Is there a conflict between Galatians 1:8 and the Trinity Doctrine?

7,887 Views | 118 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Zobel
Unknown_handle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I am neither for or against the Trinity. I really don't understand why we don't just read the Word of God and take it at face value. It seems to be such a simpler concept. I cannot understand the doctrine to be honest and that seems to make certain people angry.

I am a sinner and have many faults and like everyone else was dead in trespasses and sins. As part of living this life of forgiveness, knowing or reciting Tertullian's definition of the Trinity has never brought me peace, answers or deliverance. Yet I have heard more than one Christian and / or preacher state that without belief in the Trinity you cannot be a Christian. I don't believe that position and I think those that carry such a belief are trying to do God's job. What happened to Romans 10:9-10?

I just don't think you can put God in a box. God has revealed himself in his Word, his creation and his son. Romans 1:20 tells us that invisible things are clearly seen and we are without excuse. Why the need for creeds and doctrines?

As to Galatians 1:8 it was written sometime between 40 and 60 AD. Most of the creeds come from the seven ecumenical counsels that were from 325 to 787 AD. Why are these various creeds not what is referred to in Galatians 1:8? Maybe it is the same doctrine...I don't know. However, what is curious at least from those that espouse you can't be a Christian without acceptance and obeisance of the Trinity doctrine then how could those before the Tertullian's doctrine was published be Christians?

There is a God who loved me enough to send his son to redeem me. There is a son who loved me enough to lay down his life for me and there is the comforter (holy spirit) that I received when I was born again. I don't know why we have to complicate that. There is a Father and a Son and the Holy Ghost. Seems pretty simple.

For those of you that have the predisposition to attack those that don't agree with your version of Christianity why not just try teaching with a spirit of humility.
commando2004
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Where is the "trinity" mentioned in the Bible?
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Are you familiar with the Athanasian creed?

I think it is important to state what we know about the trinity and not suppose. It is v easy to fall into heresy. God is ineffable and it always safest to say, "I dont know/understand, but I believe."

We are not polytheistic.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Unknown_handle said:

I am neither for or against the Trinity. I really don't understand why we don't just read the Word of God and take it at face value.
Do the concept of the Trinity and Holy Scripture come from different sources? Why create a conflict between the two?
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Unknown_handle said:

There is a Father and a Son and the Holy Ghost. Seems pretty simple.
These three should be worshipped because they are of the same substance. Yet they are not three gods. Pretty simple.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I dont think it is fair to say that it is simple. If it were, there wouldnt be such a wide variety of heresies on the subject...or the awesome Lutheran Satire video.
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
swimmerbabe11 said:

I dont think it is fair to say that it is simple. If it were, there wouldnt be such a wide variety of heresies on the subject...or the awesome Lutheran Satire video.
Well his sentence is pretty simple. Might as well simplify it further. One ousia, three hypostasis. Pretty simple.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm not going to claim perfect understanding of the Trinity or the nature of God, and I have no desire to cast scorn on people who don't believe in the Trinity. However, I think belief in the Trinity is an excellent place to draw the line between Christian and non-Christian. It is pretty much the most fundamental and distinctive belief in Christianity aside from the death and resurrection of Christ.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gator03 said:

Unknown_handle said:

I am neither for or against the Trinity. I really don't understand why we don't just read the Word of God and take it at face value.
Do the concept of the Trinity and Holy Scripture come from different sources? Why create a conflict between the two?


A book I've been reading makes this very point.

Without the Scriptures, the concept of the Trinity would be more or less I know at worst or unclear at best.
DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?
To the OP, you are right in that the gospel is simple. We have sinned against God and each other, God sent His son to pay for the price of our sins and when we trust in Jesus death and resurrection for our sins, His blood is applied to our account. This is enough information for me to understand, accept, and be saved.

I didn't understand the doctrine of the Trinity until many years later after already trusting in Jesus. The word Trinity is not found in the scriptures however is a word used to try and describe what we see in the Bible. The best way to determine the importance of the topic is to understand how much emphasis the Bible places on the topic. Does the Bible make understanding this a requirement for salvation? I would say no. Does the Bible place enough emphasis on the topic it that God wants us to understand who He is? I would say yes. It's an important enough doctrine that I would not attend a church in which someone denies that Jesus is God.

100 verses on the deity of Jesus
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Is there a conflict between Galatians 1:8 and the Trinity Doctrine?
No, of course there is not.

Quote:

knowing or reciting Tertullian's definition of the Trinity has never brought me peace, answers or deliverance
What? Why would you expect that it would? Who has ever said that it should??

Quote:

Why the need for creeds and doctrines?

This seems rhetorical, but Christ taught, and his followers learned. Disciple literally means learner. A doctrine is a representation of belief. A creed is a formulaic summary of belief. Creed comes from the latin word for belief, "I believe". In Greek it is symbol, that which implies the other. The symbol of faith implies the faith. You learn creeds and doctrines because you learn the faith. They are pedagogical tools. They are not the faith, they point to the faith.

