Unitarianism (Anti-Trinity)

[Scotth1960]

you have left out the holy mother of god in your trinity????
it should be, holy mother, the father, the son, and the holy spirit.
thats better , what you say?? what a confusion.
let the wicked stay wicked still, let the righteous, stay rightoeus still:

Of course! Get real! Mary is not God. Only the ignorant would say that, or hint or imply that the Church has ever believed in the divinity of Mary. That was what Muhammad the false prophet thought, by the way, and he was getting that from a heretical sect of people, not from the Greek Orthodox Church. The Greek Orthodox Church has always worshipped and will always only worship, worship only, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The gates of hell (mouths of heretics) cannot prevail against the Church (Mat. 16:18), and the true Church is Orthodox. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Of course! Get real! Mary is not God. Only the ignorant would say that, or hint or imply that the Church has ever believed in the divinity of Mary. That was what Muhammad the false prophet thought, by the way, and he was getting that from a heretical sect of people, not from the Greek Orthodox Church. The Greek Orthodox Church has always worshipped and will always only worship, worship only, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The gates of hell (mouths of heretics) cannot prevail against the Church (Mat. 16:18), and the true Church is Orthodox. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

Though I agree with most of what you say, surely you see how elitist it is to say the only true church is orthodox.

 

[Scotth1960]

Though I agree with most of what you say, surely you see how elitist it is to say the only true church is orthodox.

I didn't say that. There may be true Christians in almost any so-called "church." See: Barnes, Patrick. The Non-Orthodox: The Church's Teaching on Christians Outside the Church. Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press. God can and will save those who He wills to save. That doesn't mean His true Church isn't the Orthodox Church. There is only one Church, and that is the one holy catholic and apostolic one. That doesn't mean there are no true Christians outside the apostolic succession. It just means they don't have apostolic succession, and thus to varying degrees or severities of error(s), they teach faiths that depart somehow from the "faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 3), the apostolic faith. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I didn't say that. There may be true Christians in almost any so-called "church." See: Barnes, Patrick. The Non-Orthodox: The Church's Teaching on Christians Outside the Church. Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press. God can and will save those who He wills to save. That doesn't mean His true Church isn't the Orthodox Church. There is only one Church, and that is the one holy catholic and apostolic one. That doesn't mean there are no true Christians outside the apostolic succession. It just means they don't have apostolic succession, and thus to varying degrees or severities of error(s), they teach faiths that depart somehow from the "faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 3), the apostolic faith. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

But there are volumes of doctrine that were added after "the faith once delivered to the saints". In fact, Jude 1:3 isn't speaking of doctrine at all. Trinity was not handed down from the Apostles; it was a compromised formulation process by men. Do you truly contend that such things as the doctrine of perichoresis are included in Jude? I may not be tracking on what you're saying.

 

[Scotth1960]

But there are volumes of doctrine that were added after "the faith once delivered to the saints". In fact, Jude 1:3 isn't speaking of doctrine at all. Trinity was not handed down from the Apostles; it was a compromised formulation process by men. Do you truly contend that such things as the doctrine of perichoresis are included in Jude? I may not be tracking on what you're saying.

Where did you get your doctrine? Do you teach that we should go by "the Bible alone". Well, where do you get that doctrine? Does the Bible say anywhere that all Christian doctrine must come out of the Bible only? Don't we need the Holy Spirit besides the Bible itself? Doesn't the Holy Spirit live in a temple, the Church? Doesn't the Spirit draw all people to the inescapable conclusion that there is only one Body of Christ, the Church. Not all denominations come from the first century. Some are only days old, some are only a few centuries old. Lutheranism didn't exist before 1517 AD. Catholicism didn't exist until 1064 AD. Orthodoxy was there from day one on Pentecost, even though it may not have gone by that Greek term orthodoxy, it simply means right belief was there from day one in Christ's church. It's not a technical or denominational term; it's a description that merely means there was a true Christian faith, as opposed to some false people, such as Ananias and Sapphira, and Simon Magus, who opposed the teaching of the apostles.

 

[Scotth1960]

But there are volumes of doctrine that were added after "the faith once delivered to the saints". In fact, Jude 1:3 isn't speaking of doctrine at all. Trinity was not handed down from the Apostles; it was a compromised formulation process by men. Do you truly contend that such things as the doctrine of perichoresis are included in Jude? I may not be tracking on what you're saying.

Trinity was handed down from the Apostles. For example from the Apostle Matthew, Chapter 28, verse 19! It simply means threeness. And anyone who can count knows what a child knows. 1. Fathe 2. Son 3. Holy Spirit. In short, 3 persons. A Trinity. A Godhead (Deity) of Three Persons. Right there, IN THE BEGINNING, in the WORD OF GOD. ST. MATTHEW 28:19. Deny Matthew 28:19 and you deny the Trinity is there in the NT. Go figure. Some people will do and say anything to slander the NT and the NT Church. And the Church was from the beginning Greek-speaking, (and in many other ancient languages); and with correct (orthodox) belief. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Where did you get your doctrine? Do you teach that we should go by "the Bible alone".

From the Word and the Spirit in prayer and fasting. No, I don't affirm Sola Scriptura.

Well, where do you get that doctrine? Does the Bible say anywhere that all Christian doctrine must come out of the Bible only?

No. Which is why I don't affirm Sola Scriptura.

Don't we need the Holy Spirit besides the Bible itself? Doesn't the Holy Spirit live in a temple, the Church?

Yes, but individually AND collectively. Our spirit is the Holy of Holies; our soul is the Holy Place; and our body is the Outer Courts. We are a royal priesthood. Our spirit-soul-body is the temple not made with hands.

Doesn't the Spirit draw all people to the inescapable conclusion that there is only one Body of Christ, the Church. Not all denominations come from the first century. Some are only days old, some are only a few centuries old. Lutheranism didn't exist before 1517 AD. Catholicism didn't exist until 1064 AD. Orthodoxy was there from day one on Pentecost, even though it may not have gone by that Greek term orthodoxy, it simply means right belief was there from day one in Christ's church. It's not a technical or denominational term; it's a description that merely means there was a true Christian faith, as opposed to some false people, such as Ananias and Sapphira, and Simon Magus, who opposed the teaching of the apostles.

I simply disagree with that perception. It is not by the Word or the Spirit, but of man.

 

[Scotth1960]

From the Word and the Spirit in prayer and fasting. No, I don't affirm Sola Scriptura.

Well, where do you get that doctrine? Does the Bible say anywhere that all Christian doctrine must come out of the Bible only?

No. Which is why I don't affirm Sola Scriptura.



Yes, but individually AND collectively. Our spirit is the Holy of Holies; our soul is the Holy Place; and our body is the Outer Courts. We are a royal priesthood. Our spirit-soul-body is the temple not made with hands.



I simply disagree with that perception. It is not by the Word or the Spirit, but of man.

I don't know any case where you or I believe anything that contradicts what the Church believes. The Church is the Orthodox Church. That is the same Church as the Church mentioned in Matthew 16:18. So what you get by your own private Bible study may come from God, and may not contradict Church teaching. It is impossible for the Church to contradict the NT, because the Church wrote the NT. The traditions of the church all come from the NT and from the apostles in their spoken words and works.
These are preserved in the memory of the Greek-speaking Hebrew and Greek, etc. Christians.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Trinity was handed down from the Apostles.

Untrue. That is perception, not reality.

For example from the Apostle Matthew, Chapter 28, verse 19! It simply means threeness. And anyone who can count knows what a child knows. 1. Fathe 2. Son 3. Holy Spirit. In short, 3 persons. A Trinity.

All six biblically recorded baptisms were done with some combo of the name Lord Jesus Christ. That's the name of the F-S-HS as one Divinity... Lord Jesus Christ. For God hath made Him both Lord and Christ. Trinity emerged alongside other formulations and was made orthodoxy. It was not handed down from the Apostles or there wouldn't have been 300-600 years of controversy.

A Godhead (Deity) of Three Persons.

Godhead (Theotes G2320) is the singular personality of God by definition. Not three. Unity doesn't negate quantity.

Right there, IN THE BEGINNING, in the WORD OF GOD. ST. MATTHEW 28:19. Deny Matthew 28:19 and you deny the Trinity is there in the NT.

It doesn't say person(s), and the biblical examples of baptism used the name of Jesus. Maybe they didn't get Matthew's memo. Or maybe F-S-HS aren't names, and there is only one name... Jesus.

Go figure. Some people will do and say anything to slander the NT and the NT Church. And the Church was from the beginning Greek-speaking, (and in many other ancient languages); and with correct (orthodox) belief. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

Are you insinuating I'm doing so? I'm responding to yours about all others except the "true" Church. I slander no one.

If they were Greek-speaking, we should have better exegesis.

 

[Scotth1960]

Untrue. That is perception, not reality.



All six biblically recorded baptisms were done with some combo of the name Lord Jesus Christ. That's the name of the F-S-HS as one Divinity... Lord Jesus Christ. For God hath made Him both Lord and Christ. Trinity emerged alongside other formulations and was made orthodoxy. It was not handed down from the Apostles or there wouldn't have been 300-600 years of controversy.



Godhead (Theotes G2320) is the singular personality of God by definition. Not three. Unity doesn't negate quantity.



It doesn't say person(s), and the biblical examples of baptism used the name of Jesus. Maybe they didn't get Matthew's memo. Or maybe F-S-HS aren't names, and there is only one name... Jesus.



Are you insinuating I'm doing so? I'm responding to yours about all others except the "true" Church. I slander no one.

If they were Greek-speaking, we should have better exegesis.

You are simply misguided and misperceiving things if you suggest the teaching of the Church can contradict the teaching of the Bible. The Church gave us the Bible, therefore the Church alone can know the meaning of the Bible. And the Church has always believed in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Don't be afraid of that word "Trinity", or the term "person", simply because they are not written down in the Bible. The word Bible is not in the Bible. Are we going to reject the term Bible, because the word Bible is not in the Bible. See how absurd this sola Scriptura reasoning can get? Perhaps you will deny that your reasoning is based on sola Scriptura. But if you reject the formula one God in three persons, and reject the word "persons", it is based on a Bible-only mentality, isn't it? What do you say: Are there three persons, a Trinity, in One God? God is only One God. And He is Three Persons. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[Crazy4GODword]

I wrote this one from another thread...

Ok.....the trinity is three person in being one God. Jesus, Father, Son is God.

what people are not understanding is this......Jesus is not the Father but both are the same person which is God and there is only one God.(THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE) ok think of water, actually pretend water is the Father which is God. When it get cold enough the water freezes into a solid which turns to Ice (Jesus). And when the water get hot enough it will turn into steam (Holy Spirit). So isn't Ice pretty much water but frozen, isn't steam water but gassy like. last time i heard is that Ice is Water and Steam is Water but what the difference is that they are in different temperatures....are you seeing it yet......Only water exist in its normal form or else steam will get thicker or the ice will melt....are you seeing it yet. Ice cannot be in a hot place, it need to be in cold places (Jesus needs to be human to live on earth like us). Steam cannot always be in cold places but in places of where steam is kept (the body of a individual).....are you yet seeing it.

So Steam is water, but not in the same temperature.
Ice is water, but not in the same temperature.
Water is Ice and Steam but yet lives in a normal temperature.

Are ya seeing it yet.......

shalom aleichem

 

[zackabba]

I wrote this one from another thread...

Ok.....the trinity is three person in being one God. Jesus, Father, Holy Spirit is God.

what people are not understanding is this......Jesus is not the Father but both are the same being which is God and there is only one God.(THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE) ok think of water. When it gets cold enough the water freezes into a solid which turns to Ice (Jesus). And when the water get hot enough it will turn into steam (Holy Spirit). So isn't Ice pretty much water but frozen, isn't steam water but gassy like. last time i heard is that Ice is Water and Steam is Water but what the difference is that they are in different temperatures....are you seeing it yet......Only water exist in its normal form or else steam will get thicker or the ice will melt....are you seeing it yet. Ice cannot be in a hot place, it need to be in cold places (Jesus needs to be human to live on earth like us). Steam cannot always be in cold places but in places of where steam is kept (the body of a individual).....are you yet seeing it.

So Steam is water, but not in the same temperature.
Ice is water, but not in the same temperature.
Water is Ice and Steam but yet lives in a normal temperature.

Are ya seeing it yet.......

shalom aleichem

I'm sorry again, I just had to correct that example, tweak it a bit (and I'm assuming you're trinitarian)

God Bless!

 

[Scotth1960]

you have left out the holy mother of god in your trinity????
it should be, holy mother, the father, the son, and the holy spirit.
thats better , what you say?? what a confusion.
let the wicked stay wicked still, let the righteous, stay rightoeus still:

The Trinity is not my "trinity" or "your trinity". The Trinity is God Himself, and God is Sovereign and above us all. We live for Him; He exists, but since He is Sovereign, He does not depend upon us; we depend upon Him for everything, and without Him we can do nothing (John 15). We need God. He loves us, not because He needs us, as God is perfect and complete in Himself and is in need of no one or nothing. He loves us, because God is love. It is His very nature to love, and His very will to save those who repent (John 3:16, 2 Peter 3:9). He saves those who believe in Jesus Christ (John 3:16) and do good works (James 2:24). In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington PS It is wicked and against God's holy will not to honor, revere, venerate, and call blessed the holy Ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of God, the Theotokos (God-bearer). "All generations shall call me blessed". Mary prophesied. To be in a generation that does not love, honor, and bless the Virgin is to disobey the will of God, as Mary was speaking here in the presence and the power of God the Saviour and the Holy Spirit. Her soul rejoiced in God the Saviour, as she said; she was the very first human being to be saved by our Lord God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. She was saved by her humility, obedience, and pure and chaste childlike faith in her Son, Jesus Christ. Her ever-virginity is a testimony to God's work in her life. Even as marriage is honorable in all (Hebrews), she was one of the people mentioned in the Bible as unmarried (cf. Matthew 19). John the Baptist, St. John and St. Paul and St. Andrew were also unmarried, eunuchs for the Lord. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[Crazy4GODword]

I got this from another thread...

am not being aggressive if i am then forgive me but i am showing only my opinion on this matter and i am not forcing you to believe because this is my opinion and mine i stand you do not have to follow me just to let you know friend.......
This is not where i started to believe Jesus is God but did find info that He is.........
please read these verses. I have gotten this information from http://bugman123.com/Bible/JesusIsGod.html

This is the Trinity were Jesus is God


Matthew 1:23 - “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

Isaiah 9:6 - For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 43:10,11 - “You are My witnesses,” says the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no Savior.”
Revelation 1:17-18; Revelation 2:8 - (Jesus is the First and the Last)

Isaiah 44:6 - (God is the Redeemer)
2 Peter 1:1 (Jesus is the Redeemer) - “To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ”

Isaiah 44:24 - (God created the world by His self alone)
John 1:3; Colossians 1:16 - (Jesus made all things)

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... 1:14 - And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,

John 5:17,18 - “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.” Therefore the Jews sought to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

John 5:23 - that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

John 8:24 - “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I AM He, you will die in your sins.”

John 8:58 - Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

John 10:30-33 - Jesus answered them, “I and My Father are one.” Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

John 14:6-7 - Jesus said to him, “I AM the way, the truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

John 14:9-11 - Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?”

John 20:28 - And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

Acts 4:12 - “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Acts 20:28 - (God purchased us with His own blood)
Revelation 1:5,6; Revelation 5:8-9 - (Jesus' blood purchased us)

Philippians 2:5-7 - Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bond-servant, and coming in the likeness of men.

1 Timothy 3:16 - And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

Titus 2:13 - looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ

Hebrews 1:8,9 - But to the Son He (God) says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

2 John 1:7 - For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Revelation 1:8 - “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Revelation 22:13 - “I AM the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”... 22:16 - “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches.”


Hebrews 2:17,18 - “Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.”
Hebrews 4:15,16 - “For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”
1 Peter 2:24 - “who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we having died to sins, might live for righteousness - by whose stripes you were healed.”

He went from sovereignty to shame and from deity to death? Why!? For you.
John 15:13 - “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.”
Romans 5:8 - “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
.................................................. .............

And these verses and info is from Bible verses that show Jesus is Divine | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Bible verses that show Jesus is Divine
by Matt Slick

Following are verses used to show that Jesus is God in flesh. The scriptures used here are from the New American Standard Bible.

John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:14 - "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."

John 5:18 - "For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."

John 8:24 - "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins."
Note: In the Greek, "He" is not there.

John 8:58 - "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'"

Exodus 3:14 - "And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM'; and He said, Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’"

John 10:30-33 - "I and the Father are one." 31 The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" 33 The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

John 20:28 - "Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

Col. 2:9 - "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."

Phil. 2:5-8 - "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Heb. 1:8 - "But of the Son He says, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom."

Quoted from Psalm 45:6, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy kingdom."

...........
GBU friend and i am not trying to be mean but my own opinion, you do not have to believe me if you do not want to

 

[DanuckInUSA]

Trinity baby all the way every day.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You are simply misguided and misperceiving things if you suggest the teaching of the Church can contradict the teaching of the Bible. The Church gave us the Bible, therefore the Church alone can know the meaning of the Bible.

The Spirit of the Living God gave us Scripture by Divine inspiration. The Church RECEIVED the Word, the Church didn't give the Word. The Church is not a separate entity from the saints.

And the Church has always believed in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Yes, but not according to the same formulation as three "persons".

Don't be afraid of that word "Trinity", or the term "person", simply because they are not written down in the Bible. The word Bible is not in the Bible. Are we going to reject the term Bible, because the word Bible is not in the Bible.

You keep embarassing yourself. Bible is in the Bible over 40 times with three Greek words: biblaridion (G974), biblion (G975), and biblios (G976). The "true" Greek Orthodox Church should know this. So much for that elitist status of Apostolic succession.

See how absurd this sola Scriptura reasoning can get?

I see how absurd your credibility is now.

Perhaps you will deny that your reasoning is based on sola Scriptura. But if you reject the formula one God in three persons, and reject the word "persons", it is based on a Bible-only mentality, isn't it?

No. It's based on the fact that God has expressed Himself specifically and differently than Trinity. He has clearly said what His constitution is, and it's not three persons. The ANFs didn't see it. The GOC hasn't seen it. Trinitarians haven't seen it, and you haven't seen it. But it's there in Scripture. I would tell you, but you don't want to know anything but Orthodoxy, like Bible isn't in the Bible. Maybe the Greeks should study Greek.

What do you say: Are there three persons, a Trinity, in One God? God is only One God. And He is Three Persons. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

It doesn't matter what I say, or what you say, or what the GOC says; it matters what the Word and the Spirit say. The Word says what God's constitution is, and it doesn't say three "persons". I would dig it out for you, but I'll let you keep your error.

 

[Scotth1960]

The Spirit of the Living God gave us Scripture by Divine inspiration. The Church RECEIVED the Word, the Church didn't give the Word. The Church is not a separate entity from the saints.



Yes, but not according to the same formulation as three "persons".



You keep embarassing yourself. Bible is in the Bible over 40 times with three Greek words: biblaridion (G974), biblion (G975), and biblios (G976). The "true" Greek Orthodox Church should know this. So much for that elitist status of Apostolic succession.



I see how absurd your credibility is now.



No. It's based on the fact that God has expressed Himself specifically and differently than Trinity. He has clearly said what His constitution is, and it's not three persons. The ANFs didn't see it. The GOC hasn't seen it. Trinitarians haven't seen it, and you haven't seen it. But it's there in Scripture. I would tell you, but you don't want to know anything but Orthodoxy, like Bible isn't in the Bible. Maybe the Greeks should study Greek.



It doesn't matter what I say, or what you say, or what the GOC says; it matters what the Word and the Spirit say. The Word says what God's constitution is, and it doesn't say three "persons". I would dig it out for you, but I'll let you keep your error.

My reasoning is sound. The Bible does not contain a list of what should be in the Bible. And the word "biblos" in the Bible is translated "book", not Bible. To say the word "Trinity" should be rejected because it's in a different church from the church of the apostles is to deny apostolic succession. The idea that the apostles left behind successors, bishops, leaders of the church as in 1 and 2 Timothy. These epistles talk about the bishop in the church. The church in 325 and 381 wrote down her doctrine of the faith. This is not a new doctrine. Just because it took her until 381 AD to write about the Trinity doesn't mean the early church didn't believe what is in this Creed of 381 AD. Faith is more than intellectual assent to a group of words. Faith is the same in every age of the Church. Doctrine does not develop or grow, but Christians grow in grace and the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Just because the Bible doesn't say the word "persons" doesn't mean the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit aren't persons. The word of God doesn't say that they are not persons, either. So if you are insisting on sola Scriptura, you are barking up the wrong tree. The way of the Church has always been Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. Holy Tradition gave us the Holy Scripture. From Israel in the OT and the New Israel, the Church, in the NT. To know what should be in the Bible, we need the Church. Christians disagree on this, so somebody must be in error over what's in the Bible, and somebody must be teaching the truth regarding the canon of the Bible. Take care. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

My reasoning is sound. The Bible does not contain a list of what should be in the Bible. And the word "biblos" in the Bible is translated "book", not Bible.

Of course blblios is translated as book; biblios means book. You specifically said bible wasn't in the bible. I doubt you'll do so again, so you should be thankful for the correction. You keep insisting that I'm insisting on Sola Scriptura, but I'm not; though I insist on biblically sound interpretation and doctrine. Comparing "bible" to the expression of the Divinity is ridiculous.

To say the word "Trinity" should be rejected because it's in a different church from the church of the apostles is to deny apostolic succession. The idea that the apostles left behind successors, bishops, leaders of the church as in 1 and 2 Timothy. These epistles talk about the bishop in the church.

In the absence of diligence and stewardship of that GOC, I'm certainly glad someone else shared the true Gospel of Jesus Christ with me and others. The negligent and self-serving GOC didn't reach my lost soul for the Kingdom. God made provision for salvation that wasn't bound by the lethargy and apathy of those who claim to be in possession of the only truth.

The Church is all who believe on His name. Faith isn't in doctrine, it's in Jesus Christ the Righteous. Apostolic succession should have maintained a zeal and obedience for lost souls. Instead of fulfilling the "go" command of Matt. 28:19+, they kept it as a biblically incorect formula for baptism and Godhead assertion. All six baptisms in scripture fulfill Matt. 28:19 by being done in the one NAME of Jesus, whom God hath made both Lord and Christ. I can list them if you like. F-S-HS aren't names, and name is singular. Name doesn't just mean either the word-name or authority; it means both.

The church in 325 and 381 wrote down her doctrine of the faith. This is not a new doctrine. Just because it took her until 381 AD to write about the Trinity doesn't mean the early church didn't believe what is in this Creed of 381 AD.

Then show the substantiation of what you've repeatedly said and directly quote ONE source that shows Trinity prior to 180AD by Theophilus. ONE. Go to the GOC library for help if need be. Ask any Apostolic-succession Bishop for help. I'm asking for ONE written quote from an Ante-Nicene Father that affirms Trinity as three persons. Clement of Rome was among the earliest. Polycarp, Ignatius, and Papias also were early. Many others, like Athenagoras said the HS was an emanation, as light from a fire (175AD).

I was content to keep silent in love, but now I'm stirred to correct this preposterous error. Whether the doctrine is true or not, anyone who maintains that Trinity was an intact cohesive teaching from the Apostles forward is either ignorant or a liar; and that includes you and/or the GOC. Right now, I call for the Spirit of truth!! Either you and the GOC produce documented writings from circa 30AD to 180AD that show a continuous succession of authentic Trinity teaching and doctrine... or recant that assertion. No retroactive verbal hodge-podge of tradition and nebulous declaration. In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, I call for truth! Stop misrepresenting the truth. Produce ONE source.

Faith is more than intellectual assent to a group of words.

Exactly, so you should stop promoting blind assent to doctrines.

Faith is the same in every age of the Church. Doctrine does not develop or grow, but Christians grow in grace and the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.

So... Grow.

Just because the Bible doesn't say the word "persons" doesn't mean the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit aren't persons. The word of God doesn't say that they are not persons, either.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying the Word is silent; the Word says something ELSE. You just have to be able to put aside 1.5 millennia of indoctrination to see the simple truth. For 2 millennia, it's been danced around and briefly considered, but dismissed because of the influence of a minor doctrine that was discharged later. Hundreds of scholars have given passing thought to it and dismissed it on the way to wrestling with Trinity difficulties. They didn't see how it could be possible, and it was a fleeting thought in light of facing down the locomotive of Trinity Orthodoxy.

So if you are insisting on sola Scriptura, you are barking up the wrong tree.

For the billionth time, I'm not insisting on Sola Scriptura. I AM insisting against Scriptura Substitutiona, since the Word says something ELSE.

The way of the Church has always been Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. Holy Tradition gave us the Holy Scripture. From Israel in the OT and the New Israel, the Church, in the NT. To know what should be in the Bible, we need the Church. Christians disagree on this, so somebody must be in error over what's in the Bible, and somebody must be teaching the truth regarding the canon of the Bible. Take care. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

The truth is in Scripture, and it's not Trinity. That's why I'm so staunchly opposed to the Filioque error; the truth is confirmed in the Greek from John 15:26... proceedeth (ekporeuomai G1607) from (para G3844) the Father (pater G3962). An exegesis of this and several other passages shows the simple truth mentioned elsewhere. It was overlooked by the early Church Fathers because of one minor erroneous doctrine. Once formulated, Trinity Orthodoxy has been the unchallenged, unknowable steamroller of near-truth.

I'd enlighten you, but you have your traditions. God is One Divinity (Theotes). For communication sake, I'll agree to express it as God is One Divine Person. The person of Jesus was God's literal embodiment of Himself in the likeness of sinful flesh. And before you cry Oneness or anything else, go back and read my affirmations list.

 

[Scotth1960]

Of course blblios is translated as book; biblios means book. You specifically said bible wasn't in the bible. I doubt you'll do so again, so you should be thankful for the correction. You keep insisting that I'm insisting on Sola Scriptura, but I'm not; though I insist on biblically sound interpretation and doctrine. Comparing "bible" to the expression of the Divinity is ridiculous.



In the absence of diligence and stewardship of that GOC, I'm certainly glad someone else shared the true Gospel of Jesus Christ with me and others. The negligent and self-serving GOC didn't reach my lost soul for the Kingdom. God made provision for salvation that wasn't bound by the lethargy and apathy of those who claim to be in possession of the only truth.

The Church is all who believe on His name. Faith isn't in doctrine, it's in Jesus Christ the Righteous. Apostolic succession should have maintained a zeal and obedience for lost souls. Instead of fulfilling the "go" command of Matt. 28:19+, they kept it as a biblically incorect formula for baptism and Godhead assertion. All six baptisms in scripture fulfill Matt. 28:19 by being done in the one NAME of Jesus, whom God hath made both Lord and Christ. I can list them if you like. F-S-HS aren't names, and name is singular. Name doesn't just mean either the word-name or authority; it means both.



Then show the substantiation of what you've repeatedly said and directly quote ONE source that shows Trinity prior to 180AD by Theophilus. ONE. Go to the GOC library for help if need be. Ask any Apostolic-succession Bishop for help. I'm asking for ONE written quote from an Ante-Nicene Father that affirms Trinity as three persons. Clement of Rome was among the earliest. Polycarp, Ignatius, and Papias also were early. Many others, like Athenagoras said the HS was an emanation, as light from a fire (175AD).

I was content to keep silent in love, but now I'm stirred to correct this preposterous error. Whether the doctrine is true or not, anyone who maintains that Trinity was an intact cohesive teaching from the Apostles forward is either ignorant or a liar; and that includes you and/or the GOC. Right now, I call for the Spirit of truth!! Either you and the GOC produce documented writings from circa 30AD to 180AD that show a continuous succession of authentic Trinity teaching and doctrine... or recant that assertion. No retroactive verbal hodge-podge of tradition and nebulous declaration. In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, I call for truth! Stop misrepresenting the truth. Produce ONE source.



Exactly, so you should stop promoting blind assent to doctrines.



So... Grow.



That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying the Word is silent; the Word says something ELSE. You just have to be able to put aside 1.5 millennia of indoctrination to see the simple truth. For 2 millennia, it's been danced around and briefly considered, but dismissed because of the influence of a minor doctrine that was discharged later. Hundreds of scholars have given passing thought to it and dismissed it on the way to wrestling with Trinity difficulties. They didn't see how it could be possible, and it was a fleeting thought in light of facing down the locomotive of Trinity Orthodoxy.



For the billionth time, I'm not insisting on Sola Scriptura. I AM insisting against Scriptura Substitutiona, since the Word says something ELSE.



The truth is in Scripture, and it's not Trinity. That's why I'm so staunchly opposed to the Filioque error; the truth is confirmed in the Greek from John 15:26... proceedeth (ekporeuomai G1607) from (para G3844) the Father (pater G3962). An exegesis of this and several other passages shows the simple truth mentioned elsewhere. It was overlooked by the early Church Fathers because of one minor erroneous doctrine. Once formulated, Trinity Orthodoxy has been the unchallenged, unknowable steamroller of near-truth.

I'd enlighten you, but you have your traditions. God is One Divinity (Theotes). For communication sake, I'll agree to express it as God is One Divine Person. The person of Jesus was God's literal embodiment of Himself in the likeness of sinful flesh. And before you cry Oneness or anything else, go back and read my affirmations list.

So you interpret the Scripture according to your own tradition, and you claim you are in possession of the truth, the only truth there is, but that the truth cannot be Orthodox because Orthodoxy wasn't the original Church. If it wasn't, which group of Christians today believes exactly the same things they believe in NT times with St Peter, St Paul, St Andrew, St John, St James, St Thomas, and so on. If your group denies bishops, what do you do with the word bishop in the King James Version? If your group has bishops, can you show them to trace their faith and traditions directly back to the 12 apostles? If the truth is not Trinity, how can you believe in the Father, in the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and how can you deny the verse Matthew 28:19? If these are not three persons, then what are they, and what do you call them? Where do you get your tradition of denying the Trinity, and which Christian writer between 100 AD and 500 AD, which is the early Church period, denied the Trinity?
NT Church 30 AD to 100 AD
early Church 100 AD 500 AD
middle Church 500 AD to 800 AD
medieval Church 800 AD to 1200 AD
Church of first protestants, Wycliffe, Hus, etc. 1200 AD to 1500 AD
Church of Luther and other later protestants 1500 AD to 1800 AD
modern churches, ecumenical movement, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism,. Protestant evangelicalism, Pentecostalism 1800 AD to 1960 AD
contemporary Church 1960 AD to present
possible reunion between Rome Constantinople Antioch Alexandria Jerusalem Moscow et cetera sometime in future, but only upon full repentance and full truth taught by reuniting Christians
possible reconciliation of Protestants with Rome and the Orthodox Church, sometime in future
John 17? Does this mean there will ever be just one church again, with no divisions, and no heresies or false teachings less, when all men will know and love and live by the truth?

Take care. PS You have your traditions too. That's the problem. We should leave behind our traditions, and find God's tradition. There may be a difference.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So you interpret the Scripture

No. I yield to the Word and the Spirit to receive the truth in prayer and fasting. I'm not talking about meals or a day or two. I'm talking about months at a time for many years, and nigh unto death. All I want is the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him (Eph. 1:17). I don't care about being right or winning a theological argument, though I contend earnestly for truth. I interpret nothing.

according to your own tradition, and you claim you are in possession of the truth, the only truth there is, but that the truth cannot be Orthodox because Orthodoxy wasn't the original Church.

No. There are ties of succession for the GOC. The entire Apostolic oral tradition is lost, and the one holy aspostolic and catholic chuch went through many early transitions. There was widespread diversity and conflict over Godhead doctrine in the 1st century and beyond. Polycarp didn't teach Trinity, nor did Clement of Rome. Even though many/most affirmed the distinction of F-S, there was disagreement about Deity of the Son and dissent about HOW He was Deity, if He was. The HS was a secondary afterthought, though acknowledged. Much of the early emphasis was on the Divine attributes, the Son's representation, and the saints' righteous lifestyle after that example. These early designations of attributes is where the one truth regarding God's constitution and nature was inadvertantly asserted. Once the Council formulation was established, there was no going back; the lines were drawn, and the Arian controversy overshadowed all else; even the stamping out of Sabellianism, which ultimately refused to die.

If it wasn't, which group of Christians today believes exactly the same things they believe in NT times with St Peter, St Paul, St Andrew, St John, St James, St Thomas, and so on.

None. But the church that most closely adheres to the Post-Nicene Church is the GOC. You should realize I mostly agree, or I wouldn't disaffirm Filioque, Original Sin, Calvi/Armi, etc. from Augustinian inflences and the like. The Ante-Nicene, however, was not so "orthodoxized" as you represent. My primary issue is with the representation of the Godhead teaching being handed down by the Apostles with no period of diverse formulations. That is simply untrue and is a "bridge" tradition that isn't authentic. Specifically, my primary single issue is with one Trinity tenet that is the substitutionary insertion of a single word to define God because a minor attribute formulation obscured the essential truth.

If your group denies bishops, what do you do with the word bishop in the King James Version?

Bishop is an office position of Overseer for spiritual matters. I affirm Bishops, just not in the same way the GOC does. It's a side topic we can further discuss that I have questions for you about, actually. I'm unhappy with non-orthodox ecclesiology in several ways and would benefit from your practical insight.

If your group has bishops, can you show them to trace their faith and traditions directly back to the 12 apostles?

No. The GOC was not obedient to evangelize, and many of us don't have connection to succession. That doesn't leave us outside the "true" church. Same Spirit. Same Savior. Same Word.

If the truth is not Trinity, how can you believe in the Father, in the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and how can you deny the verse Matthew 28:19? If these are not three persons, then what are they, and what do you call them?

I may share it soon. For some reason, I am restrained by the Spirit. I fully intend to share it when unconstrained.

Where do you get your tradition of denying the Trinity, and which Christian writer between 100 AD and 500 AD, which is the early Church period, denied the Trinity?

You apparently still misunderstand. There was no Trinity to deny; only six major variations being developed through the 1st century and into the mid-late 2nd century. I can post a few thousand quotes, but it's not necessary. You have not documented anything that supports your statements that Trinity was seamless doctrine from Matt. 28 through Nicea. It was not. There's no denial of Trinity, because Trinity wasn't fully formulated yet.

NT Church 30 AD to 100 AD
early Church 100 AD 500 AD
middle Church 500 AD to 800 AD
medieval Church 800 AD to 1200 AD
Church of first protestants, Wycliffe, Hus, etc. 1200 AD to 1500 AD
Church of Luther and other later protestants 1500 AD to 1800 AD
modern churches, ecumenical movement, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism,. Protestant evangelicalism, Pentecostalism 1800 AD to 1960 AD
contemporary Church 1960 AD to present
possible reunion between Rome Constantinople Antioch Alexandria Jerusalem Moscow et cetera sometime in future, but only upon full repentance and full truth taught by reuniting Christians
possible reconciliation of Protestants with Rome and the Orthodox Church, sometime in future
John 17? Does this mean there will ever be just one church again, with
no divisions, and no heresies or false teachings less, when all men will know and love and live by the truth?

Take care. PS You have your traditions too. That's the problem. We should leave behind our traditions, and find God's tradition. There may be a difference.

I've mostly left mine behind, and continue to do so arduously.