The Trinity

[Rosenritter]

So no; not "kudos" to Peter, Peter was the Boss of the elders. First among equals. If you differed with Peter, then you were out of the club. That's why it's a big deal for Peter to say that Paul's letters are Sacred Scripture, because people had heard that Paul had a fight with Peter, so Peter had to clear the air, and he did.

:noid: So, I guess, you're right then. "Kudos to Peter."

Galatians 2:11-12 KJV
(11) But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
(12) For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Guess that means that Paul is "out of the club" then. Seems to me that Paul was right and Peter was wrong. Not that I've seen where Peter was ever established as a Pope, but if he was, the infallibility doctrine got tossed pretty early.

 

[Rosenritter]

The Church that corresponds to Matthew 16:18 (KJV) is still here. Where is she?
"the gates of hell shall not prevail against" Jesus' Church, where is she?

The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Rock, and He is risen, and He is coming again, with the keys of hell and death in his hand.

 

[Nihilo]

Jesus didn't build his church upon Peter. Peter's name means "stone" and in the Greek tongue is used with the masculine Πέτρος (Petros). Jesus acknowledge Peter's name using that term, but then said that he would build his church upon a different Rock, specifically the feminine πέτρα (Petra).

This is specifically incorrect. It depends upon Jesus uttering Matthew 16:18 (KJV) in the common Greek tongue, instead of in Aramaic, and we know that He spoke Aramaic because of the many occasions in the Gospels where the evangelist quotes Him in Aramaic, and then goes on to interpret the Aramaic into the common Greek language; and because Peter was called "rock" in Aramaic by Paul.

Had Jesus been naming Peter, he would have built his church upon Πέτρος (Petros.)

See above. In common Greek, there is a gender issue, and in Aramaic, there is no ambiguity at all. He literally said, "You are Cephas, and upon this cephas, I will build."

The church is built upon Jesus, not Peter, and that church is the body of saints wherever "little flock" is scattered through the world, as lights set on a hill, as salt that has retained its savor. The church is not an organization that presumes to interpret the law and to set up rules and regulations as the new order of Pharisee. Jesus specifically condemned that approach, and he offered HIMSELF as the way to Salvation, no other priest required.

No other priest is required for salvation, the Church teaches what you're teaching wrt that. The Church is the mystical Body of Christ, and a physical society, and the temple of the Holy Spirit, built of lively stones. There is a teaching office, with a hierarchy, and the teachers are in your Bible, called Elders, Bishops, and Overseers.

 

[Rosenritter]

And in that is a false dilemma. What if Christ supplies a particular leader or group? If you reject that He can do that, then fine, I guess it's not a false dilemma for you, but if it is possible, and He does provide a real presence on this earth today, then it is a false dilemma.

If Christ supplied a particular leader, then I respect that leader. I do not respect those that attempt to usurp that claim. Even to the extent that Peter was asked to feed the flock and lead the early apostles, that does not translate into an inherited Vicarship that can be handed down from one to the next by matter of vote.

In contrast to what Matthew 16:18 (KJV) actually says. You're playing hopscotch, jumping from one spot to another, landing on the last square and saying, "See, I'm back at the beginning." But you're not, you're disputing Matthew 16:18 (KJV).

No, Matthew 16:18 is exactly what it says, and "the rock" named is not the word for "Peter." Had Jesus meant to name Peter as the rock, he would named Peter as the rock. He had the word at his disposal, he proved he knew what it was, and yet he used a different word, the word for Rock, the same word that scripture elsewhere assigns to Christ.

There's nothing wrong with, expecting perfection from the Church's elders, when they are teaching on matters of faith and morals.

We can expect perfection, but we can acknowledge that humans are frail and make mistakes. This by itself does not necessarily undermine legitimate authority. You will probably appreciate this acknowledgment?

The Bible isn't the teacher's edition. Elders talked with each other, the Apostles talked with the elders, and among themselves, all of what was said, wasn't captured in the slim volumes we call the New Testament. The Church was led by the Apostles, what they said mattered, and all of it, and what we know now precisely, is that when they together as a united group teach a thing, in the matters of faith and morals, they teach infallibly. This is displayed for us within the NT in Acts, at the very first Church council, and it is displayed for us by the physical presence of the NT as well, because they all together chose which books would make the Christian Bible. The Church honors the oral tradition, passed down from Jesus and the Apostles.

