here is the truth

[Rdr Iakovos]

This post has not addressed Church history in any sense of the term- except the summary opinions of two posters. This post will be closed for staff review if it continues in this fashion.
Thanks

 

[livingword26]

You know that there was a time that the Bible did not exist and the only thing that the Church had was her Traditions:

Thats not true at all. Obviously the new testemant did not emerge until well after the apostles deaths, but the old testemant was there. Jesus taught from the old testemant. There is very little in the new testemant that cannot be found in the old. It is just a little harder to see.

Joh 5:39
(39) Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Act 17:11
(11) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.


2Ti 3:15
(15) And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

All teachings must agree with the bible. All biblical interperetation must glorify Jesus Christ. Not man, not organized religion, not angels, not saints, not Mary, but Jesus Christ.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Well, then, that suggestion went unheeded. Moving to Ecclesiology

 

[livingword26]

It is a grave error to lump all "tradition" as "traditions of men" . . . this is an error fundamentalists fall into all the time . .. it skews their understanding to the point of rejecting the command of scripture to STAND FAST AND HOLD to the TRADITIONS Christians were taught by the Apostles. . whether by spoken word, or in writing (writings which became our New Testament).

Peace

As long as we both agree that the written "traditions" that later became the New Testemant are to be adhered to, then we have a clear guide as to what are, and what are not, "traditions of men" that are not to be adhered to. Because as the scripture above states, we are to adhere to written and spoken traditions. Then the one cannot contradict the other. We all have the written one to discern the rest.

 

[Rick Otto]

I see your wink & raise two nods!

Yes, thank you I DID know that.
What YOU don't seem to know is that Jesus was referring to what the Jews regarded as divine tradition.

The Corban rule they were discussing had a divine pedigree. Do you disagree?

 

[Rick Otto]

He explains the pedigree, speaking of the 'seat of Moses' as one would of the papcy. Infallible authority belongs only to God.

 

[thereselittleflower]

He explains the pedigree, speaking of the 'seat of Moses' as one would of the papcy. Infallible authority belongs only to God.

Two things Rick . .

The seat of Moses appears nowhere in scripture . . it is Sacred VERBAL Tradition . . one that Jesus refers to, and appeals to, as authoritative.

Second, yes, you are right, He is speaking of the Seat of Moses as one would of the papacy.

Infallible authority belongs only to God and He has chosen to share it with men of His choosing.

If this were not true, we could not have the infallible scriptures, for men wrote those scriptures infallibly, through the gifting of the Holy Spirit.

This gifting is still in operation today . . . it has not been taken away . . the difference is, where once it was in operation to give the ALL Truth Jesus promised the apostles, to the Church, it is not in operation to PROTECT that same ALL Truth.

The gift has not been removed from the Church.



Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

As long as we both agree that the written "traditions" that later became the New Testemant are to be adhered to, then we have a clear guide as to what are, and what are not, "traditions of men" that are not to be adhered to. Because as the scripture above states, we are to adhere to written and spoken traditions. Then the one cannot contradict the other. We all have the written one to discern the rest.

That is absolutely correct livingwors26

The problem arises in understanding how to properly interpret and understand the scriptures, because they can be misunderstood and misused to contradict Sacred Tradition handed down verbally.


Peace

 

[livingword26]

That is absolutely correct livingwors26

The problem arises in understanding how to properly interpret and understand the scriptures, because they can be misunderstood and misused to contradict Sacred Tradition handed down verbally.


Peace

This is very true. But, they can also be misinterpereted to back up false doctrines that were created by uninspired men. Ususally when this is done, scriptures have to be reinterpereted in a way so that they don't quite mean what they say, such as with Jesus brothers. Thank God for His Holy Ghost that is given to all those who love Him. If one seeks the truth from the Holy Ghost, then all those false doctrines and misinterperetations become clear.

 

[thereselittleflower]

This is very true. But, they can also be misinterpereted to back up false doctrines that were created by uninspired men.

And here is the rub . . . were the apostles uninspired men? Or inspired men?

If uninspired, then the NT scriptures written by them are also uninspired and you find yourself in a very big quandry.

If they were inspired, then not only what they wrote was inspired, but also what they verbally taught was inspired.

Jesus promised that the Apostles would be led into ALL Truth.

Christians were told, by Paul in scripture, to hold to the Traditions they had been taught, both verbally, and in writing, by the apostles.


These Traditions were not from "uninspired" men, but from very inspired ones . . ones who had been given ALL Truth as Jesus promised!

The Sacred Traditions of the Church do not arise with "uninspired" men, but with the Apostles themselves, very inspired men indeed!

Ususally when this is done, scriptures have to be reinterpereted in a way so that they don't quite mean what they say, such as with Jesus brothers.

Where has this been done?

Thank God for His Holy Ghost that is given to all those who love Him. If one seeks the truth from the Holy Ghost, then all those false doctrines and misinterperetations become clear.

Hardly . . . unless you are telling us that you believe that you are infallible in your understanding of what the Holy Spirit is speaking to you?

See, if you expect to be able to perfectly avoid misinterpretation of the scriptures by reason of the Holy Spirit, then you have to also have the expectation that you are able to infallibly understand what the Holy Spirit says to you!

Are you a personally infallible being that you can personally and infallibly understand what the Holy Spirit says to you?


If you are not, then your statement above is a logical fallacy, for it assumes facts not in evidence . . ie that you can infallibly understand what the Holy Spirit is saying to you.


Granted, the Holy Spirit speaking to us helps us . . but this does not make us personally infallible in our personal interpretation of scriptures, simply because we can only, on a personal level, fallibly understand what the Holy Spirit is telling us. . . this means our understanding of what the Holy Spirit is telling us personally is prone to error!

You can't get around this very human, limitation . . unless you are given the gift, the charism, of infallibility the same as the Apostles were given . . . but you and I personally are not promised such a thing.


So, you are back to square one . . . infallible, prone to error interpretation and understanding of scripture AND what you hear the Holy Spirit saying to you.


On the other hand, the Traditions verbally taught, which Paul tells us about and commands we are to hold to, were delivered to us by men, the Apostles, who were definitely inspired and who operated under the gift, the Charism, of infalliblity in teaching, which included what was taught verbally as well as what was taught in writing which became our NT.

This Charism has not left the Church and still resides with the Office the Apostles once occupied . . and today that is a protective Charism, protecting the ALL Truth, the deposite of faith once handed down by the Apostles themselves.






Peace

 

[Rick Otto]

I'm not clairvoyant, but I don't think the Apostles is what he meant by uninspired men. I think he meant guys like the ones who dress up in fancy robes & funny hats, because what they have to say, they don't consider impressive enough of itself, perhaps.

 

[livingword26]

And here is the rub . . . were the apostles uninspired men? Or inspired men?

If uninspired, then the NT scriptures written by them are also uninspired and you find yourself in a very big quandry.

If they were inspired, then not only what they wrote was inspired, but also what they verbally taught was inspired.

Jesus promised that the Apostles would be led into ALL Truth.

Christians were told, by Paul in scripture, to hold to the Traditions they had been taught, both verbally, and in writing, by the apostles.


These Traditions were not from "uninspired" men, but from very inspired ones . . ones who had been given ALL Truth as Jesus promised!

The Sacred Traditions of the Church do not arise with "uninspired" men, but with the Apostles themselves, very inspired men indeed!

All real christians are temples of the Holy Ghost, and as such are subject to inspiration. The Apostles were certainly inspired, but that doesn't mean that everything they thought or said was inspired. The Lord sent them the messages He wanted in the bible, then He had others put it in the bible. Assuming that all of the traditions that have been created by the catholic church over the last 17 or 1800 years, are inspired is as much assumption as that the popes have been inspired. indeed there are many centuries that many popes did many uninspired and unchristian things.

Where has this been done?

If Mary was a virgin all her life, why the following explanation. Why does it say that Joseph new her not until Jesus was born? Why doesn't it just say that he knew her not?

Mat 1:24-25
(24) And Joseph, being roused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took his wife,
(25) and did not know her until she bore her son, the First-born. And he called His name JESUS.

In the following verse, the words "disciples" and "brethren are both used here.

John 2:12
12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.
KJV

If the word brethren in the above is a generic word for "family" then why did they not use the word for cousin in the following verse?

Luke 1:36
36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
KJV

The word for cousin in the above verse is:

NT:4773 suggenes (soong-ghen-ace'); from NT:4862 and NT:1085; a relative (by blood); by extension, a fellow countryman:

Again in the following verses, we have a distincion between the disciples and Jesus brethren.

Acts 1:13-14
13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
KJV

In the following verse, he referes to James as the Lords brother. Now, if he did not really mean it was Jesus actual brother, why did he give him this title, could he not have just said "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James"?

