• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

Tertullian, the majority of believers and the Trinity

Anth said:
the man of God named william branham did preach that God was in 3 dispensations, not persons as tertullian wrote here. moses was a minister of the 1st dispensation of the Father, paul was a minister of the 2nd dispensation of Christ, and i belive what we saw in william branham's ministry was the fulfillment of bible prophecy of the 3rd dispensation of the Holy Spirit. the scripture prophecied of a new dispensation to come which said, in the dispensation of the fulness of times when all things shall be fulfilled. this was the prophecy of the 3rd and final dispensation, the dispensation of the holy ghost

however, this was not his explanation of the Godhead so don't confuse this truth and say bro. branham was a strict modalist. he was not.

King D

There is not a man nor a preacher who I appreciate and respect more than William Branham. I don't necessarily accept all that he said - but I have never seen someone - at least as best as I could tell - totally functioned in integrity and humility before God.

Peace,
Anth



i am sure the Lord will honor what respect you have for His servant. I don't know why or what hinders you from believing what he said but I am sure it probably wasn't anything bro. branham said, rather you may be heeding what all the gainsayers say. they are mere scarecrows to keep you from acknowledging the truth in it's fulness. I pray you ask God whether what bro. branham said was true or not and don't listen to all the scoffers. when did he say anything other than what came to pass? thousands upon thousands of times. he never accepted an offering and didn't build a big program for himself. he stayed true to his calling
 
What say you Anth, are the "simple" in your quote homooiousians that were opposed to Tertullian's teaching? Or are these "simple" are people who saw Tertullian as teaching three gods, and Tertullian seeks to correct their misunderstanding?

Mondar,

Excellent question - it is amazing that in your very first post on the subject that you fully grasp my most elementary point - whereas the individual whom I was originally addressing - and have repeatedly made clear what this point was - is somewhere far,far afield. You have confirmed, as MEC did, that I have asked a very simple question which only demands a very simple answer.

As to your inquiry. Frankly, the text does not ultimately make it clear whether the majority of the church were followers of Praxeas - or perhaps only included followers of Praxeas.

First, we need to remember that Tertullian was in some opposition to these people - though he states that they were "not unwise" - so I must consider that he was providing some reasonable representation of them.

He does state that they threw out at him that he was a preacher of two or three Gods - and they were startled to hear this. Obviously in this context - they were startled because it was a teaching they were totally unfamiliar with. Any honest/objective reader would immediately grasp this - and it would be confirmed by their accusation of his teaching 2/3 Gods.

BTW - I believe "simple" in this context - the majority of the church - are primarily uneducated people. As you know, most people were illiterate at that time. That is why these sophists (Tertullian/Origne, etc.) were easily able to come in and beguile the church - because no one could read but them - therefore, they were the only ones to have both an education and access to the scriptures.

My point was simple - the majority of the early church, whatever they were, were NOT Trinitarian. This is based on Tertullian's statement - who I must consider reasonable - in that he was in opposition to them.

This is providing us what is obviously VERY different reality than the standard/received historical model which is that the early church WAS definitely trinitarian.

One would have to ask - if the majority of the early church was NOT trinitarian - why not??????

Does my response make sense??

Best,
In Him
Anth
 
King D

My perspective comes primarily from Branham himself. I don't think he fully grasped the teaching of the Man Christ Jesus (ITim2:5, ICor15:21, Heb2) but was moving towards it. As to everything else, I would have to spend much time sorting it out.

However, regardless, it is not Branham that I seek - but Jesus Himself - and Jesus is who I need. I know Branham would have said the same of himself and exhorted me to the same. Therefore, I leave the brother at rest in the arms of the Lord - and thank God there are those who would keep his tapes and videos intact for others to see the precious gift that he had as I have.

Best,
Anth
 
kingdavid said:
no, the scriptures all indicate that there is One God and He had a Son, not trinity. it is the Both of them and they are not seperate from each other.

