SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : GOD IS NOT REALLY THREE PERSONS

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Next Page )
PosterThread
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

But the Comforter, 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 14:26).

But when the Comforter comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me" (John 15:26).

In both of these passages we have the Trinity in view:

1. The Comforter (the Holy Spirit)
2. The Father
3. Me and My (personal pronoun denoting Jesus Christ)

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. (Luke 3:22)

This is what the Jews call a Bath Kol (audible voice from Heaven). In the NT era a bat kol was considered authoritative, that is, until there reached a point when the credibility of an “audible voice from Heaven” had to be contended with by the unbelieving Jews. There were too many cases in the New Testament when this (an audible voice) happened and it authenticated the New Testament and Christ (among other things). There was only one way for the Rabbi’s to deal with this and it was with one fail swoop of a statement… “IT IS NOT IN HEAVEN!” Consider the commonly told story of how this came about. This adaptation is from Lightfoot Commentary on Mark 8, but is commonly found in many sources:

"On that day, R. Eliezer answered to all the questions in the whole world, but they hearkened not to him. He said therefore to them, 'If the tradition be according to what I say, let this siliqua [a kind of tree] bear witness.' The siliqua was rooted up, and removed a hundred cubits from its place: there are some who say four hundred. They say to him, 'A proof is not to be fetched from a siliqua.' He saith to them again, 'If the tradition be with me, let the rivers of waters testify': the rivers of waters are turned backward. They say to him, 'A proof is not to be fetched from the rivers of waters.' He said to them again, 'If the tradition be with me, let the walls of the school testify': the walls bowed, as if they were falling. R. Josua chid them, saying, 'If there be a controversy between the disciples of the wise men about tradition, what is that to you?' Therefore the walls fell not in honour of R. Josua. Yet they stood not upright again in honour of R. Eliezer. He said to them, moreover, 'If the tradition be with me, let the heavens bear witness.' The Bath Kol went forth and said, 'Why do ye contend with R. Eliezer, with whom the tradition always is?' R. Jonah rose up upon his feet, and said, 'It is not in heaven' (Deut 30:12). What do these words, 'It is not in heaven,' mean? R. Jeremiah saith, When the law is given from mount Sinai, we do not care for the Bath Kol."


For the Father to state from Heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased" is to establish the fact that there are at least two persons involved here. Then the Spirit of God to descend like a dove to introduce the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit of God. This event both visible and audible would have been considered authoritative at the time of its happening. We have the Father, the beloved Son, and the Holy Spirit.

This Trinity existed then and in the eternal past. Love was expressed within the Godhead towards each other as objects or recipients of one anothers love. God is love. This is how it was eternally expressed. Can a person be love and there be no object for expression? To say that God is not a Trinity is to deny that God is love.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2011/7/16 23:01Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Lying to an attribute?

Concerning the matter of Ananias and Sapphira:

But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. (Acts 5:3, 4)


Lets look at this passage exegetically. First, to suggest the Holy Spirit (pneuma) to be an attribute of the Father or of Jesus Christ is to make nonsensical the Ananias, Sapphira story as the narrative states clearly that two personages had been lied to. This is the flow of the narrative.

We observe communal sharing (Acts 4:32-37), that is, an emphasis on voluntary giving. The married couples lie about their contribution is contrasted with the open giving of Barnabas (the son of encouragement). Yet the narrative involves beings (ousia): Peter, Satan, Ananias, Sapphira, and the Holy Spirit (articular and unqualified as in Acts 1.8), and God. To state otherwise is to suggest that an 'attribute' or an 'essence' was lied to in Acts 5:4). This position certainly does not fit the narrative. (L.Foreman) Peter stated that Satan filled Ananias's heart to lie unto the Holy Spirit, that is a person just as the rest. How could he have lied to an attribute when he did not lie to the man Peter (person), but to the person of God the Holy Spirit. Everyone involved in this passage has personhood.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2011/7/16 23:30Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re: Grieving an attribute?

Quote:
Jesus "hath shed forth this."
He [Jesus]recieves the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, and sheds this forth in and through us.
(It is only through the spirit of Jesus, who is both mediator and advocate, we can even know the Father.
(Jesus says,"No man cometh to the Father but by me.")




