Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Holy Trinity: Sound Doctrine or a Man-Made Tradition?
ArticleSeen.com ^ | Aug-28-2011 | Steve-O

Posted on 01/12/2014 7:49:32 PM PST by restornu

The Holy Trinity: Sound Doctrine or a Man-Made Tradition?

Author: Steve-0

The Apostle Paul admonished young Timothy, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;" (1 Timothy 4:1)

The Greek word that was translated into English as "depart from" is aphistemi (Strong's G868) pronounced ä-fe'-sta-me meaning ...

1) to make stand off, cause to withdraw, to remove a) to excite to revolt 2) to stand off, to stand aloof a) to go away, to depart from anyone b) to desert, withdraw from one c) to fall away, become faithless d) to shun, flee from e) to cease to vex one f) to withdraw one's self from, to fall away g) to keep one's self from, absent one's self from

Some use this portion of Scripture to accuse those of us who embrace the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine, as opposed to the Holy Trinity, as being the ones who are being described above. However, what should be determined is who said and did what ... and when did they say and do it. First off, we know the "foot print followers" of our Lord Jesus Christ had it right! If anybody has ever had it right, they had it right. And, no where do we find where they were authorized to come up with anything other than what Jesus gave them. By the way, Jesus did NOT leave them with a bunch of pages with a lot of blanks on them, which would have to be filled out a couple centuries later, either. Therefore, what they embraced and taught was "first". Any thing other than that came along later, period!

Brother Paul being as bold and blunt as he was, put it this way ... But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)

Again, the Apostle Paul admonished Timothy, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:2-4 The Greek word that was translated into English as "endure" is anecho (Strong's G430) pronounced ä-ne'-kho meaning ...

1) to hold up 2) to hold one's self erect and firm 3) to sustain, to bear, to endure

Many are taught, firmly believe and will adamantly defend a position, that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity comes straight from the pages of the Bible, itself. When, in fact, the word "Holy" is the only part that can be found in the Bible. The word "Trinity" can't be found in a single solitary Scripture in the entire King James Version of the Holy Bible. Neither did anyone in the entire King James Version of the Holy Bible ever refer to God or the Godhead with these words, "One God in three persons", as multitudes do today.

With such a widely accepted belief, and millions just going with the flow, the crowd has to be right, right? Well, let's see what Jesus had to say in Matthew 7:13-14 ... "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

Folks, it's time for a "gut level" reality check. According to the greatest Teacher ever to walk upon Planet Earth, when it comes to spiritual matters ... THE CROWD IS WRONG!

Not one single solitary person in the entire Bible ever used the following terms ...

"One God in three persons", "God the Son", "God the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit) "The Holy Trinity"

So, how and when did the doctrine of the Holy Trinity come into existence? And, why is it so widely accepted, today? Those two questions are certainly valid ones, and deserve serious examination and consideration.

Encyclopedia International, 1975 Edition, Vol.18, p.226 - The doctrine of the "Trinity" did not form part of the apostles' preaching, as this is reported in the New Testament.

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 Edition, Vol.13, p.1021 - The first use of the Latin word "trinitas" (trinity) with reference to God, is found in Tertullian's writings (about 213 A.D.) He was the first to use the term "persons" (plural) in a Trinitarian context.

Encyclopedia Americana, 1957 Edition, Vol.27, p.69 - The word "Trinity" is not in Scripture. The term "persons" (plural) is not applied in Scripture to the Trinity.

World Book Encyclopedia, 1975 Edition, Vol. T, p.363 - Belief in Father, Son and Holy Ghost was first defined by the earliest general council of churches. This was the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.

New International Encyclopedia, Vol.22, p.476 - The Catholic faith is this: We worship one God 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 aver the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination.