Jesus said that we should live by its every word. Paul said it was the teacher's edition, and that it was specifically supposed to teach us, and that a child could understand it.

We're not talking about the Church having "everything 100% right," we're talking about whether or not the Church is correct, or whether she is the whore of babylon, for illicitly raising a mere man up to the level of God.

I would like to avoid that level of escalation.

To the extent that anyone provides a good example of Christ and his word, I will honor that, but it is also said that a bad tree brings for bad fruits. If you presume that the Roman Catholic Church was THE church, the definition of the promised church, then if we are judging by that measure it has brought forth some very bad fruits. But that is not the model Jesus gives for our church. He describes us as wheat among tares, and that these are sorted out come the end of the world, for only then can one be separated from the other. It's not "all the wheat are of this organization."

 

[popsthebuilder]

Respect the elders of the Church. That's in the Bible.

The falseness of tradition is in the Bible.

The falseness of the witness of those who had been chosen is in the Bible.

The whore of Babylon is in the Bible.

The two headed beast is in the Bible.

The fact that all are equal with only One priest is in the Bible.

The fact that likening GOD to man is grave sin is in the Bible.

St. Peter is/ was blessed and did follow-the Way and heed the call of GOD. The whore of Babylon is responsible for nearly all misdirection in Christianity.

And you say for me to respect the church.

I'll have you know that if and when I step into a church building that I am as respectful as I can possibly be regardless of sect, color, style or method of praise, or even doctrine.


Now if by elders of the church you mean those responsible for the writings of the Bible in part and even those books intentionally kept out of the Bible then I would say they too have my respect.

So.... What are you saying I'm not respecting again? Oh that's right; false doctrine and tradition.... Yeah, I can't respect that.... Sorry



Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

This is specifically incorrect. It depends upon Jesus uttering Matthew 16:18 (KJV) in the common Greek tongue, instead of in Aramaic, and we know that He spoke Aramaic because of the many occasions in the Gospels where the evangelist quotes Him in Aramaic, and then goes on to interpret the Aramaic into the common Greek language; and because Peter was called "rock" in Aramaic by Paul.
See above. In common Greek, there is a gender issue, and in Aramaic, there is no ambiguity at all. He literally said, "You are Cephas, and upon this cephas, I will build."

The argument is that the scripture is mistaken in this point, and that it was translated wrongly, and should have been recorded otherwise? Can you understand why this argument is unconvincing to many? That the whole "proof" of the "Primacy of Peter" rests on that we must argue that the scripture is wrong and not preserved?

Matthew 5:18 KJV
(18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

By the way, the gates of hell have prevailed against both Peter and the church. Even if we were to presume that Matthew was an original Aramaic, the Greek translation is also proved correct and inspired, because there's only one Rock who has prevailed against the gates of hell. And His name is Jesus.

 

[popsthebuilder]

The Church that corresponds to Matthew 16:18 (KJV) is still here. Where is she?
"the gates of hell shall not prevail against" Jesus' Church, where is she?

Within the believer

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

The Trinity is not a Roman Catholic invention. Tertullian is generally given credit for being the first to write about Trinity in the 3rd century.

The opening questions for this thread included whether Trinity was biblical and if it can be proved from the bible. The fact is that Trinity isn't defined by the Bible. It isn't defined in Moses and the prophets, it wasn't taught by Jesus, and it wasn't explained by the apostles, and in the book called the Revelation it remains unrevealed. If you want to know what Trinity means you have to ask someone else other than the Bible. As such I answered the poll that it wasn't biblical and/or wasn't biblical.

Even if you ask someone else, you get different definitions and ideas, and the people who have conflicting definitions and explanations will also condemn those who don't accept their definition. Jesus never condemned anyone for not believing in a Trinity, and neither did the apostles.

Can you agree on a definition? If so, it can be discussed. To the degree that such a "Trinity" definition can be accepted as a model for explaining an attribute of God, it can have positive value. The danger is when people start to worship the model of a thing, and give more honor to an image of God of their own making, without listening to what the supposed subject of their worship asks them to do with relation to Himself and others.

When someone creates in image of God (let's say "Trinity") and then persecutes or condemns others for not accepting this image, they are missing the actual words and intent of God that we should love each other. Jesus didn't teach Trinity, but he did give us a new commandment, that we should love one another. If Jesus is our God, should the Trinity be worshiped above God? No, which is why I say this approached idolatry.

In proper application, an image or model is kept in its proper place, as an analogy or teaching tool, and we do not claim dogmatism where Jesus himself or the Holy Spirit in scripture was not dogmatic.

Good post

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

OK. So who is not against the act of murder? Someone in Rome? Someone who's a Catholic bishop somewhere?

You are trying to make me divide the faithful. I won't be.

Are you not aware of the Crusades? How bout the Spanish inquisition? Holocaust much? Ooh.... Ooh.... The witch trials.....

Like I said; those responsible are dead, and I hold to no division of the faithful except actual effectual faith that can be tested and verified.



Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[lifeisgood]

The Church that corresponds to Matthew 16:18 (KJV) is still here. Where is she?
"the gates of hell shall not prevail against" Jesus' Church, where is she?

It ain't Peter who is coming back with the keys, Nihilo. It ain't Peter.

 

[lifeisgood]

You cauterized your own mind and do not even know you are insulting.

Oh, I know what insulting is and I didn’t insult you, NOT YET, at least, I simply garnered from your doctrine who you, gt, say you think you are.

You also keep asking me if I sold everything I have, but you fail to give the scripture where Jesus commands all to do that.

Have you repented of the sin of vociferously, arrogantly, proudly, presumptuously, conceitedly, pompously, egotistically, saying that you OBEY ALL of Jesus’ commandments yet?

Why not ask me other questions about obedience?

OK. Have you OBEYED Jesus yet by entering into His rest? You know how Jesus said to enter into His rest don’t you? Jesus said, ‘Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest’ (Matthew 11:28). Notice Jesus did not say, ‘come unto me all you who without knowing me have obeyed me…’

Jesus was calling SINNERS laboring over the weight of their working their little fingers off to obtain God’s rest.

Why not ask me if I fear God, if I humbled myself and repented of my sins, if I forgave all who have sinned against me?

Sinned against you????? Do you realize what you’re saying, gt?

You are so arrogant, smug, conceited, pompous, presumptuous, egotistical, proud, puffed up, self-important, stuck up one that you are searing your own mind with the fire of your own grandiose scheme.

Why not ask if I obey any of the other teachings of Jesus Christ?

OK. Do you gt, as you have continuously asserted, OBEY ALL of Jesus’ commandments?

You ask me if I have done something which Jesus never asked us all to do.

OK. What have you, gt, done that is so special that Jesus could not have asked someone else to do?

 

[lifeisgood]

Why does the name God's Truth hurt you so much?

gt's truth hurt. Declaring that she OBEYS ALL of Jesus commandments.

What do you think you preach Satan's lies?

I preach Satan's lie by saying that Jesus said you cannot OBEY TO BE SAVED? Satan must be very happy.

Maybe your user name is smug and proud while you proclaim your life is good, while other lives are poor and full of pain?

My user name is a gracious way of saying that in spite of all that happens, all the hospital visits, all the pain, etc., in spite of it all my LIFE IS GOOD because Jesus is in it.

Try to prove me wrong and show that you really are the one who speaks God's Truth.

Prove to yourself that you are not an arrogant, smug, conceited, pompous, presumptuous, egotistical, proud, puffed up, self-important, stuck up one saying that you OBEY ALL of Jesus' commandments.

You just contradicted yourself. You do that because you do not have understanding.

I have not contradicted in this about you, gt.

You are an arrogant, smug, conceited, pompous, presumptuous, egotistical, proud, puffed up, self-important, stuck up one that you are searing your own mind with the fire of your own grandiose scheme that you, gt, OBEY ALL of Jesus' commandments.

Notice you are the one with the foul names for others.

Like this? You are an arrogant, smug, conceited, pompous, presumptuous, egotistical, proud, puffed up, self-important, stuck up one proclaiming for all to see that you say you OBEY ALL of Jesus' commandments.

