Trinity

[Der Alte]

Hey Der Alter, I love your modesty. Keep it up.

Piffle!

The Godhead in Scripture:
1 Corinthians 8:6; * * *

This is a complete statement of the Godhead. Nothing added, nothing taken away. Verse 7 says; Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge.

The absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence! Using this logic Jesus only had two or three disciples because there are verses that only mention that number, e.g. the transfiguration.

The illogic here is the same as the arguments used for the women at the tomb. Uninformed folks try to discredit the Bible, because the different accounts mention a different number of women initially at the tomb.

Those were all good scriptures but you have NOT dealt with the scriptures I posted which mention all three, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

If Paul and the apostles taught an idea of a trinity, they certainly seemed to ignore the coequal third person of the triad. In all the salutations of Paul's epistles, he acknowledges the Father and Son as his authority and no one else. Had Paul or any of the other apostles taught a triune God, there would have certainly been a heated discussion about it in Jerusalem in Acts 15, and don't tell me that it was because they were already trinitarians.

Acts 15, is an interesting scripture to be using in this discussion. Where does that passage state that gentile believers must believe in God, or Jesus Christ, or be baptized? Don't tell me that it is because they already believed in God and Jesus and were baptized. See how that works?

I do not see a reasoned, rational exegesis of the scripture, just like all the other unorthodox doctrines being posted here, a handful of out-of-context proof texts, and ignoring other scriptures which do not fit your presuppositions.

"If Paul and the apostles taught an idea of a trinity, they certainly seemed to ignore the coequal third person of the triad." Is that a fact? In addition to the verses I posted earlier which mention all three, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, here are more. Note particularly the salutation of Peter, in 1 Pet 1:2, where one of the apostles who actually knew Jesus, speaks of the different role each persona of the Trinity plays in the salvation of the believer.

You can list all the verses you care to which do not mention all three, but as I said the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Read Mat 17:1, Jesus took Peter, James and John with Him on the mount of transfiguration. So according to your logic, He did not have 12 disciples, He only had three.

1 Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

1Pe 4:14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.​

_________________________________________
Acknowledge All True Christians are Arminian in Glory​

!​

​

​

​

 

[Der Alte]

Again for clarity, I embrace the term Trinitarian. But I do not believe it proper to march out Theophilus and say he was the first Trinitarian (to use the term) because he was not. Also, the Catholic Church does not dogmatically use the term “co-equal” and when Protestants do this, they are following Athanasius in ways the Catholic Church doesn’t. I believe the Social Trinitarian structure that I embrace with a clear subordinationism is much closer to the Ante-Nicene fathers than the Augustinian Trinitarian formula so common today.

I will only address two points at this time, maybe more later. First, let me say the unsupported opinions of 19th-21st century scholars, without historical documentation, is virtually meaningless. Anybody can say anything. Concerning Theophilus. Let us read what he actually wrote. So what if he used the word “[trias.” Note, how he defined it, classic Tinitarianism.

Theophilus-Book II
In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-42.htm#P1469_430289
.​

So Newman calls St. Justin an arian. He points to Theophilus as a seed for the arian beliefs.

The most critical thing that I wish to show is that pre-Nicea there was a subordinationism that did not exist after the 4th Century defined this view out of Christianity. This is well accepted by scholars.

I just love those unsupported catchall phrases, e.g.,“accepted by scholars.” Which scholars? None of the scholars I have studied for example, Reinhold Seeberg, J.N.D. Kelly, and Kenneth Scott Latourette.
Concerning Justin being an Arian, let’s read Justin, himself and see. Note the word “abscission” means cutting off. This power that is called God, was begotten of the Father but not by cutting off.

Justin-Dialogue with Trypho
Chapter XXXVI.-He Proves that Christ is Called Lord of Hosts.
Chapter LVI.-God Who Appeared to Moses is Distinguished from God the Father.
Chapter LIX.-God Distinct from the Father Conversed with Moses.
Chapter LXVI.-He Proves from Isaiah that God Was Born from a Virgin.
Chapter CXXVIII.-The Word is Sent Not as an Inanimate Power, But as a Person Begotten of the Father's Substance.
"And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said."

