I'm sorry vmatt, but I don't try to argue the meaning of Revelation. The style of literature used is wildly imaginative and I refuse to get into interpretation battles about it. We have a hard enough time trying to agree on the meaning of the stuff written as history.
In what sense are they one? In what sense do "twain become one" in marriage, a type of the church? Paul says that in marriage your interests become that of making your spouse happy.
And when I don't wish to make her happy anymore and wish to make another happy? No, it's not just about my interests. Man and wife become one, typified by the creative act. I didn't even see your post yet when I wrote above about marriage. It is the union of two souls, a taste of the eventual union of all believers. A true union, like the Trinity.
In this sense is God and Jesus one also, but their individual identity remains Father and Son, two beings..
Two persons. One God. Does not the rest of the Bible lead you to a monotheisim?
SD
This is a term used to describe the effect of Adam's sin on his descendants (Rom. 5:12-23). Specifically, it is our inheritance of a sinful nature from Adam. The sinful nature originated with Adam and is passed down from parent to child. We are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3).
It is my personal belief (opinion) that is is passed down by the male.
There doesn't appear to be a difference between the 2 terms to me.
116 Posted on 10/11/2001 05:39:06 PDT by Iowegian
It is my personal belief (opinion) that is is passed down by the male.
That would be consistent with the need for the virgin birth !
Tehillim (Psalm) 119:105 Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.
XeniaSt
There are dramatically different beliefs and practices among people who profess to follow the book called "The Bible." What is it worth then? Should we not attempt to write down what we know as true and transmit it to all and future? Some might dissent, so why bother?
Yes, and exactly what did he mean when he said "two or three"? That doesn't sound like the Magesterium of the (entire) body of the Church. It certainly doesn't imply that one of them is superior.
All the apostles were given the power to bind and loose. Today all Bishops have this power. Only Peter got the keys, which means he has the final say on all maters.
I don't necessarilly disagree that it could be used to defend the idea of the Apostolic Church. (The Orthodox Bishops, The Episcopal Bishops, and probably any Pastor who is ordained by the "laying on of hands".) Why not?
Why not what? Do you mean why not these other bishops and pastors? That's what I'll answer.
It is not just a question of having someone laying hands on one to ordain him. The man doing so must have the authority to do so. This authority only comes from a direct succession. The Orthodox have maintained this succession and their bishops and priests are validly ordained. The Anglicans used to have a claim to maintaining Apostolic succession. In some cases their priests are valid, but it is largely not so anymore. They've ordained women and practicing homosexuals. It can not be said that any given Anglican priest is valid.
Other churches can not usually said be said in any way to derive their teaching authority from a direct ordination from a validly ordained Bishop of any of the above mentiones churches.
SD
Suffice it to say trinity doctrine has been around a long time and will remain. It is a false doctrine. You provide no explanation for the scriptures I cite to disprove trinity doctrine which brings out my main point: I don't mind being disagreed with but I do provide scripture for my beliefs.
If you wish to continue, provide your exegesis for the other scriptures I use to disprove trinity doctine. No one has yet to do such which is characteristic of those who adhere to this belief. God and His Christ become "one" when convenient but "two" or "three" when convenient also. I understand as this is the only way to find consistency with this doctrine from the bible but is not sufficient for those of us searching for truth.