Posted on 04/08/2013 9:22:31 AM PDT by DouglasKC
May I suggest actually reading the articles and information I've linked instead of making assumptions? :-)
Of course Jesus Christ is God. Of course Jesus Christ is divine. Of course Jesus Christ is part of the Godhead. That's what I believe and that's a fundamental belief of UCG because scripture bears it out multiple times.
What scripture doesn't bear out is the idea that holy spirit is part of the Godhead IN HEAVEN. Every glimpse of the Godhead shows the father and son, but never an entity called the holy spirit.
For example:
Dan 7:13 "I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him.
Dan 7:14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed.
In Revelation there are multiple glimpses of the Godhead. For example:
Rev_3:21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
No throne for anything called "the holy spirit"...ever. It's because the holy spirit IS the spirit of the Lord on our earth. But it's not a separate person in the Godhead in heaven. This notion was created and evolved centuries after the death of Christ.
I was very specific in pointing our that the term "ekklesia" within the Greek culture and language was associated with a very formal institution, not a loose grouping of like minded persons. I cannot see it how the original meanings can or should be changed to suit a particular doctrine, theology or tradition.
If you want to go even deeper, there is considerable evidence that the concept of a Hebrew Qahal was associated with the term within the Gospels. The more you dig, the more you find the Traditions of the Church to be in sync with the Apostles.
Peace be with you.
“Every glimpse of the Godhead shows the father and son, but never an entity called the holy spirit.
For example:”
For example:
Isa_48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
Mat_12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Mat_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:
If the Holy Spirit does not exist “in heaven,” He would not be side by side the Father and the Son in the baptismal formula, who are both “in heaven”. Blasphemy against Him would not be unforgivable. He would not be involved in cooperation with the Father and the Son separately in the salvation of men. He and the Father would not be sending the Son separately in Isaiah.
“This notion”
Your notion has no basis in the scripture.
I am sorry to inform you that the tradition of which you speak is the self-talk your organization presents as proof. There is simply no evidence in the Scriptures of a “Centralized Authority” which was deemed to be the headquarters of the “Church”...until Rome proclaimed it to be so. And, nominated itself for the office. And...peace is with me.
You wrote:
“I am aware of the Greek term, and evidently you missed the point here... There is no such word as “Church”, especially Church with a capital “C”, the way Rome has laid claim to the term.”
I think you missed the point. “Rome”, as you put it, historically doesn’t use the word “Church”. It uses the word “ecclesia”. “Church” is an English word derived from the Greek word “kyriakos” which means “of the Lord” (i.e. belonging to the Lord).
“Jesus made no reference to an organization on earth,”
Actually He did, but not in your juandiced Protestant anti-Catholic way of talking about it. He gave authority to someone and something. That shows there had to be an organization, an institution.
“but rather was indicating His “assembly” of believers from all over the world gathering in small “assemblies” in homes, shops, underground.”
And that assembly is the Church, and that assembly is an organization and an institution.
Wait just a hot second here, my peace-wishing FRiend...yours is the most "jaundiced", biased, self-proving statement yet. It is the Roman organization which has imputed more meaning into the remarks of Jesus than are actually there. He gave them authority to perform miracles in the surrounding towns. There was no organization, and no institution. Go read the text without the Rome-colored glasses (pretty clever, eh?).
This is a way of saying that the spirit of God caused him to go there. He's not making a statement about an entity called "the holy spirit" in heaven.
If the Holy Spirit does not exist “in heaven,” He would not be side by side the Father and the Son in the baptismal formula, who are both “in heaven”.
I've showed you two instances of visions of the Godhead in heaven and there is no creature there with the name of "holy spirit" shown or presented. There are many more instances if you would like me to show them I will.
As far as scripture goes there is no clear picture of a trinity. This isn't even debatable. The proof of that is that it took over 3 CENTURIES of debate before the trinity was fully evolved and made part of doctrine.
Read Council of Constantinople
The current understanding of the trinity evolved over the centuries by what became the Catholic church. Protestants kept his tradition when they split from Rome.
But biblically the overwhelming picture is one of the father and son as being the Godhead.
This is not only reflected in the visions of the Godhead as revealed in scripture but in virtually all the letters from Paul:
Rom_1:7 To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
No greeting from an entity called "the holy spirit". It's like that in all of Paul's letters.
Concerning Matthew 28:19:
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
I think you'll agree that this is NOT a description of the Godhead, but a baptismal formula. It's likely a bad translation (or perhaps a later alteration) or the idea found in Acts:
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.
Note that the first disciples baptized in the name of Christ and received the GIFT of the holy spirit. Matthew 28:19 is simply an affirmation that baptism is needed ultimately to get the spirit of the Lord.
This isn't an isolated incident in Acts either:
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.
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.
Act_10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
Act_19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act_22:16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'
You wrote:
“There was no organization, and no institution.”
Well, I typed out a long reply with 9 separate points and then the internet ate it. Shame on me for not saving it in Word first!
I’ll reduce everything to this:
There’s no logical way around the following: the sharing and distribution of goods and monies from a common purse or fund, the designation of leaders and levels of leadership, the clear lines between leaders and others, Jesus’ use of parables for outsiders but the straight story for insiders (Apostles and Disciples), the designated tasks and expansion of levels of leadership and tasks (e.g. deacons serving), discussion of issues in committe or conference and issuing of new rules for followers (Acts 15), the power to oust heretics or public sinners from the assembly, the very idea that the assembly has expections about your behavior and you can be ousted for not measuring up, organized efforts (like EVERYONE praying for Peter when he was arrested, the establishment of house churches and finding of helpers, the fact that St. Paul could leave his property with someone and recall it when he needed it, St. Paul keeping in touch and teaching by letters, the use of specialized terms, the use of specialized rites of initiation (baptism) - all of these show there was an organization and an institution and it was and is the Church.
“This is a way of saying that the spirit of God caused him to go there. He’s not making a statement about an entity called “the holy spirit” in heaven.”
It says “The Lord GOD, and his Spirit.” It does not say “The Lord God’s Spirit.” This is a plurality.
“I’ve showed you two instances of visions of the Godhead in heaven and there is no creature there with the name of “holy spirit” shown or presented.”
First of all, the Holy Spirit is “not a creature.” In fact, we are specifically told that the Holy Spirit is God. The Holy Spirit fills all believers, as promised by Christ:
Joh_7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
And we are called the Temples of God as a result, for He dwells in us:
1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
As for your quotes, they don’t prove anything you are arguing. I gave you scripture quotes where the Holy Spirit stands side by side the Father and the Son. No one is getting baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and then a Creature that doesn’t exist. The Son is not being sent by just the Lord GOD, but the Spirit also. The Comforter is not the Father or the Son, but is sent by the Father:
Joh_14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Joh_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.
Joh_15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, is differentiated from the Father, and is equal with the Father and the Son as seen in the baptism of believers.
“As far as scripture goes there is no clear picture of a trinity. This isn’t even debatable. “
Please don’t project your ignorance of the scripture on us. I’ve already disproven your blasphemies.
“No greeting from an entity called “the holy spirit”. It’s like that in all of Paul’s letters.”
Just a farewell, I suppose:
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.
“I think you’ll agree that this is NOT a description of the Godhead, but a baptismal formula. It’s likely a bad translation (or perhaps a later alteration) or the idea found in Acts:”
It’s a description of how believers ought to be baptized in the name of God, who is Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Unless you can provide for me evidence that we are not to be baptized in the name of God.
If you deny that the scripture is accurate, don’t say “probably.” Please provide evidence for your claim, and nothing more.
“This isn’t an isolated incident in Acts either:”
As has been shown, the trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not an isolated incident in the scriptures.
Yes, but the main point still stands. There is no instance in scripture where the holy spirit is shown in the Godhead with the father and the son. There ARE numerous examples of the father and son on their thrones or in heaven.
“As far as scripture goes there is no clear picture of a trinity. This isn’t even debatable. “ Please don’t project your ignorance of the scripture on us. I’ve already disproven your blasphemies.
I'll take the name calling gladly. :-)
I'm grateful at least that you didn't try to refute the historical development of the trinity doctrine.
If you deny that the scripture is accurate, don’t say “probably.” Please provide evidence for your claim, and nothing more. “This isn’t an isolated incident in Acts either:”
And you made no effort to explain why the first apostles were documented in scripture only baptizing in the name of Jesus.
Look, I'm sorry if you don't agree but the trinity doctrine is and was clearly a later addition to primitive Christianity. That's an historical fact. It took over 300 years of debate to settle the issue even among the most religious. It's still considered as an incomplete mystery by the Catholic church. It's not blasphemy to question a doctrine that wasn't even settled until long long after the death of Christ.
“Yes, but the main point still stands.”
Your main point never stood. It’s been demolished by the fact that the Holy Spirit is called God, and is sent from the Father, at the request of the Son, and is differentiated from the Father.
“There is no instance in scripture where the holy spirit is shown in the Godhead with the father and the son.”
I have already shown you multiple instances. It’s not my fault you won’t read them.
“I’ll take the name calling gladly. :-)”
Fine with me, as long as you don’t take the name of “Christian.”
“I’m grateful at least that you didn’t try to refute the historical development of the trinity doctrine.”
It is my custom to ignore such arguments, since they’re instantly refuted by showing that the doctrine originates from the scripture.
Since you didn’t dispute the scriptures I quoted nor the conclusions, other than to pretend entirely that they don’t exist, I am grateful that you are no threat to Christianity.
“And you made no effort to explain why the first apostles were documented in scripture only baptizing in the name of Jesus.”
Why would I have to? You didn’t reply to the scripture wherein Paul bids farewell in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You also didn’t properly reply to the baptismal formula given by Christ Himself, only just asserting that it must be wrong, because it does not fit with the theology of your Jehovah’s Witness-lite religion. Just because it says, “in the name of Jesus Christ, and receive ye the gift of the Holy Ghost” does not follow that they didn’t use the baptismal formula that includes the Father and the Holy Ghost. They are not denying that the Holy Spirit does not exist, since they mention Him immediately. And would you deny the Father as well? It is enough that I have already shown that the Father and the Holy Spirit are included in the baptismal formula, and that they frequently appear altogether, Father Son and Holy Spirit.
You are also so ignorant of the scriptures that you don’t even comprehend what is going on with baptism in the first place. What was it that Christians believed was going on here? That they would be baptized in water, signifying a spiritual reality that occurs by the direct power of God: Namely, the baptism and infilling of the Holy Spirit.
Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Thus it is the baptism by the Spirit directly, whom you deny exists, that is the greater blessing which the water only signifies. In fact, the infilling of the Holy Spirit isn’t dependent on water baptism, as Cornelius, for example, and his entire family in Acts 10 are baptized with the Holy Spirit prior to water baptism.
Act 10:44-47 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Thus, to even mention the baptism, is to immediately affirm the existence of the Holy Ghost whom you deny.
“That’s an historical fact.”
Sorry, but I already proved you wrong. Just because you won’t reply to my arguments, but will only keep repeating the ones from your religious cult, doesn’t make you a threat to authentic first century Christianity.
Unless you would like to discuss this without insults and name calling I’ll let you have the last word. Discussing this is obviously causing you distress. Take care and God bless.
“I’ll let you have the last word.”
You let me have the last word a post ago, when you failed to reply to the scriptures I provided.
“Take care and God bless.”
I’ll not be blessed by the idol of your perverted Gospel. I’ll have a Christian bless me later.
"...all of these show there was an organization and an institution and it was and is the Church."
But, no, you may wish to "reduce everything" to something that Rome has taught, but it is clearly not definitive. In I Cor., Paul is arguing that the Grecian penchant for polished speakers had clouded their recognition of good, solid doctrine. Apollos may have been better on his feet, and smoother with his tongue, but Paul had been taught directly by Jesus. How could there have been a need to explain if everyone knew that there was just one central authority?
Paul's appeal to the Corinthians is to the solidarity of the Gospel itself, not his right to control nor to Apollos' eloquence or superior wisdom. Both just watered/planted, God caused the growth. Paul even notes that some groups did not recognize his apostleship but that did not stop him. Titles and roles meant little to him and he would publicly spank Peter(Gal. 2).
And, this kind of wrestling to see the truth, my FRiend was done in all the ekklasiai (plural). Read the whole story. There was not a neat and clean little "headquarters". There were multiple "gatherings/assemblies", not a central organization.
You wrote:
“But, no, you may wish to “reduce everything” to something that Rome has taught, but it is clearly not definitive.”
Actually it is definitive. Even heretics, right up until a few hundred years ago, admitted there was an organization/institution established by Christ. The “invisible church” crowd resorts to its belief precisely because it is the only possible way to trick or fool someone into not believing the obvious truth: Christ established a visible Church.
“In I Cor., Paul is arguing that the Grecian penchant for polished speakers had clouded their recognition of good, solid doctrine. Apollos may have been better on his feet, and smoother with his tongue, but Paul had been taught directly by Jesus. How could there have been a need to explain if everyone knew that there was just one central authority?”
Because people are sinners and sometimes do stupid things. Is Jesus a central authority? If He is, then why didn’t the APostles believe Him when He said - three times in ever greater detail - that He would be put to death (and would rise again)? The very Apostles who had known Jesus for three years, watched Him perform miracles, walk on water, raise the dead, etc. didn’t believe Him.
“Paul’s appeal to the Corinthians is to the solidarity of the Gospel itself, not his right to control nor to Apollos’ eloquence or superior wisdom. Both just watered/planted, God caused the growth. Paul even notes that some groups did not recognize his apostleship but that did not stop him.”
It did not stop him from proclaiming his Apostleship either. The very word apostle shows that he was sent. And before he began his great career as one who was sent he stayed with Peter. Paul operated with the authority given to him.
“Titles and roles meant little to him and he would publicly spank Peter(Gal. 2).”
No. His own title of Apostle obviously meant quite a bit to him. At the same time, he rebuked Peter to his face and was right to do so.
“And, this kind of wrestling to see the truth, my FRiend was done in all the ekklasiai (plural). Read the whole story. There was not a neat and clean little “headquarters”. There were multiple “gatherings/assemblies”, not a central organization.”
No. The Church was one, but had many “assemblies”. Still does. The Church was the central authority and it was clearly an organization/institution established by God.
Well put, thanks for posting.
>>>”Christ established a visible Church.”
That’s the bottom line and one can’t read Acts and Paul’s letters without realizing this.
Well, we shall see when this is all over who is correct...the monstrosity called the RCC, or the small gatherings which teach the Gospel.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Is this an example of you always taking the high road until the Catholics come out with the knives?
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.