And that this power which the prophetic word calls God, as has been also amply demonstrated, and Angel, is not numbered [as different] in name only like the light of the sun but is indeed something numerically distinct, I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4043_787325
​

 

[onewarrior]

You should believe the Bible, instead of ignoring scripture which does not support your man-made, proof-text, doctrine. God's word cannot contradict itself.

Exodus 3:14-15 was spoken by God, over 1400 years before Jesus was born, whatever meaning you think John 5:43 has, it cannot contradict any other scripture. God said to Moses YHWH, NOT Jesus, is my name forever and a memorial to all generations. Do you understand that, "forever" and "all generations?" Nothing in the N.T., Jn 5:43, or any other passage, can change those words.

So just posting that verse without dealing with the O.T. is dishonesty. I have responded to that verse several times, with scriptures, in English, and every time I have you ignored it.

1 Sa 17:45 Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.​

I don't have to even mention the Greek or the Hebrew. Here is a verse in "simple English", David uses the same expression "I come in the name of**יהוה." If, according to you, John 5:43 means God's name is Jesus or Yeshua, then 1 Sam 17:45 means that God's name is David or David's name is YHWH. Since that is not true then Jn 5:43 CANNOT mean that God's name is Jesus.

Here are some more verses in which men act, "in the name of the LORD." Again, none of these verses mean that God's name was the name of the person speaking. But what the verses prove is that Jesus was not saying that God's name was Jesus but that He came in the authority of God's name. Once more, God said His name was YHWH and that would be His name "forever" and a memorial to "all generations." And there is not one single verse in the entire Bible that changes this, nor could there be.

Unless you believe Exodus 3:15 then you are contradicting the Bible. YOu need to read and base your doctrine on the entire Bible not just the handful of "proof texts," you use.

Deu 18:5 For the LORD thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister in the name of the LORD, him and his sons for ever.

Deu 18:7 Then he shall minister in the name of the LORD his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, which stand there before the LORD.

2 Sa 6:18 And as soon as David had made an end of offering burnt offerings and peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD of hosts.​

The Lord said that name that they were ministering in was a secret. It wasn't revealed until Jesus came and revealed it. Period.


Judges 13:18:
And the angel of the LORD said to him, Why ask you thus after my name, seeing it is secret?

I AM THAT I AM is not a name. How many people do you see with the name I AM THAT I AM. God was describing something about himself his name however he kept secret. His name is Jesus.

 

[onewarrior]

Let us look at Jesus the Author and the Finisher of our faith. For he said that he declared his Father's Name. What Name was he declaring? The Name of Jesus.


John 17:26:
And I have declared to them your name, and will declare it: that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.


The only Name that he ever declared was Jesus. The Name that he came in.


In Truth,
Joshua

 

[TOmNossor]

Der Alter,

I will say this twice so we do not forget. I made two simple statements. You in no uncertain terms said I was either misinformed or dishonest and you would refute whatever evidence I put forth. Thus far you have said very little about the bulk of what I said so do not construe my response to these couple of points as thinking that you have adequately dealt with any of my response farther more the bulk of it, to which you have not even directly commented.



Der Alter:

I will only address two points at this time, maybe more later. First, let me say the unsupported opinions of 19th-21st century scholars, without historical documentation, is virtually meaningless. Anybody can say anything.



TOm:

The corpus of literature upon which I am commenting by appealing to these authors is quite large. I appealed to multiple authors who would have reason to say the opposite of what they said so BIAS is not an issue. It is true “anybody can say anything,” but it is also true the Newman, Hanson, and Bettenson are quite well respected and Rowan Williams is no slouch. I leave it to you to:

• Site your authorities who deny what has been said by these respected authors.
• Demonstrate why your authorities are better than mine.
• And explain away the Bias of the authorities you use since you will not find any unbiased source to support your position.

Or

• Conduct a survey of all the Ante-Nicene fathers.
• Site specific examples from each where they deny subordination of Jesus Christ to the Father.
• And give me some reason to accept your NEW idea above the idea of the scholars I have already referenced.

Der Alter:

Concerning Theophilus. Let us read what he actually wrote. So what if he used the word “[trias.” Note, how he defined it, classic Tinitarianism.