I want to address the fact, again, that the Holy Spirit is NOT merely an attribute of God or simply 'Jesus' or the 'Father's' spirit in the same sense that we have breath. Although we are spirit, soul and body we do not have individual personalities within ourself.

We demonstrated before that the Holy Spirit is not the same as Jesus Christ when we showed how the Holy Spirit blasphemy has no forgiveness, but the blasphemy of the Son does have forgiveness. I want to demonstrate here as well that the Spirit of God can be resisted, grieved, as He seeks to teach us and lead us into all truth. The Holy Spirit can also speak. Can an attribute speak?

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; (1 Timothy 4:1)

As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. (Acts 13:2)

Since when does an 'attribute' or an 'essence' refer to itself as 'me'? Me is a PERSONal pronoun. Αφορίσατε δή μοι τόν τε Βαρνάβαν καὶ τὸν Σαῦλον εἰς τὸ ἔργον ὃ προσκέκλημαι αὐτούς. This is God, the Holy Spirit, CALLING these men to service. We see here that the Holy Spirit speaks and has a will. His will is for them to move in their calling.

Moreover, in the matter of Stephen:

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, (Acts 7:55)

Stephen was FULL of the Holy Spirit, while Christ was at the right hand of the Father. This is as clear as anything. This is three persons, all of which are known to be God Almighty.

The Spirit testifies:

And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:

Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. (Acts 20:22, 23)

πλὴν ὅτι τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον κατὰ πόλιν διαμαρτύρεται λέγον ὅτι δεσμά με καὶ θλίψεις μένουσιν. (Acts 20:23)

Here διαμαρτύρεται or 'witnesseth' means testifies. This is the Holy Spirit making known what the future holds. This requires both knowledge, a will and a means to communicate. 'Attributes', 'essence' or 'pneuma' in the human sense cannot do this. The Holy Spirit can reason and communicate. The Holy Spirit feels grief and can strive with man. This is not simply a person-less life force; this is the Holy Spirit of God sent into the earth after Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven. He is the paraclete, the one that walks along side.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2011/7/16 23:56Profile









 Re:

Quote:
They did exactly what they were told by revelation they believed.

Ah, and why can't we who have the same Holy Spirit, are they better than us or are we all one in Christ Jesus?

 2011/7/17 13:01
Christinyou
Member



Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3707
Ca.

 Re:

iamhis wrote:

"""How can we say these men of God did not obey the Word given them. They did exactly what they were told by revelation they believed. They died out to self and followed Christ as he commanded. They knew what Calvary was all about, and spent 10 days in tarrying for the power that Jesus had promised, dieing out to Christ that he could fill them with the Holy Ghost opening their understanding of the Word that they could preach the gospel in power and demonstration not mans vain reasoning. One verse that might be of help, "For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily", Colossians 2:9. Titles are titles. I am a father, son, and have a spirit. But my name is singular just like my relationship with Jesus Christ. I don't worship God seperatley as father and as son and spirit. Please search the scriptures and you will find there is only One throne in heaven not three, or two. One."""

These men were waiting for what Jesus was speaking of when He said they had the Holy Spirit with them and He would be in them, this is what Pentecost is all about, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to reveal the Mystery that was to be given Paul by The Spirit of Christ Himself, as Paul ask on the road, who art thou Lord.

Christ the Mystery in the believer, and the Holy Spirit, another Comforter, in the believer also, Christ in you the Hope of Glory unto new life and the another Comforter to teach what Jesus had accomplished on the Cross, which was the mystery "Christ in you the Hope of Glory". The born again experience Jesus said must happen if we want to see the things of the Kingdom.

Jesus said, He did nothing unless the Father said so, Jesus said the another Comforter would not speak of HIMSELF, but only what Jesus gave Him to say. The Holy Spirit is here to conform us to the image of the Chrsit that has been born again in us.

If The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three manifestations of the God Head, none of this can be accomplished. Christ our new life, satan out Christ in, The Holy Spirit teaching us this new life bringing us into the conforming us into the image of the Christ that is in us.