Quote:

Most of the creeds come from the seven ecumenical counsels that were from 325 to 787 AD.
This is not true. Early creeds can be found in the scriptures and symbols of faith have been a part of every part of Christian history that we can find. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan symbol of faith was fixed in 381 and is what is used to this day by the Orthodox. The Roman Catholics and most Protestants use a variant of it which adds a word (filioque). None of the later ecumenical councils modified the creed.
Quote:

you can't be a Christian without acceptance and obeisance of the Trinity doctrine then how could those before the Tertullian's doctrine was published be Christians?
A creed means referring to a belief. You cannot be a Christian if you do not believe in One God, with One Son who is very God of very God, and one Spirit, who is also God, who proceeds from the Father. All Christians have believed in these things, at all times in Christianity. I am not sure why you keep talking about Tertullian. He's not even a church father, and he is not the originator of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Quote:

There is a God who loved me enough to send his son to redeem me. There is a son who loved me enough to lay down his life for me and there is the comforter (holy spirit) that I received when I was born again. I don't know why we have to complicate that. There is a Father and a Son and the Holy Ghost. Seems pretty simple.

So what's the problem, exactly?
Rusty Aha
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Turn in your Authorized King James Bible to 1 John 5:7. There's definitely a Trinity. From a soteriological standpoint, it's not so much acknowledging the Trinity for means of salvation, it's that denying it brings into question the diety of Jesus Christ.

In context of Galations, the converted Jews at the Church of Galatia were attempting to put Christians back under the Mosaic law of circumcision. Paul was reiterating the simplicity of salvation through repentance of sin and faith alone in the finished work of Jesus Christ.

It is interesting though that oneness pentecostals, JWs, Mormons, and other monotheistic denominations started with their "prophet" received extra-biblical revelation or enlightenment from an "angel". Most of their doctrines make Jesus Christ a created entity (the first chapter of John's gospel clearly stated the Word was from the beginning).
Aggie4Life02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't love that symbol because it implies that there are four, not three. It also seems to imply the "as from one essence" line of thinking which challenges the monarchy of the Father.
Win At Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The best definition of the Trinity comes from those who invented it; namely the Catholic Church.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: "substance", "person" or "hypostasis", "relation" and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, "infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand".82

"The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."

"He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."

"Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."

They're right; you can't understand this. And anyone who says they understand the Trinity either hasn't studied it enough, or has studied it so much that they've deluded themselves into believing they have.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Win At Life said:

The best definition of the Trinity comes from those who invented it; namely the Catholic Church.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: "substance", "person" or "hypostasis", "relation" and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, "infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand".82

"The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."

"He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."

"Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."

They're right; you can't understand this. And anyone who says they understand the Trinity either hasn't studied it enough, or has studied it so much that they've deluded themselves into believing they have.

While the trolling here is pretty transparent, I do appreciate the fact that it is a far more sophisticated troll post than most.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

They're right; you can't understand this. And anyone who says they understand the Trinity either hasn't studied it enough, or has studied it so much that they've deluded themselves into believing they have.
Your approach is more or less the least charitable and willfully misunderstanding way to read.

The unknowable nature of God is hardly a Roman Catholic creation. On the one hand, we have Holy Scripture littered with statements that by God's actions, or by living righteously, we will know that He is God. On the other, we have numerous verses that say that we can't know Him, we can't understand Him, we can't compare him to anything. Do you make scripture a lie? Of course not. There's a kind of knowledge that is an intellectual grasping, and a kind of knowledge that transcends cognition.

In Christian theology, we confess, by the testimony of the Holy Scripture, that we can come to know God. The Lord says He came to bear witness to the Truth, and that He is the Truth. But that knowledge is ineffable, because everything that is said underdescribes reality. So we also confess that while we can say things about God, we must always unsay them as well, to affirm both parts of the truth. Theology is a saying and unsaying to a positive effect.

The early Christians knew that Jesus was God. The scriptures confess it. But there is a need to be able to confess, verbally, what is believed. However, what is believed is experienced, not merely acknowledged. We know that merely reciting true facts is not the same as knowledge. Similarly, having knowledge of something doesn't mean we can verbally explain or defend it.

A dogma is simply a rational formulation about the mystery of God. It is something that can be grasped rationally, to help guide people towards something that cannot be grasped rationally. Dogmas are not true as such, because these are created words and concepts which are used to describe ineffable Realities. But they are useful for demonstrating that other rational concepts are false.

So, if someone says: there is a multitude of Gods. No, this is false. If someone says, Jesus is not God, we again say, no, this is false. If someone says, Jesus and the Spirit and the Father are the same thing showing us only in different ways again we say, no, this is false, this is not what the scriptures teach us. But, when we say what something is, this is an entirely different matter. You must begin by saying what you're doing is simply not possible.

The interesting thing to me is that you, and the OP, don't object to the concepts expressed by the Trinity. That there is One God; One Son; One Spirit. That God is the only God, and there is none before or after Him, that there is no god to compare to Him, that other gods are no gods at all.