Gal 1:18-19
(18) Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
(19) But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

And to say the the following verses are not talking about Jesus brothers and sisters, or to say the there are different mothers, or distant relatives involved is simply adding to scripture to satisfy a false doctrine

Mat 13:55-56
(55) Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Mar 6:3
(3) Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Also in the following verse, use of the word "firstborn" implies the fact that there was a second

Luk 2:7
(7) And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Marys perpetual virginity is not present in scripture, nor is her assumption or absence of original sin.

Hardly . . . unless you are telling us that you believe that you are infallible in your understanding of what the Holy Spirit is speaking to you?

Of course not, but the Holy Spirit has spoken to me, some times very clearly and very specifically. I do not possess all understanding, but neither did the Apostles. Were they greater than me? By far. but I have the same Spirit in me, the Spirit of truth. I rely on Him and the Scriptures, as the apostles did, to keep myself from being misled.

You can't get around this very human, limitation . . unless you are given the gift, the charism, of infallibility the same as the Apostles were given . . . but you and I personally are not promised such a thing.


Peace

I don't remember seen the gift of the charism of infallibilty listed in the list of gift of the Holy Ghost, perhaps you could list the scritpture. While you are at it, what makes you think that the following scripture does not apply to all who are in Christ?

Joh 16:13
(13) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.

 

[thereselittleflower]

All real christians are temples of the Holy Ghost, and as such are subject to inspiration.

INFALLIBLY inspired?

The Apostles were certainly inspired, but that doesn't mean that everything they thought or said was inspired.

No, not EVERYTHING, but then, again, I wasn't speaking towards EVERYTHING, but about matters of FAITH and MORALS.


Again, Jesus promised them they, PERSONALLY, would be led into ALL Truth. That promise was given to specific men. Not to all believers. Some believers mistakenly believe that such things were written to them personally, as though the scriptures were a personal letter to them from God and everything applies to them personally. That is a mistake, a serious, serious mistake.

The ALL Truth promised and given to the Apostles was for the purpose of teaching and guiding the Church. This is the FULL deposit of faith, the ALL Truth.

God has never promised to give each and everyone of us, PERSONALLY, the ALL Truth promised the Apostles. There is nowhere in the scriptures that says such a thing.

The Lord sent them the messages He wanted in the bible, then He had others put it in the bible.

The messages He WANTED IN the bible . . yes . . but that does not mean He wanted ALL in the bible.

It is a logical fallacy of assumption to assume ALL is in the bible.

For instance, one of the core, fundamental and essential Dogmas of the Chrsitian faith is that the Holy Spirit is

1. Co-equal with the Father and SOn
2. Co-Eternal with the Father and Son
3. Co-Eternally PREexisting with the Father and Son

Yet there is not one scripture which tells us this is so . . .

God did NOT choose to put ALL the truth in the bible, clearly stated, etc . . .

This is obvious on its face if one honestly looks at it.

Assuming that all of the traditions that have been created by the catholic church over the last 17 or 1800 years, are inspired is as much assumption as that the popes have been inspired. indeed there are many centuries that many popes did many uninspired and unchristian things.

This response assumes facts not in evidence . .a logical fallacy.

The Catholic Church has NOT been creating Sacred Tradition, ie doctrines/dogmas, over the last 17 or 1800 years.

Sacred Tradition is the full deposit of faith deposted by the Apostles . the ALL Truth . . .there is nothing to "create" . . .


And your understanding of "inspired" is way to general and broad to be of much use here.

We are speaking of doctrines . . . Popes have not created new teachings.

If Mary was a virgin all her life, why the following explanation. Why does it say that Joseph new her not until Jesus was born? Why doesn't it just say that he knew her not?

If you read the scriptures, only taking into account the English words in the translation you read, then one can easily be confused.

The word translated "till" in the Greek only concerns itself for the period of time up to the point "till" references, and it mandates NO particular understanding of what happens afterwards. It does not concern itself with anything afterwards. It makes no comment on what happens afterwards.

For instance, we can look at the Old Testament, which was translated into Greek, known as the Greek Septuagint, and where this same Greek word is used, we see that nothing mandates that we understand anything in particular after the point "till" references:

2 Samuel 6:23
And Michal, Saul's daughter, had no child till the day of her death. ​

Does this mean that Michal experienced a change in her childless state AFTER death?

Of course not!

See, the ancient use of this word had nothing to do with what came afterwards. The use of this word in no way mandates that we understand that the state spoken of changes after the point the word "till" references occures.


The same is true in the verse you quote next:

Mat 1:24-25
(24) And Joseph, being roused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took his wife,
(25) and did not know her until she bore her son, the First-born. And he called His name JESUS.​

In the following verse, the words "disciples" and "brethren are both used here.

John 2:12
12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.
KJV

If the word brethren in the above is a generic word for "family" then why did they not use the word for cousin in the following verse?

Luke 1:36
36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
KJV

The word for cousin in the above verse is:

NT:4773 suggenes (soong-ghen-ace'); from NT:4862 and NT:1085; a relative (by blood); by extension, a fellow countryman:

You are quoting from two differen writers, and the Greek langauge permits the use of both words in the same way, so what you are pointing out is merely a differnce in writers and their preference, nothing that mandates an understanding that one was speaking of blood brothers from Mary.

Again in the following verses, we have a distincion between the disciples and Jesus brethren.

Acts 1:13-14
13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
KJV

And there is nothing in the verses above which mandate that we understand that this refers to blood brothers from Mary.

In the following verse, he referes to James as the Lords brother. Now, if he did not really mean it was Jesus actual brother, why did he give him this title, could he not have just said "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James"?

Gal 1:18-19
(18) Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
(19) But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

If James was the blood brother of Jesus from Mary, why didn't the previous verse from Acts refer to him as the "brother of Jesus" like it did of Judas "the brother of James" ?

It is the same word in Greek we have been talking about, and does not mandate that we understand James was a blood brother from Mary.

There is strong tradition from the Early Church that James was the son of Joseph from a previous marriage, and so would be 'half brother' by "adoption" to Jesus.

Again, nothing in this scripture MANDATES we understand that James was blood brother from Mary.

And to say the the following verses are not talking about Jesus brothers and sisters, or to say the there are different mothers, or distant relatives involved is simply adding to scripture to satisfy a false doctrine

Not at all It is simply misunderstanding at how the ancient langauges were used that can lead one to believe something is false that is actually true.

Mat 13:55-56
(55) Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Yet in Acts, Judas is the brother of James! Now, whose brother is Judas?

See, you are not understanding the ancient use of words found in scripture, tending towards an ultra-literalist interpretation when the ancient langauges of the bible were not used in an ultraliteralist in any way shape or form. In fact, they ran far the other direction.

Mar 6:3
(3) Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Also in the following verse, use of the word "firstborn" implies the fact that there was a second

Luk 2:7
(7) And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

No, again, a failure to understand how words in the ancient languages were used yeilds such conclusions, but in reality, nothing the sort is implied.

The term "firstborn" is a TITLE given to the one who opens the womb, and is given even if there are no subsequent siblings.

ALL who open the womb are called this in the Old Tesament. It is a title of rank and priviledge and responsibility in the family unit.

This title and rank belonged to Jesus as He opened Mary's wormb.

There is nothing about it that implies or mandates we understand there was a 2nd . . . .

Marys perpetual virginity is not present in scripture, nor is her assumption or absence of original sin.

Actually, it is . .

Of course not, but the Holy Spirit has spoken to me, some times very clearly and very specifically. I do not possess all understanding, but neither did the Apostles.

So Jesus lied then? He promised the Apostles PERSONALLY that the Holy Spirit would lead them into ALL truth . .that means ALL . .not "part" since that would mean they would have "part" truth and "part" error, which is what you are advocating.

Jesus didn't say that. He said ALL Truth! And He meant ALL!

Now, Jesus has not promised that personally to you, so evenw hen you fel you hear the Holy Spirit very clearly and very specifically, you still must intepret and your interpretation can be in error . . .

So, you are not on the same level as the Apostles were, who were PERSONALLY promised the ALL truth by Jesus.

Were they greater than me? By far. but I have the same Spirit in me, the Spirit of truth. I rely on Him and the Scriptures, as the apostles did, to keep myself from being misled.

You do not have the same PROMISE of being PERSONALLY led into the ALL Truth promised the Apostles.

I don't remember seen the gift of the charism of infallibilty listed in the list of gift of the Holy Ghost, perhaps you could list the scritpture. While you are at it, what makes you think that the following scripture does not apply to all who are in Christ?

Can you show me the scripture that clearly states that the Holy Spirit is:

1. Co-equal with the Father and SOn
2. Co-Eternal with the Father and Son
3. Co-Eternally PREexisting with the Father and Son

?

If you can't (and you can't for there is no such scripture), isn't it rather hypcritical to require that I supply a clear, explicit statement from scripture to support what I have just said?


Look again at the verse you quoted next:

Joh 16:13
(13) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.​

Were you standing there when Jesus spoke those words? The "you" is the Apostles . .those He was speaking to. It is to THEM Jesus made this promise of the All Truth . .

Again, were you there? No! you weren't, and so this promise was not given to you presonally, or to me, or to anyone else ever.

And what Jesus promised THEM was ALL TRUTH, not part truth, as I said above.


Peace

 

[livingword26]

For instance, one of the core, fundamental and essential Dogmas of the Chrsitian faith is that the Holy Spirit is

1. Co-equal with the Father and SOn
2. Co-Eternal with the Father and Son
3. Co-Eternally PREexisting with the Father and Son

Yet there is not one scripture which tells us this is so . . .

Since you didn't bother to use any scripture to back up you opinions, I am not going to address all your speculation, but I will address a few, first the above. We know that the Holy Spirit is Gods Spirit by the following:

1Th 4:8
(8) He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit.

He is also refered to as the Sprit of Christ:

1Pe 1:11
(11) Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

And we all know that Jesus is God:

Joh 1:1
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God......................(14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

We also have this reference to the trinty:

Mat 28:19
(19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

And this one:

1Jo 5:7-8
(7) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
(8) And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Mat 1:24-25
(24) And Joseph, being roused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took his wife,
(25) and did not know her until she bore her son, the First-born. And he called His name JESUS.​

You are quoting from two differen writers, and the Greek langauge permits the use of both words in the same way, so what you are pointing out is merely a differnce in writers and their preference, nothing that mandates an understanding that one was speaking of blood brothers from Mary.

That is weak speculation at best. Different greek writers still had access to the same greek words. Why not specify that they were cousins if that is what they were. You are saying that the bible doesn't mean what it says, because it doesn't agree with your doctrine

Again, nothing in this scripture MANDATES we understand that James was blood brother from Mary.

Except this one:

Gal 1:18-19
(18) Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
(19) But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Not at all It is simply misunderstanding at how the ancient langauges were used that can lead one to believe something is false that is actually true.

Again, the bible doesn't really mean what it says

Actually, it is . .

Care to share?

Look again at the verse you quoted next:

Joh 16:13
(13) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.​

Were you standing there when Jesus spoke those words? The "you" is the Apostles . .those He was speaking to. It is to THEM Jesus made this promise of the All Truth . .

Again, were you there? No! you weren't, and so this promise was not given to you presonally, or to me, or to anyone else ever.
Peace

That is a silly argument. Were you there when this was written;

1Pe 1:9
(9) Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.


No? I guess that doesnt' apply to you. For that matter, every letter in the new testemant was written to a particular church or person. I guess you can throw them all out to. The Holy Spirit is your teacher, your friend and the seal of your salvation. If not:

Rom 8:9
(9) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Another good trinity reference? Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ.)

No one says that God put everything in the bible, but what ever is taught cannot contradict what is written in the bible. We are told to measure our teachings by the scripture:

Act 17:11
(11) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Since you didn't bother to use any scripture to back up you opinions, I am not going to address all your speculation, but I will address a few, first the above.

Does God not say "Come let us reason together" ?

Provide scripture to back up the lack of scripture?

That makes no sense!

In this case, it is a logical fallacy to require that one prove the negative. I would have to prevent every last scripture in the bible, one by one, and point out "it isn't stated in that scripture!"

That would be rediculous for you or anyone to require.

The burden of proof falls on the one who claims that the scripture explicitly states that the Holy Spirit is

1. Co-equal with the Father and SOn
2. Co-Eternal with the Father and Son
3. Co-Eternally PREexisting with the Father and Son

You would need to provide those scriptures. You have failed to do so. Let's look:

We know that the Holy Spirit is Gods Spirit by the following:

1Th 4:8
(8) He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit.

A straw man. I never once said anything about whether or not the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit . . but after looking at what you said, I have to question what you mean by this. Do you mean that the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit in the same way your spirit is yours?

But this was not what I was talking about or posted about.

He is also refered to as the Sprit of Christ:

1Pe 1:11
(11) Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.[/U]

Again, this was not what I was talking about or posted about.

This is a strawman.

You are not yet addressing what I said.

And we all know that Jesus is God:

Joh 1:1
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God......................(14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

This speaks of Jesus, the Word that was in the beginning . . the beginning of what exactly?

The Word that was with God and was God. The Word that was made flesh and dwelt among us . . the God-Man.

Where does this say anything about the Holy Spirit?

It doesn't.

This does not address anything I said about the Holy Spirit.



So far you are batting ZERO as far as providing scriptures which say the Holy Spirit is

1. Co-equal with the Father and SOn
2. Co-Eternal with the Father and Son
3. Co-Eternally PREexisting with the Father and Son

We also have this reference to the trinty:

Mat 28:19
(19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Where does it say here that the Holy Spirit is

1. Co-equal with the Father and SOn
2. Co-Eternal with the Father and Son
3. Co-Eternally PREexisting with the Father and Son

???

And this one:

1Jo 5:7-8
(7) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
(8) And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

HOW are they one? It doesn't say at all. Unitarians believe this unity is not Three Divine Persons, One essence, substance, but they believe in a unity of PURPOSE.

These two concepts are very different.

This scripture does not tell us HOW they are "one" . . it is open to interpretation. There is nothing explicit.

There is nothing here that explicity tells us that the Holy Spirit is

1. Co-equal with the Father and SOn
2. Co-Eternal with the Father and Son
3. Co-Eternally PREexisting with the Father and Son

That is weak speculation at best. Different greek writers still had access to the same greek words. Why not specify that they were cousins if that is what they were. You are saying that the bible doesn't mean what it says, because it doesn't agree with your doctrine

There is no speculation at all, and there is nothing weak about it. It is a fact that different people choose to use different ways to express themselves. . . and God's word is big enough and grand enough to make room for various different ways of expressing the same idea.


Why are you limiting God like this? Why are you trying to put God and His scriptures into such a small box?

Except this one:

Gal 1:18-19
(18) Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
(19) But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Except what one? You are looking at an English translation . . so what? What is the word in the Greek? Not anything that mandates we understand that James is a blood brother from Mary. . this is your requirement. But the Greek does not require that understanding at all.

Again, the bible doesn't really mean what it says

According to who? See, give 100 different people the scriptures, and you will come away with 100 different interpretations on various points . ..

Really mean what is says to who exactly? You?

How did you become the final arbiter of what the sacred scriptures are really saying? Are you infallible in your understanding of scripture? Who made you so?

See, your statement is fallacious as it implies that the scripture is perfectly clear when taken on an extremely superficial level, when it is far from perfectly clear when it is examined more deeply, and a superficial approach is abandoned.

Care to share?

Are you willing to abandon the type of superficial reading of scripture you are relying on for your opinion of what scripture says?

Here is what the Greek word translated "brother" there is used for:

From An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: Adelphos (the Greek word for “brother” in the New Testament): denotes a brother, or near kinsman; in the plural, a community based on identity or origin of life. It is used for:

male children of the same parents
male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23, 26; Hebrews 7:5
people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17, 22; Romans 9:3
any man, a neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3
persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47
persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9
mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17
the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers, Matthew 28:10, John 20:17
believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8; Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word sisters is used of believers, only in 1 Timothy 5:2)

​

...... Matthew 13:55 where James and Jude are referred to as Jesus’ brothers. However, if you add in your analysis Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, you’ll see that they are called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. Most argue that Clopas and Joseph, Jesus’ foster father, were related, which makes James and Jude Jesus’ cousins or other near relative. But not His brothers.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...for+"blood+brothers"&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7
​

So you see, there is nothing mandating that this word means James was a blood brother of Jesus from Mary.

That is a silly argument.

]
LOL no! It is NOT!

Jesus was speaking to the people who where with Him when He said those words .. He was not speaking to you unless you can prove you were there, standing there with Him.


It is a very COGENT argument . it is silly to try to repudiate something so basic.

Were you there when this was written;
1Pe 1:9
(9) Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.


No? I guess that doesnt' apply to you.

This is sheer logical fallacy. Of course this was written to a certain group of believers, and it has teaching that is helpful to all believers, and so we can apply that teaching to our lives as is appropriate.

However, this does not involve a promise given by Jesus directly and personally to a group of men.

You are making false comparison, treating all scripture as though it is equal and of equal application to all. That just ain't so.

For that matter, every letter in the new testemant was written to a particular church or person. I guess you can throw them all out to.

And you continue with the same logical fallacy.

Tell me, when Jesus said to the rich young ruler, "sell everything you have, give it to the poor, and follow Me", as He speaking all this personally to you too?

Have you sold everything you have and given it to the poor?

Obviously you have not, for you are sitting at a computer, talking to me.

Jesus said to pluck out your eye if it causes you to sin . . have you done that?


Jesus put mud on a blind man's eyes and told him to go wash in the pool of Shilom . .. does that mean that if you were to go blind you should put mud on your eyes and go wash in the pool of Shilom?

When you paid your taxes last, did you go get a fish and open its mouth to find the money you needed to pay the tax? That's what Jesus told Peter to do! Why doesn't this apply directly to you?


Jesus spoke some very specific things to specific people, as did the writers of the NT. That does not mean they apply directly and personally to us.

You are taking the overly simplistic approach to interpretation of scripture. This is a very superficial approach and prone to much error in undersanding.

The Holy Spirit is your teacher, your friend and the seal of your salvation.

The Holy Spirit is not the only teacher God has given personally to me. He has given His Church, which the scriptures call the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth.

The scriptures never make such a claim about themselves!

If not:

Rom 8:9
(9) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Another good trinity reference? Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ.)

No one says that God put everything in the bible, but what ever is taught cannot contradict what is written in the bible. We are told to measure our teachings by the scripture:

Act 17:11
(11) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

[/quote]

Now that is a gross distortion of the scirptures . . this is exactly what Peter warned about regarding wresting the scriptures.

There is absolutely NOTHING in that verse that says we are told to measssure teachings by the scripture. NOTHING at all.

This verse merely contrasts the reaction of the Berean JEWS to Paul's message with the previous reaction of the Thessalonian Jews who were closed minded and ran Paul out of town.

The Bereans, in contrast, were much more open minded because of their noble upbringing, their education, their exposure to new ideas. It was because they were more "noble" that they were more open minded and willing to give Paul a far shake and see if what He said was in the OT really was there.

Remember, they were JEWS and so Paul would have shown them the OT scriptures that prophesied and foretold of Jesus.

That's all this said.

Paul said that to the Jews he became as a Jew, to the Gentiles, as a Gentile.

The Gentiles did not use the OT scritpure, so when Paul would share the good news with the gentiles, he would use what was familiar to them . not the OT scirpture which would be unfamiliar to them.

We see this is true in his speach to the pagan Athenians . . Did he, even once, refer to scripture? NO!

What did he refer to? The ALTAR to the UNKNOWN GOD!

Not ONE scripture was used.




Really, you should take time to see what is really in scripture rather than read into it what you want to find there.


Peace

 

[livingword26]

Really, you should take time to see what is really in scripture rather than read into it what you want to find there.
Peace

I respectfully believe that you are the one that needs to hold these scriptures up to the Lord and ask for guidence. He is your Savior, and He is your comforter and He is your teacher. The truth is this:

1Jo 2:22-29
(22) Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
(23) Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
(24) Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
(25) And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life,
(26) These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
(27) But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
(28) And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
(29) If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

That scripture is for you and it is for me. The whole point of what Christ did was to bring man back into relationship with God. The Pharasies had created an organization that they were in charge of. One that had lost the Spirit of God and replaced it with the works of man, and false ones at that. Each man, woman and child is to hear from the Lord, and to be taught by the Lord. One on one.

Heb 8:10-12
(10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
(11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
(12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

The church of Jesus Christ does not dwell in buildings made my man, but in the hearts of His believers.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

whew, such a vast number of words ....
perhaps, if someone is reading this thread,
they would be interested in reading what watchman nee said,
perhaps not, but that's ok. this is for the simple one in Christ, seeking truth.

watchman nee pointed out that the luth and the bapt and the prot and the cath as a whole and as individual groups were not and cannot be the body of Christ... they are all fighting themselves and one another with this creed or that ordinance and so on, none of which (fighting) is found in the body of Christ.

still, somehow, he showed how to have fellowship with all others who are in Christ no matter what group they are in(being in a group doesn't mean being in Christ, but doesn't mean not is Christ either, subject to G_d's say so.)

Jesus had a lot to say to the religious leaders, and it was still the same as to the disciples and the crowds : " unless you turn back to G_d, you will all likewise perish."

 

[thereselittleflower]

I respectfully believe that you are the one that needs to hold these scriptures up to the Lord and ask for guidence.

I did and have, deeply, sincerely, seriously . . . itis the reason I am Catholic today.

He is your Savior, and He is your comforter and He is your teacher.

And He told me to become Catholic, that this is where the fulness of truth and faith is found.

The truth is this:

1Jo 2:22-29
(22) Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Is anyone here denying that Jesus is the Christ? I see no point in posting this unless you are asserting that someone here is denying that Jesus is the Christ - if not it has no relevancy . . . .

That scripture is for you and it is for me.

It has general application, yes. But not all scripture has general application. If you want all scripture to have general applicaiton than you are arguing from a logically false premise.

The whole point of what Christ did was to bring man back into relationship with God. The Pharasies had created an organization that they were in charge of. One that had lost the Spirit of God and replaced it with the works of man, and false ones at that.

How could the "organization" of the Pharisees be man made when Jesus referred to them authoritatively as sitting in the Seat of Moses, something GOD created?

Just because individuals may have problems, that does not mean that the OFFICE they hold was created by them.

Jesus clearly and uniquivocably taught that the Pharisees sat in Moses' Seat and that their authority was from God, so that the people needed to obey them.

Are you saying that Jesus was referring and appealing to something made by man as authoritative?

Each man, woman and child is to hear from the Lord, and to be taught by the Lord. One on one.

Heb 8:10-12
(10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
(11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
(12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

The church of Jesus Christ does not dwell in buildings made my man, but in the hearts of His believers.

And where does it say HOW God will put His laws into their minds and write them on thier hearts?

Where does it say WHAT INSTRUMENTS God will use to accomplish this?


See, you are assuming that God will do this without any use of instruments . . yet we are in those days, and we are told to preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth. .

Obviously, the instrument that God has chosen to use to accomplish this is the CHURCH.




Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

whew, such a vast number of words ....
perhaps, if someone is reading this thread,
they would be interested in reading what watchman nee said,
perhaps not, but that's ok. this is for the simple one in Christ, seeking truth.

watchman nee pointed out that the luth and the bapt and the prot and the cath as a whole and as individual groups were not and cannot be the body of Christ... they are all fighting themselves and one another with this creed or that ordinance and so on, none of which (fighting) is found in the body of Christ.

I used to read Watchman Nee. I found him to be very deep in my very infantile Christian walk way back when.

I would agree with what he said above if he is talking about the individuals, rather than the Church Herself and where the fulness of doctrinal truth regarding faith and morals can be found.

However, he does not make such a distinction and I have since found his writings to be wanting and not entirely doctrinally sound.

still, somehow, he showed how to have fellowship with all others who are in Christ no matter what group they are in(being in a group doesn't mean being in Christ, but doesn't mean not is Christ either, subject to G_d's say so.)

Again, this has to do with perspective . . .

Jesus had a lot to say to the religious leaders, and it was still the same as to the disciples and the crowds : " unless you turn back to G_d, you will all likewise perish."

That is exactly true for every individual regardless of what Church or group they belong to.


Peace

 

[livingword26]

I did and have, deeply, sincerely, seriously . . . itis the reason I am Catholic today.




And He told me to become Catholic, that this is where the fulness of truth and faith is found.



Is anyone here denying that Jesus is the Christ? I see no point in posting this unless you are asserting that someone here is denying that Jesus is the Christ - if not it has no relevancy . . . .

You conviniently left out the rest of the scripture I listed:

(26) These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
(27) But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

It has general application, yes. But not all scripture has general application. If you want all scripture to have general applicaiton than you are arguing from a logically false premise.



How could the "organization" of the Pharisees be man made when Jesus referred to them authoritatively as sitting in the Seat of Moses, something GOD created?

Just because individuals may have problems, that does not mean that the OFFICE they hold was created by them.

Jesus clearly and uniquivocably taught that the Pharisees sat in Moses' Seat and that their authority was from God, so that the people needed to obey them.

Are you saying that Jesus was referring and appealing to something made by man as authoritative?




And where does it say HOW God will put His laws into their minds and write them on thier hearts?

Where does it say WHAT INSTRUMENTS God will use to accomplish this?


See, you are assuming that God will do this without any use of instruments . . yet we are in those days, and we are told to preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth. .

Obviously, the instrument that God has chosen to use to accomplish this is the CHURCH.




Peace

I would continue this conversation with you if you were to provide scriptural references for your scriptural assertions.