Poll: Are You a Quarrelsome Person?

[biker]

The ante-Nicene Fathers we’re acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ’s birth. What they taught is of interest. In summing up the historical evidence Alyan Lamson says in ‘The Church of the First Three Centuries: Quote: The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ...derives no support from the language of Justin Martyr; and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is; to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ....Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians.

^
That is stating from the Apostles, from the first Church, from Christ Himself, this is how the first 3 Century Believers believed.

But notice how that quote ends:
It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ....Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians.

^
That is absolute and clear proof Today's belief and the first 3 Centuries Church Belief are not the same!

And I claim, they were closer to real sources and their literature was not translations of translations so they had truer Biblical Materials than we do.

If we had the same literature we would Believe the Same.

Since it is clear today has a different Belief, how do you know today is correct?

I think they knew God better than we do.

And why I post this as I do.

Because if we Believe different, and they were closer to the real source, we really aren't following the True Gospel!

 

[biker]

Today's Scholars and Theologians claim:
It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ....Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians.

So today's Beliefs are not like theirs at all!

 

[posthuman]

I am hoping to become one.... can we add that to the list?

i might have a bone to pick with you about plans to become quarrelsome

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

UnitedwithChrist,

I bring this up because what I am copying/pasting for you comes directly from a Modern Day Scholar and Theologian:

The ante-Nicene Fathers we’re acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ’s birth. What they taught is of interest. In summing up the historical evidence Alyan Lamson says in ‘The Church of the First Three Centuries: Quote: The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ...derives no support from the language of Justin Martyr; and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is; to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ....Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians.

So, this quote ^ also explains your quotes from Polycarp and Iggy.

But it proves that how they Believed is very different than how you Believe.

And that brings to question:
If they knew the Truth, and Modern Day is not following the Truth as they viewed it, how does the Modern view know it is correct?

Again, I've told you that Scripture is the basis for doctrine, and not the teachings of the early church fathers.

Which particular point of the Trinity do you deny?

If you are Oneness, then you are rejecting the interpersonal activity that is exhibited between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Additionally, Oneness people typically deny the pre-existence of Jesus, instead claiming that he existed only as a "plan" in the Father's mind.

As I have mentioned, there are all kinds of hurdles you need to jump to assert that your understanding of the early church fathers is valid.

 

[biker]

Today's Scholars and Theologians claim:
It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ....Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians.

So today's Beliefs are not like theirs at all!

UnitedwithChrist,

Are you claiming the English Bible, a literal translation of a translation, is more factual than what the Church Fathers had access to including John's own Disciples?

 

[biker]

Again, I've told you that Scripture is the basis for doctrine, and not the teachings of the early church fathers.

Which particular point of the Trinity do you deny?

If you are Oneness, then you are rejecting the interpersonal activity that is exhibited between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Additionally, Oneness people typically deny the pre-existence of Jesus, instead claiming that he existed only as a "plan" in the Father's mind.

As I have mentioned, there are all kinds of hurdles you need to jump to assert that your understanding of the early church fathers is valid.

Are you not reading my posts?

It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ....Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians.
^
That's from Modern Scholars and Theologians.

They are telling us they (first 3 Century Church, Church Fathers, Nicene Creed) did not believe the Trinity!

 

[biker]

Are you not reading my posts?

It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ....Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians.
^
That's from Modern Scholars and Theologians.

They are telling us they (first 3 Century Church, Church Fathers, Nicene Creed) did not believe the Trinity!

So I ask, if the first Church and Church Fathers did not believe how the Modern Day Trinity is written/explained, how does the Modern Day Trinity know it is correct?

Because the English Bible, a translation of a translation claims so?

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Are you not reading my posts?

It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ....Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians.
^
That's from Modern Scholars and Theologians.

They are telling us they (first 3 Century Church, Church Fathers, Nicene Creed) did not believe the Trinity!

The measure of doctrine is what Scripture teaches.

Not what a church father believed.

Additionally your "modern scholars and theologians"....who are they? what are their qualifications? Are they Oneness loons? Might that tell you a little about why their claims should be scrutinized?

