The Trinity

[Diane_Windsor]

Then you have no basis for faith.

The basis for my faith is the Grace of God. Read the historical writings of Paul.

And don't bother saying that you have the Scriptures, for the same Church gave you the Scriptures that gave the creeds that you reject.

I might take your argument more seriously if you did not base it on an unprooven assumption.

DIANE

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Hi Polycarp

Actually they are, Diane, not because a Catholic or Orthodox poster or I said so, but on the assumption that they're the Truth and that that Truth is necessary for salvation.

Bold emphasis mine.

I disagree. The only thing that is neccessary for salvation is the Grace of God-see Paul's writings for that. Did the theif on the cross profess belief in a Trinity, or did he profess that Jesus had two natures? One nature? Did he profess that he was "fully God"? No, he, by God's grace, simply placed his trust in Jesus.

You have an interesting comment that I bolded above. Let's say that your assumption is wrong. Let's say that mainline Christianity is wrong about these things. Will God bar you from Heaven because you believe in the Trinity, etc. even though you follow Jesus and place your trust in Jesus? I think not-that is not the God I serve.

Furthermore, my pre-Colmbus Cherokee ancestors never heard of Jesus, let alone know about concepts like the Trinity. Yet, there is no doubt in my mind that some of them are in Heaven because of the grace of God.

However, you make a good point; in General Theology it's never wise to assume anything about what someone else believes, because the most goshawful concepts have been seriously advanced as "true Christianity" here.

May I recommend to all who might be interested the remarkable book called Cur Deus Homo (How Is God Man?) by St. Anselm of Canterbury, which explores the questions of the Incarnation and the Atonement in the form of a dialogue between Anselm himself and an interlocutor named Boso (a legitimate medieval name, not to be confused with the clown). The link connects to a fairly easy reading and slightly abridged version that focuses on the issues at hand.

Interesting.

Thanks for the respectful respone bro

Diane

 

[Scholar in training]

And? That does not mean that the creeds, in and of themselves, are binding on Christ's Church. God is not going to bar someone from Heaven because they disagree with the opinions of men.

The creeds are binding on the Church. They do not express the opinion of mere men -- they reveal the truth about God as explained in Scripture, handed down by the Apostles who were the disciples of Jesus Christ himself.

To say that the creeds are binding on the Church is not to say that all people who "disagree" with orthodoxy will be prevented from entering heaven. Some people who deny the Church do so because they are ignorant about the Church's actual teaching, or have genuinely misunderstood some dogma; others who are intelligent and knowledgable about Tradition willfully deny the Church and her dogma. Arius is a one well-known example of the latter; and he was quite clearly pronounced as anathema.

As for Jesus being both fully God and fully Man, this is possible because of the hypostatic union between his two natures. Jesus is one person, and yet has two natures. Jesus Christ was just like the Father in respect to his Godhood, and just like us in respect to his Manhood. To say that Jesus' two natures were intermingled or mixed (i.e., one nature absorbing the other), and did not remain the same, unchanged, is a heresy that denies the hypostatic union. It is also a heresy to say that Jesus had only one nature, whether it be only God or only Man. These heterodox beliefs (and other heterodox beliefs) create problems in relation to the Scriptures, an individual's practice of the fatih, and simple logic.

 

[Scholar in training]

I disagree. The only thing that is neccessary for salvation is the Grace of God-see Paul's writings for that. Did the theif on the cross profess belief in a Trinity, or did he profess that Jesus had two natures? One nature? Did he profess that he was "fully God"? No, he, by God's grace, simply placed his trust in Jesus.

This is a fallacy; you are generalizing from a particular case. It is the same thing as saying that baptism is not salvific because the thief was saved and he did not receive baptism. No, Scripture must be interpreted in light of Scripture, and Paul was vocal about Christians who too easily accepted another gospel and another Christ.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

The creeds are binding on the Church. They do not express the opinion of mere men -- they reveal the truth about God as explained in Scripture, handed down by the Apostles who were the disciples of Jesus Christ himself.