Theophilus-Book II
In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.

[url="http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02...tm#P1469_430289"]http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02...tm#P1469_430289[/url]



TOm:

Actually Theophilus did not write in English. So the above source you sited is actually second hand since it was translated for you. Also of note there is a footnote upon the word Trinity in this presentation. Instead of honestly representing that this word is not the same word that was ultimately embraced a Nicea, there is no mention of this. I submit that it is the BIAS of your secondary source that results in this misinformation. And it is BIAS to not even mention that the word they translated Trinity is not the word used by Nicea. Don’t get me wrong, I use the same site. I just recognize BIAS when I am exposed to it.



In fact, lets read what Theophilus has to say about “The Nature of God” and the “Attributes of God.” If Theophilus was a Trinitarian this would be a great time to mention that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are God, but this doesn’t happen. From Book I at the same site:



Chapter III.-Nature of God.

You will say, then, to me, "Do you, who see God, explain to me the appearance of God." Hear, O man. The appearance of God is ineffable and indescribable, and cannot be seen by eyes of flesh. For in glory He is incomprehensible, in greatness unfathomable, in height inconceivable, in power incomparable, in wisdom unrivalled, in goodness inimitable, in kindness unutterable. For if I say He is Light, I name but His own work; if I call Him Word, I name but His sovereignty; if I call Him Mind, I speak but of His wisdom; if I say He is Spirit, I speak of His breath; if I call Him Wisdom, I speak of His offspring; if I call Him Strength, I speak of His sway; if I call Him Power, I am mentioning His activity; if Providence, I but mention His goodness; if I call Him Kingdom, I but mention His glory; if I call Him Lord, I mention His being judge; if I call Him Judge, I speak of Him as being just; if I call Him Father, I speak of all things as being from Him;5 if I call Him Fire, I but mention His anger. You will say, then, to me, "Is God angry? "Yes; He is angry with those who act wickedly, but He is good, and kind, and merciful, to those who love and fear Him; for He is a chastener6 of the godly, and father of the righteous; but he is a judge and punisher of the impious.

Chapter IV.-Attributes of God.

And He is without beginning, because He is unbegotten; and He is unchangeable, because He is immortal. And he is called God [Qeo/j] on account of His having placed [teqeike/nai] all things on security afforded by Himself; and on account of [qe/ein], forqe/ein means running, and moving, and being active, and nourishing, and foreseeing, and governing, and making all things alive. But he is Lord, because He rules over the universe; Father, because he is before all things; Fashioner and Maker, because He is creator and maker of the universe; the Highest, because of His being above all; and Almighty, because He Himself rules and embraces all. For the heights of heaven, and the depths of the abysses, and the ends of the earth, are in His hand, and there is no place of His rest. For the heavens are His work, the earth is His creation, the sea is His handiwork; man is His formation and His image; sun, moon, and stars are His elements, made for signs, and seasons, and days, and years, that they may serve and be slaves to man; and all things God has made out of things that were not7 into things that are, in order that through His works His greatness may be known and understood.



TOm:

And BTW, in Book II if you read around his Trias reference you will find subordinationism which is what I said existed universally anyway. The above quote sets the stage for Arianism (which is what I said Newman said) and in Book II regardless of what was meant by Trias it was not “co-equal.”



Der Alter:

I just love those unsupported catchall phrases, e.g.,“accepted by scholars.” Which scholars? None of the scholars I have studied for example, Reinhold Seeberg, J.N.D. Kelly, and Kenneth Scott Latourette.



TOm:

I will await for you to demonstrate that Seeberg, Kelly, or Latourette deny a subordinationism pre-Nicea. At least I quoted reputable scholars who said something that had something to do with my position. You have merely listed names. And the which scholars for this particular comment would be Hanson, Bettenson, and Williams as I sited before I made this comment.



Der Alter:

Concerning Justin being an Arian, let’s read Justin, himself and see. Note the word “abscission” means cutting off. This power that is called God, was begotten of the Father but not by cutting off.



TOm:

The concern over Justin being an Arian derives from him not embracing the eternal nature of the Son. I doubt Newman would deny that the Son was begotten of God according to Justin. Again, I will site Newman. He will specifically analyze the ancient language and point out that Justin seems to deny the eternality of the Son.



Newman, Causes of Arianism –Section 13:

2. JUSTIN suffers from a like misinterpretation. How can Bull not know that the point he has to prove as regards certain of his authors, is their witness to the eternal gennesis? He actually discusses the difficulty arising from the fact that a certain number of them seem to deny it. He has to prove the eternity of the Son, not the eternity of the Logos; yet, as in the case of the author last quoted, so as regards St. Justin Martyr, when Justin speaks of the eternal Logos, Bull substitutes the word "Son." He says, "Testimonia quædam ex eodem [Justino] adducemus, quæ co-æternam [tou logou], sive Filii Dei cum Patre suo existentiam apertissime confirment." F. N. iii. 2, init. ed. 1721. Then he proceeds to quote two passages which speak only of the eternity of the Logos, not of the Son. As to the latter of these, the word "Son," or its equivalent {249} does not occur in it at all; as to the former, Grabe, whose annotations have for their object to defend and to support Bull's hypothesis, candidly confesses that both text and stopping must be corrected in a direction adverse to the necessities of Bull's argument.

Now let us consider St. Justin's theology; for myself, indeed, though I have done my best to master what he has written, I distrust too much whether my eyesight or my power of sustained attention, to speak with the fullest confidence; but, speaking under correction of these defects, I will say, that, though I have found passages in the Alexandrians, I cannot find a single passage in St. Justin, in which the Son, or the only-begotten, or the gennesis, is declared to be from everlasting, except in such phrases as "before all creatures," which are short of the directness of the Alexandrian School.

(1.) The following is the passage, on which Bull principally relies in proof of St. Justin's taking the orthodox view of the point in question. I quote with Grabe's correction and stopping, introducing the three letters, which I have assigned as notes for the Endiathetic Word, the Prophoric, and the Primogenitus respectively.

[Ho huios ekeinou, ho monos legomenos kurios huios, ho logos pro ton poiematon, kai sunon, (A)—kai gennomenos, hote (B) ten archen di' autou panta ektise kai ekosmese (C).] Apol. ii. 6. Grabe's Latin runs: "Verbum ante omnes creaturas et coexistens (Patri); et nascens, quando [non quoniam ...] primitus cuncta per eum condidit et ornavit." p. 170. It is observable Justin does not even use the phrase [pro aionon], but [pro ton poiematon]. {250}

There is no mention in this passage of the eternity of the gennesis; rather it is said to have taken place when the world was to be created. Nor does Bull's second passage or collation of passages, to the effect that our Lord was the "I am" of the burning bush, avail better for his purpose; vid. ad Græc. 21, Apol. i. 63, and Tryph. 60. Doubtless our Lord is from eternity, and Justin believed Him to be the One True God; but I am looking for a categorical passage declaring that the Son always existed as the Son; such as Origen's "the Only-begotten Word, ever-coexisting with Him," or "Who dares say, 'Once the Son was not?'" I will set down some other passages of Justin; none of them, I think, rise above the level of the foregoing. I have no doubt of his holding the co-eternity and consubstantiality of the Word; but does he anywhere profess the everlasting gennesis?

TOm:

At this juncture I would like to again state that you have not addressed much of what I have posted (which I posted in response to you suggesting I was misinformed or deceptive and that you would refute EVERY bit of evidence I posted). You have put forth the position that Constantine was not a decisive factor in the Council of Nicea and that he was Arian. I refuted this with appeals to respected historians. We will not be able to ask Constantine his opinions so I will await your “evidences.” Again, like your translation problem with the writings of Theophilus, BIAS is on my side here. The authors I site have reason to not want it to appear that Constantine profoundly influenced the Council. The authors I have sited have reason to want it to appear that pre-Nicea orthodoxy was identical to post Nicea orthodoxy. They contrary to their BIAS state just the opposite.



And once again, I am a Trinitarian. I just maintain that it is the authority of a Church that allows one to accept or reject Trinitarian structures. When the JWs and other non-Trinitarians go against sola scriptura adherents, the information I point to above is relevant. I also might add that LDS subordinationism, while in no way denying the eternality of Jesus Christ nor his divinity, is in agreement with pre-Nicea orthodoxy. The term or concept of “co-equal” is not part of pre-Nicea orthodoxy.



Charity, TOm

 

[Peterson]

Der Alter,
I will take particular notice of 1 Peter 1:2; Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: grace be unto you and peace, be multiplied.

Sanctification is from the Greek hagiasmos and means purity, holiness, hallowed or a state of being holy. Verse 5 tells us that it is to have the Father's Spirit in us by his power. We are sanctified (made holy) and kept by the power of the Father, and this is accomplished through Jesus Christ (11). Christ is the only transmitter of the Father's Spirit (Romans 8:9; Gal. 4:6). There is no third person of a trinity involved.
In 2 Peter 1:3-4, again, we are told that we are given all things that pertain to life and Godliness and are partakers of the divine nature by the power of the Father, not some third entity. This is the true Holy Spirit. What Peter is saying, is that sanctification is the power, likemindedness we have with the Father through Jesus Christ

You also mention 1 Peter 3:18 and I assume you think that the Spirit mentioned here is a third person of a trinity that raised Christ from the dead. This is false. Christ was raised from the dead by the Father (Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:20).

 

[Achichem]

The "family " teaching is found in the World wide church of god under armstrong, now as the united church of god.

It is not in scripture that we will be morphed into the godhead .

It always amused me that they deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit , but they were willing to put themselves in the godhead .

You should not speak on things or people you do not understand...

If you knew of what the UCG teaches you would know that it is only that we will have a "family relationship" with G-d, and that we will be "extensions(realitive term) of him"...that I assure you is in the bible...they also talk about us being in the optimum ask and receive after G-d coming(Which is also in the bible), so I see where you might get that idea, but it is not accurate…

I do not know what Herbert Armstrong said, but I can tell you that the UCG only talks of very general things in this area, perhaps you thinking of the LCG or PCG I think they teach a more defined version.

"It always amused me that they deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit"
Actually that is not what they do or teach at all; if you ever listen to a sermon they use the word G-d in place of Holy Spirit.
The difference between your trinity doctrines,
And
The doctrine of the UCG is that:
They do not see the spirit as a separate person then God,because they do not see it as a person at all, but more like the hand of G-d. Still G-d just not a person...(it could go either way from a biblical standponit)

It well and good you have yours, but I find it amusing you make such strong against somthing that G-d supports as much as he does yours…
Both could be true….

By the way, one does not have to agree with the trinity doctrine to use the Christian forums on this site, one only needs to believe:
Yeshua = G-d
Holy spirit = G-d
The father = G-d
And that there is One G-d;
The N. Creed only requires this, all of which most UCG believe; even though many do not understand what they believe because they find the trinity a pointless non-sense technicality that has nothing to do with G-d plan and hence vey little is invested in it.

I must say, I find it amusing that you protect something that G-d never made a priority.

"they were willing to put themselves in the godhead”
BTW, only a select few even believe that, stop assuming people beliefs, specially when I bet you knew very little about the UCG and what they teach, I could be wrong and eat my words, but that what it sounds like from my end.

Shalom,
G-d Bless,
Sa'Halway,
Datsar

 

[Peterson]

I'm not that familiar with the UCG and am not really knowledgeable about their doctrinal stance. Are they a spin-off of the original Armstrong group and headed by the son of HWA?
There seem to be a bunch of other spin-offs and I haven't kept track of them for 30 years.

RNMOMOF7: It seems strange to me that trinitarians believe that we will never be part of God's family when the Bible is full of scriptures to that effect.

 

[rnmomof7]

I'm not that familiar with the UCG and am not really knowledgeable about their doctrinal stance. Are they a spin-off of the original Armstrong group and headed by the son of HWA?
There seem to be a bunch of other spin-offs and I haven't kept track of them for 30 years.

RNMOMOF7: It seems strange to me that trinitarians believe that we will never be part of God's family when the Bible is full of scriptures to that effect.

The UCG denies the trinity, they deny the Godhood of the Holy Spirit. They are close on many things to the LDS which you do know.

The are not unlike the Mormons in that divinity is their goal .
The holy Spirit is not God, but someday they will be "absorbed" into God and in a sense be god. (that is their definition of the "family" of God.)

