Paul's limited understanding!

[Neogaia777]

I'm very sorry about this brother Paul, but since someone else brought it up, I ask you brother Paul, would you rather have them venerate you, or our Lord Jesus Christ?

Paul taught against the Law, he did not have the revelation from Jesus that the Ten Commandments were, and have always been about Love... Jesus said that "he that breaks one of these least commandments, and teaches mankind to that effect, he will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but he who does them, and teaches them, he will be called great in the kingdom of God." He did not teach the Gentiles the Ten Commandments, but instead, he and the rest of the apostles taught them different, new law, (Romans 3;31) that was not decided upon by Jesus Christ...

He was massaginistic toward women, which Jesus never was... He took a vow and shaved his head, Jesus says not to vow, but only let your yes mean yes, and your no, no... He had his companion Timothy circumcised, due to the Jews, when he himself said that physical circumcision was nothing, guilty of the same kind of hypocrisy that he accused and confronted Peter about... Paul said he was all things to all people, he came close, but still fell short, only Jesus alone is all things to all people... But, regardless, Paul did have many revelations that are important to learn, despite his failings, God still used him in a mighty way, and he was given supernatural power, as were many of the apostles and diciples...

God Bless!

I Love you brother Paul...

 

[anonymouswho]

Hi AW, that's simply not true Click on and read more of the passages that I posited above and you will see for yourself. Sometimes the HS is referred to as the Spirit of God, but He is also spoken of in terms that we use to refer to an individual (and that more than a few times). The HS is not simply the "expression" of a part of Another individual, He is an individual Himself, and many, many verses in the Bible make that abundantly clear (they all don't, of course, but proving that the HS is an individual member of the Godhead is not the reason that many of the passages that speak of Him were written).

Some references are clearer than others. For instance, we baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). IOW, we baptize in the "name" of God (Who exists as three Persons).

I've gotta run. I'll get back to this later (though we really need to start a different thread if this goes much further down its own rabbit trail).

"While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy
Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for
the work to which I have called them.”
Acts 13:2​

I thought you might post Matthew 28:19 next. First, I'll go ahead and quote Eusebius...

"But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”

Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesial History, 3:5:3.

...and...

"What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.”

Eusebius of Caesarea, Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, 16:8

If Eusebius had a manuscript that said "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", he would have definitely quoted it. Any time the trinitarians could count "one, two, three", they insisted it was proof of a triune god. Most importantly, Eusebius was at the Council of Nicea!

Here is every verse that shows the disciples apparently disregarding what Yeshua said in Matthew 28:19..

Acts 2:38 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

Acts 8:12 “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.”

Acts 8:16 “For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Acts 10:48 “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.”

Acts 19:5 “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Acts 22:16 “And now why tarriest you? arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

Romans 6:3 “Know you not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?”

Galatians 3:27 “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

So rather than get into a dispute about what "in the name of" means (because this verse still says nothing of a triune god), I believe this is valid enough reason not to dwell on this any further.

"As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." Acts 13:2

This verse is supposed to show that God's spirit is actually a separate person, rather than simply being His thoughts or mind. Besides the plethora of things personified in the Scriptures, there are others in the NT books as well...

"For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me."

How can sin "take occasion"? Sin is not a substance nor a person. It means "missing the mark", so it is not a physical entity.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, [the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth] the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree [in one]." 1 John 5:7

Besides the fact that most of the words in this passage are not in any Greek manuscript before the late 1500's (and were most certainly added by trinitarians who consistently add whatever they wish to the gospels and epistles), they are not what I'm concerned with.

What I want to know is how spirit, "water", and "blood" can "bear witness" or "agree"? Are water and blood also two separate persons from whatever they may come from?

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_john/5-7.htm (here are some commentaries on this verse from trinitarians, in case anybody is unaware that this passage has been corrupted)

"Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope" Acts 2:26

How can a heart rejoice, or a tongue be glad?

The Holy Spirit, or set-apart spirit, is not a separate person from the Father. It is the Father's spirit. It is the same spirit that Messiah was in possession of, and it is the same spirit that believers recieve. So when the spirit speaks, it is the spirit of the Father speaking to us.

I'm not sure if there is another verse you provided that this does not cover, but if there is, please quote it and I'll address it.

Thank you.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi AW, concerning Matthew 28:19 and the Trinitarian Baptismal Formula, here are a couple of things (well, more than a couple, actually ).

First, from the Didache (which was written toward the end of the 1st Century):

7 Concerning Baptism

7:1 Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water.

7:2 But if you have no running water, baptize in other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, then in warm.

7:3 If you have very little, pour water three times on the head in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

7:4 Before the baptism, both the baptizer and the candidate for baptism, plus any others who can, should fast. The candidate should fast for one or two days beforehand.​

Next, I believe the full baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 was written down 24 different times by the Early Church Fathers prior to First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. And Eusebius does not dispute the validity of the full formula here or elsewhere, he just chose to abbreviate it in this case (which is something he was known for doing in a number of his other works .. please read his quote toward the bottom of this post, along with the other ECF's quotes concerning the Trinity and the Trinitarian formula).

Moving beyond Nicaea, there are many other ECF's who employed the full formula in their writings as well. For instance, here is the reflection by St. Augustine (that I referred to earlier in this thread):

The is one God, because it is not in the "names" of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but in the "name" of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Where you hear one "name", there is one God.​

So, unless you can find some of the ECF's that specifically teach AGAINST the full formula of Matthew 28:19, there is no reason to believe the full formula is anything other than the very words of Christ originally spoken to His Apostles and written down for us by St. Matthew.

There are, of course, all the other Triune formulas in the rest of the NT to consider, so Matthew 28:19 hardly stands alone.

Finally, I believe the various formulas that were employed for baptism in the Bible tell us, among other things, that properly baptizing someone does not require that a special set of words be spoken in a certain order (as if it was some kind of incantation), though as you will see below, that is not the opinion of many of the ECF (who insist on the use of the full formula).

The ancient churches, EOC, RCC, OOC, have always used the full Trinitarian formula (as I'm sure you are aware). And if you care to read them, here's more of the ECF's writings on the subject. I think you will also find what Eusebius has to say about the full formula and the Trinity particularly enlightening (I highlighted his name for you below so it should not be hard to find ).

Finally, none of the "Fathers" deny the use of the Full Trinitarian formula, rather, most (as you will see below) insist that it is the correct formula to use whenever one is baptized.

Tatian the Syrian

"Then said Jesus unto them, ‘I have been given all authority in heaven and earth; and as my Father has sent me, so I also send you. Go now into all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the days, unto the end of the world’ [Matt. 28:18-20]" (The Diatesseron 55 [A.D. 170]).

Hippolytus

"When the one being baptized goes down into the water, the one baptizing him shall put his hand on him and speak thus: ‘Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?’ And he that is being baptized shall say: ‘I believe.’ Then, having his hand imposed upon the head of the one to be baptized, he shall baptize him once. Then he shall say: ‘Do you believe in Christ Jesus . . . ?’ And when he says: ‘I believe,’ he is baptized again. Again shall he say: ‘Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?’ The one being baptized then says: ‘I believe.’ And so he is baptized a third time" (The Apostolic Tradition 21 [A.D. 215]).

Tertullian

"After his resurrection he promises in a pledge to his disciples that he will send them the promise of his Father; and lastly, he commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the three persons, at each several mention of their names" (Against Praxeas 26 [A.D. 216]).

Origen

"The Lord himself told his disciples that they should baptize all peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit . . . for indeed, legitimate baptism is had only in the name of the Trinity" (Commentary on Romans 5:8 [A.D. 248]).

The Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena

"Then Probus . . . leapt into the water, saying, ‘Jesus Christ, Son of God, and everlasting God, let all my sins be taken away by this water.’ And Paul said, ‘We baptize thee in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost.’ After this he made him to receive the Eucharist of Christ" (Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena 21 [A.D. 250]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"He [Jesus] commanded them to baptize the Gentiles in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. How then do some say that though a Gentile be baptized . . . never mind how or of whom, so long as it be done in the name of Jesus Christ, the remission of sins can follow—when Christ himself commands the nations to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?" (Letters 73:18 [A.D. 253]).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"We believe . . . each of these to be and to exist: the Father, truly Father, and the Son, truly Son, and the Holy Ghost, truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth his disciples for the preaching, said, ‘Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy" (Letter to the People of His Diocese 3 [A.D. 323]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"You were led by the hand to the holy pool of divine baptism, as Christ was carried from the cross to this sepulcher here before us [the tomb of Jesus at Jerusalem]. And each of you was asked if he believed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And you confessed that saving confession, and descended three times into the water, and again ascended, and in this there was suggested by a symbol the three days of Christ’s burial" (Catechetical Lectures 20:4 [A.D. 350]).

Athanasius

"And the whole faith is summed up, and secured in this, that a Trinity should ever be preserved, as we read in the Gospel, ‘Go ye and baptize all the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’ (Matt. 28:19). And entire and perfect is the number of the Trinity (On the Councils of Arminum and Seleucia 2:28 [A.D. 361]).

Basil the Great

"The Holy Spirit, too, is numbered with the Father and the Son, because he is above creation, and is ranked as we are taught by the words of the Lord in the Gospel, ‘Go and baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’ He who, on the contrary, places the Spirit before the Son, or alleges him to be older than the Father, resists the ordinance of God, and is a stranger to the sound faith, since he fails to preserve the form of doxology which he has received, but adopts some newfangled device in order to be pleasing to men" (Letters 52:4 [A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan

"Moreover, Christ himself says: ‘I and the Father are one.’ ‘One,’ said he, that there be no separation of power and nature; but again, ‘We are,’ that you may recognize Father and Son, forasmuch as the perfect Father is believed to have begotten the perfect Son, and the Father and the Son are one, not by confusion of person, but by unity of nature. We say, then, that there is one God, not two or three gods" (The Faith 1:1[9–10] [A.D. 379]).

Gregory of Nazianz

"But not yet perhaps is there formed upon your soul any writing good or bad; and you want to be written upon today. . . . I will baptize you and make you a disciple in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; and these three have one common name, the Godhead. And you shall know, both by appearances and by words that you reject all ungodliness, and are united to all the Godhead" (Orations 40:45 [A.D. 380]).

Jerome

"Seeing that a man, baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, becomes a temple of the Lord, and that while the old abode is destroyed a new shrine is built for the Trinity, how can you say that sins can be remitted among the Arians without the coming of the Holy Ghost? How is a soul purged from its former stains which has not the Holy Ghost?" (Dialogue Against the Luciferians 6 [A.D. 382]).

Gregory of Nyssa

"And we, in receiving baptism . . . conceal ourselves in [the water] as the Savior did in the earth: and by doing this thrice we represent for ourselves that grace of the resurrection which was wrought in three days. And this we do, not receiving the sacrament in silence, but while there are spoken over us the names of the three sacred persons on whom we believed, in whom we also hope, from whom comes to us both the fact of our present and the fact of our future existence" (Sermon For the Day of Lights [A.D. 383]).

Augustine

"Baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost has Christ for its authority, not any man, whoever he may be; and Christ is the truth, not any man" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24 [57] [A.D. 400]).

"O Lord our God, we believe in you, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For the truth would not say, ‘Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,’ unless you were a Trinity" (The Trinity 15:28[51] [A.D. 408]).

Theodoret of Cyr

"And what need is there of many words, when it is possible to refute falsehood in few? We provide that those who year by year come up for holy baptism should carefully learn the faith set forth at Nicaea by the holy and blessed Fathers; and initiating them as we have been bidden, we baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, pronouncing each name singly" (Letters 145 [A.D. 444]). ​

Yours and His,
David

 

[anonymouswho]

Hi AW, concerning Matthew 28:19 and the Trinitarian Baptismal Formula, here are a couple of things (well, more than a couple, actually ).

First, from the Didache (which was written toward the end of the 1st Century):

7 Concerning Baptism

7:1 Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water.

7:2 But if you have no running water, baptize in other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, then in warm.

7:3 If you have very little, pour water three times on the head in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

7:4 Before the baptism, both the baptizer and the candidate for baptism, plus any others who can, should fast. The candidate should fast for one or two days beforehand.​

Next, I believe the full baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 was written down 24 different times by the Early Church Fathers prior to First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. And Eusebius does not dispute the validity of the full formula here or elsewhere, he just chose to abbreviate it in this case (which is something he was known for doing in a number of his other works .. please read his quote toward the bottom of this post, along with the other ECF's quotes concerning the Trinity and the Trinitarian formula).

Moving beyond Nicaea, there are many other ECF's who employed the full formula in their writings as well. For instance, here is the reflection by St. Augustine (that I referred to earlier in this thread):

The is one God, because it is not in the "names" of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but in the "name" of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Where you hear one "name", there is one God.​

So, unless you can find some of the ECF's that specifically teach AGAINST the full formula of Matthew 28:19, there is no reason to believe the full formula is anything other than the very words of Christ originally spoken to His Apostles and written down for us by St. Matthew.

There are, of course, all the other Triune formulas in the rest of the NT to consider, so Matthew 28:19 hardly stands alone.

Finally, I believe the various formulas that were employed for baptism in the Bible tell us, among other things, that properly baptizing someone does not require that a special set of words be spoken in a certain order (as if it was some kind of incantation), though as you will see below, that is not the opinion of many of the ECF (who insist on the use of the full formula).

The ancient churches, EOC, RCC, OOC, have always used the full Trinitarian formula (as I'm sure you are aware). And if you care to read them, here's more of the ECF's writings on the subject. I think you will also find what Eusebius has to say about the full formula and the Trinity particularly enlightening (I highlighted his name for you below so it should not be hard to find ).

Finally, none of the "Fathers" deny the use of the Full Trinitarian formula, rather, most (as you will see below) insist that it is the correct formula to use whenever one is baptized.

Tatian the Syrian

"Then said Jesus unto them, ‘I have been given all authority in heaven and earth; and as my Father has sent me, so I also send you. Go now into all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the days, unto the end of the world’ [Matt. 28:18-20]" (The Diatesseron 55 [A.D. 170]).

Hippolytus

"When the one being baptized goes down into the water, the one baptizing him shall put his hand on him and speak thus: ‘Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?’ And he that is being baptized shall say: ‘I believe.’ Then, having his hand imposed upon the head of the one to be baptized, he shall baptize him once. Then he shall say: ‘Do you believe in Christ Jesus . . . ?’ And when he says: ‘I believe,’ he is baptized again. Again shall he say: ‘Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?’ The one being baptized then says: ‘I believe.’ And so he is baptized a third time" (The Apostolic Tradition 21 [A.D. 215]).

Tertullian

"After his resurrection he promises in a pledge to his disciples that he will send them the promise of his Father; and lastly, he commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the three persons, at each several mention of their names" (Against Praxeas 26 [A.D. 216]).

Origen

"The Lord himself told his disciples that they should baptize all peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit . . . for indeed, legitimate baptism is had only in the name of the Trinity" (Commentary on Romans 5:8 [A.D. 248]).

The Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena

"Then Probus . . . leapt into the water, saying, ‘Jesus Christ, Son of God, and everlasting God, let all my sins be taken away by this water.’ And Paul said, ‘We baptize thee in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost.’ After this he made him to receive the Eucharist of Christ" (Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena 21 [A.D. 250]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"He [Jesus] commanded them to baptize the Gentiles in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. How then do some say that though a Gentile be baptized . . . never mind how or of whom, so long as it be done in the name of Jesus Christ, the remission of sins can follow—when Christ himself commands the nations to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?" (Letters 73:18 [A.D. 253]).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"We believe . . . each of these to be and to exist: the Father, truly Father, and the Son, truly Son, and the Holy Ghost, truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth his disciples for the preaching, said, ‘Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy" (Letter to the People of His Diocese 3 [A.D. 323]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"You were led by the hand to the holy pool of divine baptism, as Christ was carried from the cross to this sepulcher here before us [the tomb of Jesus at Jerusalem]. And each of you was asked if he believed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And you confessed that saving confession, and descended three times into the water, and again ascended, and in this there was suggested by a symbol the three days of Christ’s burial" (Catechetical Lectures 20:4 [A.D. 350]).

Athanasius

"And the whole faith is summed up, and secured in this, that a Trinity should ever be preserved, as we read in the Gospel, ‘Go ye and baptize all the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’ (Matt. 28:19). And entire and perfect is the number of the Trinity (On the Councils of Arminum and Seleucia 2:28 [A.D. 361]).

Basil the Great

"The Holy Spirit, too, is numbered with the Father and the Son, because he is above creation, and is ranked as we are taught by the words of the Lord in the Gospel, ‘Go and baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’ He who, on the contrary, places the Spirit before the Son, or alleges him to be older than the Father, resists the ordinance of God, and is a stranger to the sound faith, since he fails to preserve the form of doxology which he has received, but adopts some newfangled device in order to be pleasing to men" (Letters 52:4 [A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan

"Moreover, Christ himself says: ‘I and the Father are one.’ ‘One,’ said he, that there be no separation of power and nature; but again, ‘We are,’ that you may recognize Father and Son, forasmuch as the perfect Father is believed to have begotten the perfect Son, and the Father and the Son are one, not by confusion of person, but by unity of nature. We say, then, that there is one God, not two or three gods" (The Faith 1:1[9–10] [A.D. 379]).

Gregory of Nazianz

"But not yet perhaps is there formed upon your soul any writing good or bad; and you want to be written upon today. . . . I will baptize you and make you a disciple in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; and these three have one common name, the Godhead. And you shall know, both by appearances and by words that you reject all ungodliness, and are united to all the Godhead" (Orations 40:45 [A.D. 380]).

Jerome

"Seeing that a man, baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, becomes a temple of the Lord, and that while the old abode is destroyed a new shrine is built for the Trinity, how can you say that sins can be remitted among the Arians without the coming of the Holy Ghost? How is a soul purged from its former stains which has not the Holy Ghost?" (Dialogue Against the Luciferians 6 [A.D. 382]).

Gregory of Nyssa

"And we, in receiving baptism . . . conceal ourselves in [the water] as the Savior did in the earth: and by doing this thrice we represent for ourselves that grace of the resurrection which was wrought in three days. And this we do, not receiving the sacrament in silence, but while there are spoken over us the names of the three sacred persons on whom we believed, in whom we also hope, from whom comes to us both the fact of our present and the fact of our future existence" (Sermon For the Day of Lights [A.D. 383]).

Augustine

"Baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost has Christ for its authority, not any man, whoever he may be; and Christ is the truth, not any man" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24 [57] [A.D. 400]).

"O Lord our God, we believe in you, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For the truth would not say, ‘Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,’ unless you were a Trinity" (The Trinity 15:28[51] [A.D. 408]).

Theodoret of Cyr

"And what need is there of many words, when it is possible to refute falsehood in few? We provide that those who year by year come up for holy baptism should carefully learn the faith set forth at Nicaea by the holy and blessed Fathers; and initiating them as we have been bidden, we baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, pronouncing each name singly" (Letters 145 [A.D. 444]). ​

Yours and His,
David

Thank you. I was actually unaware that Eusebius used the trinitarian formula in some of his letters after the Council of Nicea. I would assume this means he was exposed to new manuscripts when the council was held. So great find.

Whether the Didache was written at the end of the first century, or the end of the second century, is impossible to determine. It has always been considered a second century work, written around 150 a.d. The earliest mention of it is by Eusebius in the fourth century, but I understand why you quoted it. I was arguing that Eusebius didn't use the formula, so you were showing older uses of it.

I believe the Didache and the Diatesseron by Tatian the Syrian are tied as the oldest sources of this formula, at least 100 years after the siege of Jerusalem (100 years ago was 1916, and we can see how much the world and ideas change in such a long period of time). Tatian was taught by Justin Martyr, who loved Greek philosophy. He even wrote an apology for Plato because he believed Plato had recieved divine revelation about the "logos". This is why everyone believes John was using Stoic philosophy and that he spoke of a divine logos entity that existed with God.

Tatian was also considered a heretic, because he followed the teachings of Valentinus, a gnostic and probably the first person to describe a triune being. So it makes sense to me that Tatian believed in a triune god, because if we read the bible, there is no mention of a trinity. Instead, the "hidden knowledge" of the trinity must be "revealed" to us by either divine revelation, or the Catholic Church theologians. That's gnosticism.

Anyways, we can debate all day about when something was written and what it all means, but neither of us can prove any of this. I've already quoted eight of the oldest known disciple baptisms, all eight are located in every bible, and they all agree. This is why I said hopefully that would be enough, because I knew everyone would have to suffer through mini-biographies of the early church "fathers", and this next part will be equally as long.

I will entertain the idea that Yeshua said this. I still see nothing about a trinitarian god existing as three persons.

The verse says...

"...baptizing in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit"

We cannot say that "name" means all three of these entities have the same name. God's name is not "God", it is YHVH...

"I am YHVH: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." Isaiah 48:2

This is why Thomas did not take YHVH's name in vain when he said "the lord of me and the God of me."

So "name" cannot mean "in the name of YHVH and of Jesus and of the Holy Spirit", because if these are three separate persons, they have three separate names.

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon says...

"2. By a usage chiefly Hebraistic the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is roused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i. e. for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds, etc.; thus, εἰς ὄνομαπροφήτου, out of regard for (see εἰς, B. II. 2 d.) the name of prophet which he bears, equivalent to because he is a prophet, Matthew 10:41; βαπτίζειν τινα εἰς ὄνοματίνος, by baptism to bind anyone to recognize and publicly acknowledge the dignity and authority of one (cf. βαπτίζω, II.

b. (aa.)), Matthew 28:19; Acts 8:16; Acts 19:5;1 Corinthians 1:13, 15. to do a thing ἐνὀνόματι τίνος, i. e. by one's command and authority, acting on his behalf, promoting his cause (cf. Winers Grammar, 390 (365);Buttmann, § 147, 10); as, ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐνὀνόματι κυρίου (from Psalm 117:26 ()), of the Messiah, Matthew 21:9; Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9; Luke 13:35; Luke 19:38; John 12:13; ἐντῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρός μου, John 5:43; John 10:25; ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τῷ ἰδίῳ, of his own free-will and authority, John 5:43; to do a thing ἐντῷ ὀνόματι"

To do something "in the name of" means to do it "in the authority of", such as "praying in the name of Yeshua". This doesn't mean that evoking his name has magical powers. It means praying in his name is to pray in the authority of Yeshua.

It also wouldn't make sense if "name" was plural anyways. The noun "name" is in the accusative case, which means it is the direct object of the sentence. The rest of the words are in the genitive, which is why it says "of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit". It would be incorrect grammar to say...

"In the names of the father, and the names of the son, and the names of the holy spirit"

..but to say...

"In the name of the father, and the name of the son, and the name of the holy spirit"

...makes perfect sense.

This is true if we replace "name" with "authority" as well. It would not make sense to say..

"With the authorities of the father, and of the son, and of the holy spirit"

Check this out in Acts...

"Now when they saw the boldness (confidence-singular noun) of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus." Acts 4:13

It would be incorrect grammer to say...

"Now when they saw the confidences of Peter and of John"

So "name" means authority (because the holy spirit is not a name and YHVH and Yeshua have different names), and it had to be singular if the writer wished to use proper grammer.

I hope that clears it up. If it wasn't there, the baptisms in Acts make perfect sense. If it was there, it still has nothing to do with a trinitarian god.

Thank you.

 

[St_Worm2]

Who is WE sir? GTY is WHO?

Very sorry Nothead, GTY = "Grace to You" (I should have written that out). It's the broadcast/outreach ministry of pastor/theologian Dr. John MacArthur. So, specifically, that's who the "We" is.

But the "We" in this case could certainly be the church in general, and by that I mean ALL of it. We ALL (Protestant, EOC, RCC, OOC, Baptist, Lutheran, etc.), believe the same thing(s) about the Holy Spirit (and about the Trinity for that matter).

The part of the GTY statement of faith about the HS is hardly an exhaustive treatment of the subject, but it is neatly packaged and concise .. and it copies and pastes with all of those Scripture links still active

Yours and His,
David

 

[St_Worm2]

Thank you. I was actually unaware that Eusebius used the trinitarian formula in some of his letters after the Council of Nicea. I would assume this means he was exposed to new manuscripts when the council was held. So great find.

Whether the Didache was written at the end of the first century, or the end of the second century, is impossible to determine. It has always been considered a second century work, written around 150 a.d. The earliest mention of it is by Eusebius in the fourth century, but I understand why you quoted it. I was arguing that Eusebius didn't use the formula, so you were showing older uses of it.

Didache
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• The Didache (/ˈdɪdəkiː/; Koine Greek: Διδαχή) or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didachē means "Teaching") is a brief anonymous early Christian treatise, dated by most modern scholars to the first century. The first line of this treatise is "Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles (or Nations) by the Twelve Apostles". The text, parts of which constitute the oldest extant written catechism...

While we may not be able to determine the exact date that the Didache was written, it was never considered a "second century work" as you stated above (since it is ONLY "modern" scholarship that ever considered it so, and even the majority of modern scholarship still believes it to be a work dating from the 1st Century).

AW, you continue to make statements about a number of things here as if they are factual when it can be easily shown that they are not, just like you did when you held up Eusebius as someone who disagreed with the Trinitarian Baptismal Formula from Matthew 28:19. Finding information out, like what Eusebius ACTUALLY believes is no big deal, unless you spend all of your time on an anti-Trinitarian website that is, because they aren't interested in knowing the truth (because they already think they do). Their only interest lies in proving their heretical presupposition in anyway possible. So the "means" by which they get to that "end" makes no difference to them (again, because they already believe "theirs" is the truth, no matter how much the facts seem to say otherwise).

You are free to believe whatever you want to believe, of course, but don't bother coming to the church for support, ESPECIALLY in areas where we are stand in 100% agreement with one another. I would, in fact, think it should give you more than a moment's pause when you consider what you are actually doing when you stand in such stark opposition to us all (IOW, against what the Protestants, the RCC, the EOC, the OOC, the Baptists, the Lutherans, etc, all hold to be true together).

Remember too that while you are standing against what the "church" believes as an institution, it is just as important to remember that you are also standing in opposition to millions of scholars, theologians, church doctors, pastors and laymen who have, over the centuries, carefully considered the scope of reasonable alternative interpretations (and even a great number of unreasonable ones ), but have ended up holding to and confirming what the church has always taught, again and again and again (not because it's what the church teaches, but because they found what the church teaches to be true).

None of this made sense to me either for the first 30 years of my life. Even though I was baptized as an infant, was confirmed by the church at age 12 and attended regularly from pre-school through college, I was very surprised to find that I had never been a Christian on the day I actually become one (Nov 2nd, 1986). I definitely believed myself one the entire time though

The reason I bring this up is because it was on that day, 11/2/86, that my entire life changed. And what is most important about that in regards to this conversation is how I understood the Scriptures, IOW, how I understood the Bible before I was a Christian and how I understand it now. I'm an educated man, so it's not like I couldn't understand the "words" of the RSV or the KJV (the two Bibles I used back then), but I couldn't appraise them properly, IOW, "spiritually", from God's POV, because while I had the church, I had neither the indwelling of the HS, nor the "mind of Christ", so much of what the church taught me seemed wrong (in fact, my mind wouldn't even let me go there because it made so little sense from my pre-Christian POV).

I found that this is common among those who come to Christ, especially as adults. I've also found that what has ended up making sense to me as a Christian, for the most part anyway, makes sense to other Christians, because we really are all of one mind (unless we force ourselves to believe otherwise by sticking to the presuppositions that we've come to hold so dearly, no matter what the HS is trying to make clear to us).

I don't have enough information to judge whether you are a Christian or not by the things we've discussed so far, but considering the heretical beliefs you've espoused, and how far away most of it is from what Christians normally believe (and the church teaches), don't you think it would be well worth your time to find out? If you are not a Christian, you will NEVER understand God, the Scriptures, or the Christian faith the way "Christians" do. It will, in fact, continue to seem like foolishness to you.

Please don't take that in the wrong way. I realize it probably sounds pretty arrogant, but I don't mean it to be. I honestly don't know whether or not you're a Christian, but even if turns out that I am and you're not, that doesn't make me a better or a smarter or even a better looking person than you .. it just means that because God saved me, I've been given certain gifts that you haven't .. yet .. which includes the ability to understand the Scriptures from 'His' POV instead of just from mine!

Yours and His,
David

"Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith"
2 Corinthians 13:5a​

 

[anonymouswho]

Didache
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• The Didache (/ˈdɪdəkiː/; Koine Greek: Διδαχή) or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didachē means "Teaching") is a brief anonymous early Christian treatise, dated by most modern scholars to the first century. The first line of this treatise is "Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles (or Nations) by the Twelve Apostles". The text, parts of which constitute the oldest extant written catechism...

While we may not be able to determine the exact date that the Didache was written, it was never considered a "second century work" as you stated above (since it is ONLY "modern" scholarship that ever considered it so, and even the majority of modern scholarship still believes it to be a work dating from the 1st Century).

AW, you continue to make statements about a number of things here as if they are factual when it can be easily shown that they are not, just like you did when you held up Eusebius as someone who disagreed with the Trinitarian Baptismal Formula from Matthew 28:19. Finding information out, like what Eusebius ACTUALLY believes is no big deal, unless you spend all of your time on an anti-Trinitarian website that is, because they aren't interested in knowing the truth (because they already think they do). Their only interest lies in proving their heretical presupposition in anyway possible. So the "means" by which they get to that "end"makes no difference to them (again, because they already believe "theirs" is the truth, no matter how much the facts seem to say otherwise).

You are free to believe whatever you want to believe, of course, but don't bother coming to the church for support, ESPECIALLY in areas where we are stand in 100% agreement with one another. I would, in fact, think it should give you more than a moment's pause when you consider what you are actually doing when you stand in such stark opposition to us all (IOW, against what the Protestants, the RCC, the EOC, the OOC, the Baptists, the Lutherans, etc, all hold to be true together).

Remember too that while you are standing against what the "church" believes as an institution, it is just as important to remember that you are also standing in opposition to millions of scholars, theologians, church doctors, pastors and laymen who have, over the centuries, carefully considered the scope of reasonable alternative interpretations (and even a great number of unreasonable ones ), but have ended up holding to and confirming what the church has always taught, again and again and again (not because it's what the church teaches, but because they found what the church teaches to be true).

None of this made sense to me either for the first 30 years of my life. Even though I was baptized as an infant, was confirmed by the church at age 12 and attended regularly from pre-school through college, I was very surprised to find that I had never been a Christian on the day I actually become one (Nov 2nd, 1986). I definitely believed myself one the entire time though

The reason I bring this up is because it was on that day, 11/2/86, that my entire life changed. And what is most important about that in regards to this conversation is how I understood the Scriptures, IOW, how I understood the Bible before I was a Christian and how I understand it now. I'm an educated man, so it's not like I couldn't understand the "words" of the RSV or the KJV (the two Bibles I used back then), but I couldn't appraise them properly, IOW, "spiritually", from God's POV, because while I had the church, I had neither the indwelling of the HS, nor the "mind of Christ", so much of what the church taught me seemed wrong (in fact, my mind wouldn't even let me go there because it made so little sense from my pre-Christian POV).

I found that this is common among those who come to Christ, especially as adults I've also found that what has ended up making sense to me as a Christian, for the most part anyway, are the exact same things that end up making sense to every other true (IOW, "born again") believer out there, because we really are all of one mind (unless we force ourselves to be otherwise by sticking to the presuppositions that we've often and sadly come to hold so dearly and fight understanding that which the HS is trying to make clear).

I don't have enough information to judge whether you are a Christian or not by the things we've discussed so far, but considering the heretical beliefs you've espoused, and how far away most of it is from what Christians normally believe (and the church teaches), don't you think it would be well worth your time to find out? If you are not a Christian, you will NEVER understand God, the Scriptures, or the Christian faith the way "Christians" do. It will, in fact, continue to seem like foolishness to you.

Please don't take that in the wrong way. I realize it probably sounds pretty arrogant, but I don't mean it to be. I honestly don't know whether or not you're a Christian, but even if turns out that I am and you're not, that doesn't make me a better or a smarter or even a better looking person than you .. it just means that because God saved me, I've been given certain gifts that you haven't .. yet .. which includes the ability to understand the Scriptures from 'His' POV instead of just from mine!

Yours and His,
David

"Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith"
2 Corinthians 13:5a​

Thank you for sharing David. You are correct, I stated things which were not true. I was unaware that Eusebius ever quoted Matthew 28:19 as the way it is stated in our bibles. I assure you I did not just take someone's word for it. When I searched this out myself, I was unable to find this quote. That is why I said "Great find". I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong. Trust me my friend, I've had to admit it a lot.

I can't say my story is quite the same as yours. I was not baptised as an infant, my parents did not take me to church every Sunday (except for a short period of time when I was about nine years old). When I became a teenager, I joined my friends at a Baptist church that I still attend sometimes.

I just wanted to know the truth. Not about some religion- but about life in general. Everyone in my community went to church and said the bible was true, so I decided that I would see for myself. I asked God "If this is truth, please show me", and I started reading from Genesis to Revelation. I was amazed, but the words didn't seem like anything I'd ever heard in church, so I was also very confused.

I understood a few things that the church taught, such as there is an eternal hell, Jesus is God and God is a trinity, we had freewill and we had to choose whether to believe in God or go to hell, ect. I eventually decided that there was no sense in testing it, because men much smarter than me already figured it out.

When I finally decided to study the trinity, I think heartbroken would be the best way to describe what I felt. I heard so many times "Jesus was speaking in his human nature in this verse, and as God in this verse. We have to understand that the trinity is a mystery and incomprehensible, because we serve an incomprehensible God".

This answer is unacceptable to me. It is impossible for me to believe that the truth of all things is not only an incomprehensible mystery, but the reason it's an incomprehensible mystery is because the book that reveals it- explicitly contradicts it, and doesn't mention it or the numerous terms associated with it. What reason do I have to even go down that route?

This is why I don't care what the whole church believes. The Scriptures talk about deception and warn us of false teachings a lot. The Jews had scholars and the Scriptures dictated every part of their lives. They still didn't have a clue what they were about, otherwise the prophets and Yeshua would have just said "Great job everyone!" It wasn't easy to accept this at first, but I had no choice because the church could not answer my questions.

When I was finally brave enough overcome the fear of being a "heretic" to the church, I eventually followed Arius' veiw that Yeshua was born of God before He created the universe, and that Yeshua was God's creative power "through" which all things came into existence. When I believed this, I saw Yeshua all over the Hebrew Scriptures as "the Word of God" and the "Angel of the LORD". He was still a divine being, but lesser than the only true God. However, I still had issues that could not be reconciled and unscriptural terms that I couldn't help but wonder about. So I kept asking questions and studying.

I did not learn these things from unitarian sites. I don't believe half of what most of them say either. I spent most of my time on gotquestions, CARM, and any other site that attempts to explain the trinity, freewill, or hell. I was either overloaded with so many unscriptural terms that I couldn't recognize I was reading about the bible, or I was left with "its a mystery, but have faith because it's true".

So you see, it doesn't matter to me if the Didache was written in 150 a.d., or if it was written in 36 a.d. I don't care if Paul hung out with the Apostles and wrote letters to the first believers. If anyone contradicts the Scriptures, Yeshua, or the Aposltes, there is no use for me to continue believing their word is true. By the way, from the same Wikipedia article about the Didache ...

"Many English and American scholars once dated the text to the late 2nd century CE, a view still held today, but most scholars now assign the Didache to the first century."

I don't think Wikipedia is the best source to get our information. Words like "many" and "most" in a Wikipedia article are meaningless to me. Neither I, nor whoever wrote the article, took a consensus to see how many scholars believe what. This is why I said we are arguing over things neither of us can prove. I actually have several sources that say it may have been written in the 3rd century, but we know it wasn't written in the 4th because Eusebius writes about it. The actual scholars don't just say "This is true because I'm a scholar"; they also give us the various reasonings behind their assumptions. Debating over scholarship will prove nothing, because they can't even settle it.

This is why I addressed the grammar as well. Whether Yeshua said this or not does not give me any reason to believe that he exists as the second person of a triune god. It just simply means we are to baptise with the authority of the father, and of the son, and of the holy spirit. This has nothing to do with them all sharing the name "God" or that they are three persons.

So I have no issue if Yeshua did say this, I just don't believe he did because the disciples ignore him. That's also why I quoted Eusebius, because it seemed he did not have a manuscript that said this even in the 4th century. I was wrong. This has been argued for a very long time. Here is a scan of the Catholic Encyclopedia concerning baptism, and on page 263 it gives the reasons for my assertion...

http://www.fatimamovement.com/i-Doc-Catholic-Encyclopedia-Baptism.php

(I do not recommend this site whatsoever. It just happens to have what I was looking for on it)

Do you have any reason why my interpretation of the grammar of this verse is incorrect, and why I should see a triune god here? If not, is there another verse that explains this triune god any better?

If you don't mind, I would also like an explanation of a few verses as well. I'll start with this one...

"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17:1

If the Father is the "only" true God, how is it possible that the son is "also" the only true God? Here is an article that tries to explain it...

http://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/john-173-only-true-god

First, they try to associate questioning this verse with something that the "cult of the Jehovah's Witnesses" do. Their first reason is...

"First of all, it is not proper to make a theological doctrine out of one verse (I see this a lot with Matthew 28:19). Of this the Jehovah's Witnesses are sometimes guilty"

They then quote several other verses that are supposed to prove Yeshua is God, without dealing with the verse at hand. If you see a verse on there or if you think they make a good argument about anything, please quote it and we can discuss it. Or maybe you have a different explanation.

Thank you.

 

[St_Worm2]

When I became a teenager, I joined my friends at a Baptist church that I still attend sometimes.

That's good

Everyone in my community went to church and said the bible was true, so I decided that I would see for myself. I asked God "If this is truth, please show me", and I started reading from Genesis to Revelation. I was amazed, but the words didn't seem like anything I'd ever heard in church, so I was also very confused.

Right, this is why I asked you the question I did in my last reply to you. The Bible teaches us a truth in 1 Corinthians 2:14 that I can guarantee you is correct, both from my own personal experience, and from a number of others who I've spoken with over the years that report experiencing the exact same thing I did when they first became Christians. You have to become a Christian first, and then and only then will you be able to both understand and accept what the Bible is actually teaching (because you cannot appraise the Bible correctly and accept what it says unless you are first indwelt by the HS and possess the mind of Christ). You continue:

The Jews had scholars and the Scriptures dictated every part of their lives. They still didn't have a clue what they were about, otherwise the prophets and Yeshua would have just said "Great job everyone!"

Actually, that's not completely accurate. What the Jews in Jesus' day had come to live by in most instances was their "traditions". If they'd simply tried to obey the Law as it was written they would have no doubt done better (their traditions "nullifying" rather than upholding the word of God, as Jesus made clear to them).

The Law of God was never meant to be a direct means of salvation because (as the Jews quickly figured out) no one can keep it (which is a requirement if one wishes to be saved by it .. James 2:10-11). Rather, its purpose was to 1) show us how sinful we really are and 2) drive us to the feet of Christ as a result and as our only hope of salvation .. Galatians 3:24-25.

Yeshua was born of God before He created the universe, and that Yeshua was God's creative power "through" which all things came into existence. When I believed this, I saw Yeshua all over the Hebrew Scriptures as "the Word of God" and the "Angel of the LORD". He was still a divine being, but lesser than the only true God. However, I still had issues that could not be reconciled and unscriptural terms that I couldn't help but wonder about. So I kept asking questions and studying.

Wait, I thought you believed that Jesus was born of two human parents about 2,000 years ago? Did I misunderstand you?

In any case, I follow St. John in his understanding of who the pre-incarnate Jesus was (John 12:41). God the Father is "Spirit" only. It was Jesus that Isaiah saw, talked to and worshiped in the Temple (see Isaiah 6), and it was Jesus that wrote the 10 Commandments (twice) on top of Mount Sinai (just to give you two examples). No one has seen God (the Father) at any time ... 1 John 4:12. He is "Spirit".

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17:1

If the Father is the "only" true God, how is it possible that the son is "also" the only true God?

Because there is one God Who exists as three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That's what the Bible tells us anyway.

The doctrine of the Trinity was created as a means of circumscribing and safeguarding this very important Biblical truth, not explain it (because that is beyond us*). And even though we can't wrap our "finite" minds completely around this mystery about our "infinite" God in a way that makes it comprehensible to us, it is true nevertheless

Remember too that the Trinity isn't the only mystery that we're confronted with about our eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, impassible, immutable, self-existent, self-sufficient, loving, just and holy, Abba Father!!

There are "secret things" where God is concerned (either because we don't need to know them, or because we can't understand them, or because He doesn't want us to know them at this point), but all that we 'need' to know has been revealed to us by Him (i.e. Deuteronomy 29:29).

Yours and His,
David



*Packer, JI, Concise Theology

 

[anonymouswho]

Right, this is why I asked you the question I did in my last reply to you. The Bible teaches us a truth in 1 Corinthians 2:14 that I can guarantee you is correct, both from my own personal experience, and from a number of others who I've spoken with over the years that report experiencing the exact same thing I did when they first became Christians. You have to become a Christian first, and then and only then will you be able to both understand and accept what the Bible is actually teaching (because you cannot appraise the Bible correctly and accept what it says unless you are first indwelt by the HS and possess the mind of Christ). You continue:

Our interpretation of this verse is very different. Just a reminder, this is a thread about "Paul's limited understanding". However, I do agree with some of what Paul says, such as predestination and...

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 1 Timothy 2:3

When I read 1 Corinthians 2:14, I see nothing about a guy named "the Holy Spirit" entering inside me (possession?). I'll provide the whole passage and interpolate...

"But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit (the spirit of God, not a person): for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
For what man knoweth the things (thoughts) of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? (The spirit of man is not a separate person from the man). even so the things (thoughts) of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God (which means he who has the spirit of God knows the deep things of God).
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world (the spirit of the world is not a separate person from the world) but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. (Again, because we have the spirit of God, we are able to understand)
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, (because man's wisdom is contradictory and incomprehensible) but which the Holy Ghost (not a person) teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual (I will elaborate on this in a bit)
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (is anything I've said 'foolishness' to you?)
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ (We have the 'mind' of Messiah. Our spirit/mind is of one will and purpose as Messiah)."

Paul talks about the "carnal mind" vs the "spiritual mind". He then tells us to "compare spiritual things with spiritual". I believe a good example of the carnal mind is the idea of the euachrist. Because the catholic church does not understand what Yeshua meant when he said "you must eat my flesh", they interpret the bread that Yeshua broke and said "This is my flesh" to magically transform into the literal flesh of Messiah. They compare spiritual things with carnal.

The whole church does this with a lot of Yeshua's teachings. When he talks of the wheat and tares, the church compares this parable with the carnal idea that these plants are humans, and God is going to literally cast their bodies into fire. That is comparing spiritual with carnal.

Paul is not saying we will be able to understand contradictions and incomprehensible assertions based on nonscriptural terms. He is saying that we can finally know the mysteries that God has kept since the beginning. Mysteries are secrets, or things hidden. They are not "illogical truths".

Actually, that's not completely accurate. What the Jews in Jesus' day had come to live by in most instances was their "traditions". If they'd simply tried to obey the Law as it was written they would have no doubt done better (their traditions "nullifying" rather than upholding the word of God, as Jesus made clear to them).

The Law of God was never meant to be a direct means of salvation because (as the Jews quickly figured out) no one can keep it (which is a requirement if one wishes to be saved by it .. James 2:10-11). Rather, its purpose was to 1) show us how sinful we really are and 2) drive us to the feet of Christ as a result and as our only hope of salvation .. Galatians 3:24-25.

Right...traditions. The Jews took the word of God, added things that God, Moses, and the prophets never said, taught these things in the synagogues, and accepted them as truth.

"Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:7

The church has made it a "commandment" that in order to 'be a Christian and go to heaven', one must believe in the trinity. To believe otherwise is considered heresy, and the heretic has either been imprisoned, murdered, or shunned. However, neither the Scriptures nor any of the gospels or epistles mention anything about a triune God. This was decided at the Council of Nicea by men.

Wait, I thought you believed that Jesus was born of two human parents about 2,000 years ago? Did I misunderstand you?

In any case, I follow St. John in his understanding of who the pre-incarnate Jesus was (John 12:41). God the Father is "Spirit" only. It was Jesus that Isaiah saw, talked to and worshiped in the Temple (see Isaiah 6), and it was Jesus that wrote the 10 Commandments (twice) on top of Mount Sinai (just to give you two examples). No one has seen God (the Father) at any time ... 1 John 4:12. He is "Spirit".

Yes I think there is a misunderstanding. I was saying that I used to believe in Arianism- after I denied the trinity. I thought this was the most Scriptural position, and it was at least comprehensible. But with Arianism, I still believed in an incarnation, and that Yeshua preexisted as some divine being called The Logos. And just as with the trinity, I still failed to have a reasonable and understandable purpose. That is why I said there were still unscriptural terms and things I could not reconcile. My point was that I've had to admit I'm wrong a lot throughout the years.

Now I have no issues with any verse, except when Paul says Yeshua came in the "likeness of man" (which is one reason why I'm questioning Paul). And I also have a reasonable and understandable purpose...God is making mankind in his image. This is not a reasonable purpose "just because the bible says so". It's reasonable because it actually explains why mankind was prepared.

"These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him." John 12:41

This verse does not say Isaiah "saw Yeshua" and spoke "to" him. It says Isaiah saw "his glory", and spoke "of" him. There is not a single verse that says Yeshua wrote the 10 commandments.

You are correct, no one has ever seen God. Moses did not see God, Jacob did not see God, nobody has seen God. They only saw His glory. Any verse that says a man has seen God's face and lived cannot be taken literally, because...

"And he said, You can not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." Exodus 33:20

Nor did any of these men see Yeshua. How is it that they saw Yeshua, when he was not yet "incarnated" into a body? If Yeshua is God (and existed as a spiritual being before he "became a human") then when these men saw him, they must have seen a manifestation of Yeshua disguised as a body. If this is true of Yeshua, then the same can be said of the Father- without any contradictions.

Because there is one God Who exists as three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That's what the Bible tells us anyway.

Where does the bible tell us this?

The doctrine of the Trinity was created as a means of circumscribing and safeguarding this very important Biblical truth, not explain it (because that is beyond us*). And even though we can't wrap our "finite" minds completely around this mystery about our "infinite" God in a way that makes it comprehensible to us, it is true nevertheless

Remember too that the Trinity isn't the only mystery that we're confronted with about our eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, impassible, immutable, self-existent, self-sufficient, loving, just and holy, Abba Father!!

There are "secret things" where God is concerned (either because we don't need to know them, or because we can't understand them, or because He doesn't want us to know them at this point), but all that we 'need' to know has been revealed to us by Him (i.e. Deuteronomy 29:29).

Yours and His,
David

Infinite God? Never read this in the Scriptures either. I actually have a thread called Plato's Timaeus where we can discuss this eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, impassible, immutable, self-existent, self-sufficient, loving, just and holy god, if you'd like. I'll bump it to the top so you can find it easily.

I asked why Yeshua called the Father the "only" true God, if Yeshua is "also" God. It cannot be said that Yeshua was "speaking in his human nature", because he still excludes anything else besides the Father from being God. Rather than answer the question, it is said that our finite minds cannot understand why Yeshua said something that contradicts the trinity.

Second question...

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man" James 1:13

"Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil." Matthew 4:1

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Hebrews 4:15

If God cannot be tempted with sin, how was God tempted in all points like us?

Thank you.