God said, let us(God speaking to His Son) and what relationship did Christ have with God in the Beginning? The Son/christ was in the Father. God was speaking to the one that was in Him. that is the oneness that christ had with God in the beginning.

that is the same image and likeness that the christian has to fulfill the lord's prayer that we be one like him and the Father. Christ dwells in the believer. Christians speak to the one that is in them which is Christ. it is not as the new agers say that we are speaking to our selves but we are speaking to christ in us but to the world it may appear that the christians speak to themselves yet they are in error

You are trying to highjack this thread. There are ample other threads where you can make your heretical and mistaken claims. I and others have already addressed your errors, there is no need to resurrect them here.
 
francisdesales said:
Imagican said:
Fran,

EVERYONE, (anyone that has ever STUDIED 'trinity'), KNOWS that 'trinity' was NOT what the first followers of Christ BELIEVED. Your insinuations that they did is absolutely INSULTING to ANYONE with a GRAIN of intellect or understanding.

The elements of Trinity are all in the Bible, whether you accept that or not. When later Christians questions the seemingly contradictory proclamations of "God is One" and "God is Father, God is Son, and God is Spirit", then it became necessary to further ponder on God's Word. Trying to fit God into a box because you do not want to ponder is a choice you are making, a choice to move to darkness rather than light.

No, my friend, it is not I that chooses to place God in 'a box'. It is YOU and those LIKE you that have chosen to DEFINE God in such a WAY that one MUST believe as they in order to KNOW God. I have NOT attempted to make God FIT into a mold of traits familiar to OTHER gods. Accuse as you will, all you are doing is heaping coals upon your OWN head.

Imagican said:
i THOUGHT the ENTIRE premise of this thread was the POINT that Tertullian was WELL AWARE that the MAJORITY of FOLLOWERS, (I couldn't care LESS whether YOU consider these, or HE considered these to BE 'babes in Christ'. That is NOT THE POINT), did NOT believe as Tertullian did. And HIS OWN WORDS bear this out.

They did not understand how the two propositions could be BOTH true. They accepted both propositions, admitting that the Son of God WAS God, with God, and was given everything of God's before creation. You misunderstand the premise. The premise is not whether everyone recited the Nicene Creed in 200 AD. The premise is whether the elements of Trinity were present among the believers. Whether the Rule of Faith was overturned by this explanation that we now call "Trinity".

Untrue. It's about time that you cease with offering such blatant alterations of the truth. NOTHING offered up in the words that have been posted make ANY SUCH indication. The TRUTH is that Tertullian has PLAINLY offered that those, (Majority of BELIEVERS), were SHOCKED to hear of this 'three in one' concept. Anyone that reads it KNOWS this.

Imagican said:
"Trinity'' was NOT EVEN confirmed doctrine UNTIL LONG AFTER Tertullian was DEAD.

So what? That reflection ALWAYS comes later. Dogma is merely a reflection on what we ALREADY believe, not a new teaching that was never believed before. It is a definition that accurately and precisely defines a difficult teaching (usually instigated by false teachers).

So what? SO WHAT? So, once again, you would INDICATE that the apostles did NOT KNOW the identity of Christ. That it took those that nailed Him to a cross to 'come along' and FIGURE it out hundreds of years AFTER the death of Christ. You are a 'funny guy'.

Imagican said:
I have YET to find a SINGLE offering of the apostles that Christ WAS God Himself.

He does so subtly throughout. The problem is that you are like the Jewish Pharisees, expecting SOMETHING that must fit into YOUR paradigm. Otherwise, it is not so. Just like the Jews who would not accept Christ, because He didn't fit into THEIR plans of what the Messiah should be. You completely miss the point of the Gospels, that Jesus revealed Himself in HIS particular way and that it is the BELIEVER who must come to believe what is offered, NOT whether God fits into YOUR paradigm of acceptance...

I like that use of 'subtly'. Sounds like something straight out the mouth of the serpent in the garden. What I believe has been REVEALED to ME, Fran. NOT something that SOME-ONE taught me. I was an utterly LOST soul that was found, cleaned up, and have now been invited into the Family of God. So, you can compare me to the Pharisees if you like, but I have had NO FORMAL indoctrination into ANY denomination or RELIGION so far as MAN is concerned. And I don't NEED it.

Imagican said:
YES, you can CERTAINLY twist words in order to MAKE scripture say what YOU CHOOSE. But the FACT is, there is not a SINGLE statement of the apostles that SAYS; "Jesus Christ IS God".

