Question...

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

Tritheism?? Not any better than modalism. Both are early church heresies. And God is three persons, (not separate people!) but only one being, or essence. Ousia, as the Greek Cappadocians so clearly explained. Probably study some of the Greek theologians. John Zizioulos Being as Communion might be a difficult but good start for you.

The Greeks emphasized the hypostasis or substance/person of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, rather than the unity of the three hypostasis, as Augustine and the Western Church. Both are right, but we just don't hear much about the 3 hypostasis in the west. I hope that will straighten out your theology!

The Greeks to this day also believe in gods and goddesses, myth, social impedance and intellectualism. They viewed their gods/goddesses to also be persons. So we eventually are following the interpretation of those who still believe in their ancient myths. I find it hard to accept someone believing a statue is a representation of a deity in person form to be qualified to explain what they believe the triune God to be.

But hey, look at the Catholic church and how they removed their deities for statues of the Disciples and Mary. They believe to get to God is to go first through Mary. That is obviously a mythical relevance to their past.

Amazes me that the Hebrews definitions have been removed for those who still have ties with their mythical foundations.

 

[Angela53510]

The Greeks to this day also believe in gods and goddesses, myth, social impedance and intellectualism. They viewed their gods/goddesses to also be persons. So we eventually are following the interpretation of those who still believe in their ancient myths. I find it hard to accept someone believing a statue is a representation of a deity in person form to be qualified to explain what they believe the triune God to be.

But hey, look at the Catholic church and how they removed their deities for statues of the Disciples and Mary. They believe to get to God is to go first through Mary. That is obviously a mythical relevance to their past.

Amazes me that the Hebrews definitions have been removed for those who still have ties with their mythical foundations.

It amazes me how some people can post this folk theology, with no Biblical references except one verse in Acts 2, and use some twisted Catholic references by humanist priests to prove an ancient heresy he is trying to reinvent! And no knowledge at all of the third great historical church, the Orthodox.

Sad!

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

It amazes me how some people can post this folk theology, with no Biblical references except one verse in Acts 2, and use some twisted Catholic references by humanist priests to prove an ancient heresy he is trying to reinvent! And no knowledge at all of the third great historical church, the Orthodox.

Sad!

I stated this is what they claimed. And I just found that the Brittanica's also made claim to it plus religion and ethical encyclopedias referenced it. It's not as if I made it up. And isn't it odd that Luke wrote the Acts account and made the claim this is how the first church did things? And concerning the other churches, who cares. The first church immediately after Christ ascended is our proper example, not the churches during the next 3 centuries. When we read the Bible from Acts to Revelation it is all about the first church, not these other churches. And in my opinion, the bible is what we use to find the church example, not everything else!

 

[preacher4truth]

So we have one person who gives JW's a bye because it's only that they have differing opinions. Then we have one in here denying Christ's deity, vehemently, and gets useful votes for his heresy?

To be frank this is all either done in ignorance of truth or as blatant denial of foundational doctrine. Christianity is not compromise and pandering to others with errant gospels. Go read it in your Bible's!

And people today ridicule and mitigate theology and sound doctrine? Such is an unsustainable path. Please crack open your Bible's, consult the works of men who explain the finer details and foundational truths. You're on here asking questions, and some on here are rank heretics and compromisers of truth, and they're going to jump in and give you false compromising information.

Please, each of you seeking answers to these rudimentary truths, go seek these things out in established works of men of God, and don't concern yourself with those who mock "you're learning from men, following men!" Just think about it, these same want you to learn from THEM. Right? Go get some good material and study from men way more versed in these things who've dedicate themselves to God and their lives to God for this very thing. God gave us these men of God. It's biblical; Ephesians 4:11ff.

God bless.

