is there anyone who does not support the trinity doctrine?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kselby

Guest
#1
is there anyone here who does not believe in the trinity??:(
 

pagie

Senior Member
May 13, 2007
137
1
16
#2
I dont believe in what people usualy take as trinaty. I believe Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God and the Father is God, but I do not believe they are seperate members of a God head. they might be 3 seperate personas (not persons)
when I worship Jusus I dont worship his Manhood but his Godhood. I find in the Bible all three are Identafied as God and I find places were they are identafied each as the other. I believe the atonement had to take place by both God and flesh otherwise there are problems with atonement.
it makes sence to me that they are all God and it makes sence to me from scripture that the three are one,
I dont know what you believe Kselby but im sure you have reasons for it just like everyone else. but this is what I believe
 
Mar 4, 2009
3
0
0
#3
How Did 1 become 3 ???

How Did 1 become 3 ???
http://www.bibleislam.com/arianism.php
You can email me on: [email protected]

God (or Gods)?
Excerpts and Quotes - From The Catholic Church History
By Brother John Raymond

Introduction

Arianism with its fundamental Trinitarian controversy must not be looked upon as an isolated theory by its founder Arius. Its appeal, which began in Alexandria and spread through the whole Empire, must be seen in the context of the times. The Church emerged in a Jewish and Greek world. The question occupying this non-Christian world was the contrast between the "One and the Many, between the ultimate unity that lay behind the visible universe and the incalculable variety that exists in the world."
[Ward 1955, 38]



Relationship of God And World

The relationship between God and the world had to be solved.

The Jews proposed a supreme God who created by His word. It was an idea of a mediating "Word or Wisdom - the Word which is pronounced, the Wisdom which is created - whereby the Father communicated Himself to man and took possession of him."
[Guitton 1965, 81]

The Greeks could not see how a finite and changeable world could come from an eternal and changeless God. They proposed the idea of a "mediating Intelligence or even Word, a first emanation of the first principle which reduced the distance between God and the world"
[Guitton 1965, 81]

The primitive Church had to "reconcile the notions they had inherited from Judaism with those they had derived from philosophy. Jew and Greek had to meet in Christ. They had to find an answer that would agree with the revelation they had received from Christ as recorded in the scriptures."
[Ward 1955, 39]

This struggle for a reconciliation of thought reached its climax with the Arian controversy. The Church responded with the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea that brought together Scriptural and philosophical thought to explain the Trinity. The Council did triumph over Arianism but only after fifty years of bitter battling. Imperial support and confusion in theological terminology were the principal reasons for such a long drawn out battle as we will see.



Arius And His Teaching

Arius, who was born in Egypt in 256 A.D., was a parish priest in Alexandria. He had studied under St. Lucian of Antioch, the founder of the school of Antioch, who had earlier been condemned for holding that Christ was only a man; although he was later reconciled. He is called the "Father of Arianism" because "Arius and almost all the 4th-century Arian theologians were his students. Calling themselves Lucianists and Collucianists, they developed his adoptionist and subordinationist tendencies into a full heresy."
[Harkins 1967, 1057, 1058]

With this background Arius struggled with the question of the Trinity. His teaching in Alexandria was the following: "Personal distinctions were not eternally present within the nature of God. . . the Godhead Himself was responsible for them. . . Identifying the eternal Godhead with the Father and regarding the Logos ('Logos' is simply a Greek word for 'word') as no more than a power or quality of the Father, he said that before time began the Father had created the Son by the power of the Word to be His agent in creation.

The Son was not therefore to be identified with the Godhead, He was only God in a derivative sense, and since there was once when he did not exist He could not be eternal. Arius stressed the subordination of the Logos to such an extent as to affirm His creaturehood, to deny His eternity and to assert His capacity for change and suffering."
[Ward 1955, 41]

This teaching of Arius "drove the distinctions outside the Deity and thus destroyed the Trinity. It meant solving the difficulty of the One and the Many by proposing a theory of one Supreme Being and two inferior deities."
[Ward 1955, 43]

The Person of Christ "belonged to no order of being that the Church could recognize. . . He was neither God nor man."
[Ward 1955,42]



Arius Versus The Alexandrian Bishop

Arius' views began to spread among the people and the Alexandrian clergy. Alexander the Bishop called a meeting of his priests and deacons. The Bishop insisted on the unity of the Godhead. Arius continued to argue that since the Son was begotten of the Father then at some point He began to exist. Therefore there was a time when the Son did not exist. Arius refused to submit to the Bishop and continued to spread his teaching.

Alexander called a synod of Bishops of Egypt and Libya. Of the hundred Bishops who attended eighty voted for the condemnation and exile of Arius. After the synod Alexander wrote letters to the other Bishops refuting Arius' views. In doing so the Bishop used the term "homoousios" to describe the Father and Son as being of one substance.
Alexander "used a term which was to become the keyword of the whole controversy."
[Ward 1955, 43, 44]

With the decision of the synod Arius fled to Palestine. Some of the Bishops there, especially Eusebius of Caesarea, supported him. From here Arius continued his journey to Nicomedia in Asia Minor. The Bishop of that city, Eusebius, had studied under Lucian of Antioch. He became Arius' most influential supporter. From this city Arius enlisted the support of other Bishops, many of whom had studied under Lucian. His supporters held their own synod calling Arius' views orthodox and condemning Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Arius seemed to have good grounds for this condemnation.

The term homoousios was rejected by Alexander's own predecessor Dionysus when arguing against the Sabellians (who claimed the Father and Son were identical). All this controversy was taking place just as the Church was emerging from Roman oppression.



Constantine And Ossius

With the rise of Constantine to power Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine had politically united the Empire but he was distressed to find a divided Christianity. Constantine, certainly not understanding the significance of the controversy, sent Ossius his main ecclesiastical adviser with letters to both Alexander and Arius. In the letters he tried to reconcile them by saying that their disagreement was merely just a matter of words. Both of them really were in agreement on major doctrines and neither was involved in heresy.

The letters failed to have an effect. In 325 A.D. Ossius presided over a Council of the Orient in Antioch that was attended by fifty-nine bishops, forty-six of whom would soon attend the Council of Nicaea. This Council in Antioch was a forerunner of the latter Council in Nicaea.

Under the influence of Ossius a new Church practice was inaugurated - that of issuing a creedal statement. At this Council Arianism was condemned, a profession of faith resembling the Alexandrian creed was promulgated and three Bishops who refused to agree with the teaching of this Council were provisionally excommunicated until the Council of Nicaea.

Roman Emperor Calls Council of his Church (Universal or Catholic Church of Rome). It was the year 325 AD in what is now Turkey and in the summer of that year, probably under the suggestion of Ossius, Constantine called for a general council of the Church at Nicaea in Bithynia.

That an Emperor should invoke a Council should not be considered unusual since in Hellenistic thought he "was given by God supreme power in things material and spiritual."
[Davis 1987, 56]

The Council of Nicaea. The General Council was well attended by the major sees of the Eastern Empire. Also some Western Bishops were present. Because of old age and sickness Pope Sylvester did not attend but sent two papal legates. The total number of Bishops who attended the Council has been disputed. Eusebius of Ceasarea who attended it claimed 250; Athanasius also in attendance mentioned 300; after the Council a symbolic number of 318 was used; modern scholars put the number at 220.

If there were minutes taken of the Council proceedings they are no longer in existence. We know from the writings of Rufinus that "daily sessions were held and that Arius was often summoned before the assembly; his arguments attentively considered. The majority, especially those who were confessors of the Faith, energetically declared themselves against the impious doctrines of Arius."
[LeClercq 1913, 45]

Concerning the Creed that was drafted at the Council "Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria and Philostorgius have given divergent accounts of how this Creed was drafted."
[LeClercq 1967, 792]

But from one reconstruction of the events Eusebius of Nicomedia offered a creed that was favorable to Arian views. This creed was rejected by the Council. Eusebius of Caesarea proposed the baptismal creed used in Caesarea. Although accepted it does not seem to form the basis of the Council's Creed. Attempts were made to construct a creed using only scriptural terms. These creeds proved insufficient to exclude the Arian position.

"Finally, it seems, a Syro-Palestinian creed was used as the basis for a new creedal statement . . . The finished creed was preserved in the writings of Athanasius, of the historian Socrates and of Basil of Caesarea and in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon of 451."
[Davis 1987, 59]

When the creed was finished eighteen Bishops still opposed it. Constantine at this point intervened to threaten with exile anyone who would not sign for it. Two Libyan Bishops and Arius still refused to accept the creed. All three were exiled. The Creed and an Analysis some parts of the literal translation of the Nicaea Creed are as follows:

"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance (ousia) of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance (homoousios) with the Father, through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth . . . Those who say: `There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten;' and that `He was made out of nothing;' or who maintain that `He is of another hypostasis or another substance,' or that `the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change,' the Catholic Church anathematizes."
[LeClercq 1913, 45]

The Arians were very clever in twisting phrases in creedal statements to reflect their own doctrine. The Son being "begotten of the Father" was seen by them as saying that the Son was created from nothing. But to counter their doctrine the phrase "begotten not made" was added to the creed that totally ruled out their position of the Son having a beginning. Another Arian teaching was that the Son was God by grace and name only.