There is plenty of statements that leads one by faith that Jesus is Lord and God. If you don't have faith that Jesus is our Lord and Savior, God Himself in flesh, that is your perogative. But DO NOT call yourself Christian, then. That name is reserved for those of us who believe that Jesus is indeed God who became man.

So be it. I don't like labels ANY WAY. And if I had to believe as you do in order to USE the word Christian, then I had RATHER be 'something else'.


Imagican said:
And if the apostles did NOT believe in this 'three in one God', then they OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T TEACH IT TO OTHERS.

Let's lay this out mathematically. Maybe you are better in math than in theology...

If A=B
and C=B
and D=B,

Then A=C=D.

In logic (or math), one can take propositions that do not directly equal each other and are related only indirectly, and show a relationship of equality. This is the same thing that happens with Trinity. We have enough to see that Jesus is God, although YOU say there is no Scriptural support DIRECTLY.

There isn't. NOT support that Chirst is the SAME God that IS HIs Father. People have considered WATER to be gods of the past. And fire, the sun, the stars, etc.......... Just because someone CALLS one of these THINGS god does NOT make it so.
Imagican said:
Fran, you have certainly 'proven yourself' in this thread. I can see that REASON or TRUTH plays LITTLE part in your BELIEF...

Uh-oh, another rant. Count me out...I am not interested in your little temper-tantrums just because you cannot understand (or ALLOW me to explain) my explanations. I have learned to ignore such childish rants, not only from 6 year olds, but from you, as well.

I am MORE than willing to listen to ANY explanation. But your bogus attempts at 'talking around' the issues is NOT offering explanation, but simply attempting to ALTER the subject into that of YOUR imagination.

And I can TELL that you have learned to simply recognize that which you use and try to 'turn around' on others that may be ignorant enough NOT TO RECOGNIZE it. Only works on those that are TOO simple to SEE it though Fran.

Everytime that you are faced with straight out PROOF that you are being deceptive, it has to be a 'rant' on the part of the one that POINTS it out. Ok, rant it is. Whatever you WANT to call it. But the truth is that you have shown there is LITTLE in you.


So long[/quote]

And before anyone WARNS me about my words, I have simply answered in SIMILAR fashion to the way I have been addressed. That I may be a little SLICKER at it shouldn't bear ANY 'additional' scrutiny than what has been directed at me OVER AND OVER again.

Fran has offer DELIBERATE deception throughout this conversation and EACH time that it is pointed out, I am accused of NOT being a Christian, or acting like a six year old, or ranting. So, all I have done is OFFER TRUTH. If I may be faulted for that, then it is to be EXPECTED from the WORLD.

Blessings,

MEC
 
Fran has offer DELIBERATE deception throughout this conversation

MEC

We don't let anyone steal our peace and joy - I reached out to Fran repeatedly with plain and clear statement. He repeatedly avoided my point and twisted what I said into completely irrelevant points. I think this is obvious to anyone who even vaguely follows this thread. I realize it is frustrating - but the call of Christ is simply - we are to take off our shoes and shake the dust from our feet at such a one - "from such, turn away".

Let him go and focus on the work that the Lord has called you to.

Sincerely,
In the Man Christ Jesus
Anth
 
Anth said:
Fran has offer DELIBERATE deception throughout this conversation

MEC

We don't let anyone steal our peace and joy - I reached out to Fran repeatedly with plain and clear statement. He repeatedly avoided my point and twisted what I said into completely irrelevant points. I think this is obvious to anyone who even vaguely follows this thread. I realize it is frustrating - but the call of Christ is simply - we are to take off our shoes and shake the dust from our feet at such a one - "from such, turn away".

Let him go and focus on the work that the Lord has called you to.

Sincerely,
In the Man Christ Jesus
Anth

Amen :-)
 
Either the personal attacks stop or the thread does. I'm not kidding.
 
Rick, Anth, Shad, Fran, david, and any others that I may have disappointed or offended on this thread. I apologize and ask for your forgiveness. Oftentimes I become entangled in the discussion MORE than the POINT. I believe that the point has been made regardless of the conversation and regardless of others, it is my duty to share rather than feed. For this I apologize.

Fran,

It is apparent that there is MUCH that the two of us will never agree upon. I apologize for my accusations and confrontational attitude. There is NOTHING contained within words that is worthy of such a showing of emotion. And I have absolutely NOTHING to gain from 'dukin it out' with ANYONE. Once again, please forgive me.

Blessings,

MEC
 
Imagican said:
Fran,

No, my friend, it is not I that chooses to place God in 'a box'. It is YOU and those LIKE you that have chosen to DEFINE God in such a WAY that one MUST believe as they in order to KNOW God. I have NOT attempted to make God FIT into a mold of traits familiar to OTHER gods. Accuse as you will, all you are doing is heaping coals upon your OWN head.

You are forgetting something that I have clearly stated before on this board. I have stated that many people come to God, and none of them should be shortchanged. They are reaching to God with what God has given them. As I state in my signature, I believe I have been graced in this aspect. Thus, we Catholics do not (as our Catechism clearly states) erect unnecessary obstacles to people of good will.

My point of contention with you is NOT that you are trying to go to God the 'non-catholic way', but that you CLAIM to be doing it as the original apostles taught and YOU represent orthodox Christianity as taught by them. You are not. You certainly may be blessed with the Spirit, but I believe Muslims and Hindus are also blessed, in God's own way. But that doesn't mean that your "offerings" are any more correct than someone else's, CERTAINLY not more than orthodox Christianity's understanding.

Thus, when I say, "you put God in a box", that means your attempt to link your understanding of God to the orthodox, apostolic position, is false. THEY were much more open to RECEIVING something that was beyond their paradigm, while you are not. You EXPECT the Bible to say "God is a Trinity". Forget about the numerous verses that imply the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. You MUST have THAT VERSE! This is exactly what the Pharisees did with Jesus. Jesus did not fit into their mold, so they rejected Him. I fear you are doing the same, and in your attempt to tell us how YOU are "guided by the Spirit", I feel it is my duty to correct you in this regard.

My defense of orthodox Christianity does not mean that your means of going to God is in complete error. I have already stressed that a "heretic" is not ALWAYS wrong. But you teach a false gospel, that Jesus is not God.

Imagican said:
francisdesales said:
They did not understand how the two propositions could be BOTH true. They accepted both propositions, admitting that the Son of God WAS God, with God, and was given everything of God's before creation. You misunderstand the premise. The premise is not whether everyone recited the Nicene Creed in 200 AD. The premise is whether the elements of Trinity were present among the believers. Whether the Rule of Faith was overturned by this explanation that we now call "Trinity".

Untrue. It's about time that you cease with offering such blatant alterations of the truth. NOTHING offered up in the words that have been posted make ANY SUCH indication. The TRUTH is that Tertullian has PLAINLY offered that those, (Majority of BELIEVERS), were SHOCKED to hear of this 'three in one' concept. Anyone that reads it KNOWS this.

I think it would take too much time to explain the history behind this. It would take a chapter from a book to describe how Christians (in the West) were especially keen to protect the "ONENESS" of God. The West were especially worried about the "nature" of God as one. One divinity. Monotheism must be protected. This was the mindset of Christians in the 2nd century. That was the primary belief on this issue. Again, we are speaking of the West, Tertullian's audience. The East was virtually the OPPOSITE in their prime "worry", the three persons or two sendings - the Economy. Thus, the Church (not relying on the internet) focused on different issues, dependent upon cultural paradigms.

At the same time as this Western background (focus on ONENESS), there WAS the understanding that Jesus was God. This is undeniable. Their liturgies, how they worshipped, make it clear that they prayed to Jesus and worshipped Him. The Fathers over and over note that Jesus, the Son of God, WAS God. This was WHY He was called "Son" in the first place. A relationship in where the divinity was given to the Lord and Savior. The Bible clearly speaks of the Father giving ALL to Jesus. EVERYTHING. Thus, Jesus had the Divine Nature.