This is Gods plan from before the foundation of the world, before man was ever created, "IN OUR IMAGE, Christ was ment to be the life of the sons of God, that He wanted to live in His house. The House that Jesus prepares for all those the the Father gives Him. Son's and fellow heirs with Jesus Christ the Only Begotten Son of God giving every believer this new life of being born again, the mystery of "Christ in you the hope of glory". Eph 1:4 Col 1:27 Gal 2:20

In Christ by the Father being taught by the Holy Spirit:::

Phillip


_________________
Phillip

 2011/7/19 15:49Profile









 Re:

Brother Ron,

Good to see you have finally chimed in. Perhaps you, with 'Phil' and Rob, can team up and together contend for the heresy created through Roman Catholicism together.


Phil, Rob, and Ron,
ow about this for starters?

Since all of you think man being in the image of God means that God is just like a man, yet state that God is three persons:
--all of the above mentioned does not agree with scripture--
So we all are like God and we are all three persons in one???

Since all three of you are so adamant about this with no solid biblical evidence besides assumptions from passages taken out of context (or reasonings without biblical proof to back them at all). . .
. . .just to give all trinitarians reading the benefit of a doubt about this three person business, for the remainder of this thread, when responding, i will attempt to conform to the 'reality' of this notion. For this cause, in reference to myself,--(only on this thread mind you,)-- there will no longer be any first person singular reference when speaking of OURSELVES. Instead, WE will refer to OURSELVES in the first person plural tense.

WE are really wondering why each of you, 9 in all, are so adamant about this whole falsehood. Jesus never taught it as something to be believed, and if you read everything he said in relation to the spirit of God in relation to our Old Testament, he never contradicts what it says. WE request for all nine of you to provide explanations as to why you think you have the right to do this.

Either you 9 are sticking with non-Biblically based traditions of men or--according to the theories you have been trained to uphol--God has changed. We would like for all 9 of you to answer for yourselves about this.

Though there is little time for US presently to get into this further and directly respond to the illogical non-rhetoric of what you 9 propose, it is supposed to get up to 115 degrees today, so us three, and the 15 persons working with US will probably be knocking off early. Lord willing, should this be the case, there willprobably be time for WE 3 to answers the posts from all nine of you.

Until then, if you 9 have opportunity, look as John 14 more closely for starters. . .and please study it without including the faulty the notion of the Holy Spirit being something other than the presence of the Father in Jesus Christ who will manifest Himself in the presence and power in and of Himsel after being reunited with the Father.

H, already it seems there is too much psycho-babble rap from the three of you and not enough scripture to support assumptions stated. hen it is pointed out to you hat scripture actually say, since none of you seem to be taking

Rob,

Before we begin dealing with this entity business:

It's asked that you 3 altogether check and see what the root meaning of the work person is and then tell how many persons ther are in the godhead, and it's not zero.



As well, you 3 ask if an attribute can speak:
When in the N.T. Koine Greek, when it says that God speaks (from heaven) with a voice, it is referred to as " the daughter of a voice" and not just "a voice" as we read in English.

The Holy Spirit is not known to speak audibly, except through prophets and apostles.

. . .and finally, WE will answer you 3 directly about whether an attribute can speak: in the sense that the word is used in context of passages related, yes. What is a voice if it is not an attribute?

Phil, if you were reading earlier in the thread, you will see that it is not disagreed that the spirit of God can be referred to as he, (as well as it), as the Greek is not saying he but he/it when a definite article is used with the word spirit.


To US at least, it is not merely a matter of semantics, but rather understanding that the OT and NT are a congruent whole. The NT is just a continuation from where the OT left off. If it's believed things have changed, it would be because God has changed in some way, shape, or form.

Thinking God has changed merely proves that something is being misunderstood somewhere along the line.

GOD HAS NOT AND NEVER DOES CHANGE:
NOT NO WAY;
NOT NO HOW.


. . .Selah. . .

 2011/7/20 7:30
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
Since all of you think man being in the image of God means that God is just like a man, yet state that God is three persons:



Where did any of us say that God is just like a man? Man is a triune being made in the image of God. We are spirit, soul and body. This is the extent of similitude. We are not individual personalities, nor do we ever refer to ourself as 'Us' or 'we' as does God (Isaiah 6, etc.).


Quote:
Since all three of you are so adamant about this with no solid biblical evidence besides assumptions from passages taken out of context (or reasonings without biblical proof to back them at all). . .



This is total nonsense. This is what you have done and turned your behavior on our heads.

