100% in full degree in the 66 book bible. Acording to theomatics and ivan panin's scientific proofs the bible is in its pure perfect state as inerrancy can be. But the rest of the 73 and 76 extra books do not contain those proofs. That means the rcc and the orthos are in error. Can't add any more books.

 

[patrick jane]

And why in God's name would they include such a confusing book like Revelation, for Pete's sake?

Ah, I see that you barely know your Bible. Revelation is one of the best and happiest books in the Bible.