Now. How does one explain this to "simple Christians" who focus on the ONENESS of God WITHOUT reverting back to polytheism? Thus, it was up to theologians to try to reconcile the REVELATION received from Scriptures and Apostolic teachings. If you read the writings of these first few centuries, you will find a number of attempts to explain the truisms of BOTH propositions - that God is ONE and God is a Divine Triad. Tertullian gives the first coherent and comprehensive treatise on this issue. As it turns out, the FORMER CATHOLIC gives an explanation that virtually mimics what will be defined 130 years later at Nicene. Interesting how a man in schism explains the Catholic faith so well - that God is One and God is Three...

Thus, I say that the first Christians were well aware of the independent propositions and the rule of faith. It was a matter of EXPLAINING how these revealed propositions (God is one and Jesus is God) did not necessary cancel each other out. The audience of Tertullian were shocked by his explanation, but no more shocked than Paul's audience when he taught that Jesus entered the Heavenly Temple and that the old covenant laws were abrogated...

Imagican said:
francisdesales said:
So what? That reflection ALWAYS comes later. Dogma is merely a reflection on what we ALREADY believe, not a new teaching that was never believed before. It is a definition that accurately and precisely defines a difficult teaching (usually instigated by false teachers).

So what? SO WHAT? So, once again, you would INDICATE that the apostles did NOT KNOW the identity of Christ. That it took those that nailed Him to a cross to 'come along' and FIGURE it out hundreds of years AFTER the death of Christ. You are a 'funny guy'.

No, I did not say that. Again, you misrepresent what I actually said...

Perhaps an analogy will help...

We know that women give birth to children. We know that this happens when a man place their "seed" within the woman. But HOW does this "seed" generate a child within the woman? Until recently, the biology behind this action was largely unknown. The Church Fathers have commented on this process and at what point the "child" is indeed a life. However, it was UNDERSTOOD or IMPLIED that as soon as the "seed" took "root", a person was formed and God gave this person a soul. Without understanding fully the biological process, the Fathers IMPLIED or UNDERSTOOD that at "conception", a child was formed.

TODAY, we know that this "conception" happens VERY soon after the copulation. Any effort to point to St. Thomas Aquinas' comment about "after a number of days, a child is conceived" is moot, since he implied that at conception, God came and created the soul. Thus, even though his biology was incomplete, his belief that God created the soul at conception and a life was formed (thus, making abortion completely unacceptable EVER, not just after the first month, as some pretend Catholics try to say).

I know this is not the greatest of examples to follow, but I hope you can understand that the "seed" of our current beliefs is found in the writings from long ago, even though THEY didn't know the specifics about human biology. The first Christians had not yet pondered how the "God is One" AND "God is Three" went together, but they did understand them independently of each other. It takes later reflection on these elements to later define "what do we believe on this matter". Whether it is further reflection on a matter or new discoveries in science, our knowledge of theology and our relation to God is always growing, and always based upon what came before...

There is nothing "funny" here. The apostles knew who Jesus was. THEY are the ones who laid the foundation for the later pondering of the Trinitarian formulas. The SAME SPIRIT guided the Fathers as guided the Apostles...

Imagican said:
francisdesales said:
He does so subtly throughout. The problem is that you are like the Jewish Pharisees, expecting SOMETHING that must fit into YOUR paradigm. Otherwise, it is not so. Just like the Jews who would not accept Christ, because He didn't fit into THEIR plans of what the Messiah should be. You completely miss the point of the Gospels, that Jesus revealed Himself in HIS particular way and that it is the BELIEVER who must come to believe what is offered, NOT whether God fits into YOUR paradigm of acceptance...

I like that use of 'subtly'. Sounds like something straight out the mouth of the serpent in the garden.

Tell that to Mark and how he wrote his Gospel. Explain why Jesus throughout tries to keep His miracles silent, or the proclamation that He is the Messiah. Why only take three people to the Transfiguration, or the raising of Jarius' daughter from the dead? Numerous such examples of how God GRADUALLY revealed the NATURE of Who Christ was. What is "from the mouth of the serpent" is how God MUST do "x" a certain way, otherwise, it is not so... We don't need explicit mention that Jesus is God, although we do indeed have such statements from the Lord in John's Gospel.

Imagican said:
What I believe has been REVEALED to ME, Fran. NOT something that SOME-ONE taught me.

Which makes it virtually certain you are in error, since God promised the Spirit of Truth to His CHURCH, not to individuals who reject His Church...

Imagican said:
Whatever you WANT to call it. But the truth is that you have shown there is LITTLE in you.

Is this another example of how you do not judge me or my walk? Fortunately, I don't depend upon your acceptance or rejection of the truth of what I say.

Imagican said:
Fran has offer DELIBERATE deception throughout this conversation.

No, I have not. The problem is that you do not want to hear my explanations. You do not want to address them. They do not meet with your approval. You do not agree with them. But don't tell me I am deliberately deceiving anyone. That is uncalled for.

Imagican said:
and EACH time that it is pointed out, I am accused of NOT being a Christian, or acting like a six year old, or ranting. So, all I have done is OFFER TRUTH.

...according to your understanding. However, from your responses, it appears you do not even understand my point of view. I never said that Christians had a complete Trinitarian understanding, a la Chalcedon, at 200 AD. I said the rule of faith, what the earliest Christians believed, contained the seeds, the elements for the belief of what would be called Trinity. It took some 150 years to hammer out the details, but Christians understood that God was One, and that Christian revelation went beyond Judaism - that Jesus was God. That is clear from Christian litury (esp. Baptism), practice, architecture, hostile witnesses of the era, and the writings of the Fathers of the time. The issue was getting the two propositions to not cancel each other out.
 
Anth said:
We don't let anyone steal our peace and joy - I reached out to Fran repeatedly with plain and clear statement. He repeatedly avoided my point and twisted what I said into completely irrelevant points.

They are indeed relevant, but unfortunately, your point rests upon ignoring the context of Tertullian's writing. Thus, it is necessary for you to ignore them so you can be "right". We are supposed to believe that Tertullian MEANT to contradict himself to Praxeas? HE provides the notion that he is teaching something no one else believed??? To write to him while being a hypocritic himself? Your focus on one sentence to the exclusion of others and then calling them "irrelevant" is plain to see. Clearly, you misunderstand Tertullian's one verse because you ignore anything else that explains it...

I do agree with you about the "shaking the dirt from our sandals" part. I'd like to include the "don't throw pearls to the swine", as well... There is a point where the effort is just a waste of time, especially with people who choose to ignore relevant arguments...
 
Fran,

This statement is ENOUGH to plainly show that the apostles did NOT believe in a 'triune god':

1 Peter 1

1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

2Elect 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.

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

4To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

5Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

For IN THIS STATEMENT, it plainly offers that Jesus IS NOT GOD HIMSELF. But instead, offers that God is THE God and Father of Christ. That simple.

So, your premise that the apostles taught as YOU have been LED to believe is FALSE. EIther that, or Peter was WRONG.

Blessings,

MEC
 
MEC

Peter had a wife - even the RC acknowledge that their "first leader" had a wife....totally in contrast to their demands.

You can see they hypocrisy. That s/b end of story - time to move on my brother.

Best,
Anth
 
Imagican said:
Fran,

This statement is ENOUGH to plainly show that the apostles did NOT believe in a 'triune god':

1 Peter 1

1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

2Elect 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.

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

4To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

5Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

For IN THIS STATEMENT, it plainly offers that Jesus IS NOT GOD HIMSELF. But instead, offers that God is THE God and Father of Christ. That simple.

??? That's your "plain" proof??? :biglaugh

Verse three's word "and" does not HAVE to mean they are two different Beings. Jesus Himself said that He and the Father are ONE... Thus, your interpretation has the Bible contradicting itself. Who is correct? The Bible or you?

"Blessed be Francisdesales and Mr. Smith, which according..."

Does this mean I am not Mr. Smith??? Please...

In addition, looking at it from the point of view of Jesus' manhood, the Father IS INDEED the God of the Christ. That doesn't mean that Christ ALSO does not have the divine nature - which other verses clearly tell us, such as John 1. One of the rules of interpreting Scripture is to take the entire Scripture as a whole. Thus, you should not be snipping out parts of Scriptures to satisfy YOUR "understanding".

Imagican said:
So, your premise that the apostles taught as YOU have been LED to believe is FALSE. EIther that, or Peter was WRONG.

No, just your false interpretation...
 
Anth said:
MEC

Peter had a wife - even the RC acknowledge that their "first leader" had a wife....totally in contrast to their demands.

You can see they hypocrisy. That s/b end of story - time to move on my brother.

Typical. You don't have a clue about WHY the "RC" has a celibate priesthood. It has nothing to do with whether all of the Apostles were celibate or not...

Furthermore, it is a discipline, not a dogma of the faith. If the Holy Spirit leads the Pope to remove this discipline, he can. It is based upon the words of Jesus. which was not a command.

Perhaps you should read up a bit more on what the Catholic Church teaches before you rail and whine about it. The hypocrisy is very clear, alright. Making bigoted and ignorant comments is becoming your mode of operation here...
 
francisdesales said:
Perhaps you should read up a bit more on what the Catholic Church teaches before you rail and whine about it. The hypocrisy is very clear, alright. Making bigoted and ignorant comments is becoming your mode of operation here...

You dont know anything about hypocrisy. You believe that the RCC has all the truth. God does not reveal truth to hypocritical churches. I tell you what undeniable, obvious and apparent hypocrisy is; supporting and joining the military and killing your enemy. Do you know that Jesus commands His followers to "love your enemy"? Do you know that Christianity is a way of life, not winning the debate at forums? BTW I am not saying you are winning the debate but I know you think you are winning all debates.
 
I don't have a clue how attacking the Catholic Church has anything to do with the topic at hand. The Catholic Church accepted the doctrine but they don't own it. An attack can only generate a rebuttal. Nor do I see what the military has to do with Christ's deity.

And once again, the personal attacks MUST STOP. :grumpy

:backtotopic
 
shad said:
You dont know anything about hypocrisy.

By your rant, you do??? The military???

shad said:
You believe that the RCC has all the truth.

Only on DEFINED matters of FAITH and MORALS. Not ALL the truths...

shad said:
God does not reveal truth to hypocritical churches.

God only reveals Himself to perfect people like yourself??? Not according to my Bible...

You are another of those guys who think the Church must be perfect, otherwise, it is not the Church. How quickly you've forgotten the parables of Christ on this matter.

shad said:
I tell you what undeniable, obvious and apparent hypocrisy is; supporting and joining the military and killing your enemy.

People don't join the military to "kill the enemy", but to defend their country and way of life. It is an honorable profession when not abused (as any other field of work). John the Baptist, when questioned by soldiers, did NOT say "lay down your weapons and become cloistered priests", but to not abuse their positions by extortion.

The Church does realize that a military is a necessary evil in this day and age. If you will recall, the Church is always condemning unecessary bloodshed. John Paul 2 condemned the US for the invasion of Iraq and Pope Benedict is constantly calling for the end of fighting in Palestine. Not sure what you are talking about here and your "hypocrisy"...

shad said:
Do you know that Jesus commands His followers to "love your enemy"? Do you know that Christianity is a way of life, not winning the debate at forums? BTW I am not saying you are winning the debate but I know you think you are winning all debates.

Love means fraternal correction, when necessary. I apologize if you think I have the need to come here and win debates. I have a lot of better things to do with my time then beat people into submission, people I don't even know. The only time I make such corrections is when I see errors. I don't start threads that accuse Protestants of being wrong/following false gospels, etc... I don't bring up threads that talk about how some Christians think they are saved by faith alone, which is against the Scriptures, for example. Notice WHO is beginning the threads here lately? NOT ME! I just provide correction to their errors.

I don't feel the need to tell people of a particular faith that "your church is a bunch of hypocrites", like you do.

Such a person does not know Christ as well as they pretend...

I think you need to look at yourself before you make your accusations. I don't begin arguments. I provide correction to those who are mistaken - and my source is from the Church, the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF THE TRUTH, not myself. Thus, it is in love that I offer this source of truth that many have decided to rail against for the sake of better understanding God's revelation.
 
Rick W said:
I don't have a clue how attacking the Catholic Church has anything to do with the topic at hand. The Catholic Church accepted the doctrine but they don't own it. An attack can only generate a rebuttal. Nor do I see what the military has to do with Christ's deity.

And once again, the personal attacks MUST STOP. :grumpy

:backtotopic

Sorry Rick, I had responded before I saw your newest post.

Regards
 
Back
Top