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

Anyways, I am not here to be your enemy, or to oppose you. The things I post can be found in the first church example. How that makes me a heretic when I am quoting Luke concerning Peter and Paul is beyond me. The fact you don't even know I do believe in a triune God but not in the sense of 3 persons and it makes me enemy number one is also beyond me. Nowhere in the Bible does it claim 3 persons. Jesus never claimed He was number 2 person or the Holy Ghost being sent was number 3 person. That is a man made assumption which technically is heresy. I at least use what the scripture states in my view. The use of persons is a humans personal view which is not literally found in the New testament. So, it is not even sound doctrine. There is only mention of one throne in heaven which the Ancient One sits upon (Ezekiel) and it gives insight to similar description of what John seen in Revelations. Even when Isiah was taken to throne room, there is mention of only one being acting as God surrounded by angels. Nowhere in scripture is there mentioned 3 thrones for the persons of God. Nowhere in the description of God sitting upon the throne is there mention of 3 persons on the one throne. I am arguing manifestastions vs person theology because nowhere is the term 1st, 2nd, 3rd person ever used in scripture to denote God. I actually know the bible quite well. So when a term is used and it is not found in the bible I question it. but if that makes me a heretic for questioning man's interpretation when it cannot be found in scripture, then so be it!

But nonetheless, may God keep and Bless you!

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

So we have one person who gives JW's a bye because it's only that they have differing opinions. Then we have one in here denying Christ's deity, vehemently, and gets useful votes for his heresy?

To be frank this is all either done in ignorance of truth or as blatant denial of foundational doctrine. Christianity is not compromise and pandering to others with errant gospels. Go read it in your Bible's!

And people today ridicule and mitigate theology and sound doctrine? Such is an unsustainable path. Please crack open your Bible's, consult the works of men who explain the finer details and foundational truths. You're on here asking questions, and some on here are rank heretics and compromisers of truth, and they're going to jump in and give you false compromising information.

Please, each of you seeking answers to these rudimentary truths, go seek these things out in established works of men of God, and don't concern yourself with those who mock "you're learning from men, following men!" Just think about it, these same want you to learn from THEM. Right? Go get some good material and study from men way more versed in these things who've dedicate themselves to God and their lives to God for this very thing. God gave us these men of God. It's biblical; Ephesians 4:11ff.

God bless.

When

So we have one person who gives JW's a bye because it's only that they have differing opinions. Then we have one in here denying Christ's deity, vehemently, and gets useful votes for his heresy?

To be frank this is all either done in ignorance of truth or as blatant denial of foundational doctrine. Christianity is not compromise and pandering to others with errant gospels. Go read it in your Bible's!

And people today ridicule and mitigate theology and sound doctrine? Such is an unsustainable path. Please crack open your Bible's, consult the works of men who explain the finer details and foundational truths. You're on here asking questions, and some on here are rank heretics and compromisers of truth, and they're going to jump in and give you false compromising information.

Please, each of you seeking answers to these rudimentary truths, go seek these things out in established works of men of God, and don't concern yourself with those who mock "you're learning from men, following men!" Just think about it, these same want you to learn from THEM. Right? Go get some good material and study from men way more versed in these things who've dedicate themselves to God and their lives to God for this very thing. God gave us these men of God. It's biblical; Ephesians 4:11ff.

God bless.

If this is towards me, where did I deny Christ when I claimed He was I AM in John, and I AM in Exodus which the Hebrew I provided calls Him Elohim?

 

[preacher4truth]

Anyways, I am not here to be your enemy, or to oppose you. The things I post can be found in the first church example. How that makes me a heretic when I am quoting Luke concerning Peter and Paul is beyond me. The fact you don't even know I do believe in a triune God but not in the sense of 3 persons and it makes me enemy number one is also beyond me. Nowhere in the Bible does it claim 3 persons. Jesus never claimed He was number 2 person or the Holy Ghost being sent was number 3 person. That is a man made assumption which technically is heresy. I at least use what the scripture states in my view. The use of persons is a humans personal view which is not literally found in the New testament. So, it is not even sound doctrine. There is only mention of one throne in heaven which the Ancient One sits upon (Ezekiel) and it gives insight to similar description of what John seen in Revelations. Even when Isiah was taken to throne room, there is mention of only one being acting as God surrounded by angels. Nowhere in scripture is there mentioned 3 thrones for the persons of God. Nowhere in the description of God sitting upon the throne is there mention of 3 persons on the one throne. I am arguing manifestastions vs person theology because nowhere is the term 1st, 2nd, 3rd person ever used in scripture to denote God. I actually know the bible quite well. So when a term is used and it is not found in the bible I question it. but if that makes me a heretic for questioning man's interpretation when it cannot be found in scripture, then so be it!

But nonetheless, may God keep and Bless you!

It appears you're just now acquainted with the fact your position is heresy. Right? Or most likely you're being a tad disingenuous.

If it's the former and such new found opposition is "beyond you" as you say, then you have not studied out as to why you're in error.

So do.

Then? You'll know as to why, and it won't be "beyond you" any longer.

If it's the latter then all of your response above is disingenuous bantering and pretense.

 

[preacher4truth]

When



If this is towards me, where did I deny Christ when I claimed He was I AM in John, and I AM in Exodus which the Hebrew I provided calls Him Elohim?

It's for whomever the shoe fits. It was not directed at you specifically.

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

It appears you're just now acquainted with the fact your position is heresy. Right? Or most likely you're being a tad disingenuous.

If it's the former and such new found opposition is "beyond you" as you say, then you have not studied out as to why you're in error.

So do.

Then? You'll know as to why, and it won't be "beyond you" any longer.

If it's the latter then all of your response above is disingenuous bantering and pretense.

No, I made no statement that cannot be found in the scripture. Unlike your use of persons which cannot be found biblically, my posts can be found in the Bible!

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

Tell me preacherman, where in the Bible is the trinity actually defined as trinity and in person form?

You cannot find it, but yet I am the heretic when you are spouting off opinion!

 

[preacher4truth]

No, I made no statement that cannot be found in the scripture. Unlike your use of persons which cannot be found biblically, my posts can be found in the Bible!

As suspected your post was disingenuous bantering and pretense. That tells me all I need to know. Your position is unbiblical, and sorry, you haven't proven yours true or the biblical position false.

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

I see, when you are wrong you suddenly make emoticons. Some example you are. Using non biblical terms based upon tradition and idealisms of men but hammering on those who oppose you.

Just who do you think you are besides a hypocrite?

 

[preacher4truth]

Tell me preacherman, where in the Bible is the trinity actually defined as trinity and in person form?

You cannot find it, but yet I am the heretic when you are spouting off opinion!

You've been shown enough, and the real you is being revealed. I'm just going to avoid you. My initial post above about study is for others but obviously the deployed polemic hit the target because I hear the casualties already.

You're here to mitigate Christ and the Godhead, some will applaud your efforts.

 

[preacher4truth]

I see, when you are wrong you suddenly make emoticons. Some example you are. Using non biblical terms based upon tradition and idealisms of men but hammering on those who oppose you.

Just who do you think you are besides a hypocrite?

Here's the real person with whom we are engaged.

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

Yes, you try to accuse me of doing specifically what you are actually doing. The use of trinity, persons cannot be found in scripture. Why? Because they are assumptions and man made idealisms. You of all people should know the difference!

 

[Quantrill]

I have read it and then reread Acts concerning it. They were water baptized by John the Baptist, then water baptized in the name of Jesus, and immediately after Paul prayed for them and they received the Holy Ghost. Clearly had Paul used the trinity it would be there for us to read. But as we read, he used the name of Jesus. Big difference there.

John did not know about the trinity, so he would not had baptized Jesus that way.
And Paul showed these men that John's baptism was inadequate, which means so was Jesus had He not been God and needed to be our example to be also baptized.

You believe as you like, because you are claiming that repent and be baptized in name of Jesus (Acts 2:38) is not actually being water baptized. You have been baptized in the Catholic tradition of bastardized scripture. I wonder how God actually views that?


The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:

"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.

the full article:

Evidence against Matthew 28:19 | Carey Bay Church Hall
churchhall.blogspot.com/2010/10/evidence-against-matthew-2819.html
Oct 29, 2010 · Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: Introduction to Christianity, pp.50-51 He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism.


The Catholics are positive they changed Matthew 28:19.

Whether you accept it or not, they claim it plus claim to have records of when they did it

Enjoy your Catholic baptism hahahahahaha

Read it again. All your are doing is repeating yourself, same old song. So I will repeat myself. Read my post #265 again.

It doesn't matter how much John knew about the Trinity. The inspired writers of Scripture wrote many things they didn't fully understand. (1 Peter 1:10-11)

I told you already that John's baptism was inadequate. John's baptism was a baptism associated with Israel. They were a people of God and in need of repentance to turn back to God. Two different baptism's. Now that the Gospel goes out to the Gentile nations, we baptize as Christ says, "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".

What are you talking about concerning Jesus baptism? I asked if you reject the Scriptures concerning Jesus baptism also. You reject (Matt. 28:19) because you reject the Trinity. Do you therefore reject Jesus baptism also, for the Trinity is evident there also.

Concerning (Acts 2:38), where did you get the idea that I didn't believe (Acts 2:38) was water baptism. I explained it to you. Go back and read again. Peter is speaking again to the Jews. (Acts 2:22,36) Thus you have the same wording, "Repent and be baptized". Only it is no more being baptized into John's baptism, but in Jesus's baptism. The Jews must know that they need to repent from their rejection of God which culminated in their rejection of Jesus. "In the name of Jesus Christ"

As I said, Roman Catholics cannot change the manuscripts. It doesn't matter what some Roman Catholic books say.

Quantrill

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

Read it again. All your are doing is repeating yourself, same old song. So I will repeat myself. Read my post #265 again.

It doesn't matter how much John knew about the Trinity. The inspired writers of Scripture wrote many things they didn't fully understand. (1 Peter 1:10-11)

I told you already that John's baptism was inadequate. John's baptism was a baptism associated with Israel. They were a people of God and in need of repentance to turn back to God. Two different baptism's. Now that the Gospel goes out to the Gentile nations, we baptize as Christ says, "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".

What are you talking about concerning Jesus baptism? I asked if you reject the Scriptures concerning Jesus baptism also. You reject (Matt. 28:19) because you reject the Trinity. Do you therefore reject Jesus baptism also, for the Trinity is evident there also.

Concerning (Acts 2:38), where did you get the idea that I didn't believe (Acts 2:38) was water baptism. I explained it to you. Go back and read again. Peter is speaking again to the Jews. (Acts 2:22,36) Thus you have the same wording, "Repent and be baptized". Only it is no more being baptized into John's baptism, but in Jesus's baptism. The Jews must know that they need to repent from their rejection of God which culminated in their rejection of Jesus. "In the name of Jesus Christ"

As I said, Roman Catholics cannot change the manuscripts. It doesn't matter what some Roman Catholic books say.

Quantrill

I need to log but hopefully can continue tomorrow:

But, you keep claiming being baptized in the name of Jesus was specifically for the Jews and baptizing Matthew 28:19 was for the Gentiles.

Well, the Book of Acts would disagree with you.


Acts 10:

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.


This shows both Jews and Gentiles receiving the Holy Ghost and being baptized in the name of Jesus (the Lord).

In the end it's all about personal interpretation. I am not nor have ever denied that God is triune other than in the form of persons since there are no scriptures to back that.

But clearly here is an actual example of Gentiles being baptized by Peter the same way in chapter 19 Paul is baptizing the Jews. So obviously, us Gentiles can be baptized in the name of Jesus after all


Anyways, have a wonderful night/day and may God keep and Bless you!

 

[Quantrill]

I need to log but hopefully can continue tomorrow:

But, you keep claiming being baptized in the name of Jesus was specifically for the Jews and baptizing Matthew 28:19 was for the Gentiles.

Well, the Book of Acts would disagree with you.


Acts 10:

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.


This shows both Jews and Gentiles receiving the Holy Ghost and being baptized in the name of Jesus (the Lord).

In the end it's all about personal interpretation. I am not nor have ever denied that God is triune other than in the form of persons since there are no scriptures to back that.

But clearly here is an actual example of Gentiles being baptized by Peter the same way in chapter 19 Paul is baptizing the Jews. So obviously, us Gentiles can be baptized in the name of Jesus after all


Anyways, have a wonderful night/day and may God keep and Bless you!

Cornelius and his band in (Acts 10) falls under the same category as the Jews in (Acts 2) and (Acts 19). These Gentiles in (Acts 10) were believing Gentiles. This means they accepted the God of Israel as the true God. (Acts 10:2) "A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people and prayed to God alway." (Acts 10:22) "And they said, Corneliius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews,..." In other words these Gentiles in (Acts 10) were proselytes to the Jewish faith. Yet the Jewish faith had killed this One who claimed to be of God.

Again, this is just Peter making clear distinction that the One the Jews have killed is the True One from God. The Holy Spirit you have just received is the product of the One Who was crucified. Jesus Christ. In other words, your faith in the God of Israel is a true faith, and it is to be now centered in Jesus Christ.

So, no, the book of (Acts) does not disagree with me.

Again, you did not answer my question. Do you reject the Scripture concerning Christ's baptism as the Trinity is there present also?

Quantrill

 

[Locutus]

CATHOLIC ENCYCLO. – Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church. Vol. 2, Page 263.

Here is the link to the Catholic Encyclopaedia vol 2 in pdf format:

http://oa.lib.ksu.edu.tw/OA/bitstream/987654321/197086/2/cathen02.pdf

Page 263 says nothing about "baptism" being changed.

What it does say:

Page 683:

"The requisite and sole valid form of baptism is: "I baptize thee (or This person is baptized) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." This was the form given by Christ to His Disciples in the twenty-eighth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, as far, at least, as there is question of the invocation of the separate Persons of the Trinity and the expression of the nature of the action performed"

Page 684

Tertullian tells us (De Bapt., xiii): "The law of baptism (tingendi) has been imposed and the form prescribed: Go, teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." St. Justin Martyr (Apol., I) testifies to the practice in his time. St. Ambrose (De Myst., IV) declares: "Unless a person has been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, he can not obtain the remission of his sins," St. Cyprian (Ad Jubaian.), rejecting the validity of baptism given in the name of Christ only, affirms that the naming of all the Persons of the Trinity was commanded by the Lord (in plena et adunata Trinitate). The same is declared by many other primitive writers, as St. Jerome (IV, in Matt.), Origen (De Princ., i, ii), St. Athanasius (Or. iv, Contr. Ar.), St. Augustine (De Bapt., vi, 25). It is not, of course, absolutely necessary that the common names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be used, provided the Persons be expressed by words that are equivalent or synonymous. But a distinct naming of the Divine Persons is required and the form: "I baptize thee in the name of the Holy Trinity", would be of more than doubtful validity. The singular form "In the name", not "names", is also to be employed, as it expresses the unity of the Divine nature
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the problem with the internet nut sites - they make claims often without the correct sources or just totally bogus, then the claims get cited by copious other internet nuts and then they become "facts".

This calls into question the other claims made cited.

 

[Angela53510]

Here is the link to the Catholic Encyclopaedia vol 2 in pdf format:

http://oa.lib.ksu.edu.tw/OA/bitstream/987654321/197086/2/cathen02.pdf

Page 263 says nothing about "baptism" being changed.

What it does say:

Page 683:

"The requisite and sole valid form of baptism is: "I baptize thee (or This person is baptized) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." This was the form given by Christ to His Disciples in the twenty-eighth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, as far, at least, as there is question of the invocation of the separate Persons of the Trinity and the expression of the nature of the action performed"

Page 684

Tertullian tells us (De Bapt., xiii): "The law of baptism (tingendi) has been imposed and the form prescribed: Go, teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." St. Justin Martyr (Apol., I) testifies to the practice in his time. St. Ambrose (De Myst., IV) declares: "Unless a person has been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, he can not obtain the remission of his sins," St. Cyprian (Ad Jubaian.), rejecting the validity of baptism given in the name of Christ only, affirms that the naming of all the Persons of the Trinity was commanded by the Lord (in plena et adunata Trinitate). The same is declared by many other primitive writers, as St. Jerome (IV, in Matt.), Origen (De Princ., i, ii), St. Athanasius (Or. iv, Contr. Ar.), St. Augustine (De Bapt., vi, 25). It is not, of course, absolutely necessary that the common names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be used, provided the Persons be expressed by words that are equivalent or synonymous. But a distinct naming of the Divine Persons is required and the form: "I baptize thee in the name of the Holy Trinity", would be of more than doubtful validity. The singular form "In the name", not "names", is also to be employed, as it expresses the unity of the Divine nature
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the problem with the internet nut sites - they make claims often without the correct sources or just totally bogus, then the claims get cited by other internet nuts and then they become "facts".

This calls into question the other claims made cited.

Oh, Locutus! Totally awesome catch! You are definitely the winner today! I knew something was up with his sources, he had to be quoting secondary sources.

But you actually found the source and posted it! Great work! Too bad he is no longer with us to see you have found out his duplicity! Hopefully, he can read it from outside, and maybe God will show him the errors of his ways, and what the truth is.

A couple of pages ago, he was talking "3 people" or tritheism. Then, his last posts were "3 manifestations" or modalism. I don't think he really knew what he believed!