the trinity concept?

[DrBubbaLove]

Yep. So men don't dictate truth, or where it resides. We seek spiritual guidance, and much of that comes from physical information, but not all of it.

Well, apparently some of us do not care where that information resides or orginates.

Again, if one wants to find a support for any position under the sun, am sure someone somewhere at sometime has written about it. I do not mind reading it, but the idea God made the effort to deliver a message in Person and then let the message get muddled seems somewhat unGod like to me.

 

[visionary]

Well, apparently some of us do not care where that information resides or orginates.

Again, if one wants to find a support for any position under the sun, am sure someone somewhere at sometime has written about it. I do not mind reading it, but the idea God made the effort to deliver a message in Person and then let the message get muddled seems somewhat unGod like to me.

God is there to inspire others on which path is His.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

When God walked the earth here He did not appear to be acting like He meant to leave each of us to ourselves. He left an organziation or at least the beginnings of it. He sent a Comforter to guide the shepards of men and He acted to have those men go out and teach what He taught them, and set up a unified organization to preserve those teachings EVERYWHERE. How we should go from there to each of us should just find our own way (with His Guidance) am unclear.

 

[donfish06]

When God walked the earth here He did not appear to be acting like He meant to leave each of us to ourselves. He left an organziation or at least the beginnings of it. He sent a Comforter to guide the shepards of men and He acted to have those men go out and teach what He taught them, and set up a unified organization to preserve those teachings EVERYWHERE. How we should go from there to each of should just find our own way (with His Guidance) am unclear.

God has NEVER organized. People organize. God is always moving, leading people to the promiseland. People are the ones who set up camp and organize and God moves on. That is why the organized churches are so dead.

Where is the Spirit of God in the church today like it was in the book of Acts?

God is still moving, it is us who have set up camp, organized, and are missing what he is doing now... what he intended for us to be. That is why it is taking so long for his return. He is waiting for a spotless bride. If we "organize" we are staying behind while he is MOVING ON, sanctifying and transforming the bride into his image.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

God has NEVER organized. People organize. God is always moving, leading people to the promiseland. People are the ones who set up camp and organize and God moves on. That is why the organized churches are so dead.

Where is the Spirit of God in the church today like it was in the book of Acts?

God is still moving, it is us who have set up camp, organized, and are missing what he is doing now... what he intended for us to be. That is why it is taking so long for his return. He is waiting for a spotless bride. If we "organize" we are staying behind while he is MOVING ON, sanctifying and transforming the bride into his image.

I would find it difficult looking at creation and the order of it and then proclaim God has never organized. If anything I would say He is the God of Order. And Jesus certainly did pick a select group of men, taught them things not recorded anywhere over a three year period and then told them to go out and faithfully teach same. Sounds pretty ordered and organized to me. Are we to suggest that was disorder?

I would agree that the fruit of the idea that we should all simply open books and read it then reach our own conclusions independently would certainly lead to disorder and unorganization.

 

[donfish06]

And Jesus certainly did pick a select group of men, taught them things not recorded anywhere over a three year period and then told them to go out and faithfully teach same. .

Everything that Jesus taught the disciples was in the Old Testament as a type. He did not teach them anything new, he just opened their eyes to the understanding of it all

 

[donfish06]

James Hastings: “It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice to the Words of Christ in Matthew 28:19, but the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as textural grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, which so far as our information goes, baptized ‘in’ or ‘into’ the Name of Jesus, or Jesus Christ, or the Lord Jesus, without any reference to the Father or the Spirit” (Dictionary of the Bible, p. 88).

Scribners: “The original form of words were into the Name of Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. Baptism into Trinity was a later development” (Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I, p. 241).

Canney Encyclopaedia: “The early church always baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity; afterward they were baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” (p. 53).

American Encyclopaedia, International Edition: “The term Trinity was used by Theophilus of Antioch in AD 180? (Vol. 27, p. 116).

Encyclopaedia Britannica: “The triune and Trinity formula was not uniformly used from the beginning, and up until the third century, baptism in the Name of Christ only was so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to St. Cyprian, said that baptism in the Name of Christ was valid. But Catholic missionaries, by omitting one or more persons of the Trinity when they were baptized, were anathematized by the Roman church. Now the formula of Rome is, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Ghost” (11th Ed., Vol. 3, p. 365-366).

Encyclopedia of Religions: “Persons were baptized at first in the Name of Jesus Christ, or ‘in the Name of the Lord Jesus.’ Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (p. 53).

New International Encyclopaedia: “The Trinity doctrine. The Catholic faith is this: ‘We worship one in Trinity, but there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. The glory equal—the majesty co-eternal.’ The doctrine is not found in its fully developed form in the Scriptures. Modern theology does not seek to find it in the Old Testament. At the time of the Reformation, the Protestant Church took over the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination” (Vol. 22, p. 476).

Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion: “Christian baptism was administered by using the words ‘in the Name of Jesus.’ The use of a Trinity formula of any sort was not suggested in the early Church history. Baptism was always in the Name of the Lord Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr when the Triune formula was used” (Vol. 2, p. 377-378, 389. )

“NAME was an ancient synonym for “Person.” Payment was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus’ Name became His personal property. “Ye are Christ’s.” (Acts 1:15; Revelation 3:4; I Corinthians 3:23).

LIFE Magazine: “The Catholics made this statement concerning their doctrine of the Trinity to defend the dogma of the assumption of Mary in an article by Graham Green: ‘Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in the Scripture but the Protestant churches have themselves accepted such dogma as the Trinity for which there exists no such authority in the Gospels’” (October 30, 1950, Vol. 29, Number 18, p. 51).

Catholic Encyclopaedia: “The true doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is not taught by the Roman church. Baptism given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost with the intention of performing what the church performs, is not true baptism” (Vol. 2, p. 259).

New Catholic Encyclopedia: “With regard to the form used for Baptism in the early church, there is the difficulty that although Matthew (28:19) speaks of the Trinitarian formula, which is now used, the Acts of the Apostles (2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) and Paul (I Corinthians 1:13; 6:11; Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3) speak only of Baptism ‘in the Name of Jesus.’ Baptism in titles cannot be found in the first centuries. . .” (McGraw Hill Publishing, p. 59).

William Phillips Hall: “In this very ancient version (Syriac Peschito Version) which is believed by good authorities (Gwilliam, Boners, and others) to represent a text much older that of the Greek manuscript from which our English Old Testament was largely derived, ‘The Name of the Lord Jesus Messiah or Christ’ appears in all four readings given (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5)” (A Remarkable Discovery, p. 70).

International Encyclopaedia: “The doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the Apostles’ preachings, as this is reported in the New Testament” (First Edition, Vol. 18, p. 226).

New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: “The term ‘Trinity’ was originated by . . . Tertulian, a Roman Catholic church father. No record of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts of the Apostles. . . At the time of the Reformation, the Protestant Church took over the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination” (Vol. 1, p. 396).

“Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon.” “Trinity,” in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 782.

“The adoption of a non-biblical phrase at Nicea constituted a landmark in the growth of dogma; the Trinity is true, since the Church — the universal Church speaking by its Bishops — says so, though the Bible does not! We have a formula, but what does that formula contain? No child of the Church dare seek to answer.” “Dogma, Dogmatic Theology,” in Encyclopedia



... but my belief in baptism in Jesus' name is unorthodox?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Everything that Jesus taught the disciples was in the Old Testament as a type. He did not teach them anything new, he just opened their eyes to the understanding of it all

I would find that difficult to justify in light of John 21:25 or other verses like in Paul's writing to Timothy 2 Tim 2:2.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Didache was a popular 1st century writing among Christians and quoted by many of the Early Fathers.
"

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, (Matthew 28:19)"

CHURCH FATHERS: The Didache

 

[donfish06]

I would find that difficult to justify in light of John 21:25 or other verses like in Paul's writing to Timothy 2 Tim 2:2.

It says that Jesus DID many things, not that he taught many things. I always interpreted this as he did so many more miracles and such. If Jesus was the Word then he couldn't add anything to the Word that they already had. God's Word never changes, he just sheds more light on it. Jesus was a revelation of what the Word truly was... Grace

 

[Phantasman]

Well, apparently some of us do not care where that information resides or orginates.

Again, if one wants to find a support for any position under the sun, am sure someone somewhere at sometime has written about it. I do not mind reading it, but the idea God made the effort to deliver a message in Person and then let the message get muddled seems somewhat unGod like to me.

I guess it's each persons perception of God and faith in how he communes with man.

Did he give a message and then say figure it out? Or does he still lead us today? "Lo, I am with you alway" tells me he speaks today as well. While some can believe the non Canon books are here to challenge the church, some can say it is God saying "you cannot destroy my truth".

If God was so in control of truth through the Bible, why would the Nag Hammadi find even happen? To give us something, or to destroy what was going so well from God?

They point to Christ. They just don't point to the church.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I guess it's each persons perception of God and faith in how he communes with man.

Did he give a message and then say figure it out? Or does he still lead us today? "Lo, I am with you alway" tells me he speaks today as well. While some can believe the non Canon books are here to challenge the church, some can say it is God saying "you cannot destroy my truth".

If God was so in control of truth through the Bible, why would the Nag Hammadi find even happen? To give us something, or to destroy what was going so well from God?

They point to Christ. They just don't point to the church.

Since some of this is opposed to where the Bible points, only one direction can be true. So it really does come down to whether one believes one tradition or another. As one seems very uniquely unified thru much of it's history and the other (from non-canical sources) seems uniquely divided am unclear how one can claim the gnostic view is "more" orthodox or even counter orthodox. If one could show a unified theme protected by the Holy Spirit thru the ages in what the orthodox view today as gnostic teaching, then perhaps there would be a point here. But seems to me the only thing the gnostics appear united on was opposition to Church teachings (and then not even the same teachings).

 

[Phantasman]

Since some of this is opposed to where the Bible points, only one direction can be true. So it really does come down to whether one believes one tradition or another. As one seems very uniquely unified thru much of it's history and the other (from non-canical sources) seems uniquely divided am unclear how one can claim the gnostic view is "more" orthodox or even counter orthodox. If one could show a unified theme protected by the Holy Spirit thru the ages in what the orthodox view today as gnostic teaching, then perhaps there would be a point here. But seems to me the only thing the gnostics appear united on was opposition to Church teachings (and then not even the same teachings).

It goes back to scriptures, written as a result of oral tradition. Which tradition was that of the apostles? Or of Christ?

Our country is doing the very same thing presented to the Bishops in 325AD. We are divided. Some want a national healthcare system. Some don't. The power of control (government) has made one for us. Now the intent is probably a good one. But there is much opposition. In the end, good or not, the power rules. If the health system changes the country as we know it, and starts a trend towards government control, this could continue for ages. Our children would be taught in this way and as they grew up, they may never had known the free society that once existed. If the government wanted complete control, they would destroy every Constitution available, and rewrite their own, for the betterment of the people, of course.

If, eons later, a Constitution just happened to be unearthed, there would be those who would see the truth of what the government had done. Many may be comfortable with the socialized state, and want no part of it. The point is, it was changed by men and not the original idea of the founders.

It is man's nature to control. Whether that be land, money, happiness, people or God, it's there. They know best, you don't. When one get's a title, it's a label of control. Pastor, priest, boss, president, whatever. And if they say there is something, it is.

I am in this world, but not part of it. I pray every day to be allowed to exist to serve God, to show me how and where, and it works for me. I continually care for sick, help those less than myself and thank God for the day to do so.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

To a point. My faith is that when Jesus said He would be with them "always" and the Comforter would guide them that He was good to His Word. For me to believe otherwise requires me to reject that and say either He did not mean what He is quoted as saying, He did not really say that or He said it and it did not come true. None of those appeal to me.

 

[donfish06]

But seems to me the only thing the gnostics appear united on was opposition to Church teachings (and then not even the same teachings).

That's the problem right there. Some follow church teachings which are contrary to the word. I don't want to turn this into anti-"the church" thread, but you keep talking about orthodox as if the worship of Mary, praying to DEAD saints, INFANT baptism, BUYING people out of purgatory, PAYING to have your sins removed, and making some MAN (pope) the vicar of Christ (Vicarius Filii Dei) when the Bible clearly states the there is ONE mediator and that is Christ Jesus! Show me where all these "orthodox" traits are in the scriptures.

You can follow a "church" that did not allow people to read the scriptures themselves for hundreds of years, and killed over 70 million Christians over the years. Riddle me this. With Christ being on the mercy seat, would HE KILL anyone? But the "church" has. That shows me Christ is not in it one bit.

I will follow the WORD, Jesus Christ. He came to show us to LOVE, not KILL

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Donfish,
Am not sure what your feelings about the Church have to do with this thread.

 

[donfish06]

Donfish,
Am not sure what your feelings about the Church have to do with this thread.

You keep talking about "orthodox" claiming that I am unorthodox, and that you are orthodox. I would like you to show me the history of praying to dead saints, mary worship, infant baptism, paying for forgiveness of sins, paying people out of purgatory, vicar of Christ, etc in the Bible, then we can talk about orthodox. Until then there is no need to dismiss my (scriptual) beliefs as unorthodox

 

[Der Alte]

That's the problem right there. Some follow church teachings which are contrary to the word.

Then you should be talking to those who do those things.

I don't want to turn this into anti-"the church" thread, but you keep talking about orthodox as if the worship of Mary, praying to DEAD saints, INFANT baptism, BUYING people out of purgatory, PAYING to have your sins removed, and making some MAN (pope) the vicar of Christ (Vicarius Filii Dei) when the Bible clearly states the there is ONE mediator and that is Christ Jesus! Show me where all these "orthodox" traits are in the scriptures.

You should be talking to those who do/believe these things not broad brushing Christians who do not believe this.

You can follow a "church" that did not allow people to read the scriptures themselves for hundreds of years, and killed over 70 million Christians over the years. Riddle me this.

While this was going on there were many Christians who did not believe this.

With Christ being on the mercy seat, would HE KILL anyone? But the "church" has. That shows me Christ is not in it one bit.

I will follow the WORD, Jesus Christ. He came to show us to LOVE, not KILL

Do you think you are the only person here who follows the WORD, Jesus Christ?

 

[donfish06]

You should be talking to those who do/believe these things not broad brushing Christians who do not believe this.

I was talking to someone who is a believer in the church who invented these things, not everyone on here

Do you think you are the only person here who follows the WORD, Jesus Christ?

I think that is a ridiculous question. Of course not. I know many who follow the Word. But I also know MANY more who follow a creed, a church, a dogma, or even a preacher or prophet and not Jesus.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You keep talking about "orthodox" claiming that I am unorthodox, and that you are orthodox. I would like you to show me the history of praying to dead saints, mary worship, infant baptism, paying for forgiveness of sins, paying people out of purgatory, vicar of Christ, etc in the Bible, then we can talk about orthodox. Until then there is no need to dismiss my (scriptual) beliefs as unorthodox

Saying "orthodox" belief is only acknowledging what is understood to be true about that SET of beliefs AS OPPOSED to beliefs outside that set. Would have to check, but not sure I "claimed" a person was "unorthodox".

I do not know you, but obviously if one holds beliefs opposed to orthodox ones, then such beliefs are "unorthodox". Am unclear why it should bother someone in an internet forum like this to have their beliefs labeled "unorthodox" when that is clearly true.

In repetitively mention "orthodox" beliefs am simply pointing out that a particular view is opposed to those, not meaning to be dismissive. Actually trying to ask/understand how one dismisses orthodox beliefs to adopt something else which the unorthodox belief either makes no sense to me (ex: God unable to speak/without His Word) or negates other normative Christian beliefs (which is actuallly the whole point of having a UT section according to the rules for posting in this part of Christian forums).