That God is never without His Power, His Wisdom, His Word, or His Breath. The Breath and the Word of God are inseparably part of God, and it is scripturally unthinkable to have God without His Word, God without His Breath. That God acts through His Might - His Right Hand - and His actions are living and active through His Life, His Breath - His Left Hand. That His very Word or Act is living and active, enlivened by His Breath.

That the Word of God is God, and that all things that belong to God are also His. That God is Almighty, and the word is the Might of God. That God is True, and the Word is the Truth of God. That God is Righteous, and the Word is the Righteousness of God.

That the Word of God became man, the Son of Man. That the Son of Man will be enthroned with God. That the Son of Man does things that only God can do with all power and authority.

That the very Spirit of God - who is of God and is God, but who is not the same as God or the Word of God - is sent from God to rest upon the Son. That this Spirit or Breath is sent to us. That this Spirit is the Spirit of everything God is; the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Truth.

This is the doctrine of the Trinity. You could write for days on it, listing everything that we know to be true from the scriptures.This is not unlearnable or nonsense, it's not unknowable. It is pedagogical, it is to teach and bear witness. But in the end, all you are doing is creating a fence around the truth, rightly dividing truth from falsehood, but not necessarily expressing the reality of things as they Are. Our words are not True, but they may reflect the Truth and reject falsehood.
Ordhound04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I remember hearing Fulton Sheen talk about the Trinity. He made a statement, if I recall, that if at the end of his explication of the Trinity we say "Yes, I completely understand" he has failed in some way, as the Trinity is fundamentally a mystery.

We can say what the trinity is, to some extent. The citation of the catechism is a really good example of that. The Nicene and Athanasius Creeds are examples too. Heck, the Apostles Creed is a proto acknowledgement of the Trinity.

However, the fullness of understanding of the Trinity is still a mystery this side of heaven. (From my understanding at least...)
Unknown_handle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I apologize for not being able to get back to this post sooner. I had too much work and a move.

For anyone to be a true researcher no matter what the field all outcomes have to be evaluated and you don't have your conclusion before research begins. The correct answer should be the only desired outcome. If the field of evolutionary anthropology or evolutionary genetics start by ruling out divine design then they are fake researchers because they refuse to consider all potential answers. There religion of worshiping nature (Mother Earth more than Father God leaves them missing the true answer when even mathematics behind mutating genes proves that evolution is not just some random happenstance. Yet for some reason God the Father never gets much credit or mention.

I don't believe that Jesus Christ and God are the same. Is that what the doctrine of Trinity portends to teach that God and Jesus Christ are the same? They are not! That is simple and very, very clear in the scripture. God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. Jesus Christ did not raise God. You can't make this claim and remain sane. My father and I are not the same either for whatever it is worth. No matter how many times the round peg is forced into the square hole, God and Jesus Christ are not the same and cannot be interchanged.

I don't pretend to be an expert on the Trinity. However, if the Trinity doctrine teaches that God and Jesus Christ are the same then the Trinity would clearly a new doctrine that Galatians 1:8 warns us of.

As to an earlier poster I see absolutely no need for an ecumenical creed when I have the written scripture to read, ponder and / or memorize. There is power in the written and spoken Word of God because it is the very Word of God. Creeds are not and never will be. The bible tells us how the holy men of God received the Word. No one can make that claim about any creed. My question is will Christianity really fall apart if we remove the non God breathed creeds and just stick with the scripture? Will it change the fact that Jesus Christ is my Savior? Will it change the fact that in the beginning was the Word (not a creed)? Do I need to renew my mind to the Word of God or to ecumenical creeds? The incenses, robes, candles, stained glass, beards, shaved heads or the plethora of other trappings, rituals and ceremonies bring no one closer to God.

The first sin recorded in the Word of God started with Eve adding to the Word of God literally by stating not only can't you eat of the tree "neither shall you touch it." Men have been doing this ever since. Adding things to the scripture because men don't think God is smart enough to explain his very nature nor that of his Son nor that of the Holy Spirit.

So those posters who are experts on the Trinity...are God and Jesus Christ the same and can they be interchanged according to either the Trinity or the Gospel as you understand it? I say no. If I am wrong then teach me that I may understand.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This seems like a pretty bad-faith approach to this whole thing. You seem more interested in ranting about things than having a conversation.

But, I'll try to answer your questions. I'm going to break this into two responses, one for the questions about the doctrine of the Trinity and one for your comments about creedal statements.

Simply put, when the Holy Scriptures talk about God, they are almost always talking about God the Father. Christ Jesus taught us that God is the Father - His and ours.

The scriptures also teach that Christ Jesus the Word is God.

So if you are asking, is Jesus Christ God, the answer is quite simply yes.

If you are asking, is Jesus Christ God the Father, the answer is no.

When you say "is Jesus Christ the same as God" you have not made an answerable question. Is He the same as God the Father in terms of divinity? Yes, because He is God From God, the exact image of the Father as the scriptures tell us. Is He the same person as God the Father? No.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

As to an earlier poster I see absolutely no need for an ecumenical creed when I have the written scripture to read, ponder and / or memorize. There is power in the written and spoken Word of God because it is the very Word of God. Creeds are not and never will be. The bible tells us how the holy men of God received the Word. No one can make that claim about any creed.
Creeds are older than the New Testament. There are several creedal statements given in the NT by St Paul.

Considering that some creeds are literally preserved in the NT as scripture, some creeds are part of the word of God.

And the Bible tells us that the holy men of God received creeds, too. The formula is "what I have received I have passed on to you." For example 1 Cor 15:3. In 1 Cor 11:23 St Paul says that what he's passing on in this case is from the Lord.


Quote:

My question is will Christianity really fall apart if we remove the non God breathed creeds and just stick with the scripture? Will it change the fact that Jesus Christ is my Savior? Will it change the fact that in the beginning was the Word (not a creed)? Do I need to renew my mind to the Word of God or to ecumenical creeds?
You're presenting a false dichotomy. The creeds or symbols of faith are not at odds with the scripture. They are summaries of the scripture.

Will Christianity fall apart? Yes. It already has.

Will it change that in the beginning was the Word? The Word is Jesus Christ, not the scriptures. Romans 12:2 doesn't say to renew your mind to the scriptures. Indeed, the scriptures are only meaningful when illuminated by Christ (cf. Luke 24:45).


Quote:

The incenses, robes, candles, stained glass, beards, shaved heads or the plethora of other trappings, rituals and ceremonies bring no one closer to God.
Robes and incense are scriptural, as are rituals and ceremonies. There are a great many things people can do as pious acts that can respond to God, to draw near to Him so He will draw near to you, as St James says.

Remember the very first image we get of the New Testament Church in Acts 2:42: the Christians devoted themselves to three things, all with definite articles, each separated by an "and".
- The teaching of the Apostles.
And
- The communion, the breaking of bread
And
- The prayers

Not some teaching from some people, but the teaching of the apostles.

Not any fellowship, but "koinonia" the sharing or communion - cf 1 Cor 10:16 - and it is explicitly the communion of the breaking of the bread, i.e., the Lord's Supper

And not any prayers, but the prayers. Definite article. Those rituals and ceremonies you are saying are superfluous to Christianity are actually endemic. They're they're from the very very beginning.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Based on your lack of engagement with answers from the previous posters, I will assume that you are less interested in learning about the Trinity and more focused on making the point that we don't need confessions or creeds, we only need to "read the Word of God and take it at face value".

You should turn your scientific analysis to analyzing this approach, which begs the following questions:
  • Which version of the Bible are you using?
  • Who chose the canon of the NT that you are using?
  • Does the Church come from Scripture or does Scripture come from the Church?
  • Why is "Scripture alone" an acceptable creed and all other creeds are wrong?
  • When did the "Scripture alone" creed develop?
  • When did you subscribe to the "Scripture alone" creed and who taught it to you?
  • How do you get 1 billion Christians to align their interpretations?
  • Why does your creed seem to foster diversity of theological opinions? Do other creeds do that?
  • Why is there disagreement on even very simple Scripture (e.g. "Thou shalt not murder." What is murder? Is the death penalty murder? Is defending yourself murder? Etc...)
  • Given that most Christians didn't have personal Bibles until the last century or so, how does your creed work for 90% of Christian history?

The questions could go on and on.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There is simply no way for anyone who is familiar with the Holy Scriptures to see Jesus as anything other than God. The claims made about Jesus, the titles given to Him, the actions He does, how He speaks, everything are all claims to divinity. Since there is one God, this Jesus then must be God.

Anyone who claims Jesus as Savior is claiming him God. The only Savior of the old testament, the only savior known to Jews, was God Himself. The only salvation that can be is the salvation of God. Read the Psalms. Read the prophets. God saves, salvation comes from God, people see salvation of God, that God works salvation in the midst of the earth. Only God saves. But the NT is clear: Jesus is the savior (Titus 2:13, Phil 3:20, 2 Pet 3:18 etc). The name itself, Yeshua, means "God saves". As Isaiah prophesies "Behold, this is our God for whom we have waited that He might save us. This is the LORD for whom we have waited; Let us rejoice and be glad in His salvation." And how does St Paul describe this? In Titus he speaks of "God our Savior" and continues "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men...awaiting the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ."


We say that Jesus Christ is Lord - not just "a" lord but the Lord. The most quoted OT text in the NT is Psalm 110 - "the Lord said to my Lord..." Christ Jesus confounds the pharisees with this verse. In the very first sermon St Peter refers to that same Psalm (Acts 2:33) saying that Jesus is the Lord - God has made Him both Lord and Christ! St Peter says "He is Lord of all." He is called over and over the Lord Jesus Christ, all through the epistles. The Lord is the title of God in the OT. "Adonai" is LORD, read whenever the tetragrammaton was written, the Lord God is Adonai Elohim. God is the Lord, God rules forever. God is King of kings, Lord of lords. The shema says "Hear O Israel, the Lord is God, the Lord is One". There is only one Lord known to the Jews in the OT. But in the Revelation of St John, the Lamb who is slain is King of kings and Lord of lords. St Thomas cries out "my Lord and my God!" So we see what appears to be two Lords, just as there are two Saviors claimed by Scripture, and just the same there is one Lord, and one Savior who is God. Anyone who calls Jesus Lord is affirming Him as God.

Christ Jesus Himself refers to Himself with the divine title, "I AM," the name given to Moses. When the OT scriptures read LORD that's the tetragrammaton, "I am" or Yahweh, given to Moses. I exist, I will be what I will be, I will do what I do, He who Is. In Isaiah we see over and over that you will know that I am, I am and there is no other, etc. But Jesus says this name is His. In Mark's gospel they ask if He is the Christ and He replies "I am," and then refers to Himself as the Son of Man from Daniel. They respond that this is blasphemy. Why would it be blasphemy to claim yourself as a prophesied figure? No, the blasphemy is the I am. Christ Jesus says "amen amen, before Abraham was, I am." He is saying that He is the I am, He is Lord, and He is the I am who is Lord. In John 8:24 He simply says "unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins" and "when you have lifted up the Son of Man you will know that I am."

Christ Jesus is God not only because He is Lord, He is Savior, He is the I am, He is the Life, He is the Resurrection. He is the Truth. But also because He does things only God can do. He forgives sins (how can he a man forgive sins? or what kind of man is this who can do these things?) He is greater than the angles, He raises the dead. He acts like God, and what can act like God but God?

Even further He says that He and the Father are One. If you have seen Him, you have seen the Father. And if you have seen the Father, you have surely seen God. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Hebrews 1 says "about the Son He says your throne, O God, endures forever and ever, and justice is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You above Your companions with the oil of joy." Or as St Paul teaches, "existing in the form of God He thought it not robbery to be equal to God, and became the likeness of man" What can exist in the form of God but God? And further, who can be equal to God but God? He was God who became in the likeness of Man. This is Jesus Christ.

So the scriptures say, Jesus Christ is God, but He is not not God the Father.

This is why in the Symbol of Faith, we make very clear we believe in one God, the Father AND one Lord, Jesus Christ, AND the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life. This is why creeds and doctrines are important, so that people who read the scriptures without right teaching do not get confused, and become angry, or misunderstand to their own detriment and to others around them.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think it's pretty interesting to look at all the different heresies regarding the Trinity. For instance, modalism says that Jesus is God the Father and not different at all, while Arianism says that Jesus is not God at all. The Trinity is neither of these but is in between them. Same with the nature of Christ. The Nestorians say Jesus has 2 separate natures and is really two people- one human and one divine, while the Monophysites say the Jesus has one nature and is one person that is not human, being either completely divine or some fusion that is neither human nor divine. The Trinitarian position is that Christ has 2 natures- both human and divine, that combine to form one person.

In each case, you could view each range of beliefs as a spectrum. You would have Arianism at one end of the spectrum and modalism at the other, and right in the center you'd have the Trinity. Same for Nestorians and Monophysites. To me it makes perfect sense that heresies would branch pretty equally in both directions if you started from somewhere in the middle. The mysterious, incomprehensible nature of the Trinity also lends itself well to heretical interpretations, because these alternative interpretations provide certainty ease of understanding. The Trinity provides neither. So if you assume that the earliest Christians believed in the conventional Trinity, then the appearance and pattern of various heresies begins to make sense. It's by no means a fool proof argument for the Trinity, but it's harder to explain the appearances of heresies if something like Arianism was the original faith.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Unknown_handle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Your claim is either simplistic or just unlearned. For every scripture that people use to force Jesus and God to be interchangeable there are 10 scriptures that state otherwise. How anyone can say that if you read the scriptures on this subject there would be no questions is beyond me. If it were so clear then why are there so many different opinions? I don't want to know who you think God is or God is not or who Jesus is or who you think Jesus is not. I want to know who God thinks he is and who Jesus thinks he is and the only place to get that is the written Word. God's people deserve the truth and not some twisted contorted answer that contradicts itself and embarrasses itself.

Without even opening my bible off the top of my head I can think of Mark 10:18 "Why do you call me good? Jesus answered. No one is good except God alone." Also, Jesus was tempted. God cannot be tempted. Jesus died and was dead for three days and then resurrected. God was from the beginning until the everlasting. Jesus was born. Jesus had a mother. Jesus had brothers. There are at least a thousand verses that do not allow Jesus and God as to be interchanged. I have read every verse in the Bible used to justify that God and Jesus Christ as interchangeable. Yet no one wants to deal with the thousands of verses that lead us to a different conclusion. Why would God just not tell us? Why is the term God the Son not in the Bible? Why when Eve bore Cain did she claim that she had received a man from the Lord? Apparently, Adam and Eve knew that they needed a redeemer and yet they did not claim to have received God or a baby God. Please resolve these discrepancies without telling me to trust you or take it on faith or to pray on it. Most likely I don't trust you and I don't take the truth on faith and I do pray.