One who takes God's Truth out of its literal original context and parrots your doctrine, searing, cauterizing, your own mind with your own two hands, with nobody's help, while many here have been warning you, continuously, lovingly, patiently, sometimes even forcefully, of the peril you have chosen to place yourself in and because WE STILL CARE we keep on warning, however, there will be a day when the Lord is going to say, 'Do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them; do not plead with me, for I will not listen to you.'

 

[lifeisgood]

The Trinity is not a Roman Catholic invention. Tertullian is generally given credit for being the first to write about Trinity in the 3rd century.

The opening questions for this thread included whether Trinity was biblical and if it can be proved from the bible. The fact is that Trinity isn't defined by the Bible. It isn't defined in Moses and the prophets, it wasn't taught by Jesus, and it wasn't explained by the apostles, and in the book called the Revelation it remains unrevealed. If you want to know what Trinity means you have to ask someone else other than the Bible. As such I answered the poll that it wasn't biblical and/or wasn't biblical.

Even if you ask someone else, you get different definitions and ideas, and the people who have conflicting definitions and explanations will also condemn those who don't accept their definition. Jesus never condemned anyone for not believing in a Trinity, and neither did the apostles.

Can you agree on a definition? If so, it can be discussed. To the degree that such a "Trinity" definition can be accepted as a model for explaining an attribute of God, it can have positive value. The danger is when people start to worship the model of a thing, and give more honor to an image of God of their own making, without listening to what the supposed subject of their worship asks them to do with relation to Himself and others.

When someone creates in image of God (let's say "Trinity") and then persecutes or condemns others for not accepting this image, they are missing the actual words and intent of God that we should love each other. Jesus didn't teach Trinity, but he did give us a new commandment, that we should love one another. If Jesus is our God, should the Trinity be worshiped above God? No, which is why I say this approached idolatry.

In proper application, an image or model is kept in its proper place, as an analogy or teaching tool, and we do not claim dogmatism where Jesus himself or the Holy Spirit in scripture was not dogmatic.

And that is why I, lifeisgood, go with what the Bible says and my Bible talks about Father, Son, Holy Spirit; therefore; the Trinity/Triunity of God.

 

[lifeisgood]

Why would I pluck out my own eyes if I stopped sinning with my eyes?

Only someone without understanding would tell another to obey by plucking out their own eyes.

You have seared your mind so much already, gt, that you, gt, have almost totally cauterized your comprehension.

 

[Rosenritter]

You are an arrogant, smug, conceited, pompous, presumptuous, egotistical, proud, puffed up, self-important, stuck up one that you are searing your own mind with the fire of your own grandiose scheme that you, gt, OBEY ALL of Jesus' commandments.

Actually, that would be classified as insulting. I have given up trying to help GT (she is blocked now to remove the temptation) but would you at least desist for both your sake and mine? Even the best of spirits would have trouble responding positively to how you are confronting her, and GT is not the best of spirits.

 

[Rosenritter]

And that is why I, lifeisgood, go with what the Bible says and my Bible talks about Father, Son, Holy Spirit; therefore; the Trinity/Triunity of God.

Would you tell us what that means to you? Does it help you keep his commandments of Love God and Love thy Neighbor, to exercise faith and repentance, to recognize Jesus as both Lord and Christ?

 

[popsthebuilder]

gt's truth hurt. Declaring that she OBEYS ALL of Jesus commandments.



I preach Satan's lie by saying that Jesus said you cannot OBEY TO BE SAVED? Satan must be very happy.



My user name is a gracious way of saying that in spite of all that happens, all the hospital visits, all the pain, etc., in spite of it all my LIFE IS GOOD because Jesus is in it.



Prove to yourself that you are not an arrogant, smug, conceited, pompous, presumptuous, egotistical, proud, puffed up, self-important, stuck up one saying that you OBEY ALL of Jesus' commandments.




I have not contradicted in this about you, gt.

You are an arrogant, smug, conceited, pompous, presumptuous, egotistical, proud, puffed up, self-important, stuck up one that you are searing your own mind with the fire of your own grandiose scheme that you, gt, OBEY ALL of Jesus' commandments.