The creedal statement "true God of true God" was an affirmation that the Son was really truly God against this Arian position. The most important statement in the creed that affirms "that the Son shares the same being as the Father and is therefore fully divine" was the phrase "of one substance (homoousios) with the Father"
[Davis 1987, 61]

This statement totally destroyed the Arian view of the Son as an intermediary being between God and Creation. In case the creed was not enough to end the Arian controversy anathemas were attached directly condemning Arian positions. The Arian denial of the Son's co-eternity with the Father is expressed in the two phrases "there was when the Son of God was not" and "before He was begotten He was not."

The Arian belief in the Son being created out of nothing is expressed in the phrase "He came into being from things that are not." The Arian doctrine that the Son being a creature was subject to moral changeability and only remained virtuous by an act of the will is expressed in the phrase "He is mutable or alterable."

Finally the Arian position of the Son as subordinate to the Father and not really God is expressed in the phrase "He is of a different hypostasis or substance." With these specific anathemas against them the Arians and their heresy seemed to be finished. Terminology Problem With the Eastern Church using Greek and the Western Church using Latin misunderstandings were bound to arise over theological terminology. Once instance of confusion is the statement "He is of a different hypostasis or substance."

The two words in the Eastern Church were seen to be synonymous. In the West hypostasis meant person. So for a Westerner the Council would look as if it was condemning the statement that the Son was a different Person from the Father, which would clearly be erroneous. Only later would the East come to distinguish hypostasis from substance (ousia) as in the West.

This instance of confusion "points up the terminological difficulty which continued to bedevil Eastern theology and to confuse the West about the East's position."
[Davis 1987, 63]

A second and very important termed used by the Council was homoousios. At that time this word could have three possible meanings.

"First, it could be generic; of one substance could be said of two individual men, both of whom share human nature while remaining individuals.
Second, it could signify numerical identity, that is, that the Father and the Son are identical in concrete being.
Finally, it could refer to material things, as two pots are of the same substance because both are made of the same clay."
[Davis 1987, 61]

The Council intended the first meaning to stress the equality of the Son with the Father.

If the second meaning for the word was taken to be the Council's intention it would mean that the Father and Son were identical and indistinguishable - clearly a Sabellian heresy.

The third meaning gave the word a materialistic tendency that would infer that the Father and Son are parts of the same stuff.

Along with these possible misunderstandings of the meaning of the word homoousios the history of the word is closely associated with heresies.

The word was originally used by the Gnostics [1] . The word had even been condemned at the Council of Antioch in 268 regarding its use by the Adoptionist Paul of Samosata.

Another factor making the word unpopular was that it was never used in Sacred Scripture. The Council's defeat by Arianism. It is not surprising that with its use of the word homoousios the Council could be called into question.

Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia gained the confidence of Emperor Constantine. He convinced Constantine that the Council's use of the word homoousios was Sabellian (Father and Son were identical). The Emperor now favored the Arians.
With the death of Constantine the Empire was divided between his sons. Constans who ruled in the West favored Nicaea while his brother Constantius who ruled the East was anti-Nicaea.

Supporters of Nicaea in the East especially Bishop Athanasius were deposed and excommunicated by the Dedication Council of Antioch. This Council directly attacked the Nicaea Council by promulgating its own creed that omitted the phrases "from the substance of the Father" and "homoousios."

Some attempts were made to find a substitute word for homoousios. As many as fourteen Councils were held between 341 and 360 "in which every shade of heretical subterfuge found expression . . . The term `like in substance,' homoiousion . . . had been employed merely to get rid of the Nicene formula."
[Barry 1913, 709]

Not all Arians, or their new name of Semi-Arian, agreed with this new word. One group emphasized that the Father and Son were "dissimilar" or anomoios. Another group used the word "similar" or homoios to describe the Father and Son relationship.

If Creator Wills, To be continued in this New thread posts......

You can email me on: [email protected]
http://www.bibleislam.com/arianism.php
 
Mar 4, 2009
3
0
0
#4
How Did 1 Become 3 ??? Continue From First Post

http://www.bibleislam.com/
Continue From First page i.e http://www.christianchat.com/showthread.php?t=1400

How Did 1 Become 3 ???
You can email me on: [email protected]

Not all Arians, or their new name of Semi-Arian, agreed with this new word. One group emphasized that the Father and Son were "dissimilar" or anomoios. Another group used the word "similar" or homoios to describe the Father and Son relationship.

With the death of Constans in 350 his anti-Nicaea brother Constantius became sole ruler of the Empire. The new Emperor demanded that all the Bishops of his Empire should agree with the homoios formula. In 359 he summoned two Councils, one in the East at Seleucia and the other in the West at Rimini.

Both Councils, under the Emperor's threats and with rationalizing arguments aimed at calming consciences, were induced to sign the homoios formula. "This Homoean victory was confirmed and imposed on the whole Church by the Council of Constantinople in the following year" which condemned the terms homoousios, homoousios and anomoios.
[Ward 1955, 57]

It seemed that the Arians had triumphed over the Nicaea creed. The Final Battle. The seeming triumph of homoeism was short lived.

First it gained its popularity solely by imperial imposition. With the death of Constantius in 361 it collapsed.

Second by persecuting both homoousios and homoousios supporters alike "it brought about better understanding and, ultimately, reconciliation between the two groups."
[DeClercq 1967, 793]

Athanasius an ardent defender of the homoousios position and following the Alexandrian train of thought had begun his reasoning with the unity of God. From their he had concluded that the Son and Spirit Who shared that unity must have the same essential substance.

The Cappadocian Fathers Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa were associated with Homoiousians.

The point of departure for them as well as the Antiochenes had been the individual aspect of the divine personality. With the help of Athanasius they came to the realization that the three Persons as God must share the same identical substance also. By using the term homoousios the Cappadocian Fathers "had never meant to deny the unity but only to preserve the distinction of persons."
[Ward 1955, 58]
Both came to the conclusion that although they used different terms what they meant to say was the same.

The Cappadocian Fathers came to accept the term homoousios. Athanasius, on the other hand, accepted the Cappadocian formula for the Trinity - one substance (ousia) in three persons (hypostaseis).

At about the same time as Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers were reaching an agreement another development was taking place. The East and the West were arriving at a better understanding of each others theological terminology.

At the Synod of Alexandria in 362 the Nicene Creed was re-affirmed, the terms ousia and hypostasis were explained and Macedonianism (sometimes referred to as another form of Semi-Arianism in its subordination of the Holy Spirit) was condemned.

Under the Eastern Emperor Valens (364-378) homoeism still had imperial favor. In the West Ambrose of Milan led the fight for the Nicene Creed. At the Council of Sirmium in 378, with the support of the Western Emperor Gratian, six Arian Bishops were deposed. A series of laws were passed in 379 and 380 the Emperor prohibited Arianism in the West.

In the East with the succession of Valens by a Nicene sympathizing Emperor Theodosius I all exiled Bishops under Valens to return to their sees. In 381 he convoked a regional Council at Constantinople. The first canon from this Council states that "the faith of the 318 fathers who assembled at Nicaea in Bithynia is not to be made void, but shall continue to be established."
[Davis 1987, 126]

In 380 the Emperor Theodosius outlawed Arianism. The last victory over Arianism came in 381 with the Council of Constantinople in the East and the Council of Aquileia in the West. Both of them "sealed the final adoption of the faith of Nicaea by the entire Church."
[DeClercq 1967, 793]



Conclusion

The Council of Nicaea was victorious in the end. It took over fifty years of bitter battling between the upholders of the Council of Nicaea and those against it. The Arian heresy seemed finished when the Council so specifically anathematized their teachings one by one.

The Arian doctrines condemned were the following:

The Son was created by the Father out of nothing.
Thus the Son was not God in the strict sense but by grace and
in name only.
The Father and Son did not share the same substance.
The Son being a creature was subject to moral changeability
and only remained virtuous by an act of the will.

Terminology difficulties had kept the door open for the Arians to continue after the Council. This was especially true with the term homoousios (of the same substance) used by the Council to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son.

The Arians took advantage of one of the term's other meaning, that of identity, to claim that the Council said the Father and Son were identical thereby invalidating the Council. The Arians then started producing their own creeds either eliminating this term or substituting another for it. This lead to the breaking up of the Arians into diverse groups according to which term they supported - anomoios (dissimilar), homoios (similar) or homoiousion (like in substance).

It is obvious that Imperial involvement in the controversy determined at any given moment whether the Council of Nicaea or the Arianism was dominating the controversy. With the imposition of the term homoios on the Church by the Emperor Constantius the work of the Council of Nicaea seemed doomed. But the popularity of this term died with the Emperor.

The persecution of both the Homoiousians and the Homoiousians forced them to begin to dialogue. With the two great representatives of these positions, St. Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers, finding theological grounds for their eventual agreement the way was paved for the triumph of the Council of Nicaea. This incident later coupled with Eastern and Western Emperors who were pro-Nicaea led to the final Arian downfall.

REFRENCE:

[1] Gnostics - meaning "to know secret or hidden knowledge"; lit., those who know; a mystic order of Christianity. Often known for giving up all worldly matters, often living apart from society and being reclusive, fasting and remaining celibate. Possible forerunners of the sufi orders found amongst some Muslims today.

WORKS CITED:

The New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co. Vol. 1. Arianism, by V.C. Declercq.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co. Vol. 8. St. Lucian of Antioch, by P. W. Harkins.

Davis S.J., Leo D. 1987. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787):
Their History and Theology. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc.

Guitton, Jean. 1965. Great Heresies and Church Councils. New York: Harper and Row.

Herbermann, Charles G., Edward A. Pace, Conde B. Pallen, Thomas J. Shahan, John J. Wynne, eds. 1913. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: The Encyclopedia Press. Vol. 1, Arianism, by William Barry.

Herbermann, Charles G., Edward A. Pace, Conde B. Pallen,
Thomas J. Shahan, John J. Wynne, eds. 1913. The Catholic
Encyclopedia. New York: The Encyclopedia Press. Vol. 11, Councils of Nicaea, by H. Leclercq.

Ward D.D., Bishop J.W.C. 1955. The Four Great Heresies. London: A.R. Mowbray and Co. Limited


http://www.bibleislam.com/
You can email me on: [email protected]
 

pagie

Senior Member
May 13, 2007
137
1
16
#5
1 there are verses wich Jesus claims things that are non transfeable qualitles of God, not that he came and said I am God but by his words he bight of well have done so though the gospels werent writen by Jesus but by his deciples so the question is who did they say Jesus claimed to be, here are a few. (a) worship is a non-transfeable quality of God ( God alone can be worshiped,)
( Exodus 20:1-4 and God spoke all these words who brought you out of Egypt out of the land of slavery, you shall have no other Gods before me you shall not make yourselves an idol in the form of anything from heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.)
(see also Deut 5:6-8 )
(b) Jesus accepted worship even angels who had men bow to them refuted worship and told them to worship God alone (Rev 22:8-9) but there are acounts when Jesus was worshiped and it was not refuted, to think these men being Jews would write such a thing in there day unless they claimed themselves he was God, (Matt 14:33 then those who were in the boat worshiped him saying truly you are the son of God.)
(john 9:37-38 jesus said "you have now seen him infact he is the one speaking with you" Then the man said "Lord I believe" and he worshiped him)
All the deciples worshiped him (Matt 28:16-17 Then the eleven deciples went to Galilee to the mountin were Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him they worshiped him ;but some doubted)
Jesus claims of himself titles of God witch are non-transferable titles
God says (I AM) (Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses "I AM WHO I AM. this is what you are to say to the Israelites 'I AM has sent me to you)
(Isa 43:10, you are my witnises declares the Lord and my servant whom I have chosen so that you may know and believe me that I am he)
(Isa 43:11, I even I am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior)
Jesus says (I AM) (john 8:58-59 "I tell you the truth' Jesus answered "before Abraham was born I am" at this they picked up stones to stone him but Jesus hid himself sliping away into the grounds) (John 18:4-6, Jesus knowing all that was going to happen to him went out and aked them "who is it you want ?" Jesus of Nazareth they replied " I am he" Jesus replied, and judas the traitor was standing there with them, When Jesus said "I am he" they drew back and fell to the ground.)
God is the giver of life Gen 2:7 Deut32:39 1 Sam 2:6 Jesus is the giver of life John 5:21 John 10:28 John 11:25
God forgiver of Sins Exodus 34:6-7, Neh 9:17 Dan 9:9 Jesus forgiver of Sins Mark 2:1-12 Act:26:18 Col 2:13
God Omnipresent Psa 139:7-8 Prov 15:3 Jesus Omnipresent Matt 18:20 Matt 28:20
God Omniscient 1 Kings 8:39 Jer 17:9-10 Jer 17:16 Jesus Omniscient Matt 11:27 Luke 5:4-6 John 2:25, John 16:30 John 21:17 Act1:24
God Omnipotent Isa 40:10-31, Isa 45:5-13, 18 Jesus Omnipotent Matt 28:18 Mark 1:29-34, John 10:18
God preexistant Gen 1:1 Jesus preexistant John 1:15-30, John 3:13, John 3:31-32 John 6:62 John 16:28 John 17:5
God is eternal Psa 102:26-27 Hab 3:6 Jesus is eternal Isa 9:6, Mic 5:2, John 8:58
God is immutable Num 23:19 Jesus is immutable Heb 13:8
 
Feb 27, 2007
3,179
19
0
#6
WOAH ONLYone creator... noticed the absence of scripture in your LONG LONG LONG post.
 
Dec 24, 2008
119
0
0
#7
Acts 10:38 says God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with holy spirit and with power.
Assuming Jesus is God...........
Why did God anoint Himself?
Does God need anointing?

Why did He anoint Himself with holy spirit and power since God IS Holy Spirit [John 4:24] and all-powerful? [EL Shaddai........God Almighty]

Still waiting to hear who knows the answer to my question.........
.....Who does God pray to?

Also, I read verses that say, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."
See that? The God....of our Lord Jesus Christ.
So if Jesus is God, then who is the God of God?

When Jesus said, "My Father is greater than I."
Did he really mean to say, "I am greater than myself?"

some things don't add up
 

pagie

Senior Member
May 13, 2007
137
1
16
#8
good question markhelp
Acts 10:38 (New International Version)

38how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.
if I am to be consistent with my beliefe I would conclude from this verse that God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with God (Holy Spirit) so this was God manifest in flesh, and I believe this happned here when an angel apeared to Mary
Luke 1:28-35 (New International Version)


28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."
34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" 35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God.
I do not believe that God anointed himself, the bible doesnt say that but if God were manifest in some cind of flesh I would of wrote just like the apostles wrote that this flesh (Jesus) was anointed by God
 

pagie

Senior Member
May 13, 2007
137
1
16
#9
(Quote; markhelp) Why did He anoint Himself with holy spirit and power since God IS Holy Spirit [John 4:24] and all-powerful? [EL Shaddai........God Almighty]

Still waiting to hear who knows the answer to my question.........
.....Who does God pray to?

Also, I read verses that say, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."
See that? The God....of our Lord Jesus Christ.
So if Jesus is God, then who is the God of God?

When Jesus said, "My Father is greater than I."
Did he really mean to say, "I am greater than myself?"
some things don't add up (Quote)


clarifecation between Jesus as flesh and Jesus as God, the flesh of Jesus is not God apart from the life of God in it, so if a body of flesh has been given life whos son would that flesh be other than the one that life saurce directly came from, I believe since it came from God directly he can be called the son of God and whyle that life saurce being God he is God. I believe this life sauce is self sustained and can not die because it is God, and I believe this is consistant with scripture right to the death of Jesus (body) on the cross, I believe it makes perfect for atonement.
we do not worship Jesus manhood but we worship his Godhood, and the man hood is simply the atonement for Sin which is provided from God.

God dose not need to and dose not anoint himself but God anointed Jesus (flesh) with himself as it is God manifest in flesh

God dose not pray to himself but Jesus (man) 6Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross! (phil 2:6-8) I believe God intended this atonement (jesus) to be limited just like man is, to depend on rely on and pray to God, I believe if the atonement is not like man in this way it is not an atonement

God is the father of our Lord Jesus christ since the life of Jesus is compleately God and God is manifest in this flesh who else would be his father. God is God unto himself

the father is greater than Jesus since God manifest in the flesh to be an atonement Jesus is limited as a man to be just like man, though God be all powerfull the atonement must still be like man even if it is all powerfull God
 
Feb 27, 2007
3,179
19
0
#12
hmmm... I wonder why are you so intent on getting others email address's?
 
P

Peacefulcrusader

Guest
#13
So, when are you going to answer in this thread "Onlyonecreator"?
 
R

reader

Guest
#14
A friend of mine is writing a novel about the application of Christianity in the world today, and this is what he had to say about it:

The religious leader looked at Keith scornfully, and asked “ You say you teach God’s word? What do you know of God? Have you graduated from a Seminary? Are you an ordained minister?”
“No”, said Keith, “But I can read. The Word of Christ, with the trials of life, teach me all I need to know about God’s love.”
“Then tell me this, Holy Profit” the evangelist mocked, “ what is the meaning of the Holy Trilogy, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, if God is one? Answer me this and show me you have some knowledge of the nature of God!”
“Very well”, said Keith, “but first you must show me you have knowledge of the nature of God’s love. I will answer your question if you answer mine.”
“I can answer anything you can dream up”, said the evangelist arrogantly. “Ask away.”
Keith stood up leaned forward towards his tormentor, and looked him in the eye.
“Suppose you are walking down the streets of Mumbai in India. On a corner you see a small Hindu child singing for money, his eyes burned out with acid by his enslavers because blind, singing children earn more. How would you show him God’s love?”
The evangelist was shocked, “That’s not fair, it is not a scholarly question. We are talking about the nature of God here, not unfortunate children in India.”
“What good is all the mysticism that you study in your books, if it does not teach you to apply God’s Word to the real world?”, asked Keith.
“The question is irrelevant”, said the evangelist, “the child isn’t even Christian. He’s Hindu. You said so yourself.”
“A mother the child barely remembers once told him he was Hindu, but he does not know what that means. You say he is irrelevant? If God notes the falling of even a sparrow that does not know of the faiths of men, how can you say the suffering of this child is irrelevant to him? How you would treat this child, who is the least among us, is how you would treat God. So how will you treat him?”
The evangelist was shaken, and was beginning to sweat. He looked nervously around him at the faces watching him and waiting for his answer. “I don’t know”, he said. “I suppose I will tell him that I would pray for him, maybe give him a candy bar. I don’t know, I don’t have the resources to help all the children like him.”
“If you accept the Word, then you have all the resources of Heaven at your disposal”, said Keith.
The evangelist grew angry, “Alright, your so smart. I bet you don’t have an answer for the child. How would YOU show him God’s love?!”
Keith sat back in his chair. “Very well”, said Keith, “I will answer both questions, yours and mine, since they are really one in the same.”
“What?”, exclaimed the evangelist. “What on earth do you mean by that?!”
Keith ignored him and continued. “Whether you are discussing His love in practical application, or theological study, the nature of God is in his love and it is what it is. To truly understand the theology you must understand its application. If you do not know how to apply the theology, you cannot claim to understand it. The study of the theology alone does not make you a man of God, nor does preaching it. What makes you a man of God is applying it.” Keith stopped and took a deep breath.
“You are correct that you, alone as an individual, do not have the resources to make everything that is wrong in that child’s physical life right. But the Holy Spirit does not necessarily work through physical means. The Father loves the child and wants him to have some joy in his life. The Son through his Word directs that you cannot ignore him and leave him to suffer. Give him a piece of the Holy Ghost. Sit down and speak with him. Get to know him. Make him laugh, feed him. Tell him stories of happy things and places and give him happy things that he can think of when he is not begging, to distract him from his misery. Tell him of God and of Heaven. Give him faith. But don’t stop there. When you leave the child, find out what the government may be doing to help children like him and how you can help. Find out if there are any other groups working to help children like him and what you can do. If you find none, organize one. Then, visit the child and his friends as often as you can. Give them something to look forward to, but do not promise more than you know you can deliver. Try to find others who can visit the child and his friends when you cannot. For it is the Father who is the creator of all who loves all, and all was created through his Word, the Son, which tells us of his love and we engage the Spirit of the Lord when we practice his Word and that is the Holy Spirit and together they are one, for God is one, the one true God.”
The evangelist shook his head with a mocking smile. “You ask a lot of me for one unfortunate child.”
“Do I?”, asked Keith. “Would you do less for the Christ child? For as I have said before, the Word teaches us that what we would do to the least among us we do to God. If you are so worried about how you spend your valuable time, remember you cannot give God’s love without self sacrifice, and if you cannot sacrifice of yourself, you cannot be a man of God.”
“So the nature of God’s love is sacrifice, according to you”, scuffed the evangelist.
“It starts with sacrifice. If you give only what is convenient, then what have you given? You must give something of yourself or you give nothing. The Father gave us his only son for sacrifice, have you given more? If you sacrifice unconditionally, you give the miracles of God’s love. You give dignity to those who may have had none, for how can you have no dignity if someone loves you? You give hope, because how can you be alone if you know someone cares? You receive gratification, for how can you feel empty if you have given such a gift? Best of all, you have perpetuated God’s love, for those who receive it want to spread it themselves. And that is the true nature of the Father’s love, for although it originates with the Father, the Holy Spirit is spread through the deeds of his children who keep the Son and his Word, in their hearts.
“I….I don’t know what to say”, muttered the evangelist.
“It is not necessary for you to say anything”, said Keith, “just rededicate yourself to living the Word and not just preaching it. Only then can you understand what you preach. Do that one thing, and you will truly be born again. Now, will you pray with me? Our Father, who art in Heaven…”
“hallowed be thy name”, joined in the evangelist who knelt on one knee and the crowd that was present. They continued until the prayer was complete, and then were silent in contemplation.
 
R

reader

Guest
#15
God is one. The father is the idea, the Son, the doctrine or the Word, and the Holy Ghost the action on the word. Together they are one. Remember John? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Through the Son all things were made. All things perceived by the Father, made by the Holy Ghost through the doctrine of the Word given to man by the Son. I know, it is difficult to get your mind around. It is not an easy concept to grasp. It has to do with how God makes his glory, that is beyond human comprehension, known to us.
 

pagie

Senior Member
May 13, 2007
137
1
16
#16
hhmmmm Reader, I dont see what this has to do with weather there is a Holy trinaty in the Godhead
 
R

reader

Guest
#17
This is all about the Holy Trinity in the Godhead and how God applies to our lives. You must accept that the Holy Ghost works through us, that is, those that hold th Son and his Word in our hearts. The origination with the Father, the communication through the Son and the execution through the Holy Ghost. The Holy Trilogy is how the Godhead interacts with us.
 
L

lala02

Guest
#18
The best way I've had it described to me so I could understand was like an egg. There is the shell, the white and the yolk. Three very different parts, with different purposes, but it is still an egg and together it makes a whole.
 

pagie

Senior Member
May 13, 2007
137
1
16
#19
yes I understand but I dont perticurly suport the trinaty, it makes no sence to me to say that God has 3 parts, I believe he is one. I dont think they are 3 persons and I think that things about God are knowable and are not just some big mystery. you see when it says in the bible, that if anybody preaches a diferent jesus than the one we preach let him be eternaly condemned, if that is the case why would this Jesus be such a mystery, he said I and the father are one, he said anyone who has seen me has seen the father also. and he even said quoting the Law hear oh Israel the Lord your God is one God. so I can only see that God the father and God the son and God the Holy Spirit are not 3 but one. I dont see Jesus saying he is a 2nd peorson of God or making a statement to regard that, but I see statements were he makes claims of himself which only God can make, and it seems to me that Jesus taught that he was in verry nature 'God. now the only diference I do see in Jesus is the limitation of the flesh, which isnt suposed to be some super humen who can do anything but simply an atonement for the sin of mankind to keep the Law of God, to satisfy Gods rightiousness, and to obey 'God.
 
K

kselby

Guest
#20
my head is spinning right now....and im not a very good typer....so this may take me a while...but the definition of the trinity according to the athanasian creed is that there are three divine persons(the father the son and the holy ghost)each is said to be eternal, each said to be almighty,non greater or less than the other,each said to be god ,and yet together being but one god.Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three persons are not seperate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the divine essence exists.Thus some tritarians emphasize their belief that jesus christ is god or that jesus and the holy ghost are jehovah.how anyone can understand this i do not know???but t does seem that there are alot of varied ideas of what the trinity is...i guess my way of dismissing this idea of the trinity is with scriptures(and a little logic)lets look at a few scriptures that that show how jesus saw himself sa a seperate individual from jehovah...read matt 26:39"going a little farther he (jesus)fell on his face and prayed,'my father if it be possible'let this cup pass from me;nevertheless, not as i will but as thou wilt'"If the father and son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless.Jesus would have been praying to himself,and his will would of necessity have been the fathers will. the other scripture is col1:15,16...he is the image of the invisible god,the first born of all creation,for in him all things were created,in heaven and on earth".if jesus is eternal ...how is it that he is said to have been created?why is it so hard to see that jesus...was infact part of creation read prov 8:22to 36 .....1cor8:5,6"Although there are many so-called gods in heaven or on earth-as indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords'-ye for us there is one god,the father,from whom are all things, and from whom we exist,and one lord.jesus christ through whom are all things and through whom we exist."This scripture presents the father as the one god of christians and as being in a class distinct from jesus christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.