Christians do believe we are a part of the Family of God, He is our Father and Jesus our Brother by adoption

Armstrongism


The purpose of God, that we are to be born of God and become God. God is reproducing himself, and no other church on earth knows that or preaches it. As a counterfeit, they talk about being already born again.



Who and what is God? God is neither one person or the Trinity. God is a family into which we may be born and also become God.

 

[Achichem]

I'm not that familiar with the UCG and am not really knowledgeable about their doctrinal stance. Are they a spin-off of the original Armstrong group and headed by the son of HWA?

No, Their run by a council of elders the leader and a president is voted in by members. Yes, they started with Armstrong’s, but no-one(most) do not believe Armstrong had all the answers, most new people don't even like the guy(are growing),and through discussion of doctrinal issues glitches in the doctrine got/are getting corrected.

The UCG denies the trinity, they deny the Godhood of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, and no!!!

First they disagree with the trinity doctrine, not that:

Holy spirit = G-d

Yeshua = G-d

The father = G-d

Stop saying they believe things they do not!

They are close on many things to the LDS which you do know.

No, No they are not!

The are not unlike the Mormons in that divinity is their goal.

Their mission statement is:

Preaching the Gosple, Preparing a people

they bring a bible(same bible) to every service

They take note a every service



And are grossly opposed to LDS teachings...

Do they have problems? Yes! But still their not teaching what you are saying!

The holy Spirit is not God, but someday they will be "absorbed" into God and in a sense be god. (that is their definition of the "family" of God.)

Yes some people believe this, some do not...

What is taught is only that we are in God family

That God lives with us on earth

We ask we receive

we are extensions of God,(want to see the scriptures)

No one says we are equal to the Father or the Son!

Actually they highlight the opposite

Armstrongism

We are not to follow Armstrong’s teaching(though some do, wackos),

we are to follow the Bible!

So yes, Armstrong probably taught this, but I do not like Armstrong, and I go to the UCG (as a secondary church) and they do not teach what you are saying.

Btw, I Do not agree with this at all, and no one there cares because it is a what-ever doctrine in the UCG. because they only drawing a conclusion s long as one does not disagree with the facts, they don’t have a problem.

The purpose of God, that we are to be born of God and become God. God is reproducing himself, and no other church on earth knows that or preaches it. As a counterfeit, they talk about being already born again.

Ok first the second part has changed in the UCG from the WCG!

But the first part is sadly yes, but that because it lack of Hebrew is a distorted teaching:

The purpose of YHWH, that we are to be created of YHWH to become ELoHIM.YHWH is creating children of himself(keep in mind begotten is Yeshua, but created is humanity),but other counterfeit Christians, perch falsely about being in their final state!

Who and what is God? God is neither one person or the Trinity. God is a family into which we may be born and also become God.

Yes they do still think this, which I also disagree with, but one must understand what is being said. They are say elohim, and they do not support equity so they are not saying anyone equal to G-d.

Now, why not trinity, The spirit is not a person! It is a system to G-d!

I still disagree with this, and am fighting to get it corrected, but feel I should make clear what exsaclly is getting taught.

 

[Achichem]

Now, I think I should talk about my beliefs on the subject...

Which I do not think matter much, as it is a trivial matter to G-d plan!



First I will simply define a few things:

The Father = Mind of G-d
The Spirit = A energy, A hand, A power of G-d
Yeshua= The system of the body of G-d to interface with humanity(no purity effect)

YHWH = The principle of G-d’s body (father, Son, Holy Spirit)

ELOHIM = full body of G-d including all things which are G-d, being run by a high arcy that has YHWH at the head.
The Spirit as a “Him” = the action verb for YHWH
In otherword I do not beieve three people, but three systems!

 

[rnmomof7]

The World Wide Church of Christ is the one that has walked away from many of the Armstrong heresies. They are very close to being doctrinal Christians

On the other hand the
United Church of God is as apostate as the old Armstrong church

 

[rnmomof7]

We are not to follow Armstrong’s teaching(though some do, wackos),

we are to follow the Bible!

If you belong to the United Church of God you are the direct off spring of Armstrong doctrinally.

