You are probably right regardless - however, I have not commented on Ch 2. You may have confused me with someone else. I have only questioned the text in general without being specific. Anything that made it past the RC trinitarian filter though would have a better chance of standing up in court.
OK - I am pulling the reins back now...
First - I recognize and affirm the textual issues in the NT - I think they are somewhat significant on a couple different levels. Regardless, are you telling me that there is significant textual material related to Tertullian PRIOR TO 500AD.....???? I am all ears if so - That is my only point.
....and the slippery slope begins.... let's see JUST WHICH MEN WERE LED BY GOD....??? The ones I know WERE NOT led by God were sitting in Rome... and just about every other place of church leadership during the centuries....
Yup - let's depart from scripture so that we can inculcate with tradition - that is what you are preaching?? :naughty
All right - I agree with you on this - my hands are duly slapped - we will focus on Tertullian from here on out.... :yes
I will get back to his quote and see why you are reading it so distinctly - you are an intelligent fellow and there should be some obvious issue here -
Back later...
Best,
Anth
Yup - and Mormons will tell you the exact same thing....
Once you are in Christ - you are NEVER outside of anything ( :D ) - no worries here. That is the difference - you think you need to be an institution - I know I just need to be in Him.
OK - last non-Tertullian related word.
Best,
Anth
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
Anth said:Fran,
Still chuckling...
You have mounds of tradition you have built up there my friend - neat story though... for Sunday School class ( :rolling )
OK - I had to make use of the rolling smiley - I have always wanted one of those!
Best,
Anth
How about making a point rather than just being in denial? I am beginning to see your mode of operation is just putting down anyone who doesn't agree with you - and not backing it up.
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
Anth said:
You have been given ample chance to comment on Chapter 2 and the "RULE OF FAITH", which any Church Father reader knows exactly what that means... We know why you TRIED to use Chapter 3 to make your point that "no one believed in Trinity except for some high churchmen". Clearly, the citation does not say that, thus, making your whole point unsupported. I ask you to read your bolded section of Chapter 3 again. "Startled" does not mean "reject"...
Otherwise, the apostles would have rejected the Risen Lord on Easter Sunday...
Furthermore, Chapter 2 says the opposite. Now, you may comment on Tertullian's writings, for a change, rather than your constant attempt to sidetrack this discussion with your negative comments about the Catholic Church.
Anth said:
Your attempt was to say that Tertullian is unreliable. The texts we have are so unreliable that we cannot trust anything we have (unless they support your point of view!)...
Please. Ask yourself why you make mention of this while admitting you are not even a person who has studied Tertullian or the textual reliability of his writings, knowing full well the Bible has even WORSE problems with textual variety. Why are you so desperate to toss the baby out with the bathwater? Ask yourself, honestly, why you have taken that line of argument?
Anth, if you are a man who is a serious seeker of the truth, you need to put aside the traditions of hatred for the Catholic Church. So far, your writings do not show that you are open minded, but have rather decided a priori to condemn anything Catholic for being Catholic. Your above line of thought is a perfect example of saying before you think, because you just "KNOW" the Church cannot be right...
Anth said:
You "KNOW" this, like you "KNOW" Tertullian's writings are unreliable... The same source of traditions of hate.
Again, the traditions of hatred prevent you from seeing the light of truth found here...
Anth said:
???
Who is departing from Scriptures? Why would I need to?
As I said, we interpret the Scriptures based on how the Church has read them before based on Apostolic Tradition. The Scriptures are just ONE TOOL (not the ONLY tool) that God has given man to know Him and to be perfected:
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: Eph 4:11-13
I urge you to not shut the door just because you are hearing it from the Church. Cast aside your tradition of hatred and open your mind to the Bible's constant appeal to the communion that God has provided for mankind. That is why God gave us the Church - to know Him most intimately as a community.
Regards
Fran,
Since you and I have about 7x70 topics going here - I will open a new thread that specifically addresses the Tertullian passage I have adduced. After we deal with that - we can focus on the Tertullian textual issue.
As for whether Tertullian was a "wolf in sheep's clothing" - which is the topic of this thread - and which I acknowledge guilt for departing from, I will not comment further until I have something to add.
Thanks for being challenging - I hope that you will have the same spirit to being open to repentance and conversion that you wish in me - genuinely that is!
Best,
Anth
Since you and I have about 7x70 topics going here - I will open a new thread that specifically addresses the Tertullian passage I have adduced. After we deal with that - we can focus on the Tertullian textual issue.
As for whether Tertullian was a "wolf in sheep's clothing" - which is the topic of this thread - and which I acknowledge guilt for departing from, I will not comment further until I have something to add.
Thanks for being challenging - I hope that you will have the same spirit to being open to repentance and conversion that you wish in me - genuinely that is!
Best,
Anth
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
Anth said:
At your leisure...
Anth said:
Fair enough. However, I thank you for the opportunity to defend my faith and present the fact that Tertullian was merely expounding on the "rule of faith" believed by the Catholic Church and taught by the Apostles.
Anth said:
Yes, I see the need to be less pressing myself... Forgive me, there are only a couple Catholics here, and we wear bullseyes.
Regards
I
Imagican
Guest
- Thread starter
- #48
Ah, poor, poor Fran, the 'target Catholic'.
It would seem OBVIOUS that even those that adopted this belief of Tertullian recognized that he was INDEED, a 'wolf in sheeps clothing' in that THEY labeled him an heretic. I believe that this was the topic of this thread. For what OTHER THAN a 'wolf in sheeps clothing' would one CONSIDER an heretic that wrote so profusely on his OWN understanding that so blatantly REFUTED so MUCH of what the Catholic Church believed and taught?
I guess I am simply confused in the respect that AN HERETIC is ABLE to rightly divide the Word in ONE respect, but be SO WRONG in others. Either one is ABLE to 'understand' the truth or they are NOT. And how rediculous to use ONE idea of a man that The Church considered to BE an heretic, to defend such a doctrine.
And it is APPARENT that the MAJORITY of Christians had NOT been exposed to this doctrine at the point that Tertullian wrote his words concerning it. So, therefore, it is apparent that the APOSTLES NEVER TAUGHT such a doctrine. For IF the apostles had taught such, then MOST of Christianity would have ALREADY know of this 'trinity'.
But then, I guess it boils down to WHO one considers the apostles to BE.
Blessings,
MEC
It would seem OBVIOUS that even those that adopted this belief of Tertullian recognized that he was INDEED, a 'wolf in sheeps clothing' in that THEY labeled him an heretic. I believe that this was the topic of this thread. For what OTHER THAN a 'wolf in sheeps clothing' would one CONSIDER an heretic that wrote so profusely on his OWN understanding that so blatantly REFUTED so MUCH of what the Catholic Church believed and taught?
I guess I am simply confused in the respect that AN HERETIC is ABLE to rightly divide the Word in ONE respect, but be SO WRONG in others. Either one is ABLE to 'understand' the truth or they are NOT. And how rediculous to use ONE idea of a man that The Church considered to BE an heretic, to defend such a doctrine.
And it is APPARENT that the MAJORITY of Christians had NOT been exposed to this doctrine at the point that Tertullian wrote his words concerning it. So, therefore, it is apparent that the APOSTLES NEVER TAUGHT such a doctrine. For IF the apostles had taught such, then MOST of Christianity would have ALREADY know of this 'trinity'.
But then, I guess it boils down to WHO one considers the apostles to BE.
Blessings,
MEC
Can a wolf in sheep's clothing have some valid thoughts of God and His Christ/Anointed Son?
Does the wolf add to God's words or does he take away from God's words?
The wolf neither chews the cud or has a split hoof.
The wolf returns to his own vomit.
The wolf feeds their young by vomit and milk.
Some other considerations in regard to the apostles:
John admired the whore riding on the beast and was reproved by the angel.
John bowed down and worshiped the angel twice and was reproved twice.
God revealing this to us is very significant in the whole story of God in Scripture.
Paul declared to the council in Jerusalem that he was a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee and that it was for the hope through the resurrection of the dead that he was being questioned. Later he wrote to Timothy that he was in bonds because of his teaching concerning the resurrection of Jesus. He also wrote to the Corinthians that we have all known Christ through the flesh but now we know him that way no more.
Another has posted the 30 - 60 - 100 fold principle that our Lord Jesus taught. We are all brought through this growth in purification and change that was also taught the Israelites when they were about to enter Canaan. God told them that he would not drive out all the inhabitants of the land at once lest the wild beasts and the briers take over the land, but that he would drive out the inhabitants little by little and that he would leave a few of them as thorns in their sides and in their eyes.
So we have all worshiped God the Father in our Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit of the law with the mind while we have still served the law of sin with our natural capacities of body and mind. First the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.
Forgetting those things that are behind us, even our fathers(not despising as Ham did), let us press toward the prize of the high calling of God that is in Christ Jesus, being made kings and priest unto our God by the redeeming blood of Jesus, the Lamb of God, the Lion of the tribe of Judah and the root and offspring of David, who has prevailed to open the book and to look upon the face of God the Father.
Let us forget the glory of God on Moses' face(not despising that glory which is dark by comparison)and may the light of the glory of God shining through Jesus' face shine into our hearts and minds as Jesus is ministering in our behalf in the presence of God, speaking to us through his blood from the new Jerusalem which is above, the free woman, the mother of us all.
Let us dwell in the holy city which is above, which is promised to us, that we may live in it with him and follow him wheresoever he goes, as he leads us in and out. Come quickly Lord Jesus.
Joe
Does the wolf add to God's words or does he take away from God's words?
The wolf neither chews the cud or has a split hoof.
The wolf returns to his own vomit.
The wolf feeds their young by vomit and milk.
Some other considerations in regard to the apostles:
John admired the whore riding on the beast and was reproved by the angel.
John bowed down and worshiped the angel twice and was reproved twice.
God revealing this to us is very significant in the whole story of God in Scripture.
Paul declared to the council in Jerusalem that he was a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee and that it was for the hope through the resurrection of the dead that he was being questioned. Later he wrote to Timothy that he was in bonds because of his teaching concerning the resurrection of Jesus. He also wrote to the Corinthians that we have all known Christ through the flesh but now we know him that way no more.
Another has posted the 30 - 60 - 100 fold principle that our Lord Jesus taught. We are all brought through this growth in purification and change that was also taught the Israelites when they were about to enter Canaan. God told them that he would not drive out all the inhabitants of the land at once lest the wild beasts and the briers take over the land, but that he would drive out the inhabitants little by little and that he would leave a few of them as thorns in their sides and in their eyes.
So we have all worshiped God the Father in our Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit of the law with the mind while we have still served the law of sin with our natural capacities of body and mind. First the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.
Forgetting those things that are behind us, even our fathers(not despising as Ham did), let us press toward the prize of the high calling of God that is in Christ Jesus, being made kings and priest unto our God by the redeeming blood of Jesus, the Lamb of God, the Lion of the tribe of Judah and the root and offspring of David, who has prevailed to open the book and to look upon the face of God the Father.
Let us forget the glory of God on Moses' face(not despising that glory which is dark by comparison)and may the light of the glory of God shining through Jesus' face shine into our hearts and minds as Jesus is ministering in our behalf in the presence of God, speaking to us through his blood from the new Jerusalem which is above, the free woman, the mother of us all.
Let us dwell in the holy city which is above, which is promised to us, that we may live in it with him and follow him wheresoever he goes, as he leads us in and out. Come quickly Lord Jesus.
Joe
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
Imagican said:
Which had nothing to do with the Trinity, as you well know. Again, you speak with a forked tongue by trying to cover up the facts. Every day, it becomes more obvious which spirit you follow. One of schism and dissent.
Imagican said:
You are confused. That is not surprising. Even you can be right occasionally. Same applies to interpreting the Word of God. Even a heretic can be correct on some aspects of the faith.
Imagican said:
Show me where this is "apparent", rather than just expressing your opinions without evidence...
As usual, you preach, but you don't provide any evidence for your "offerings". Now, since you are deemed a heretic, perhaps we should heed your advise and totally ignore you, since by your words, heretics get NOTHING correct about the Word.
K
kingdavid
Guest
- Thread starter
- #51
francisdesales said:
anth began a new thread giving you the evidence you seek
I
Imagican
Guest
- Thread starter
- #52
Fran,
So far, it is ALSO apparent that YOU are the ONLY ONE which DOESN'T find the evidence APPARENT. Since you are unable to even discern the SIMPLEST of terms, it IS apparent that you have little to offer in truth. Not an accusation, a simple discernable FACT to those that are ABLE to read; both what Tertullian offered and what YOU have stated.
Every time that you deny or attempt to alter the words of Tertullian, you offer that much MORE discredit to ANYTHING ELSE you may have to offer, (if I were you, I would have simply bowed out and QUIT while I was BEHIND). But, alas, some are inacapble of such humility.
Just as 'certain churches' INSISTED upon teaching and following that which WAS NOT TRUTH, and THROUGH such insistance, were ONLY able to discredit THEMSELVES once their followers were ABLE to discern THE TRUTH. So too, have you chosen to follow this SAME PATH.
Blessings,
MEC
So far, it is ALSO apparent that YOU are the ONLY ONE which DOESN'T find the evidence APPARENT. Since you are unable to even discern the SIMPLEST of terms, it IS apparent that you have little to offer in truth. Not an accusation, a simple discernable FACT to those that are ABLE to read; both what Tertullian offered and what YOU have stated.
Every time that you deny or attempt to alter the words of Tertullian, you offer that much MORE discredit to ANYTHING ELSE you may have to offer, (if I were you, I would have simply bowed out and QUIT while I was BEHIND). But, alas, some are inacapble of such humility.
Just as 'certain churches' INSISTED upon teaching and following that which WAS NOT TRUTH, and THROUGH such insistance, were ONLY able to discredit THEMSELVES once their followers were ABLE to discern THE TRUTH. So too, have you chosen to follow this SAME PATH.
Blessings,
MEC
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
Imagican said:
Oh, between you, Anth, and myself...
I guess I am outnumbered again, so I must be wrong...!
Two people who refuse to see the evidence of the other do not make them correct because of majority.
Imagican said:
I have given you common sense arguments, even highlighted in red. Neither of my "superiors" have yet to address these common sense arguments. Why? Because they are engrossed in their one sentence that they base their entire thought process upon.
Well, in reality, they already HAD that in mind, and then found one sentence to hang their hat upon.
Typical eigesis. You do it in the Scriptures, why not other literature.
Imagican said:
I don't think either of you have responded to my argument, so I am not discredited. All you do is babble about one sentence without considering the context. In addition, you ignore that Paul did the same thing. But nowhere do I see you even considering that Paul was teaching a different Gospel, as well? I am sorry if you don't see the hypocrisy in your approach. However, merely ignoring my arguments do not make your arguments "creditable".
Yes, some are incapable of humility - you have demonstrated that previously. You think that when you are totally humiliated and you just bow out for a few days, that this expresses HUMILITY? Humility is admitting a mistake, not being embarrassed, shutting up for a day, and then returning like nothing happened. You do not understand what humility is...
It CERTAINLY is not telling the world that you are right about God and everyone else is wrong and feel the need to express these "offerings" for the benefit of us "slack-jawed Neanderthals" who must "follow men", unlike you, who claims to follow God Himself and cannot realize you are merely following your own self. That's not humility either...
You have absolutely NO moral high ground to stand upon to lecture me about humility - which I realize I am in more need of, no thanks to you.
Imagican said:
Yes, those "church of one" people INSIST upon teaching something not true. But try as I might, I cannot get him/her to understand this. It is difficult to show someone they are deluded when they THINK that God speaks to them directly! :crazy
Your "offerings" prove that you are in error and are just following your own Adamic whims. Repeating a few buzz words don't impress.
K
kingdavid
Guest
- Thread starter
- #54
Oh, between you, Anth, and myself...
I guess I am outnumbered again, so I must be wrong...!
Two people who refuse to see the evidence of the other do not make them correct because of majority.
I guess I am outnumbered again, so I must be wrong...!
Two people who refuse to see the evidence of the other do not make them correct because of majority.
Imagican said:
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
kingdavid said:
Although you are taking my citation out of context, for a small royalty fee of $20 per useage, feel free to call me a "slack-jawed neanderthal"... You may donate it to the http://www.christianforums.net web site upkeep and we can arrange tax write-offs later.
Moderators, is this OK?
:halo
I
Imagican
Guest
- Thread starter
- #56
Fran,
I can not take credit for introducing you to your 'religion'. Not my responsibility.
But what IS my responsibility is to offer testimony and witness to ANYONE that I am able.
This entire thread is based on the FALSE CLAIM that 'trinity' was taught 'from the beginning'. Even the Catholic Church would NOT make the claims that YOU do. For they are WELL aware that 'trinity' was a doctrine that took HUNDREDS of years to become an accepted PART of the CC's creed.
Yet you continue to argue a moot point as if by doing so you are able to CHANGE history.
If I were wrong I would OPENLY admit it. But it seems as though you are INCAPABLE of such.
So, as my brothers have suggested, it's time to simply 'walk away'. YOU are the ONLY one that takes the stand that you do, so it has become apparent that there is NOTHING to be accomplished in this discussion. You have 'made up your mind' and 'taken a stand' and it has become apparent that you will NOT 'back down'.
You can lead a horse to water.................................
Blessings,
MEC
I can not take credit for introducing you to your 'religion'. Not my responsibility.
But what IS my responsibility is to offer testimony and witness to ANYONE that I am able.
This entire thread is based on the FALSE CLAIM that 'trinity' was taught 'from the beginning'. Even the Catholic Church would NOT make the claims that YOU do. For they are WELL aware that 'trinity' was a doctrine that took HUNDREDS of years to become an accepted PART of the CC's creed.
Yet you continue to argue a moot point as if by doing so you are able to CHANGE history.
If I were wrong I would OPENLY admit it. But it seems as though you are INCAPABLE of such.
So, as my brothers have suggested, it's time to simply 'walk away'. YOU are the ONLY one that takes the stand that you do, so it has become apparent that there is NOTHING to be accomplished in this discussion. You have 'made up your mind' and 'taken a stand' and it has become apparent that you will NOT 'back down'.
You can lead a horse to water.................................
Blessings,
MEC
K
kingdavid
Guest
- Thread starter
- #57
kingdavid said:
i may have to step back from my harsh accusations against tertullian. i am sorry Lord Jesus. I was misled to believe that tertullian was propagating trinity ar God in 3 persons that modern catholics and many so-called protestants believe. he was not ministering trinity as God in 3 persons but 3 dispensations which is true as another, anth, posted in another post. thanks anth!
K
kingdavid
Guest
- Thread starter
- #58
francisdesales said:
that's a good comeback
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
Imagican said:
Why are you falsely accusing me again? Don't you have anything better to do then invent things?
I didn't say that the Church "taught the Trinity from the beginning". Thus, you bear false witness, yet again, because you cannot discern what I write.
Here it is, my first discussion on this thread, about what Tertullian did. I wrote this May 4 at 9:11 am. You may look yourself. Read more closely what I wrote...
---------
Yet again, you are confused. Tertullian was not "introducing" anything. He was writing a letter to a person such as yourself. Utterly confused on who God is. He thus drew upon what was taught before by the Apostles and their understanding of Scriptures. Tertullian himself was certainly not introducing new teachings, but giving a coherent writing that had not been addressed so extensively before, although bits and pieces are found in the writings of Christians well before him.
If you actually READ this, you'd see that the underlined section does not assert that "the Trinity was taught from the beginning", but rather, the underlying teachings that would later be called "Trinity" are indeed present in "bits and pieces". Only with Tertullian do we have the beginnings of a COHERENT addressing of the doctrine of the relationship of God and the Persons of the Trinity.
continuing...
Here is what Tertullian writes to Praxeas on this matter:
In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or οἰκονομία , as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded. The Church afterwards applied this term exclusively to the Holy Ghost, from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of herâ€â€being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the “Comforter.†the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date, which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas Against Praxeas, Chapter 2.
You and my fellow interlocutor continue to ignore this passage, choosing to scandalize and misinform people, making your constant assertions that I am a liar and so forth. As you can see by my again underlined section, the Rule of Faith was "taught from the beginning", and WITHIN it, one can plainly see the seeds of Trinity. It remained a matter of men like Tertullian to define and ponder this Faith "once given". Father, Son, and Spirit are three different Persons - and there is only One God...
If you are able to see above, I clearly point out that I do not make the assertion that you charge me. The problem is not my claim, but your inability to read what I wrote.
Take your buddy's advice and just walk away...Clearly, you cannot deal with my argument, your hatred of Mother Church too great to enable you to address arguments without interjecting your own pretend and invented interpretations of what I write..
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
francisdesales said:kingdavid said:
that's a good comeback
LOL! I was going to suggest sending it to me, but I am in a charitable mood!
Similar threads