Various church fathers have believed zany things. For instance, one church father believed Jesus lived until he was over 50 years old. Another believed in the spiritual pre-existence of the person (similar to Mormons). Another followed the Montanist movement, with a prophetess who believed she was the Holy Spirit.

By the way, the early church fathers did not have access to all of Scripture.

And, I will ask you, why are you bringing this up on a thread where the main point is not the Trinity? Do you think it is appropriate to attempt to hijack multiple threads to teach your Oneness heresy, if that is what you believe?

If you want to bring it up, bring it up on a thread where the topic is discussing the Trinity.

 

[biker]

I absolutely believe in the 325 Nicene Creed!
I absolutely believe in the Church Fathers.

But scholars are claiming their beliefs and today's beliefs are not the same!

It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ....Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians.

I am asking, which belief is correct then, since they are different?

 

[laughingheart]

We are to wise and gentle. We are to help humbly. I don't think anyone ever argued someone into the kingdom but I know that loving kindness has broken hearts for Christ. A caring attitude of the heart of the person who is sharing is much more likely to be heard.
1 Cor. 13 1: "If I speak in the tongues of men and angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal." If you really care about the person you are speaking to, do it in a manner that they can hear. If you are insulting or demeaning the other person is going to shut down. It won't matter what you have to say. You have shut their ears with your behaviour.
Trying to explain your point can be done with kindness.
Am I argumentative? I sure hope not. I have my convictions but I'd like to think that I am solid enough in my beliefs that your thoughts and ideas do not threaten me. I am only going to learn if I listen, and I'll always have a lot to learn. Blessings to all of you.

 

[biker]

These Scholars and Theologians are TRINITARIANS making this claim!

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

So I ask, if the first Church and Church Fathers did not believe how the Modern Day Trinity is written/explained, how does the Modern Day Trinity know it is correct?

Because the English Bible, a translation of a translation claims so?

What are you talking about?

Multiple bible translations can be used to support the Trinity.

If you are talking about the KJV and the Comma Johanneum, this is not the source of teaching about the Trinity. It is well known within evangelical churches that the Comma Johanneum has issues.

The doctrine of the Trinity involves numerous verses which prove the following:

1. There is one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4. The Holy Spirit is God.
5. These three are distinct, co-essential, co-eternal Persons.

Quit trying to spread your misinformation.

Modern translations are largely a direct translation from Greek and Hebrew into English, so your arguments about the KJV don't apply to them, if that is what you're claiming. Besides that, the KJV itself was not a wooden translation of existing translations although it borrowed heavily from one.

Again, you are hijacking a thread which has nothing to do with the Trinity in order to propagate your false teachings. Why not go hang out on a Oneness forum?

 

[Lightskin]

Jesus did so speaking the truth and that really stirs up the insults.

Don’t see the glass as half empty.

 

[biker]

I will make it simpler for you UNITEDWITHCHRIST.

Do you believe the English Bible is more factual than the Hebrew/Aramaic/Translated into Greek + word of mouth from John's own Disciples the Church Fathers used?

 

[Lightskin]

I can see your glowing halo and angel wings from here...

Ahh, an instigator. Off with his head!

 

[biker]

You are on the defense and reading what I am saying incorrectly!

 

[biker]

I will try 1 last time.

 

[biker]

Modern Day TRINITARIAN scholars and Theologians make this claim about the Church Fathers:

It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ....Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians.

I ask then: Does Modern Day Trinity believe as such because of how the English was translated?

Because the Church Fathers used more authentic Materials like the Hebrew/Aramaic/Translated into Greek + word of mouth from John's own Disciples.

So, which version is correct?
How the English translation explains it, or how the Hebrew/Aramaic/Translated into Greek + word of mouth from John's own Disciples explains it?

 

[oldethennew]

EPH. 4:17.
This I say therefore, and testify in The Lord, that you henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
21.
If so be that you have heard Him, and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus:
22.
That you put off concerning the former conversation 'the old man', which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23.
And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24.
And that you put on 'the new man', which after God is created in Righteousness and true Holiness.
25.
Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

 

[biker]

UnitedwithChrist,

One Source comes from :
New Catholic Encyclopedia:

Catholics are Trinitarian to the max!