Quote:
. .just to give all trinitarians reading the benefit of a doubt about this three person business, for the remainder of this thread, when responding, i will attempt to conform to the 'reality' of this notion. For this cause, in reference to myself,--(only on this thread mind you,)-- there will no longer be any first person singular reference when speaking of OURSELVES. Instead, WE will refer to OURSELVES in the first person plural tense.



And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear ye Him. (Matthew 3:17)

This is the plain revelation of scripture, that the Father speaks to and of the Son. They are distinct personalities. If we were to speak to ourselves in this way it would be as the demoniac, And He was asking him, "What is your name?" And he said to Him, "My name is Legion; for we are many." Man does not speak of himself in the plural, but God speaks within the Godhead as individuals.

At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. (Matthew 11:25)

This is plainly one person speaking to another. This is not Christ speaking to Himself. It does not follow and makes nonsense of the text.

Quote:
WE are really wondering why each of you, 9 in all, are so adamant about this whole falsehood. Jesus never taught it as something to be believed, and if you read everything he said in relation to the spirit of God in relation to our Old Testament, he never contradicts what it says. WE request for all nine of you to provide explanations as to why you think you have the right to do this.



If the spirit of this comment is any indication of its truth we can dismiss it out-of-hand. First of all, it is you, the followers of this heresy that are in question not those of us that are in step with the historic Christian faith. Your questions have been answered well. You have ignored the answers and then placed a false construction on what has been said. It is clear to me that you have an agenda here.


Quote:
As well, you 3 ask if an attribute can speak:
When in the N.T. Koine Greek, when it says that God speaks (from heaven) with a voice, it is referred to as " the daughter of a voice" and not just "a voice" as we read in English.



The Greek word is phōnē. It is familiar to us. There is no sense of there being a daughter of His voice. The context is clear. It is God the Father speaking of His Son. That is the flow of the text. God does not have a lesser voice that speaks for Himself. When He said, "This is my beloved Son... we know who was speaking."

Quote:
The Holy Spirit is not known to speak audibly, except through prophets and apostles.



It would be more accurate to say that the Holy Spirit speaks through individuals. Paul stated that everywhere he went the Spirit testified that trials and afflictions awaited him. these were not all apostles and prophets, but people whom the Spirit chose to speak through in that moment. Moreover, just because we may have no record of the Spirit speaking audibly proves nothing. It is merely the operation of the Spirit in how He manifests Himself. It is no different than if the Father did not take on Human Flesh as did the Son. It was simply not His operation. He and the Spirit were in the Son, but the Son of God is clearly the person in view.

Quote:
To US at least, it is not merely a matter of semantics, but rather understanding that the OT and NT are a congruent whole. The NT is just a continuation from where the OT left off. If it's believed things have changed, it would be because God has changed in some way, shape, or form.



I think rather we have an example of the misleadings of believing Jews that are still stuck in a Rabbinical view of God and are trying to harmonize them. It was a strategy of the Rabbis to shut up Christianity in order to preserve their own idolatry. Akiva (Akiba) declared Simon Bar Kochba to be messiah proving how false he was. Yet, it is consistently overlooked.

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. (John 5:18)

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. (John 10:33)

This is as clear as anything. Some Messianics may be confused as to who Jesus Christ declared Himself to be or whom Peter declared the Holy Spirit to be, but the Pharisees understood perfectly. Listen to their own commentary. "...because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." They are telling us what they were hearing and why they were reacting as they were.

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. (John 8:58, 59)

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (Exodus 3:14)

This is as clear as anything. I could site many times in the OT we can see God beginning to reveal Himself as a plural unity.

Examples from the Old Testament? Is God as a plural unity a New Testament Gentile fabrication as some Jews suggest?


Eloiyim is a plural noun. When we recognize that the Shema tells us that God is ONE we may understand God to be a plural unity when we know the meaning of ‘echad.’. The Shema reads:

Shmai Yisrael Adonai Eloheynu Adonai Echad (אחד).

Hear O’ Israel the Lord your God is ONE.

שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד׃

The Hebrew language has two words that can be translated "ONE": echad and yachid. Whereas yachid (yah-keed) refers to the number one (i.e., absolute unity), echad (ek-kawd) refers to a composite unity. Yachid is never used in reference to God. An example of this word echad is in the book of Genesis chapter 2, verse 24, where it says that a couple joined together in marriage shall become one (אחד echad) flesh. Since the Shema uses the word echad, not yachid, it is reasonable to say that God's essence or nature is that of a composite unity. You may know that the shema was altered to use Yachid by one of the Rabbis early on. Surely they knew the implications and tried to cover it up.

Eloyim:

It is not sufficient to say that the term Eloyim simply means the plurality of God’s greatness and majesty as it forms a bias against the clear biblical teaching that God exists as one substance and 3 persons. This issue that we would have trouble with is understanding unity in the sense that the Godhead is in absolute one mind and one accord. This is where understanding what Jesus meant when He prayed that we would be ‘one’ even as He and the Father are ‘one.’ When we say God is three persons we do not mean the “three headed god” concept that is often thrust upon the doctrine; but a triunity of persons that exist in perfect harmony. Each Person of the Godhead was in eternal fellowship with the other two Persons before the world was created. All three were actively involved in the Creation: the Father (Genesis 1:1), the Son (John 1:1; Colossians 1:16), and the Ruach Hakodesh, or Holy spirit (Genesis 1:2).


For centuries, the rabbis have struggled with Genesis 1:26, where God says, ". . . Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: . . ." The plural noun Elohim (God), used in conjunction with the plural pronouns "us" and "our," argues persuasively for the existence of a plurality within the Godhead.


But doesn't the idea of divine plurality contradict the Jewish Shema, which declares that ". . . The LORD our God is one LORD" (Deut. 6:4)? Not when we realize that the Hebrew word echad (one) is often used to designate a compound unity rather than a simple unity. Again, we must note that the same word is used in Genesis 2:24 when Adam and Eve were married and became basar echad, or "one flesh." Eve was not an essence or a spirit of Adam; she was a different person.









_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2011/7/20 10:53Profile









 Re:

At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.

But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
~Matthew 12.1-7





For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.
~1 Corinthians 3.11-23



Brother Robert,

The title was changed with from "is God Really Three Persons" to the all caps title it now holds.

(Now it's wished that was never done.)
Honestly, it should not have been done as the arguments are becoming too many "rabbit trails", as Travis pointed out when this was brought up again.

If your persons' are insistent on responses to all the variables recently brought up, it will be done, yet this letter should help all reading recognize that without getting to the point, and then dealing with these things, this might possibly end up another dead thread.

The next written response was to Chris, Grant, and approved, however it seems that between your selfs, Ron's three persons, and 'Phillip's three persons, all twelve of us would be running circles chasing rabbits forever should individuated responses continued.

Your persons are assuming too much in thinking there is a group gathered together to trash and burn trinitarianism. It's just WE--('meaning me, three-in-one gregg)-- will reveal the underbelly of what many think is christian history without having to go into alot of detail.

One thing above all else that is despised here is some sort of 'party spirit' and if your persons' have read any comments from here regarding the 'majority whip' never being God's best, this is an individual quest to know God more and die following Jesus footsteps. It just WE, (meaning me: three-in-one gregg).




Personal stance is if one says that God is three in one, (as in individuated expressions united ,) that number falls short by 6: Father, Son, and the seven spirits OF God (not as being God):

"And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
Revelation 5.6

So, explain why God is three, not Father, Son, and the seven spirit OF God sent out from Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God?


With that verse alone, trinitarianism is flipped on it's head.

. . .BUT WAIT, there's more!
For an additional $ 19.95, you get not only the established principles behind. . .oops, wrong website.




Robert,
What most think of as the "historic Christian church" is not the way it really was at it's onset. The Christianity of today is not what was evidence after pentecost. . .and only persecution will change that.

Your persons keep on hammering away at church history, however you really are referring to Roman Catholic church and it's Protestant offspring which is not the church at all. How dare you call a state run money making operation with emperor as pope a church! Do all three of you think calling this Mother of Harlots a church somehow validates it's history?
This so called 'church' forced 'conversion' by:
the point of sword,
axe and chopping bloc to sever heads,
gillotine,
pendulum,
poisoning,
the rack,
the iron maiden,
whips tail ended with shards of metal and bone,
caging,
stocks,
burning humans alive at the stake,
starving some,
drowning others,
and too many other wicked torturous things to recount--all of which God did not endorse. . . you call that a church? Where the 'ordained' minions were paid so in any way possible they could bring the people under Roman rule under the headship of the state? You call that a church?

Early fathers of what church?