Was baby Jesus born with all knowledge or did he learn? There are tons of confusion in Christianity on this topic and those of us that are honest enough to see that the emperor has no clothes need not be condescended to by those that claim to have all of the answers because you don't have all the answers on this topic. If you did have all of the answers then go ahead and clear up all of the confusion for me and the rest of mankind.

God communicates himself via his creation, his Word and his Son (the Word in the flesh). To understand the Word we must understand grammar. In grammar, if one part of a sentence is false along with a myriad of truths then the statement is false. To claim that Jesus and God are interchangeable then ALL POINTS must be resolved like Mark 10:18. No one has ever been able to do that and I doubt anyone ever will.

So we have to stick to what we know and live what we know and quit judging others on ecumenical dogma that has never got anyone born again, healed, delivered, raised from the dead or any other biblical result.

And as to a previous poster, I absolutely do not believe that the ecumenical church creeds were written by holy men of God as God breathed scripture and there is nothing to convince anyone otherwise. You can state is so but it carries no more weight than the words of a used camel salesman.

We believe the scripture that we understand. We can't believe what we don't understand. Absolutely there are mysteries in the Bible but not illogic and not magic. Note: God does not contradict himself as God cannot lie.

If people have predetermined that Jesus and God are the same then why even read the scriptures because you need to use a pen knife like Thomas Jefferson to cut out the scriptures that you don't believe and check your common sense at the door to prove your point.

Jesus and God are not the same and they are not interchangeable. That is very clear. Praying to Jesus who sits at the right hand of the Father is not the same as praying to the Father. Not to mention that there is not one single prayer to Jesus in the Bible.

If we are Christians then Jesus is our Lord and Jesus is our Savior yet God the Father is the author of salvation but to say that Jesus is interchangeable with God the Father is blasphemy and is what we are warned about in Galatians 1:8.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sola scriptura was/is a radical hermeneutic but you appear to take it one step further to solo scriptura:
Quote:

It is important to note that the Reformers held to sola Scriptura, not solo Scriptura. Solo Scriptura advocates a radical individualism that rejects the church, creeds, confessions, and tradition as having any authority while embracing private judgment above all else. This view radicalizes the Protestant ethic and undermines it. Such an approach finds no credence in the teaching of the Reformers or the early church. Conversely, the Reformers taught the Apostles' Creed and stood upon the truths articulated at Chalcedon and Nicaea. Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, Henry Bullinger, and Martin Bucer all wrote catechisms and confessions for their people. They viewed an anti-creedal and anti-confessional theology as anti-Christian. None of the prominent Protestant Reformers advocated solo Scriptura.
https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/is-scripture-alone-the-same-thing-as-scripture-only/

Again, you have constructed your own radical creed based on a 20th/21st century American re-imagining of what Christianity is: an anti-traditional, hyper-individualistic, scientific intellectual exercise.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's a very strange discussion where you ask questions while also telling me you don't want to know what I think. I am not able to teach you, and I certainly don't have all the answers. I will do my best to answer the questions you pose here, but you must decide what you believe or don't. The central question of the gospels is from Christ - who do you say that I am? This is for us to confess. This is what He wants from us.

To begin with, there are many opinions because there are many people. This is not a new phenomenon. St Vincent noted in the 400s that without a continuous teaching there are as many opinions of scripture as there are readers. Even in the time of Christ there was variance over who the Messiah would be and even whether or not there was resurrection of the dead (this is what divided the Sadducees from the Pharisees). St Paul tells us that there will be heresies, and this is so God may show who is approved. Much like Gamaliel in Acts 5:39 - the good proves out.

In Mark 10:18 Christ Jesus poses a question: why do you call me good? The obvious answer is: because you are Lord. He asks this over and over again: who do you say that I am? This is the same question. And the answer is the Christ, the son of the Living God, He who is coming into the world. All of these are in the scripture, in the gospels.

That Christ Jesus was tempted is not an argument against Him being God. It is an excellent argument that He was man, and the fact that He did not sin is a wonderful argument for Him being God.
Yes, Jesus was dead and rose again. Do you think this is an argument for His Humanity or Divinity?
Yes, God is from the beginning, and Jesus was born. In John's gospel He tells us - in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word became flesh.
Yes, Jesus has a mother - for this very reason we call Mary the Theotokos, the one who gives birth to God.
Jesus had "brothers," but not from Mary the Theotokos. This has been a unified Christian teaching up to and through the protestant Reformation.
Quote:

There are at least a thousand verses that do not allow Jesus and God as to be interchanged. I have read every verse in the Bible used to justify that God and Jesus Christ as interchangeable. Yet no one wants to deal with the thousands of verses that lead us to a different conclusion.
A thousand? Then by all means, lets do every one. Because nothing you have said is even remotely challenging, or novel. But let's be clear, the problem with your argument is you have an insufficient definition of God. What is God? Who is God? Are those questions one and the same thing? Or not?

Is there ever a time when God is without His Word? What is the Word of God? Or, shouldn't it be Who? What does it mean that God has breath, spirit, life? What is the Spirit of God, and how does He send it to His prophets? How can this Spirit also be a comforter, and advocate, a paraclete? And what's more, another paraclete? Isn't this also a Who?

Quote:

Why would God just not tell us?
It is for us to declare Him. The whole world, all of creation, and His mighty acts cry out for us to worship, to proclaim. Everything He does in the prophets is done so that we might know that He Is. He knows; He wants us to say. This is the pivotal question. "Who do men say that I am? Who do you say that I am?"
Quote:

Why is the term God the Son not in the Bible?
I'm a bit confused.
Psalm 2:7 "I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You."
Matthew 3:17 "and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.' "
Matthew 17:5 "While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, 'This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!' "
Mark 5:7 "and shouting with a loud voice, he said, 'What business do we have with each other, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God, do not torment me!' "
John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."
John 5:19 "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner."
Acts 13:33 "that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.'"

Romans 1:4 "who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord"

1 Corinthians 15:28 "When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all."
2 Peter 1:17 "For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, 'This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased'"
Hebrews 5:5 "So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, 'YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU' "
1 John 4:10 "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins."
1 John 5:9-10 "If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son. The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son."

They ask Jesus who is His witness. He says - "I am One who testifies about Myself, and the Father, who sent me, also testifies about Me."


Quote:

Why when Eve bore Cain did she claim that she had received a man from the Lord? Apparently, Adam and Eve knew that they needed a redeemer and yet they did not claim to have received God or a baby God.
I am unclear what you're asking here. However we should note that Adam was made in the image (icon) of God, but Seth was made in the image of Adam. But then Colossians 1:15 says that the Son is the image (icon) of the invisible God. If Jesus is merely a man how can that be?


Quote:

Was baby Jesus born with all knowledge or did he learn?
The scripture says He learned.

Quote:

There are tons of confusion in Christianity on this topic and those of us that are honest enough to see that the emperor has no clothes need not be condescended to by those that claim to have all of the answers because you don't have all the answers on this topic. If you did have all of the answers then go ahead and clear up all of the confusion for me and the rest of mankind.
There is no confusion. People see and believe what they choose to.

Quote:

God communicates himself via his creation, his Word and his Son (the Word in the flesh). To understand the Word we must understand grammar. In grammar, if one part of a sentence is false along with a myriad of truths then the statement is false. To claim that Jesus and God are interchangeable then ALL POINTS must be resolved like Mark 10:18. No one has ever been able to do that and I doubt anyone ever will.
No, this is not true. That is not what the scriptures say. God did in the past communicate not only by His creation. However, His son, the Word of God, the davar YHWH, is utterly and completely NOT THE WRITTEN WORD. The Word of God is from the beginning, all things were created by and through the Word. Before creation existed, the Word was with God. Before grammar. He revealed Himself to us through the Son, in the flesh, in the person - not through the written word. This is what the first chapter of John teaches. This is what the first chapter of Hebrews teaches - "in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the ages."


Errors in understanding are not ontological. People can believe what they wish; reality persists. That a person has a personal limitation of wisdom, of understanding, of faith, does not invalidate the Truth. Jesus is the Truth, He said so Himself. Just like St Paul says, we don't come preaching with the wisdom of the world, because the truth is foolishness to them.

And, simply put: your understanding is at fault. No one in this thread, not once, have said that Jesus and God are interchangeable. Because they're not. Christ Jesus is the Son, the Firstborn, the Only Begotten, the Lord, the Christ, the Savior, the King, the Paraclete, the Word. God is God the Father. Anyone who says they are interchangeable is confused.

Quote:

We believe the scripture that we understand. We can't believe what we don't understand. Absolutely there are mysteries in the Bible but not illogic and not magic. Note: God does not contradict himself as God cannot lie.
This is also incorrect. The scriptures say "By faith we understand." (Hebrews 11:3). St Paul says we don't have a message of persuasive words or wisdom, but that our faith is in the wisdom of God, not of men. Not the wisdom of this age, but the mystery of God which none of the rulers of this age understand. And he says that the spiritual things of God are discerned spiritually, not by the natural mind.

I do not believe in magic. There is no such thing as magic. But paradox is not illogical.

Quote:

If people have predetermined that Jesus and God are the same then why even read the scriptures because you need to use a pen knife like Thomas Jefferson to cut out the scriptures that you don't believe and check your common sense at the door to prove your point.
I have not predetermined. Christianity has been teaching that Jesus is Lord. One of the oldest confessions is represented by the fish, the Ichthys, an acronym for "Jesus Christ, Son of God, the Savior." The doctrine of the Trinity flows from scripture, not the other way around. There is no omission necessary or desired. Quite the contrary, you seem to need to ignore a great deal of scripture to make your case.

Quote:

Jesus and God are not the same and they are not interchangeable. That is very clear. Praying to Jesus who sits at the right hand of the Father is not the same as praying to the Father. Not to mention that there is not one single prayer to Jesus in the Bible.

Yes, Jesus and God are not interchangeable. That is, indeed, clear.

Jesus says if you ask anything of Me in my name I will do it. John 14:14.
The scriptures exhort us to pray to the Lord over and over again. The NT clearly identifies Jesus as the Lord, over and over again.

Quote:

If we are Christians then Jesus is our Lord and Jesus is our Savior yet God the Father is the author of salvation but to say that Jesus is interchangeable with God the Father is blasphemy and is what we are warned about in Galatians 1:8.
The scriptures say that Jesus is the author of our salvation (Hebrews 2:10) and the author and finisher of our faith. (Hebrews 12:2).
There is no Lord but God. There is no Savior but God. The scriptures tell us God is the Lord, the Lord is One. Jesus says I and the Father are One.

I hope this helps you understand. If not, I don't have any other way to explain.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Maybe I am weird but the Trinity is the only thing that makes sense to me to explain the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
aggiedad20
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Scripture supports a triune Godhead. It's really not a mystery.

On the other hand, the New Testament is completely silent on burning incense, venerating icons, sprinkling infants, mechanical instruments in worship, asking Jesus into one's heart and a multitude of other practices in today's "churches"... This is is a mystery. The silence of Scripture is prohibitive (Heb 7:14) yet countless well intentioned people relentlessly pursue unauthorized acts of worship.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

burning incense
Exodus 25:6
Exodus 30:7-9
Exodus 30:34-38
Exodus 35:8,28
Exodus 39:38
Leviticus 2:1-2
Leviticus 6:15
Leviticus 16:12
Numbers 4:16
Numbers 16:16-18
Deuteronomy 33:10
1 Samuel 2:28
1 Chronicles 6:49
1 Chronicles 9:29
2 Chronicles 13:11
2 Chronicles 26:16-19
2 Chronicles 29:7-8
Psalm 141:2
Luke 1:10-11
Revelation 5:8
Revelation 8:3-4


Quote:

venerating icons
Icons -- images -- are in the original design of the Temple, prescribed by God. These include angels and depictions of nature.

The veneration of people is in the scriptures as well. The word kenein means both "salute" and "kiss", and pros adds desire and direction: proskenein is the word we use for veneration. David did veneration to Jonathan three times (1 Kings 20:41). Jacob venerates Esau, Abraham venerates the sons of Heth, Jacob venerates Pharaoh. There is a difference between veneration and worship, and this is why the Scriptures say: you shall venerate the Lord your God, and you shall serve (worship) Him only." Only God is worthy to serve / worship (latreaia means serve and worship, this is where we get the word idolatry from - idol + latreaia) but we are not precluded from showing honor or veneration to others.

When a person shows reverence to an image of a person it is no different than showing reverence to that person. Just as you might kiss a photo (image) of a loved one - you do that not because you love the image, but because you love the person imaged. When we reverence icons, we are showing veneration to the person. These people, Christ Himself and the holy ones of God, are friends of the Lord and worthy of veneration.

Quote:

sprinkling infants
Shrug. The Church has preferred to baptize by immersion in living (running) water, but since the beginning has recognized a wide swath of alternatives for economia, due to the practical needs of life.

Quote:

mechanical instruments in worship
The Psalms exhort us to use instruments. However, the ancient liturgical tradition is one of a capella worship which the Orthodox church maintains to this day.

Quote:

The silence of Scripture is prohibitive (Heb 7:14)
Bad exegesis. Hebrews 7:14 is not precluding someone from being a priest from Judah, he's showing that the Levitical priesthood is constrained to the tribe of Levi. Obviously someone from Judah can be a priest, because the example given here is that of Christ - but He is not of the Levitical priesthood.

Even worse exegesis is taking this aside and expanding it as if the NT were some kind of liturgical manual. They're not. The closest thing we get to a liturgical guide is the book of Revelation, which is filled with liturgical imagery (including incense and robes).
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Also....from the OP:

Quote:

I am neither for or against the Trinity.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ha! Almost quoted that last night in a time-lapse series of quotes but decided against.
aggiedad20
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks for proving my point!

Rom 16:16-19
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiedad20 said:

Thanks for proving my point!

Rom 16:16-19
Was your point that almost everything you claimed was factually incorrect, or...?
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiedad20 said:

Thanks for proving my point!

Rom 16:16-19
With all due respect, I do not get it. I am not Orthodox but it seems to me K2 gave good Scriptual references to refute the claims you made. And you respond basically that you are right "just because". And Romans 16 16-19 could just as easily be used by him against you.

And Romans 14 and 2 Timothy 2 14 come to mind.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Last Page
Page 1 of 4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.