Life Magazine, October 30, 1950, Vol.29, No.18, p.51 - The Catholics made this statement concerning their doctrine of the Trinity, to defend the dogma of the assumption of Mary, in an article written by Graham Greene: "Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in Scripture... But the PROTESTANT CHURCHES have themselves accepted such dogmas as THE TRINITY, for which there is NO SUCH PRECISE AUTHORITY in the Gospels"

Many use the human reasoning and logic that the non-Biblical words "trinity", "triune" or "persons" (pertaining to God and/or the Godhead) should be accepted just as the word "rapture" is .... or even the word "sandwich" (for that matter). And, even though "sandwich" is not a Biblical word, I know they're real 'cause I ate one yesterday. So, my point ... or my question ... is, what Biblical words could be used in the place of the words "trinity", "triune" OR "persons" pertaining to God and/or the Godhead? I wouldn't have any trouble at all finding Biblical words to use in the place of "sandwich", "rapture" and "Bible". They are: "bread" and "meat", "caught up" "Word of God" and "book".

Now, if those who embrace the man-made theory of the Trinity can find any words that will do for "truine", "persons" or "trinity" what the words "bread" and "meat", "caught up" "Word of God" and "book" will do for "sandwich" and "rapture", I would love to see them. Unless or until they can, I suggest that they stop adding to or taking from (depending on how you look at it) the Word of God by embracing, as dogmatically held doctrine, theories which aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible ... and without any Biblical words which could serve as a substitute for such.

While the Bible does NOT authorize a belief in three "persons" who jointly form One God. However, the Bible does accurately describes God as the Father in Creation, the Son in Redemption and the Holy Spirit living in the hearts of believers throughout the New Testament Church Age. But, that is three "forms" of God ... three "manifestations" of God ... three "titles" of God ... three "offices/positions" which God holds and ... three "roles" in which God functions ... BUT NOT THREE PERSONS. NOWHERE can it be found in the Bible which says that is that there is one God "in three persons". That's an "add on" that people would do well to just leave off.

I can very accurately be described as a father, son and husband ... or a teacher, student and minister. While I function in more than one capacity and occupy more than one office, and wear a number of different hats, I am still just ONE person. As a matter of fact, I can be in the same room with, and in the presence of, my mother, my wife and my daughters, and I can speak, act and function as a father, son and husband without anybody getting confused as to how many persons I am or who is talking.

English was my worst subject in school, but I do remember a few things. For illustration purposes only, it is not proper to link the singular pronoun "He", which refers to one "person", to verbs like: "see", "hear" and "warn" ... which would look like this ... "He see", "He hear" and "He warn". When using the singular pronoun "He", it is necessary to use the verbs "sees", "hears" and "warns" ... "He SEES", "He HEARS" and "He WARNS". In order to use the verbs "see", "hear" and "warn", you must use a noun or pronoun which is "plural" and identifies "more" than one person like, "People" ... "People see", "People hear" and "People warn". Yet, intelligent people who know this rule, but who have been indoctrinated to believe that there are three "persons" of God, ignore this rule when it comes to the word "GOD" (the Hebrew word Elohim).

**IF** the word "GOD" (Elohim) identifies more than one "person", as the trinitarians insist, the Bible should read like this, "God SEE", "God HEAR" and "God WARN" ... AND IT DOESN'T! The word "GOD" is never linked to a verb like that. Instead, the word "GOD" is ALWAYS linked to verbs just as the word "He" (a singular person) is ... like this, "God SEES", "God HEARS" and "God WARNS". Again, I use these particular words for illustration purposes only, but I hope I have made my point ... and that it's CLEAR.

Men started "reading" things into the Scriptures a couple centuries or so AFTER Jesus ascended back up into Heaven, and after the "foot print followers" of our Lord had passed on. As a result, there has evolved all sorts of religious beliefs and denominations. However, in order to get people to stop and think about a few things, I use the Clark Kent/Superman analogy quite a bit. Jesus said and did some of the things He said and did to set an example for those who witnessed it to follow, as well as for those of us who would read about it 2,000 years later. At any rate, the reason I use Clark Kent/Superman is because people are familiar with the scenario. And, although Clark Kent/Superman is a fictitious character, I contend that the Incarnate Christ was, indeed, the REAL Superman. And, as a result, Jesus often spoke of the Father as if the Father where someone other than Himself who was way off in another galaxy or solar system.

As a former trinitarian, myself, I understand why those who have been indoctrinated to believe there's two or three of 'em up there believe such, as well as those who interpret ... and try to understand ... the Bible "literally". However, spiritual things are NOT understood with human reasoning and logic. And, Jesus was unlike any one else who has ever walked upon planet Earth. While He possessed the Glory and Power of Deity, He went about as a lowly servant. He had a "human" nature as a result of actually being born of a woman. And, He had a "Divine" nature as a result of Him being God manifested in the flesh. Also, Jesus served as the example ... or the template (so to speak) ... for all Christians to pattern themselves after. And, as a result, He said and did many things for our benefit ... AND to set an example for us to follow. By the way, I am NOT saying Jesus was deceitful, nor that He lied ... far from it. It's just that He could (and did) speak, act and function as any "ordinary" man, at times. And, He also could (and did) speak, act and function as Almighty God, at other times, while here on Earth. Those who have ears to hear, hears what the Spirit saith, and aren't trying to fuel a flawed, man-made, pre-conceived and indoctrinated agenda, will, I believe, come to the understanding as to who Jesus "really" is **IF** they truly hunger and thirst for righteousness. Then, it will be up to them what they do from that point. They can continue on in their traditions and doctrines of men OR they can come out from among them and be ye separate.

Since Isaiah was a MAJOR Messianic Prophet in the Old Testament, my challenge for every "natural" Jew and every professing Christian who believes the man-made theory of the Holy Trinity OR those who believe Jesus was Michael the Archangel or some other inferior subordinate is very simple. I challenge all "natural Jews", all professing Christians who believes the man-made theory of the Holy Trinity, the entire Watchtower Society constituency, the Vatican, and the entire Roman Catholic Church constituency, as well as any and all members and/or associates, past and present, of the various and sundry Protestant denominations, any and all independent Bible students and scholars including the entire constituency of the anything connected to or remotely resembling the Mormon Church ... or anyone else (**IF** I missed anybody) ... to read 11 Chapters in the Book of Isaiah (Chapters 41, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 59, 60, and 63) and then provide me with the Scripture(s) they believe supports the belief that the coming (prophesied and promised) MESSIAH would be someone BESIDES Jehovah/God, Himself.

Those of us who embrace the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine understand something very important: The Incarnate Christ was the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last ... God manifest in the flesh. And, these are just a few of the documenting Scriptures I use ... Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 44:6; Isaiah 48:12; Micah 1:2-3; John 1:1-14; John 10:30-33; John 14:6-11; Colossians 2:8-10; 1 Timothy 3:16; Rev. 2:8; Rev. 21:6; and Rev. 22:13.

Yes, the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is a flawed man-made theory, and is NOT "sound doctrine" at all. Therefore, upon learn this, a person should ask themselves this question, "Do I want Truth in its entirety, or do I want man's flawed theories and traditions?" Whatever you decide, it is entirely up to you. In the final analysis of things, you and I will be justified or condemned not by just our faith and beliefs alone, but also by the words we speak AND our deeds. Silence can be interpreted as consent. There are sins of omissions and sins of commission. And, there will be lots of "good" people in hell. Being "good" is NOT good enough. If you doubt or dispute that, read Acts Chapter 10.

A very closely related subject to this is the words that are invoked at baptismal services. The name that was alluded to in Matthew 28:19 is the precious name of Jesus. Quoting Matthew 28:19 does NOT fulfill the Great Commission. Those who knew how it was to be done, invoked the precious name of Jesus in Acts 2:37-41; Acts 8:14-17; Acts 10:44-48; and Acts 19:1-6. Jesus was NOT telling His disciples what to "say" in Matthew 28:19, He was telling them what to "do". And, besides, nobody was baptized in Matthew 28:19. Nobody in the entire Bible was baptized in the "titles" of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. We are admonished in Colossians 3:17 to do whatever we do in "word AND deed", to do it all of it in the "NAME of Jesus". And, besides baptism, here are a couple other places, and direct "quotes", where the "name of Jesus" was invoked in word and deed instead of the "titles" of Father, Son and Holy Ghost ....

Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

Acts 16:18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

Not only does the Bible reveal baptism in the name of Jesus, but so does history ...

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: "The formula used was "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the trine name… The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the trine name (Justin)…"

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: "The evidence… suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: "The trinitarian baptismal formula,,, was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: "The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus… which still occurs even in the second and third centuries."

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53: "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.'"

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: "The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning… Bapti[sm] into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."

My advice to you is, if you aren't affiliated with one now, that you find yourself a church which embraces, teaches and preaches the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine and baptizes in the precious name of Jesus ... the name that was alluded to in Matthew 28:19 ... and go there, and see (and feel) the difference for yourself.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. About the Author:
Encyclopedia Internationa

New Catholic Encyclopedia

The King James Bible

Article Source: http://www.articleseen.com/Article_ The Holy Trinity: Sound Doctrine or a Man-Made Tradition?_77437.aspx


TOPICS: History; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: antitrinitarian; fringe; heresy; kook; microsect; minimicrosect; sect; splinter; tradition; trinity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 761-773 next last
To: aMorePerfectUnion
Show a verse that supports this fraudulent claim of "Christ's promise to the church that He personally founded to never err in matters of faith and morals"

without doing your homework for you....the verses said something like ....I give unto you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven...whatsoever you shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, whatsoever you shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.........now you don't suppose that Christ would have allowed His church to err on Earth and then have to change the rules in Heaven, do you???

521 posted on 01/15/2014 3:20:53 PM PST by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

“without doing your homework for you....
Your truth claim, your burden of proof.

“the verses said something like ....”

Not a good start!

“I give unto you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven...whatsoever you shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, whatsoever you shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.........”

Interesting single (sort of quote) verse, but does not prove what you claimed. In fact, Greek would help you a lot here.

“now you don’t suppose that Christ would have allowed His church to err on Earth and then have to change the rules in Heaven, do you???”

Wow, that is full of presuppositions! It is absolutely possible for a church to err - as we read in the opening of Revelation.

Fail at proving your truth claim. Is that all you have?? If so, you failed to back up your assertion and it is summarily rejected.

Where’s the beef??!!


522 posted on 01/15/2014 3:35:08 PM PST by aMorePerfectUnion (Truth is hate to those who hate the Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

I didn’t “invent” ANY of the personal attributes listed in post #447...you are the one ignoring all of Jesus’ references to “He” and “Him” and “another Advocate” being sent by Him in the book of John


523 posted on 01/15/2014 3:43:25 PM PST by Colofornian (The Spirit HIMSELF [not itself] testifies w/our spirit...we ARE [not will be] GodÂ’s children Rom8:1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
>> But not a separate person other than the father or son as scripture makes abundantly.<<

So you would say that: Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: is just two persons?

And I suppose the Holy Spirit descending on Jesus while the Father’s voice sounded from heaven was also just two persons?

524 posted on 01/15/2014 3:51:18 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

What kind of indoctrination does it take for people to deny all the obvious documented evidence we present?


525 posted on 01/15/2014 3:54:12 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; DouglasKC

If Douglas could actually comprehend things like “baptized in the NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” and pronouns like “He,” and such, then he wouldn’t be a member of a flaky religious cult ultimately founded by a guy who thought he was Elijah and a descendant of King David on his mother’s side.


526 posted on 01/15/2014 3:55:55 PM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: terycarl; Elsie
>> how did the Evangalists know<<

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Now tell me how anyone after the apostles could “remember”.

527 posted on 01/15/2014 3:59:11 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
If Douglas could actually comprehend things like “baptized in the NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” and pronouns like “He,” and such, then he wouldn’t be a member of a flaky religious cult ultimately founded by a guy who thought he was Elijah and a descendant of King David on his mother’s side.

Et tu more poo? :-)

Mat 28:19 “Go thereforefn and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

This is a baptismal formula, not a description of the Godhead. The disciples of Christ takes it to mean this:

Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

They understood that this means that we are to receive the holy spirit after being baptized in the name of the father and son.

This is provable from scripture because this is how they baptized:

Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.

They didn't baptize in the "name" of anyone called the holy spirit.

Act 8:16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Again...

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

So, yeah, you've got it wrong...again... :-)

528 posted on 01/15/2014 4:20:09 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
I didn’t “invent” ANY of the personal attributes listed in post #447...you are the one ignoring all of Jesus’ references to “He” and “Him” and “another Advocate” being sent by Him in the book of John

Who is the parakletos or advocate with the father?

1Jo 2:1 My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate (parakletos) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
1Jo 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

The theology you worship has mixed you up so much that you've forgotten Christ...

529 posted on 01/15/2014 4:24:13 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
So you would say that: Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: is just two persons?

See post 528...

530 posted on 01/15/2014 4:26:08 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
Mary had been assumed into Heaven.

He gave them enough inspiration so they determined that it was the truth......that's how most of the Bible was written....by Inspired men...

You make your God look really sloppy, give some inspiration to men and let them make up unbiblical events (Mary assumed into heaven) and then saying that is how God works. Baloney.

ALL of the Bible was written through men WITH the help of the Holy Spirit.

Men being given enough "tradition(al) and actual evidence to determine that Mary had been assumed into Heaven"

Sounds like the evidence for the LDS scriptures...No scriptures even hint at Mary's assumption, it's made up tradition.

how did the evangelist(sic) know what He prayed to the Father? how did the evangelist(sic) know what the devil said to Jesus?

how did the Evangalists know ANYTHING about the birth of Jesus, the manger, the shepherds, the singing Angels, no room at the inn.....please...

You have been taught how the Holy Sprit works multiple times, so I'll make this short.

The Bible is God breathed, the Holy Spirit gave, in many cases, the knowledge of events they did not see so they could write them down.

The Catholic church needs a catacizm (or what ever they are called) to teach about the Holy Spirit, and needs to find a Christian to do it.

The answers to your questions are so easy, mature Christians are aware of them. But some need to be taught the milk of the scriptures and learn them before going on to the meat.

Maybe you can find a Christian Bible study group in your area.

531 posted on 01/15/2014 4:29:07 PM PST by Syncro ("So?" - -Andrew Breitbart --The King of All Media RIP Feb 1, 1969 to Mar 1, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

Jesus is indeed our advocate...and mediator {1 tim 2:5} and intercessor {heb 4:14}...yet so is the holy spirit {john 14}...and the holy spirit is our intercessor {Rom 8:27}...Jesus in John 14 clearly says “another” advocate...how long have you had issues understanding the word “another”???


532 posted on 01/15/2014 4:34:08 PM PST by Colofornian (The Spirit HIMSELF [not itself] testifies w/our spirit...we ARE [not will be] GodÂ’s children Rom8:1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; Greetings_Puny_Humans; Colofornian

That was a nice attempt at obfuscation but that didn’t answer my question. The verse distinctly identifies three personages. I didn’t ask in what name to baptize.


533 posted on 01/15/2014 4:36:29 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Jesus is indeed our advocate...and mediator {1 tim 2:5} and intercessor {heb 4:14}...yet so is the holy spirit {john 14}...and the holy spirit is our intercessor {Rom 8:27}...Jesus in John 14 clearly says “another” advocate...how long have you had issues understanding the word “another”???

Oh? And you have to add to scripture?

1Ti 2:5For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

Now your theology throws someone else in there...kind of like Marianism...

Who to believe?

534 posted on 01/15/2014 4:50:49 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; Colofornian

“This is a baptismal formula, not a description of the Godhead. “


It is a baptismal formula, in the NAME of the Godhead, sophist, which includes the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

“They understood that this means that we are to receive the holy spirit after being baptized in the name of the father and son.”


IOW, you think Luke contradicts Matthew, but then he must contradict Paul too:

2Co_13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

That verse you provided only mentions being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, resulting in the gift of the Holy Spirit. It does not mention being baptized in the name of the Father AND Christ. Not that Christians didn’t baptize with the entire formula of course, leaving the Father and Spirit out of it:

Didache (Somewhere between 50ad-130ad):

“Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. 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, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.”

Ignatius, perished between 95-115AD:

“Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honour.” (Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians)

“So, yeah, you’ve got it wrong...again... :-)”


It’s more like you belched in my general direction, and then congratulated yourself for it, like the heathen you are.


535 posted on 01/15/2014 4:52:41 PM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
“This is a baptismal formula, not a description of the Godhead. “
It is a baptismal formula, in the NAME of the Godhead, sophist, which includes the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
“They understood that this means that we are to receive the holy spirit after being baptized in the name of the father and son.”
IOW, you think Luke contradicts Matthew, but then he must contradict Paul too:
2Co_13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

You quote 2 (two) verses that include God, Christ and the holy spirit and claim that this is the Godhead. I quote dozens that show that the Godhead is father and son. Bible beats you every time gph.

That verse you provided only mentions being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, resulting in the gift of the Holy Spirit. It does not mention being baptized in the name of the Father AND Christ. Not that Christians didn’t baptize with the entire formula of course, leaving the Father and Spirit out of it: Didache (Somewhere between 50ad-130ad):

Ha ha...nice try...quote an extra biblical source...sorry, I'll believe the bible and the practice of biblical Christians...

I have no problem if you want to take tradition over what the bible says. But at least be honest enough to say that you prefer your tradition.

536 posted on 01/15/2014 5:09:24 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 535 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; Colofornian; All

“Who to believe?”


We believe the scripture, not the stupid sophistry put forward by religious cults which destroy, apparently, not just the soul, but the mind as well.

“Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.”
(Rom 8:26-27)

The mediation between Christ and the Father occurs in heaven, and the basis of it is His blood spilled for us on the cross. The intercession of the Holy Spirit is within our own hearts, and in helping us to pray, and in all the other gifts that He applies to us, as He is our aid and comfort.


537 posted on 01/15/2014 5:16:19 PM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
That was a nice attempt at obfuscation but that didn’t answer my question. The verse distinctly identifies three personages. I didn’t ask in what name to baptize.<> No, it mentioned two people and their spirit. And Acts shows how they actually baptized.
538 posted on 01/15/2014 5:16:23 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; Colofornian

“You quote 2 (two) verses that include God, Christ and the holy spirit and claim that this is the Godhead.”


Aye, and two verses which you, being a sophist, cannot come to grips with. The Bible trumps you, cultist.

“Ha ha...nice try...quote an extra biblical source...sorry,”


The stupid claims of the UCG include the idea that they practice Christianity in the same way that the first century Christians do. Ignatius and the Didache both date to the first century, and they agree with me, not you.

Thus scripture and history trumps the fantasies of the Armstrong cult.


539 posted on 01/15/2014 5:19:09 PM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; CynicalBear

“No, it mentioned two people and their spirit. And Acts shows how they actually baptized.”


Yet, the liars of the Armstrong cult would have us believe that Luke declares that men are to be baptized in the name of the Father and Son only, leaving out the Holy Spirit. But Luke only mentions Jesus Christ. So even their own sophistry comes back to haunt these losers.


540 posted on 01/15/2014 5:21:06 PM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 761-773 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson