Belief in the Trinity required for salvation?

[HypnoToad]

You mean after he is already an Apostle Already a Bishop and already Head of the Church? HUH? And you are saying this is what the whole of the Church is laid on when Christ said otherwise????????????

Your point?

 

[thereselittleflower]

Not opinion. Fact based on the plain reading of the text. He calls each individual deity an elohim of other nations, not a replacement of the true Elohim of the Jews.

All you are presenting is your personal opinion presented to us as though it was fact.

You are presenting to us your own personal interpretation of scriptures . . that's all.

You are a fallible human being, prone to error, so your personal interpretation of scripture is fallible and prone to error.

So is my personal interpretation of scripture.

I am not presenting my personal opinion of what Elohim means in Genesis where God says

Let us make man in our image.


But you are.


You have not established that your personal opinion is based on fact.

I, and those who present this scripture as one of the scriptures that give evidence that God is a plurality of persons are giving you the interpretation of the Church since Early Chirstianity.

I accept the teaching of the Early Church over someone's personal, fallible, interpretation today.

In addition (can't believe I overlooked this) you have commited a serious anachronistic fallacy.

In its historical context, the Jews would not have understood "Elohim" to be a plurality of persons anyway, so how can they have tried to substitute an Elohim of plural persons with other elohim (assuming your definition is correct)?

Whether or not the Jews undersstood or not is not the issues.

The Jews did not understand who Christ was going to be, what He was going to do, etc.

Does that make what was divinely revealed in scriptures about Him any less true?

No.

God chose to reveal something that would not be fully understood until the fulness of the Gospel was revealed.


Your argument is simply based on a logical fallacy.



Peace

 

[Debi1967]

Did Christ lay the foundation of the Church He built on the confession or on Peter Himself when He spoke in Matthew? It says nothing of a confession there .... And since we know that the Church represnts God in all things then we know that it represnts the TRINITY .... All aspects of it then, the Church that Christ built and left behind for us is then Built upon what?

 

[Debi1967]

Now you are being deliberately obtuse IMHO opinion .... You do not build a Church on something that is already there .... It was already in existence .... There was no need to build it on Peter's confession again!

 

[Debi1967]

Depends on what you mean the "same entity". When I say the Spirit = Spirit of the Father, I mean that he is not a separate person or co-equal person with the Father.

I believe the Spirit represents the essence, life-giving, power, and personhood of the Father, to which he can also give to other people as he wishes. Thus, it is truly him that is in you.

As far as the Son, he said he also came out from the Father (John 16:27). Therefore he shares that one Spirit, being the "image" and glory and perfect manifestation (Heb 1:3; John 14:9-11) of the Father's being. It was this part of the Father (the Word, his Right Hand -- John 1:1; Psalm 74:11) that was made into a human being, namely, the Messiah Yeshua.

So therefore you truly believe the Son of God to literally be the Son of God as in literally begotten and made ....

Not TRue God from True God begotten not made?

 

[HypnoToad]

Did Christ lay the foundation of the Church He built on the confession or on Peter Himself when He spoke in Matthew? It says nothing of a confession there .... And since we know that the Church represnts God in all things then we know that it represnts the TRINITY .... All aspects of it then, the Church that Christ built and left behind for us is then Built upon what?

So, the Church is true because it represents the Trinity, and the Trinity is true, because the Church represents it???

And I'm not being "obtuse". I really don't get your point.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I never said that was something I knew.

It has been presented that those who deny the Trinity deny that Jesus is God or that Jesus is the Savior. The example of Modalists and Oneness Pentecostals demonstrates that that is a false argument.

No, it doesn't

You could extend your argument to Mormons then or anyone other psuedo-chrsitian sect.

Your argument doesn't hold up.

Just because someone says they believe in Jesus, that doesn't mean it is the same Jesus Christians believe in.

How different can one's Jesus be before they are no longer believing in the real Jesus?

Can believing in a false Jesus save you?


This is where you logic leads one.


Again, the issue is ignorance . .whether it is vincible or invincible. . .


Believing in a false Jesus can no more save you than not believing in Jesus at all because you have never heard of Him.


Your argument is very, very flawed.

There are those who DO believe Jesus is the Savior and who DO believe that Jesus is God, but are NOT Trinitarian. My question is are those people then going to hell?

They may be.

It is up to God, not you or me . . for God looks at what is in the heart.

If their ignorance is willful, do you believe they will be saved anyway?

