if one doest accept the trinity then what was jesus?

[jasoncran]

odd the second century ones were rejected as well by the disciplines of the apostles as well.

let me see origin was a second century gnostic was rejected by the church as whole as he taught that jesus was spirit only he had no flesh, and that we could sin all we want in the flesh as it wasnt real anyway(sound familair the stoics thought that as well)

Origin and Arius later rejected Gnosticism. Some Gnostics's converted to Christian Judaism. {Judaizing Christians}

negatory, origin never recanted.

 

[JudaicChristian]

The Judaizing Christians were in possession of the original bible text. The Gnostic's would round them up on Saturdays to prosecute them as heretics. The Gnostic Christians would take and burn their scriptures, and then replace them with their own version of scriptures.

 

[jasoncran]

The Judaizing Christians were in possession of the original bible text. The Gnostic's would round them up on Saturdays to prosecute them as heretics. The Gnostic Christians would take and burn their scriptures, and then replace them with their own version of scriptures.

did you say the judaizing christians

the ones that peter went to the jerusalem council in acts 15 over and the council said the ot law wasnt to be followed like the judiazers wanted to, ie the need for the circuscmission and other rituals.

in fact paul condemns those that try to turn to the law over the crufixifacation and cleansing of the blood.

 

[JudaicChristian]

negatory, origin never recanted.

I figure if a person who was part of the other group speaks or works against them, then they must have had a change of mind and heart.

 

[JudaicChristian]

did you say the judaizing christians

the ones that peter went to the jerusalem council in acts 15 over and the council said the ot law wasn't to be followed like the judiazers wanted to, ie the need for the circuscmission and other rituals.

in fact Paul condemns those that try to turn to the law over the crufixifacation and cleansing of the blood.

After the council in Jerusalem circumcision was no longer an issue.

 

[jasoncran]

did you say the judaizing christians

the ones that peter went to the jerusalem council in acts 15 over and the council said the ot law wasn't to be followed like the judiazers wanted to, ie the need for the circuscmission and other rituals.

in fact Paul condemns those that try to turn to the law over the crufixifacation and cleansing of the blood.

After the council in Jerusalem circumcision was no longer an issue.

but you claim the name judaizer christain, define what they are.

so that we can be clear.

 

[mondar]

Yes, the issue is who is a Christian. That has always been the question. The first anti-trinitarians may have been the Gnostic's. Of course the Early Church Fathers rejected gnostic philosophy.

The Judaizing Christians were Anti-Gnostic and Anti-Trinitarian. The word gnostic or gnosis was also used in a derogatory way against anyone who did not agree with Catholicism. There's your clue!

Sir, where do you get your historical information from?

The Judiasers were a 1st century group of people that were enemies of Paul. I doubt you are referring to them. Possibly you men 1st century Hebrew believers.

First, Gnosticism was not fully developed in the first century. It was more of a 2nd century heresy with regard to Christianity. I believe names like Marcion are related to the gnostic schools. To say that the Jewish Christians were anti-gnostic is not proper history. The later 2nd century Christians were the ones that faced formal gnosticism.

Also, the first century Hebrew Christians did not have the trinity in their vocabulary yet, but had a concept that Jesus was God, and to be worshiped as God, and that he was distinct from the Father (as a person). To say that they were "anti-trinitarian" would be historically impossible. At the earliest, the vocabulary word "trinity" is 2nd century. The word is used to describe the biblical idea that God is one God, but three persons. So then, to say that the 1st century Jewish Christians were "anti-trinitarians" would be historically impossible since that language had not yet been developed.

 

[francisdesales]

Origin and Arius later rejected Gnosticism. Some Gnostics's converted to Christian Judaism. {Judaizing Christians}

You got that the other way around, much of the Gnosticism that opposed Paul was of Syrian Jewish Gnosticism, esp. seen in Colossians and the mythologies of the cosmos from Jewish backgrounds. Jewish Gnosticism preceded Christianity. No doubt, some converted to "orthodox" Christianity, but probably many did not, being perfectly comfortable with syncreticism.

I am not aware of Arius or Origen ever accepting Gnosticism, although the later was inspired in part by some Greek ideas of the afterlife (pre-existence of souls and the non-existence of hell, which the Church condemned him for...)

Regards

 

[jasoncran]

various sites say that he was, a catholic site had this to say, to wit joe stated already

http://www.romancatholicism.org/origen- ... stasis.htm

 

[francisdesales]

First, Gnosticism was not fully developed in the first century. It was more of a 2nd century heresy with regard to Christianity. I believe names like Marcion are related to the gnostic schools. To say that the Jewish Christians were anti-gnostic is not proper history. The later 2nd century Christians were the ones that faced formal gnosticism.

Marcion marks the beginning of serious confrontations between "orthodox" Christianity and Marcion's version of Gnosticism largely because Marcion marks the first documented occasion of actual communities that vied for believers against "orthodox" forms of Christianity. Gnosticism existed more as a "school" before Marcion, as itenerant "prophets" went to various "orthodox" communities - and are the topic of such polemics as John. Interestingly, there was a Jewish form of Gnosticism.

Also, the first century Hebrew Christians did not have the trinity in their vocabulary yet, but had a concept that Jesus was God, and to be worshiped as God, and that he was distinct from the Father (as a person).

I would qualify that in that most Jewish Christians would not accept "trinity" as a viable explanation of God because of the "three persons" idea appears to compete with strict monotheism that was part and parcel of Judaism tradition. More likely, Jewish Christians were either modalists or adoptionists, which is probably also the prevailing interpretation of tradition until the late second century.

To say that they were "anti-trinitarian" would be historically impossible. At the earliest, the vocabulary word "trinity" is 2nd century. The word is used to describe the biblical idea that God is one God, but three persons. So then, to say that the 1st century Jewish Christians were "anti-trinitarians" would be historically impossible since that language had not yet been developed.

I would agree, but they probably did not conceive of the relationship between the Father and the Son as Trinitarians would later define. It would take some long reflection by the Church to come to such a definition.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

After the council in Jerusalem circumcision was no longer an issue.

LOL! You are apparently not familiar with ecclesiastical politics. Rarely in Church history do we find sudden unanimous agreement, even after a Counciliar ruling. The Church is just not that centralized. For example, Chalcedon exists largely because Nicea was not entirely accepted. Isn't it clear from Pauline letters that he continued to fight against Judaizers who thought Gentiles had to be first circumcised and that it WAS a big issue for Paul, as he constantly riles against the idea, such as in Romans and Galatians, written after the Council (actually, all of the NT was written after the Council...)

Regards

 

[shad]

Hey Francis,

You are forgetting me.

 

[francisdesales]

Correct, your last statement speaks volumes.

You are speaking too soon. Francis is Catholic and you don't know how he worships.

Shad,

I think it is well known that Catholics worship Jesus Christ as God. We pray to Him, not just to intercede for us, but also to DIRECTLY grant grace to us and send the Spirit of God to us, something that only God Himself can do...

Thus, a person who prays TO Jesus Christ is indeed recognizing Him as God, whether they admit it or not. This was THE deciding argument vs Arius in the 4th century. "How can you say Jesus is not God if you worship Him in your liturgy"???

Oh... Uhm...

How we pray is how we believe.

Regards

 

[shad]

Correct, your last statement speaks volumes.

You are speaking too soon. Francis is Catholic and you don't know how he worships.

Shad,

I think it is well known that Catholics worship Jesus Christ as God. We pray to Him, not just to intercede for us, but also to DIRECTLY grant grace to us and send the Spirit of God to us, something that only God Himself can do...

Thus, a person who prays TO Jesus Christ is indeed recognizing Him as God, whether they admit it or not. This was THE deciding argument vs Arius in the 4th century. "How can you say Jesus is not God if you worship Him in your liturgy"???

Oh... Uhm...

How we pray is how we believe.

Regards

Ok, then why did Jesus tell His followers pray to Father in heaven, well known Lord's prayer? Are you saying that Jesus is the Father too? You sound like oneness.

 

[watchman F]

These are verses that non-trinitarians and those against the deity of Christ must either ignore or change the meaning of, as has been shown numerous times. The whole point of the doctrine of the Trinity is to make sense of all that Scripture reveals about God and Christ. Every other position that I have come across that is non-trinitarian does violence to the text in some way.

No one is saying (that I can see) that if one doesn't understand the Trinity that one isn't saved. However, salvation is very much based on who Jesus is; that is absolutely central.

Sorry free but to get the Trinity out of scripture you must ignore certain verses that plainly state that the Father is the only true God such as Jesus' statement in John 17:3 and Paul's in 1st Corinthians 8:6. While on the other hand those that deny the deity of Christ are clearly ignoring many passages of scripture that plainly state Jesus is God. The only way that scripture as a whole makes sense in this particular subject is that Jesus is the only true God ''the Father'' in the flesh as the Son.

Both Trinitarians and those that deny Christ's deity are accepting some verses and ignoring others. The Oneness doctrine accept all scripture as equally true.

Those verses pose no problem, properly understood in light of the entirety of Scripture. Oneness theology ignores plain rules of grammar to make the Father and Son the same person when that clearly cannot be the case.

You mean it is impossible? Do you put God in a box?

Matthew 19:26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

 

[francisdesales]

The Judaizing Christians were Anti-Gnostic and Anti-Trinitarian. The word gnostic or gnosis was also used in a derogatory way against anyone who did not agree with Catholicism. There's your clue!

"Gnosticism" is reserved for the idea that we can come to be saved by knowledge, hidden from the rest of the world. Secret knowledge from an "apostle" would supposedly bring to light the fact that God existed in oneself and had chosen this person from eternity. Special knowledge given secretly to an apostle to spread ONLY to the "pneumatics". Clearly, Catholics were not teaching such a thing, but that the Apostolic Traditions (written and oral) were WELL KNOWN to all - as Christ commanded "teach ALL that I taught you"... This was one of the major themes of Irenaeus' Against Heresies.

Why must everything have an anti-catholic twist??? Be thankful that the Gospel has been fully revealed.

Regards

 

[shad]

BTW, Francis, Protestant trinitarians pray to God the Father in Jesus' name. Do you know that?

 

[jasoncran]

BTW, Francis, Protestant trinitarians pray to God the Father in Jesus' name. Do you know that?

so do the catholics.and we protestants also pray to the lord cry out to jesus as well.

 

[shad]

BTW, Francis, Protestant trinitarians pray to God the Father in Jesus' name. Do you know that?

so do the catholics.and we protestants also pray to the lord cry out to jesus as well.

Are you reading? Take a look at what Francis saying.

 

[francisdesales]

Ok, then why did Jesus tell His followers pray to Father in heaven, well known Lord's prayer? Are you saying that Jesus is the Father too? You sound like oneness.

Shad, I didn't say anything about the Lord's prayer, why are you equating me with "oneness" or modalism?

Jesus is the Mediator between God and mankind. And Jesus said that "I and the Father are one", so our prayers, whether to Jesus directly or the Father directly, are still to God. Mysteriously, praying to Jesus is "like" praying to the Father, since One of the Persons cannot be excluded when praying to God. It is that the human mind will ordinarily consider prayers to Jesus because HE is the physical manifestation of the Father. We pray "in Jesus' name" because He is the Mediator and that WONDERFUL work of love on the Cross implores God to view us favorably.

Regards