Haha, those things have everything to do with Theology Proper if you are using the Name of the Father to apply His character and attributes to anyone or anything else. There is much more to a name than a simple spelling as I'm sure you know.
Do you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Haha, those things have everything to do with Theology Proper if you are using the Name of the Father to apply His character and attributes to anyone or anything else. There is much more to a name than a simple spelling as I'm sure you know.
Dan Emanuel
Active member
Spoiler
And if you prefer to think of these as bunker's and turret's along an easily avoided Maginot Line, you've better at least acknowledge that "yes, the Maginot Line exist's, why, I just avoided it easily." You avoid it, and deny its their.
Its obviously their, He's obviously Their. Its easy to spot Him! Not only is they're a mountain range of scriptural evidence, but the bishop's of the Church followed the biblical model of a council, 1st of which was the original Twelve Apostle's, less Jame's, who was recently murdered, the 1st Apostolic martyr, and the Apostle Johns brother. The Apostle's had been having some problem's, and the sudden departure of Jame's naturally provided some fresh urgency on them all, and it came from Paul. Peter gave his opinion on the matter and then the council agreed with Peter.
And then Peter declare's that Pauls epistle's are Scripture. 'Just declare's it. The only argument in the whole letter that even attempt's to provide justification for such an obvious exertion of raw power, is that he make's sure that we know that its really him, Peter, writing (2 Peter 1:1 KJV: 2 Peter 1:16 KJV: 2 Peter 1:18 KJV: 2 Peter 3:1 KJV).
Peter and Paul died in Rome because they together were pastoring both the whole Church, and specifically the Church in Rome, at the same time. Peter has a named successorship, and no other Apostle does, but maybe Paul and John and Matthew should have named successorship's too. Of course I'd be surprised if any of them would not be working with Peters successorship. That doesn't seem . . . Apostolic.
Its fine though, because 1 Corinthians 4:3-4 KJV, so :idunno:.
'Sorry, I . . . I got way off track they're. What I mean is, the bishop's of the Church followed the biblical model, and developed the doctrine of the Trinity, through the application of the oral tradition that the Apostle's passed on, outside of actual, literal, factual, Scripture, which is literally Apostolic teaching, but obviously it is not the only Apostolic teaching; its not the only thing the Apostle's taught. It can't be. It is like John 21:25 KJV, only applied to not all the thing's the Apostle's taught being written down.
Council's are how the Church broadcast's new's. The Trinity was made more and more written and less oral tradition. All of the bishop's together in the fourth century was surely a long time after the Apostle's departed, but all the bishop's in the fourth century were literally successor's of the Apostle's, and that mean's that there own bishop's, who consecrated them bishop's, were 1 step closer to having been taught directly by an (or in the case of those lucky Christian's in Rome, taught by two or more) actual Apostle. All of the bishop's were consecrated by Apostle's originally. Those bishop's, after the Apostle's departed, consecrated bishop's themselve's. This went on for 300 year's. By the fourth century, all of the bishop's still knew oral tradition's that originated with an or more than 1 Apostle.
The Apostle's taught the Trinity. We see a mountain range of evidence that they taught the Trinity in the Scripture, even though they don't teach the Trinity in the Scripture.
Daniel
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Haha, those things have everything to do with Theology Proper if you are using the Name of the Father to apply His character and attributes to anyone or anything else. There is much more to a name than a simple spelling as I'm sure you know.
My basic questions were to find out what your view was regarding God's constitution (Theology Proper).
I assume by your OT preferences and references that you eschew the divinity of Christ. Is that a fair deduction?
You say the Logos/Son is not an individuated-hypostasis-"person" but most of mainstream Trinitarianism does say so, (as well as myself). Even after the Resurrection we do not see omnipresence, (John 20:17). How can the Son "ascend to the Father" if they are one in the way that you seem to be implying? Neither do we see omniscience, as shown by the statement in Acts 1:7, and that passage yet implies that the Father maintains "His own Authority/Power" which the Son, even in this late discourse some ten days before Pentecost, does not claim for himself. The Authority/Power of the Father is clearly individuated. Again we have Messiah delivering up the kingdom/dominion to the Father, 1 Cor 15:24, when all rule, authority, and power are put down, and all enemies are defeated, (each in his or her own appointed times).
genuineoriginal
New member
Yes, a council of bishops developed the doctrine of the Trinity outside of actual, literal, factual, scripture.
No, not a fair deduction; in my understanding Messiah is Elohim of Genesis 1 and all things were created through him as the Scripture says. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Elohim, (Angelon) and the Word was Elohim. However none of this speaks of YHWH Elohim who is the Father. Have you not read, I have said, You are Elohim, and all of you are sons of the Most High? I have no problem with the fact that Messiah Yeshua is Elohim but that still does not make him YHWH Elohim Almighty, (nor equal to YHWH Elohim).
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
No, not a fair deduction; in my understanding Messiah is Elohim of Genesis 1 and all things were created through him as the Scripture says. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Elohim, (Angelon) and the Word was Elohim. However none of this speaks of YHWH Elohim who is the Father. Have you not read, I have said, You are Elohim, and all of you are sons of the Most High? I have no problem with the fact that Messiah Yeshua is Elohim but that still does not make him YHWH Elohim Almighty, (nor equal to YHWH Elohim).
Okay... Give me a few more cataphatic hints. LDS? Gnostic? Some other "flavor"?
I'm just looking for your simple self-identifying descriptor, if you'd be so kind.
Dan Emanuel
Active member
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Multi-Phenomenality. But since it's the singular omission of the Patristics and all other historical theologians, it takes some background, foundation, and explanation to delineate.
Your above examples are all relative to the Incarnation and the humanity of the Son.
genuineoriginal
New member
Yes, a council of bishops developed the doctrine of the Trinity outside of actual, literal, factual, scripture.
In case you didn't read the conversation I was having shortly before your post, here it is again:
Dan Emanuel
Active member
You're self-inflicted short-sightedness. You definitely have a clear view of whats only right in front of you, no doubt about that.
Daniel
So then it seems one must differentiate between "The Son", (Genesis 1) and the resurrected man Yeshua, ([a] Son of God). The Son is the Logos and resides within the messenger and-or the man, (all of the messengers and all of the faithful). The Word is Testimony and Testimony is Spirit. We probably also do not mean the same thing when it comes to "incarnation", at least in the way it appears you mean it when you use the term, "the Incarnation". The way in which I believe that the Word "incarnates" in a "babe" is more like, A sower goes forth to sow, and in his hand is a toxon-bow, and some of the seed of the Word falls into the good and fertile adamah-soil of the heart, and produces fruit: some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. And he that receives the seed of the Word into the good and fertile soil of the heart is he that hears the Word, and understands it, and therefore also bears fruit and produces: some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. For so is the kingdom of Elohim according to the Testimony of Yeshua: like a man who cast seed to the ground, and sleeping and rising, night and day, and how the seed sprouts and grows he knows not. For every man has his land and his earth produces fruit of herself; first the garden, (which is feminine) then the stalk, (which is masculine) then the full head of grain in the stalk. But when the fruit is brought forth he immediately sends out the sickle because the harvest stands ready. So then, Yoseph ate a steady diet of the Word and faithfully trusted when he received Word delivered to him and the wife of his youth and covenant through the Malak of YHWH in the dream-visions they two as one received, (though Yoseph "knew" her not).
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Well... I don't think I can concur, but it really depends on what you actually mean. I doubt we're on the same page, regardless how accomodating I might be in finding some common ground.
Agreed that we likely disagree.
The way in which I believe that the Word "incarnates" in a "babe" is more like, A sower goes forth to sow, and in his hand is a toxon-bow, and some of the seed of the Word falls into the good and fertile adamah-soil of the heart, and produces fruit: some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. And he that receives the seed of the Word into the good and fertile soil of the heart is he that hears the Word, and understands it, and therefore also bears fruit and produces: some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. For so is the kingdom of Elohim according to the Testimony of Yeshua: like a man who cast seed to the ground, and sleeping and rising, night and day, and how the seed sprouts and grows he knows not. For every man has his land and his earth produces fruit of herself; first the garden, (which is feminine) then the stalk, (which is masculine) then the full head of grain in the stalk. But when the fruit is brought forth he immediately sends out the sickle because the harvest stands ready. So then, Yoseph ate a steady diet of the Word and faithfully trusted when he received Word delivered to him and the wife of his youth and covenant through the Malak of YHWH in the dream-visions they two as one received, (though Yoseph "knew" her not).
Yeah... We're really not in the same ballpark. It would sure help if you would self-label in at least a general manner for some grid of what you succinctly mean by all of this verbiage.
Trinitarian?
Binitarian?
Arian?
Sabellian?
Pneumatomachian?
Some form of Messianic / Hebrew Roots?
Anything close at all?
oatmeal
Well-known member
Ah, so you say, but you cannot show how my conclusions are faulty.
The reason you cannot show my conclusions are faulty is because they are not faulty.
There are so many verses in scripture that trinitarianism ignores, because they show the depth of the error of the trinity.
The trinity being unsupported scripturally, or more accurately, it is contradicting scripture, there is no righteous reason to believe in it.
You cannot show my error, because there is none you can show from scripture.
Hmmm, surely you have read how He made the two one but reserved the Spirit to Himself? and that this is because He seeks an Elohim seed, (Malachi 2:14-16)?
Actually that would be "Christianos" but when I signed up the only two I saw that even looked close outwardly were "Christian" and "Christian (other)" so instead I simply chose other. To be "Christian" according to the prevalent mainstream understanding of today one must sign on to at least one of several different possible creeds of man and believe in a Trinity, (and I suppose this is my answer to this thread). However, to be Christianos, one must actually have Messiah being formed within. This however seems to be taught as works and "falling from grace" in the mainstream Christian pulpits of today; and that is because it requires first of all the water immersion of Yochanan, which is Torah, Prophets, and Writings, which is essentially the name of the Father, (and His name is in Eliyahu, Exodus 23:21). And after at least a basic knowledge of Tanach then at least one full year of full intense immersion into the Testimony of Yeshua found in the Gospel accounts is required, (as it is written in Acts 11:26). And as for Messiah being formed in you, well, I did just explain that process in my previous post. Sons of God are not born of women.
Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
You are defending wickedness. That tells me all I need to know about you.
Yes, so many clear statements they ignore..
HA! Says the foolish woman that doesn't even believe most of scripture, and believes the apostle Paul was anti-Christ.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Yeshua said that he came to send a machaira-sword of spiritual warfare upon the earth. Do you not understand that Stan the man is the Land? You are to use the Sword of the Word against yourself and your own "unruly members" of your own household, like that little member the tongue, which lights on fire the fiery inferno of Gehenna. The Sword is not for you to use against everyone else including your brethren. Your self righteousness has blinded you of this fact or else you would judge yourself so that you be not judged. Torah works the same way: do you see me going around condemning everyone who does not observe Torah? I use it against myself, not my brother, and it is a rod of iron in my hand when I use it lawfully to keep my own body in submission.
:sheep:
If that were true even that would be better than trying to chop off the hands and feet of his brethren, eh brother? Chop, chop, if your hand or foot, or any other little member of your household offend you, cut him off and cast him from you, well, I perceive you know this already. :chuckle:
:chuckle:
Kinda goes hand in hand with fear being the beginning of understanding.....
The fire is for now.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
This is a totally bogus foundational lie.
The council took place at least 17 years after Paul's conversion.
Many years after James was killed.
Galatians 2:1 KJV
1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.