Again, this is IRRELEVENT. We are NOT talking about rejection of Christ, we are talking about rejection of Trinitarianism. They are NOT THE SAME THING!

I was talking about the rejection of TRUTH.

Trinitarian doctrine is truth, do you agree with that statement?

Please answer, for it is difficult to speak of truth if I don't know what you believe is true.

And Modalists and Oneness Pentecostals believe in that baptism as well.

No . .oneness do not believe in baptism in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Modalists may, but what they intend may not be correct, so their baptism could be invalid. If one does not intend what God intends, then can one say that they did what God intended for them to do?

How? There is no confession in Peter's statement about Jesus being God.

And? So what? What is the relevance of that? There is no relevance of what was part of Peter's confession BEFORE the resurrection, BEFORE Pentacost when the promised Holy spirit who would lead the APOSTLES into ALL Truth was given.

The revelation was sufficient for the momment. The Trinitarian doctrine does not rise or fall on that one verse, neither does the necessity of the Trinitarian doctrine rise or fall on that one verse.

No confession of Trinitarianism. Peter's confession, you must believe then, is one that leaves someone condemned.

Jesus didn't say that in response to Peter's confession . ..

I think you are adding to sripture.



Peace

 

[Debi1967]

So, the Church is true because it represents the Trinity, and the Trinity is true, because the Church represents it???

And I'm not being "obtuse". I really don't get your point.

First you might want to ask what I mean by Church in that statement .....

Church is always Capitalized by Catholics because it is Christ's Church, therefore any of the Righteous are Mystically tied to Her .... They are tied to Her by the set of Beliefs they embrace....

In this instance I am talking about the Mystical Body of Believers, the Church ... as a whole ....

 

[Debi1967]

I was talking about the rejection of TRUTH.

Trinitarian doctrine is truth, do you agree with that statement?

Please answer, for it is difficult to speak of truth if I don't know what you believe is true.

Concur because I have deliberately stated this several times as well and yet you have failed to acknowledge these statements made by both of us when they are brought up.... We are not talking about those who do not know but those who do know and willfully reject ....

 

[thereselittleflower]

Fine, it is part of Divine Truth that the Ark of the Covenant was 2 1/2 cubits long (Ex.25:10). Is belief in that required for salvation?

No . .now you are adding straw man arguments to the mix.

The ark is not divine truth.

The ark is an object.

And your response does not address my question.


Now, will you answer my question or not?


Is Truth necessary for salvation?




Peace

 

[Wavy]

All you are presenting is your personal opinion presented to us as though it was fact.

You are presenting to us your own personal interpretation of scriptures . . that's all.

You are a fallible human being, prone to error, so your personal interpretation of scripture is fallible and prone to error.

So is my personal interpretation of scripture.

I am not presenting my personal opinion of what Elohim means in Genesis where God says

Let us make man in our image.


But you are.


You have not established that your personal opinion is based on fact.

I, and those who present this scripture as one of the scriptures that give evidence that God is a plurality of persons are giving you the interpretation of the Church since Early Chirstianity.

I accept the teaching of the Early Church over someone's personal, fallible, interpretation today.

Is everything you say here fact or opinion, lol?

Whether or not the Jews undersstood or not is not the issues.

The Jews did not understand who Christ was going to be, what He was going to do, etc.

Does that make what was divinely revealed in scriptures about Him any less true?

No.

God chose to reveal something that would not be fully understood until the fulness of the Gospel was revealed.


Your argument is simply based on a logical fallacy.

What the Jews understood is imperative. "Elohim" clearly refers to singular beings, and I gave a perfect example with Kings. You appealed to some weak context argument that he was saying the Jews had replaced him (an Elohim of plural persons) with other deities, thus "elohim" can be used in reference to these singular false deities because they took the place of your plural person Elohim.

But this makes no sense. They can't replace a supposed plural Elohim with with plural elohim if there is no understanding of elohim meaning plural persons. The passage is then rendered meaningless. You have ignored scholarly information that accepts that "elohim" can be used in a singular tense in favor of your own opinion simply because you do not want to lose the argument (which is clear from some of the nonsense you have said, no offense).

Anyway, I'd like to know exactly what logically fallacy I have committed and then I'll probably be done with this conversation. It's obviously going nowhere...

 

[Debi1967]

Is everything you say here fact or opinion, lol?



What the Jews understood is imperative. "Elohim" clearly refers to singular beings, and I gave a perfect example with Kings. You appealed to some weak context argument that he was saying the Jews had replaced him (an Elohim of plural persons) with other deities, thus "elohim" can be used in reference to these singular false deities because they took the place of your plural person Elohim.

But this makes no sense. They can't replace a supposed plural Elohim with with plural elohim if there is no understanding of elohim meaning plural persons. The passage is then rendered meaningless. You have ignored scholarly information that accepts that "elohim" can be used in a singular tense in favor of your own opinion simply because you do not want to lose the argument (which is clear from some of the nonsense you have said, no offense).

Anyway, I'd like to know exactly what logically fallacy I have committed and then I'll probably be done with this conversation. It's obviously going nowhere...

I have presented scholarly hebrew definitions for elohim .... and even the hebrew scholars agreed that it is a noun in the plural sense .... you did not address that post thank you wavy therefore .... You cannot have it both ways .... So sorry

 

[Wavy]

So therefore you truly believe the Son of God to literally be the Son of God as in literally begotten and made ....

Not TRue God from True God begotten not made?

I believe the Son pre-existed in the Father if that is what you are getting at.

 

[Wavy]

I have presented scholarly hebrew definitions for elohim .... and even the hebrew scholars agreed that it is a noun in the plural sense .... you did not address that post thank you wavy therefore .... You cannot have it both ways .... So sorry

I don't deny those definitions. But it is not only a "noun in the plural sense". Just because you say it can't be both ways doesn't make it true.

You took me down a sort of little slippery slope there...

Anyway, the overall point is that "elohim" can be used in reference to singular beings. Point blank. "thereselittleflower"'s (who obviously does not know Hebrew) personal opinions about it has little weight when compared to scholarly information to the contrary.

 

[Debi1967]

I believe the Son pre-existed in the Father if that is what you are getting at.

No you are going to have to explain that one to me....

You say you acknowledge the NT right .....

then what of John 1:1 which clearly states that the Word (Christ) was with God and was God .... does not say the Word was in the Father but that Christ was God.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life: and the life was the light of men.

 

[Debi1967]

I don't deny those definitions. But it is not only a "noun in the plural sense". Just because you say it can't be both ways doesn't make it true.

You took me down a sort of little slippery slope there...

Anyway, the overall point is that "elohim" can be used in reference to singular beings. Point blank. "thereselittleflower"'s (who obviously does not know Hebrew) personal opinions about it has little weight when compared to scholarly information to the contrary.

When in general it can apply to God when in the speific it is still plural in sense .... therefore, it is a pluralized meaning of the word God ....

H430
אלהים
'ĕlôhîym
BDB Definition:
1) (plural)
1a) rulers, judges
1b) divine ones
1c) angels
1d) gods
2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)
2a) god, goddess
2b) godlike one
2c) works or special possessions of God
2d) the (true) God
2e) God
Part of Speech: noun masculine plural
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: plural of H433
Same Word by TWOT Number: 93c

Notice the ones I have highlighted in red so when he was imposing it upon Moses the meaning could have been Moses was a special posession of God or doing special works of God ....

Still too when speaking in the singular usage it is plural intensive, therefore the meaning behind it although stated singularly is still that of a plurality ....

This is Brown-Driver-Briggs, a noted I might add hebrew dictionary .... using Hebrew scholars to translate the correct meaning of the Hebrew text ....

 

[Wavy]

No you are going to have to explain that one to me....

You say you acknowledge the NT right .....

then what of John 1:1 which clearly states that the Word (Christ) was with God and was God .... does not say the Word was in the Father but that Christ was God.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life: and the life was the light of men.

Shows how they are echad/one imo. You ignored "with God" btw. What does that mean, and what is the definition of "God" as in "with God"?

Anyway, don't combat scripture with scripture please. Yeshua said he came out from Elohim (the Father), meaning he had to be within him at first.

Also see Isaiah 49:2, where he (Yeshua) speaks in the first person about his coming.

 

[thereselittleflower]

This is not proof or a true refutation, this is dogma. Seeing as how you are Catholic, this also limits the credibility of the argument.

How does debi being a Catholic limit the crediblity of her arguments?


Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

Go here:
http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm

Lookup 1 John 5:7, and read the notes on that verse (footnote #27).

so, how do you know what is, and is not, inspired scripture then?



Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

Ad hominem. Who says I do not accept the Greek NT?

That was not an ad hominem Wavy.


Peace