We will have to agree to disagree brother because you will not change my mind.

It is also a heresy to say that Jesus had only one nature, whether it be only God or only Man.

Really? You might want to go ask our Oriental Orthodox brethren about that.

See Your position on Christ and His nature

These heterodox beliefs (and other heterodox beliefs) create problems in relation to the Scriptures, an individual's practice of the fatih, and simple logic.

In your opinion. In the opinion of the Oneness Pentacostals, Michael Servetus, and others several "orthodox" beliefs are illogical and create problems in relation to the Scriptures.

This is a fallacy; you are generalizing from a particular case. It is the same thing as saying that baptism is not salvific because the thief was saved and he did not receive baptism. No, Scripture must be interpreted in light of Scripture, and Paul was vocal about Christians who too easily accepted another gospel and another Christ.

How about the jailor? He asked what must he do to be saved. The Apostles reponded that he needed to believe in Jesus. There are many other Scripture references about salvation and not one of them says that one must believe in the Trinity, etc. And above all, Paul told the Ephesians that Grace alone saves us.

DIANE

 

[Scholar in training]

We will have to agree to disagree brother because you will not change my mind.

Shouldn't someone who is freethinking endeavor to have an open mind?

Really? You might want to go ask our Oriental Orthodox brethren about that.

See Your position on Christ and His nature

What about them? IIRC, I have already heard the allegation that the Oriental Orthodox are monophysites. I don't know if they are or not, and it does not affect me personally at all. If you are trying to appeal to my belief system, then you have mistaken which "Orthodoxy" I am an inquierer of.

In your opinion. In the opinion of the Oneness Pentacostals, Michael Servetus, and others several "orthodox" beliefs are illogical and create problems in relation to the Scriptures.

The differences between their opinion and my own are numerous. They cannot appeal to Church history or to credentialed scholars in support of their heterodoxy. They can try, but they will not get much farther than that.

As the fellow in my signature is quoted as saying, "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts".

How about the jailor? He asked what must he do to be saved. The Apostles reponded that he needed to believe in Jesus. There are many other Scripture references about salvation and not one of them says that one must believe in the Trinity, etc.

The NT was written in a high-context society. Should we expect the Apostle to recount everything one must do to be saved every time he is asked?

You are now using an argument from silence. Using the same argument, I can claim that because in this particular event Paul didn't say you had to follow the commandments, then we are free to do whatever we want as Christians. But that is the position of an antinomian.

And above all, Paul told the Ephesians that Grace alone saves us.

Yes, this is true. We are saved by grace. Through faith and works. The wording is very important.

 

[Lynn73]

I might take your argument more seriously if you did not base it on an unprooven assumption.

DIANE

A lot of that going around.

 

[Lynn73]

Yes, this is true. We are saved by grace. Through faith and works. The wording is very important.

Yes the wording is important and I suggest you read them again.


Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.


This says the opposite of what you just said so I'm going with the Bible. Salvation is a gift from God by grace through faith. NOT OF WORKS. How much plainer does it need to be for you. It plainly says it is not of ourselves.

 

[Scholar in training]

Yes the wording is important and I suggest you read them again.

I might say the same to you.

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

The color and underlining is superfluous.

It plainly says it is not of ourselves.

What the text says is that we cannot save ourselves. I have not argued that we can, and you are merely burning a strawman. Ephesians 2:8-9 clearly states that whatever the word "that" refers to, it is not of ourselves. We only produce works because our will cooperates with the grace of God. In this way his grace stimulates and assists in producing our works, and it is not enhanced by our works (and so the "that" is not of ourselves). At the same time our will is not coerced into doing anything.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Shouldn't someone who is freethinking endeavor to have an open mind?

Since when do I not have an open mind? I have studied both sides of the issue, and come to my conclusion on the matter. People with open minds tend to do that with issues I see no need to get on a merry-go-round and argue with my brother over the issue when I have already come to my conclusion

What about them? IIRC, I have already heard the allegation that the Oriental Orthodox are monophysites. I don't know if they are or not, and it does not affect me personally at all. If you are trying to appeal to my belief system, then you have mistaken which "Orthodoxy" I am an inquierer of.

You missed the point. You might want to ask OO what they view as "heterodox". What is "heterodox" and what is "orthodox" depends on your perspective. Who is and is not a "heretic" also depends on your perspective.

The differences between their opinion and my own are numerous. They cannot appeal to Church history or to credentialed scholars in support of their heterodoxy. They can try, but they will not get much farther than that.

And? Just because for 2000 years a lot of people believed in doctrine X does not mean that that belief is valid. Popularity and longevity of a claim does not make a claim valid. That is a logical fallacy.

Marcus Borg is not a credentialed scholar? John Shelby Spong is not a credentialed scholar? John Dominic Crossan not a credentialed scholar? . . . . I beg to differ.

The NT was written in a high-context society. Should we expect the Apostle to recount everything one must do to be saved every time he is asked?

Did the Apostles add anything else to salvation? No. They said that the jailor had to believe in Jesus. They didn't say anything about believing in a Trinity, or anything about the nature of Jesus. End of story.

You are now using an argument from silence.

How so? I am just taking the Apostles at their word. If you claim that one must have a belief in the Trinity, etc. in addition to placing their faith in Jesus then you bear the burden of proof.

Yes, this is true. We are saved by grace. Through faith and works. The wording is very important.

I'll let my brother Paul speak for himself:

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV)

DIANE

 

[linssue55]

"Fully God"? Apparently it is "necessary" to believe that about Jesus to be a Christian, but why? And what does it mean anyway, does anyone actually understand it?

The Trinity...........

1. Definition: (Points 1-4).

....God is one in essence, yet three distinct persons.

....A. Unity of the Godhead; (Acts 17:29, Rom 1:20, Col 2:9)
....B. Three Persons of one substance, power and eternity;

........The Persons of The Godhead all have 10 distinct attributes:

........Omniscience: all knowing.
........Omnipotence: all power.
........Omnipresence: infinite presence.
........Sovereignty: Supreme Being of the Universe.
........Veracity: Truth.
........Immutablilty: Unchanging, "not subject to change or variation in quality or nature or form".
........Eternal Life: timeless existence without beginning or end.
........Justice: absolute fairness, equity, judgement.
........Righteousness: intrinsic Good, intergrity, honor, uprightness..
........Love: infinite capacity for affection, esteem, respect, and pleasure of same.

2. Full title of God; God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. (Matt 28:19, 2Cor 13:14)


3. Each Person of God possesses identical Divine attributes, making them co-equal one with the other. (Jn 10:30, 16:15).

4. When the Bible speaks of God as being One it is a reference to the essence which the Persons of the
....Godhead share, whereas the unique names of each Person speak of the individual Person, and not all three.

5. Analogy to Light;

....A. Light is composed of three elements; Actinic, Liminiferous and Calorific.
....B. Application; Although light is perceived as one achromatic phenomenon, it possesses three exclusive
........properties, each of which is a parallel to one unique Person of God;
........(1) Actinic light is neither seen nor felt; The Father.
........(2) Luminiferous light is both seen and felt; The Son
........(2) Calorific light is felt, but not seen; The Holy Spirit

6. The Trinity in the Old Testement:

....A. Hebrew word "Elohim", plural. (Deut 6:4)
....B. The Father, 1st Person. (Gen 1:3, Isa 53:10)
....C. The Son, 2nd Person. (Gen 1:1, Cf. Jn 1:3, Col 1:16, Isa 53, 63:8, Micah 5:2)
....D. The Holy Spirit, 3rd Person. (Gen 1:2 w/Psa 104:30, Gen 41:38, Num 27:18, 1 Sam 16:13, Psa 139:7)

7. The Trinity in the New Testement:

......Emphasis is on the individual Persons of the Trinity as expressed in their unique roles in the
......Plan of God:

....A. The Father planned</B> salvation; (Isa 14:27, Jn 4:34, 5:17, 12:44, 1:24; 1Cor 8:6, Eph 3:11).
....B.The Son executes the plan of salvation; (Jn 4:34, 5:17, Heb 10:7).
....C. The Holy Spirit reveals the plan of salvation;
...........(1) To unbelievers; (Jn 16:8-11).
...........(2) To believers; (Jn 16:13,14; 1Cor 2;10).

9. Jesus Christ is the only visible member of The Godhead;
.........(Jn 1:18, 6:46; 1Yim 6:16, 1Jn 4:12).

10. Doctrine of Procession;

.....A. The Father sent the Son; (Jn 17:3, Gal 4:4).
.....B. The Father and Son sent the Holy Spirit; (Jn 14:26, 15:26).
.....C. Christ sends The Comforter; (Jn 16:7).

 

[Scholar in training]

You missed the point. You might want to ask OO what they view as "heterodox". What is "heterodox" and what is "orthodox" depends on your perspective. Who is and is not a "heretic" also depends on your perspective.

Who is and who isn't unorthodox is independent of one's perspective.

And? Just because for 2000 years a lot of people believed in doctrine X does not mean that that belief is valid. Popularity and longevity of a claim does not make a claim valid.

But I did not appeal to "popularity", nor did I appeal to longevity. This is not about number or how long a given belief has existed. I was referring first to the weight of evidence carried by the eyewitnesses to Jesus' life (that is, the people who wrote the books of the NT), and then to the Church Fathers who came after them and interpreted the documents and Tradition left in their charge.

John Shelby Spong is not a credentialed scholar?

Spong brings up interesting points occasionally, but not enough to give him any good stock of credit. He is far too liberal in regards to his understanding of Hebrew and Christian culture. Someone (claiming to be a Christian, no less) who calls circumcision an expression of "male fear" of menstrual blood and sees erotic acts where there are none needs to get a clue.

John Dominic Crossan not a credentialed scholar? . . . . I beg to differ.

Crossan is an example the best you can expect from skeptics. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is another issue entirely.

Did the Apostles add anything else to salvation? No. They said that the jailor had to believe in Jesus. They didn't say anything about believing in a Trinity, or anything about the nature of Jesus. End of story.

Did the Apostles add anything else to salvation? No. They said that the jailor had to believe in Jesus. They didn't say anything about what it means to follow the commandments, or anything about almsgiving. End of story.

How so? I am just taking the Apostles at their word.

But you are not applying the principle of scriptura scripturam interpretar.

If you claim that one must have a belief in the Trinity, etc. in addition to placing their faith in Jesus then you bear the burden of proof.

If one does not know who Jesus is, then they cannot very well place their "faith" in him.

I'll let my brother Paul speak for himself:

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV)

Yawn, see my above post to Lynn. This incorrect interpretation merely succeeds in forming a contradition between St. Paul and St. James, which some skeptics have taken advantage of to suggest that there was a split between the two.

 

[Axion]

And? Just because for 2000 years a lot of people believed in doctrine X does not mean that that belief is valid. Popularity and longevity of a claim does not make a claim valid. That is a logical fallacy.

No. If one is passing down a revealed set of teachings that originated 2000 years ago, then what followers of those teachings taught and preserved as the true teachings from 2000 years ago to the present is vitally important.

If someone appears 1600 years later and says what Christians believed and taught from 30 AD to 1500 AD was not the true message, and that their recent theories ARE the true message. I find the claim incredible.

Did the Apostles add anything else to salvation? No. They said that the jailor had to believe in Jesus. They didn't say anything about believing in a Trinity, or anything about the nature of Jesus. End of story.

No beginning of story. Believing in Jesus is not just like saying "I believe in fairies". Believing in Jesus means knowing who he is, having faith in His Gospel and following His teachings. The jailer will have joined the Church and learned all thes things.

How so? I am just taking the Apostles at their word. If you claim that one must have a belief in the Trinity, etc. in addition to placing their faith in Jesus then you bear the burden of proof.

I'll let my brother Paul speak for himself:

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith&#8212;and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God&#8212; 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV)

The trouble is you cling to one verse in isolation from the rest of the Gospel.

Phil. 2:12-16
"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. Do all things without grumbling or questioning, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain" .

Matthew 7.21 "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.' 24 "Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; 25 and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; 27 and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it."

Matthew 5.23: But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement. Again, anyone who says to his brother, Raca, is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says "You fool!" will be in danger of the fire of hell. "


Matthew 6: 14 &#8220;If you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.&#8221;

Matthew 25 :31 &#8220;When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.
32 &#8220;All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 &#8220;He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 &#8220;Then the King will say to those on his right, &#8216;Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
35 &#8216;For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,
36 &#8216;I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.&#8217;

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

"does anyone actually understand it?

Not with our puny, carnal, earthbound minds. However the Blessed Trinity is at the very foundation of Christianity. All of Christendom holds the belief of the Trinity and that Jesus definitely is both truly God and truly Man.

Don't you hold to the Nicene Creed?

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Axion,

No. If one is passing down a revealed set of teachings that originated 2000 years ago, then what followers of those teachings taught and preserved as the true teachings from 2000 years ago to the present is vitally important.

See my response (post 41) to depthdeception. That argument might work for your fellow RCs, but they don't work on me bro.

No beginning of story. Believing in Jesus is not just like saying "I believe in fairies". Believing in Jesus means knowing who he is, having faith in His Gospel and following His teachings. The jailer will have joined the Church and learned all thes things.

You are not close to prooving that we must believe in the Trinity, etc.

The trouble is you cling to one verse in isolation from the rest of the Gospel.

The verses that you present do not say that one must believe in the Trinity, etc.

DIANE

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

You are not close to prooving that we must believe in the Trinity, etc.

So do I understand correctly, Diane, that you don't believe in the Trinity?

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Who is and who isn't unorthodox is independent of one's perspective.

Yes it does. To RCs Martin Luther is a heretic. To me, he is a saint. We view him differently because we have different perspectives

But I did not appeal to "popularity", nor did I appeal to longevity. This is not about number or how long a given belief has existed. I was referring first to the weight of evidence carried by the eyewitnesses to Jesus' life (that is, the people who wrote the books of the NT), and then to the Church Fathers who came after them and interpreted the documents and Tradition left in their charge.

You are also basing your argument on an assumption-see my above response to Axion and depthdeception. From the quote below it seems to me like you are saying that those who hold "heterodox" views are wrong because the Early Church Fathers and "credentialed scholars" disagree with them. That looks like a fallacy to me:

"They cannot appeal to Church history or to credentialed scholars in support of their heterodoxy. They can try, but they will not get much farther than that."

Spong brings up interesting points occasionally, but not enough to give him any good stock of credit. He is far too liberal in regards to his understanding of Hebrew and Christian culture. Someone (claiming to be a Christian, no less) who calls circumcision an expression of "male fear" of menstrual blood and sees erotic acts where there are none needs to get a clue.

So in your opinion a credible "credentialed scholar" is one that is not too liberal. In my opinion, and I think I speak for the majority of Americans, a "credentialed scholar" is one who has earned a doctorate degree in a particular field of study (from a recognised institution), and usually does post academic work, etc., etc., etc.

But you are not applying the principle of scriptura scripturam interpretar.

In your opinion

If one does not know who Jesus is, then they cannot very well place their "faith" in him.

Anyone can place their faith in Jesus of Nazareth without knowing or understanding the precise details of who he was, etc.

Yawn, see my above post to Lynn. This incorrect interpretation merely succeeds in forming a contradition between St. Paul and St. James, which some skeptics have taken advantage of to suggest that there was a split between the two.

Very illuminating response, all I did was let Paul speak for himself.

I believe that Cleany has his answer, and come to his own conclusions on the matter. Have a nice night everybody

DIANE

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Ignatius

I guess one more reply couldn't hurt.

So do I understand correctly, Diane, that you don't believe in the Trinity?

How did you get that from this below?

"You are not close to prooving that we must believe in the Trinity, etc."

A person can believe in the Trinity, yet not believe that belief in the Trinity is an "essential" doctrine so to speak. Anyway, I don't recall that I stated anything about my personal beliefs regarding Jesus, how I view the Trinity, etc.

DIANE

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Ignatius

I guess one more reply couldn't hurt.



How did you get that from this below?

"You are not close to prooving that we must believe in the Trinity, etc."

A person can believe in the Trinity, yet not believe that belief in the Trinity is an "essential" doctrine so to speak. Anyway, I don't recall that I stated anything about my personal beliefs regarding Jesus, how I view the Trinity, etc.

DIANE

The statement looked like you were denying that you believe it in. Here's the post.

You are not close to prooving that we must believe in the Trinity, etc.

So do I understand correctly, Diane, that you don't believe in the Trinity?

Sorry if I misunderstood.

 

[Scholar in training]

Yes it does. To RCs Martin Luther is a heretic. To me, he is a saint. We view him differently because we have different perspectives

I only mean to say that a person is heterodox (not necessarily the same thing as a heretic) regardless of whether or not someone thinks he is.

You are also basing your argument on an assumption-see my above response to Axion and depthdeception.

The position of early Church Fathers and modern scholars have nothing to do with whether or not the early Church was the Roman Catholic/Orthodox/etc. Church. These are two separate arguments.

From the quote below it seems to me like you are saying that those who hold "heterodox" views are wrong because the Early Church Fathers and "credentialed scholars" disagree with them.

In a world where John Doe thinks he is more capable of interpreting a given text than credentialed scholars and authority figures within the Church, it is very important to emphasize Church "precedent".

Looks like a fallacy to me:

It is not a fallacy. I have not based my argument on numbers, I have based it on the valid authority of learned individuals and a corps, the corps, the Body of Christ.

So in your opinion a credible "credentialed scholar" is one that is not too liberal.

Only because Spong's opinions on the issues I mentioned are ludicrous. In those areas he is clearly not "within the mainstream".

In my opinion, and I think I speak for the majority of Americans, a "credentialed scholar" is one who has earned a doctorate degree in a particular field of study (from a recognised institution), and usually does post academic work, etc., etc., etc.

Curious, I believe I have criticized Spong on the grounds of very specific examples of shoddy scholarship. What biblical field of study did Spong receive his doctorate in, BTW? He is certainly not an expert in the social sciences, or else he would not have made the blunders he did. Does it at all concern you that non-Christians may read his book and get the wrong idea about the faith?

Anyone can place their faith in Jesus of Nazareth without knowing or understanding the precise details of who he was, etc.

No, this is in effect believing another gospel and another Christ. If we are both talking about the moon, and I believe the moon is made of granite, while you believe it is made of green cheese, we are clearly not talking about the same thing. Jesus did not say "stop worrying about who I am and just follow me". On the contrary, we read in Proverbs to "buy the truth and not sell it".

Very illuminating response, all I did was let Paul speak for himself.

No text "speaks for itself". There is always an interpreter, as everyone has certain filters, assumptions, and judgments that may cause them to incorrectly understand what someone else has said. Protestantism has merely shifted the interpreting from the central authority of the Church to the relative authority of the individual, and in doing so has detracted or departed from several important concepts found within Scripture.