Like this? You are an arrogant, smug, conceited, pompous, presumptuous, egotistical, proud, puffed up, self-important, stuck up one proclaiming for all to see that you say you OBEY ALL of Jesus' commandments.

One who takes God's Truth out of its literal original context and parrots your doctrine, searing, cauterizing, your own mind with your own two hands, with nobody's help, while many here have been warning you, continuously, lovingly, patiently, sometimes even forcefully, of the peril you have chosen to place yourself in and because WE STILL CARE we keep on warning, however, there will be a day when the Lord is going to say, 'Do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them; do not plead with me, for I will not listen to you.'

I'm pretty sure she tries to abide by the two commands. It can be a hard task for any at times; especially those under constant bombardment.

It would nice to move conversation back to the Trinity doctrine and it's relevance.



Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[God's Truth]

You have seared your mind so much already, gt, that you, gt, have almost totally cauterized your comprehension.

It isn't searing your own mind by obeying God.

How do you ever get that about someone who teaches that we have to obey Jesus?

How do you ever get that the gospel is we no longer have to obey?

 

[God's Truth]

gt's truth hurt. Declaring that she OBEYS ALL of Jesus commandments.



I preach Satan's lie by saying that Jesus said you cannot OBEY TO BE SAVED? Satan must be very happy.



My user name is a gracious way of saying that in spite of all that happens, all the hospital visits, all the pain, etc., in spite of it all my LIFE IS GOOD because Jesus is in it.



Prove to yourself that you are not an arrogant, smug, conceited, pompous, presumptuous, egotistical, proud, puffed up, self-important, stuck up one saying that you OBEY ALL of Jesus' commandments.




I have not contradicted in this about you, gt.

You are an arrogant, smug, conceited, pompous, presumptuous, egotistical, proud, puffed up, self-important, stuck up one that you are searing your own mind with the fire of your own grandiose scheme that you, gt, OBEY ALL of Jesus' commandments.



Like this? You are an arrogant, smug, conceited, pompous, presumptuous, egotistical, proud, puffed up, self-important, stuck up one proclaiming for all to see that you say you OBEY ALL of Jesus' commandments.

One who takes God's Truth out of its literal original context and parrots your doctrine, searing, cauterizing, your own mind with your own two hands, with nobody's help, while many here have been warning you, continuously, lovingly, patiently, sometimes even forcefully, of the peril you have chosen to place yourself in and because WE STILL CARE we keep on warning, however, there will be a day when the Lord is going to say, 'Do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them; do not plead with me, for I will not listen to you.'

I couldn't care any less what you think of me.

Just like Paul.

 

[Veritas veritate]

Spoiler

Objecting to the first sentence... I think it says that it is impossible to be reconciled to God, if, after we have truly known Him, we turn away. Not that it is impossible to turn away at all.

Hebrews 6:4-8 KJV
(4) For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
(5) And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
(6) If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
(7) For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
(8) But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

Try reading that passage again; I mean, really read it while paying attention to the grammar. It is one of the most powerful passages that tells us that our salvation is secure. The biggest problem that people have while reading that particular passage is that they get caught up in the middle compound preposition of that sentence. Let me show you what I mean.

First I must point out that when it says "if they shall fall away," the "if" is not in the original text or context of that scripture, neither is the "seeing they." The passage should read as follows (I will not add verse numbers so that we can have a better look at the grammar).

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, and have fallen away, to crucify the Son of God again for themselves and put him to open shame.

Now lets take a look at the grammar of this passage. It starts with "For it is impossible" and then the passage picks up with a long compound preposition (of which I highlighted) that distracts the reader from what the writer is trying to convey. Now grammatically, that long compound preposition can be removed to reveal the simple straightforward meaning of the whole sentence: and when the distraction is removed, we are left with the following, clear meaning of the sentence.

For it is impossible to crucify the Son of God again for themselves and put him to open shame.

We can even go one step further and remove the preposition "for themselves." Once all of the distractions are removed, we are left with the greatest truth. No matter what happens, once we have acknowledged Jesus Christ as the Savior and have accepted the gift of salvation, it is impossible to crucify the Son of God again and put him to open shame.