The UCG has said they are no longer a cult because they now have a system of accountability.
But that is only a part of the problem

The UCoG deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit and are there for outside of mainstream Christianity .

The UCog teaches law keeping ..a salvation by works

Water Baptism is viewed as absolute essential. “There is no promise that anyone
will receive the Holy Spirit until baptized in water

The necessity of keeping Dietary laws and holidays of the OT (and Sabbath keeping)


A second chance to be saved after death

The works of Armstrong are read and encouraged by your church

 

[Peterson]

From the little I know about the numerous splits in Armstrongism since his demise, is that the fracturing of this organization has been a series of power struggles to control, or gain control of the properties and funds of the original group and less about doctrine.

Some of the folks, I suppose, have resisted the change from legalism to the traditional Romanism. In either case, they are unscriptural.

Incidently, the entire thrust of the Bible is God's plan to recreate himself. Being a member and an heir of God by adoption in the likeness of Jesus Christ, means exactly that. The epistles are filled with this teaching.

 

[Achichem]

If you belong to the United Church of God you are the direct off spring of Armstrong doctrinally.

I am a messianic! but I do attend sometimes the UCG, and why should I stand here and let you lie to people who you clearly know not, let explain lies abotu what they teach.

Yes, they come from the doctrine of Armstrong, but that does not mean things did not change from Armstrong, and that does not mean when they have a question they consult the writing of Armstrong, they consult the bible! Hence is why I made this statement.

The UCG has said they are no longer a cult because they now have a system of accountability.

But that is only a part of the problem

[Edited by moderator]I care not what you define, or what constitutes a cult, I only care that all beliefs are represented properly, so that people can make "righteous" judgments as G-d commands.

The UCoG deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit and are there for outside of mainstream Christianity .

They do not, they deny personity!

Do not teach what you do not know as fact.

Armstrong might have, they do not!

The UCog teaches law keeping

Yes they do!

..a salvation by works

Never! They always say it salvation by faith!

But belief demands action!"you can not live offoen word of G-d by all" si i believe what they say.

salvation according to acts is a very specific doctrien that involves teh earning og one salvationb by teh fruits of ones own labor, and that is not at all what the UCG teaches.

Water Baptism is viewed as absolute essential. There is no promise that anyone will receive the Holy Spirit until baptized in water

I never heard such! So you will have to provide proof.

The necessity of keeping Dietary laws and holidays of the OT (and Sabbath keeping)

LOL, no they don’t you putting the word “necessity” on thing which are talked about to be signs, and shadows of a true life in christ.

A second chance to be saved after death

A first chance for those who never knew G-d, by way of judgment as a process!

I am sorry you have not this compassion,

And believe it heretical to have hope!
personally I find it far feched but possible, far more alone the line of G-d ways then a very pagan "hell" theorys which have no biblcal basis...so others could be arruged but "hell" is frankley so far feached in in teh relm of impossiblity, inless you believe in the surbranchcal writtings, which I do not!

The works of Armstrong are read and encouraged by your church

By cultist armstrongites, who sadly have a place in the church, but the majority keep close to the bible not Armstrong.A good percentage don't even liek armstrong!



In all publications(there could be a few) the man is not even mentioned.



I am a messianic not a Christian of the church of God.
but i still have a lot of respect for the UCG.
Do I disagree with some teaching of the UCG? Yes

But I do I know the full teaching not just fun fragments? Hence when I say something i think is wrong, I judge according to “truth” and not perception!

Please, try to get a full story before jumping to conclusions!

“Judge righteously” says G-d


G-d bless,
Datsar

 

[Achichem]

The World Wide Church of Christ is the one that has walked away from many of the Armstrong heresies. They are very close to being doctrinal Christians

On the other hand the
United Church of God is as apostate as the old Armstrong church

That is fine that that is your belief about them, but let then their doctrine stand as it is, not skewed by the cloke of ignorant preception

From the little I know about the numerous splits in Armstrongism since his demise, is that the fracturing of this organization has been a series of power struggles to control, or gain control of the properties and funds of the original group and less about doctrine.

Some of the folks, I suppose, have resisted the change from legalism to the traditional Romanism. In either case, they are unscriptural.

Do you call it legalism simply because they follow the law?
if so, are you sure that is fair?