(It's wondered if Protestants or Catholics are more culpable towards the unwarranted slaying and persecution of my people, as well as other minorities.
(the majority whip thingy)

The apple does not fall far from the tree.

There is alot that is hidden and hush-hushed about Protestantism which takes some real digging if you don't know where to start looking. (. . .and neither was America immune from these foibles).
[This is not a grudge. Rather if these agencies are noted in full light: everybody will see they really are not that admirable at all and everything they do as organizations needs to be scrutinized by discerning what Jesus thinks, says, and does by comparison.

These organizations are not the true church.

There seems to be impatience about "leaving no stone unturned", through which your persons and other associated individual three-in-one persons seem to have resorted to implying stupidity and nonsense here.

For these reasons, from here on out, for the time being, it is going to be just prayers to the throne and scripture with supplimental facts from history proving:

--how and when trinitarianism began
--why it is unbiblical
--a congruent picture of Godhead provided through God's revelation of himself
--personal testimony and or revelation through the spirit OF the Lord
--and anything further found in prayer, meditation on scriptures, and/or --historic research-- relative to the above four things.

All debate from US will be put on hold until further notice, because the majority is always right. . .right Brother Robert?


If this were not meant to bring clarity through God's Word rather than what the traditions of man have misconstrued into a not understood mystery, this issue would have never been hammered away at so incessantly.

God never reveals things to man to confuse him. Rather, His desire is that all men come to know Him through the revelation of Himself in every aspect through Jesus Christ MY LORD.

Above is the only reason the Bible was given to man.


Charis,

gregg

p.s. Thanks for all the cannon fodder, most of which have been thought through. Some were not even considered.

 2011/7/20 19:30
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
What most think of as the "historic Christian church" is not the way it really was at it's onset.



My formal studies are centered on first century Christianity. I have written extensively along these lines on subjects that predate the Church Fathers and what would become Catholicism. I feel I have a fairly good grasp of the issues involved in the division that took place between The Jews (Judaism as it was prior to Yavneh and later Akiva) and the early church. The early fathers put into words the doctrines of early Christianity to deal with heresy, primarily. But the truth is, the answers to these topics can be discovered fully by reading the scriptures. That was their source material.

Having studied with the Messianic Jews in depth I can say I have heard many of the arguments and am familiar with the lines of thinking. The unbelieving Jews in the time of Christ rejected Jesus in spite of all manor of demonstration of who He is. They were even prepared to blaspheme the Holy Spirit to undermine peoples' faith in Him and retain their power and authority. I wish I had $1 for every time I have heard something suggesting that Christianity today is merely a product of Roman Catholicism or Hellenism. I have heard the Greeks blamed and everything else, but few want to talk about the corrupt Rabbis. They were the Pharisees that fled to Yavneh (Jamnea) during the First Jewish Revolt (CA 66-70 AD) and started Rabbinic judaism. The Judaism since that time is NOT what the Jews knew before. It is now a sustem designed primarily to be anti-Christ. At the end of the day we have to decide who we are going to believe, the Rabbis or the Bible?


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2011/7/20 20:55Profile









 Re:

Doctor? RobertS,

There is no doubt your persons have a good grasp of what you three-in-one mentioned in your persons' above post, however this is merely a sideline issue.

As stated previously, first things first.


If anyone thinks this thread's purpose is for that purpose, they are missing the point completely. . .or WE might be; and though this might possibly be the case, it is highly doubted.


By all means, chime in if there is something that is faulty in what is typed on this thread hereafter, however, response regarding any debate or objections will have to wait if it is not directly related to the true purpose of this thread:

God's revelation of Himself
vs
man's misconstruction of what He is not.

Your persons, or anybody elses for that matter, will be heeded, and WE will re-double check with Thee Truth and historic facts should there appear to be anything that is Biblically or historically inaccurate from sources, which are sleight bit foggy in the historic department.
Here it seems your persons might possibly be of help Dr. RobertS. Corrections will then be made accordingly.

After the main points have been put forth, we can then go back and cover all the attempts to make more "rabbit trails." After 'first things first' are covered, Lord willing, WE shall then address sideline objections to things that have been secondarily related for debate.

That is all for now.

Thank you
for
your time
and
attention.

From OUR kotz to your persons',

phaney

 2011/7/21 8:43





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy