the trinity concept?

[Phantasman]

I'm going to try and stay on line with the OP yet offer an explanation from my POV.

My "unorthodox" beliefs stem from understanding through added scripture to Biblical sources. But I don't see as much as orthodox as wrong as they see me being wrong.

If I do not see the act of communion as a thing to do, a ritual, then I am wrong. But if I see people doing it, I don't say they are wrong, just that I don't see the need for it. Now if we both eat the flesh (which I believe is the word of God, wisdom) and we both drink the blood (which I believe is the Holy Spirit) then as far as I am concerned, we are children of God doing what the "Gospels" proclaim. It becomes doctrine that divides us. But doctrine divides even the orthodox. A Catholic Priest drinks the wine, others drink shot glasses. We argue over small things, but the key things are essential.

Whether "3 is 1" or "3 is 3" is never going to be proven. We argue over silly things. But if we agree in God the Father, the Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, they should be creating more of a oneness in us, than a division. We each, in our hearts, want the will of God for each of us. But we shouldn't be pushing "our will" to make that happen. Or use the Bible as we see it, to reject others views. It is through love, patience and understanding that the Father saves us. And we should be more like him.

It is why I find a certain sanctuary in some non Canon writings. Whether one believes it or not, this says something to think on:

But truth brought names into existence in the world for our sakes, because it is not possible to learn it (truth) without these names. Truth is one single thing; it is many things and for our sakes to teach about this one thing in love through many things.-Philip

 

[donfish06]

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).

I apologize. I always thought that orthodox meant what was taught from the beginning. Seeing now that it is just what the majority accepts, yes, I am VERY unorthodox.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Donfish06
No need to apologize.

And not necessarily the majority. Here in CF they define what is meant by orthodox so it is rather simple. Outside here it can get fuzzy.

As to majority there are occassions when single people, a loan Bishop fought for (and eventually prevailed) what is considered by most to be an orthodox belief today. So it is not a simple matter of majority rule and one would not think so as the belief is (for us at least) that the Spirit led these efforts.

 

[donfish06]

I'm going to try and stay on line with the OP yet offer an explanation from my POV.

My "unorthodox" beliefs stem from understanding through added scripture to Biblical sources. But I don't see as much as orthodox as wrong as they see me being wrong.

If I do not see the act of communion as a thing to do, a ritual, then I am wrong. But if I see people doing it, I don't say they are wrong, just that I don't see the need for it. Now if we both eat the flesh (which I believe is the word of God, wisdom) and we both drink the blood (which I believe is the Holy Spirit) then as far as I am concerned, we are children of God doing what the "Gospels" proclaim. It becomes doctrine that divides us. But doctrine divides even the orthodox. A Catholic Priest drinks the wine, others drink shot glasses. We argue over small things, but the key things are essential.

1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

Then later in the chapter he gives an ordinance:

1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
1Co 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
1Co 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.


Jesus told the disciples "as often as you do it, do it in remembrance of me. This surely implies that they are to do it more than just that one time. Then Paul said "DON'T do this unworthily" he didn't say don't do it, but the purpose of doing it is to examine yourself and get right with God (for if we judge ourseleves...)

Joh 13:17 If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them. (Footwashing and communion)

 

[Phantasman]

1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

Then later in the chapter he gives an ordinance:

1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
1Co 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
1Co 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.


Jesus told the disciples "as often as you do it, do it in remembrance of me. This surely implies that they are to do it more than just that one time. Then Paul said "DON'T do this unworthily" he didn't say don't do it, but the purpose of doing it is to examine yourself and get right with God (for if we judge ourseleves...)

Joh 13:17 If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them. (Footwashing and communion)

Jesus didn't say it. Paul said Jesus said it. It never appears in Matthew, Mark, John, Thomas, whatever. Saul was a ritualistic man before becoming Paul. Luke never heard those words since he didn't walk with Christ.

It's a physical act for others to witness, IMO. People don't get feed by physical bread, but spiritual bread. The important part is "let a man examine himself"

 

[donfish06]

Jesus didn't say it. Paul said Jesus said it. It never appears in Matthew, Mark, John, Thomas, whatever. Saul was a ritualistic man before becoming Paul. Luke never heard those words since he didn't walk with Christ.

It's a physical act for others to witness, IMO. People don't get feed by physical bread, but spiritual bread. The important part is "let a man examine himself"

Do you then choose what of Paul's teachings you want to listen to? If it's in the Word then it is the TRUTH. I do not believe you can pick and chose. If you disagree with Paul here, then you can't take anything else he says

 

[Phantasman]

Do you then choose what of Paul's teachings you want to listen to? If it's in the Word then it is the TRUTH. I do not believe you can pick and chose. If you disagree with Paul here, then you can't take anything else he says

Capital W? That's a lie. Christ is the Word. He brought the "word". Both mean "wisdom of God" to me.

I see why people are getting confused.

 

[donfish06]

Capital W? That's a lie. Christ is the Word. He brought the "word". Both mean "wisdom of God" to me.

I see why people are getting confused.

Christ is the living Word. He IS the scriptures made manifest

 

[Phantasman]

Christ is the living Word. He IS the scriptures made manifest

If he chose the scriptures, I would agree. He IS within the "Spirit" of Truth, and we need trust faith in what is NOT seen over what IS seen. He says this over and over.

Men don't anoint. Only the Spirit has that ability.

 

[donfish06]

If he chose the scriptures, I would agree. He IS within the "Spirit" of Truth, and we need trust faith in what is NOT seen over what IS seen. He says this over and over.

Men don't anoint. Only the Spirit has that ability.

You don't believe that the authors of the Bible were inspired by God to write them?