 

[rnmomof7]

From the little I know about the numerous splits in Armstrongism since his demise, is that the fracturing of this organization has been a series of power struggles to control, or gain control of the properties and funds of the original group and less about doctrine.

Some of the folks, I suppose, have resisted the change from legalism to the traditional Romanism. In either case, they are unscriptural.

Incidently, the entire thrust of the Bible is God's plan to recreate himself. Being a member and an heir of God by adoption in the likeness of Jesus Christ, means exactly that. The epistles are filled with this teaching.

There are many splits .
As I went to hunt for old material I had book marked I found 90% of the sites gone.
Their doctrine is even an embarrassment to them .

The thrust of the Bible is not to create other gods..that is a mormon thing not a Christian one ,

"When we see Him we shall be like Him"Only God is God

Holy , Theos , fully sanctified, fully obedient to the Father.

We will not be Gods,

 

[Peterson]

The law in the OT and in the Gospels, concerned the Jews. The apostles and Paul observed the law because they were Jews in a Jewish nation. Paul, however, as the apostle to gentiles. never encouraged them to observe the law or traditon of the Jews, or observe the weekly Jewish Sabbath. Instead we are guided by God's Spirit

On the other hand, he did not teach them to observe Sunday as a NT Sabbath, nor did he teach them to observe Easter, Christmas or to pray to saints. Most importantly he never taught them that the Godhead was a trinity.

[Edited by a moderator] Understanding Passover, is proof of Christ as the Messiah. Had he been crucified at any other time he would not have authenticated his role as Messiah.

The law creates lawyers, the Father's Spirit creates saints.

 

[Achichem]

The law in the OT and in the Gospels, concerned the Jews. The apostles and Paul observed the law because they were Jews in a Jewish nation. Paul, however, as the apostle to gentiles. never encouraged them to observe the law or traditon of the Jews, or observe the weekly Jewish Sabbath. Instead we are guided by God's Spirit

On the other hand, he did not teach them to observe Sunday as a NT Sabbath, nor did he teach them to observe Easter, Christmas or to pray to saints. Most importantly he never taught them that the Godhead was a trinity.

[Edited by a moderator] Understanding Passover, is proof of Christ as the Messiah. Had he been crucified at any other time he would not have authenticated his role as Messiah.

The law creates lawyers, the Father's Spirit creates saints.

I disagree heavly that is what paul taught, but I am sure we are still on the same page(follow G-d's will) so I fiqure I will keep this to a minimum.

What gives you the idea the law was simply for the Jews, and not all the sons of abraham?Surly it is not nessary, but surly still it is G-d's will not just a law for the jews?

Second are you sure, he taught the gentile to not follow the laws...
I can ponit out many of the laws in his writting...It is my impression that paul was clearly talking about being under grace and not law, not self and not law.

Anyways, now I think about it there is probably no need to disscuss this with you, becuase you try and follow yeshua life in full, and try to do as he does...

So Shalom,
G-d bless,
DaTsar

So one question: If a gentile follows the law are you saying they are a legalist?

 

[Der Alte]

Before 300AD there were no strictly Trinitarians of the “co-equal” formulation. That is zero Christians who didn’t subordinate Christ to Heavenly Father!

Pre-Nicea there were many men who were Arian. Post-Nicea it took quite a while before the world started to line up behind a Trinitarian structure denying semi-Arian positions.

______________________________________________________________________________________________
Posted previously:Both assertions are nonsense! Post your evidence and I will refute it. Pre-Nicea there was one bishop who taught Arianism, the one from which it gets it name, Arius, and his few followers.

If there were so many Arians and Arianism was the correct doctrine. Why, at the end of the Nicaean council, were there only two dissenters who refused to sign the accords? Arius was one of them.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________​

Here is my response to those two points, actually about four points. Show in my response, quoted here, where I said anything about you personally “in no uncertain terms?” And most specifically show where I said “in no uncertain terms,” you were dishonest? I did say that the “assertions” were “nonsense” and that I could refute “evidence,” which you might choose to post.

Do you know the difference between addressing a person and addressing issues? If you are unable to make that distinction I suggest you excuse yourself from these discussions.