Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Can Trinity Believers Explain This
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 286 of 300 (183066)
02-04-2005 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by wmscott
01-31-2005 5:41 PM


Re: the scriptural evidence is that the Bible canon was known and completed with the writ
It is my contention that the cannon of the Bible was chosen by the action of the holy spirit and not by men.
I caught that's your contention. However, you don't have anywhere to refer to where any men heard the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately for you, Charles Russel just started with a Protestant Bible without ever asking where it came from just like everyone else. This causes a problem when you reject the Protestants and their forefathers, the Roman Catholics, and most of the RC predecessors back to the 3rd century or so, because you lose the basis for that Protestant Bible.
The early Christians through the power of the holy spirit knew what was part of the inspired Word of God as soon as they read it.
Did they? How interesting! How do you know this?
Which early Christians are you talking about? You've already seen that the accepted books up through the 3rd century differed from the ones you use.
You may not have noticed in the references that I gave you that the accepted books varied from place to place in the early churches, but it's there to be seen. (Eusebius' list, for example, which you mentioned, talks about books being accepted by some and not by others.) So if it were true that the early Christians just knew what was inspired and what wasn't, it's rather odd, don't you think, that they don't agree on what was inspired and what wasn't.
The reason why Paul's letters and the other books of the NT were accepted at once as being inspired scripture is given by Paul.
1 Corinthians 12:7-10 "the manifestation of the spirit is given to each one for a beneficial purpose. For example, to one there is given through the spirit . . . discernment of inspired utterances,"
Actually, you're picking the wrong Scripture. A much better one, because it would line up with what the early Christians themselves said, is the one that says, "Let him who is spiritual acknowledge that the things I write to you are the commandments of the Lord" (1 Cor 14:37), and "For this cause we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, your received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God" (1 Thes 2:13).
To the early Christians everything the apostles wrote were the commandments of Christ. It was all the word of God. Paul's letters were considered inspired because Paul wrote them, not because of any feeling or revelation anyone had about them.
So by the fourth century the church was already corrupted on a number of doctrinal points, so if one wanted to find the Truth, one would need to look farther back than what was written then.
This is exactly my point. I know you believe this, and my question is, why are you calling the books that corrupted church chose the only inspired books?
The answer I'm hearing so far is "Well, that's just what we've always done, and I've never really thought about it, so I'm going to make some things up so it doesn't look like we're using the the 4th century's stuff."
The final authority on Truth is God's Word, that alone should be our standard of Truth.
That's very nice and utterly meaningless. You say that the 66 books chosen by the 4th century church you say is corrupt is the Word of God. You have no reason that has anything to with a word from God for saying so. That's bizarre.
It would take some research to find out which is correct, or which is more correct, since in dealing with ancient history some answers can't be known with total certainty.
First of all, you're arguing about Eusebius list here, which is still 4th century! Even if Eusebius' list matches yours, you've changed nothing! But let me answer this as though it were a pertinent point.
More research would be a great idea. If you knew the surrounding history, you would already know exactly why Eusebius says what he does about the canon, and you wouldn't be arguing that the 66 books that happened to come down to you from the Protestants were chosen by the early church.
A closed canon is a quite modern idea. The early church didn't have a closed canon. Those kind of decisions didn't happen until the 4th century, when the church had already become part of the government and was formalizing everything.
That's just history, and well known history at that. I'm trying to show you primary references, but this is basic history; nothing controversial.
The book I referred to has proved to be very accurate, so I would be surprised if it was in error on this point.
Since you don't seem to know anything about early church history, I can't imagine how you would know this.
One day, should you ever decide to make your standard to be what's true and not whatever you happen to already believe, you may have a different view of this mysterious book you have apparently been referring to without telling me. Does this book have a name?
While our written records are few and incomplete, the scriptural evidence is that the Bible canon was known and completed with the writing of Revelation.
Nothing is true about this statement. The written records from the 2nd & 3rd centurie, just from the mainline churches, are at least five times larger than the Bible, and there is nothing in Scripture at all about which books should be in the "Bible canon," because there was no such thing.
Today we can look at the Bible books and see for ourselves all the inspired books are included and non were left out.
Good grief.
The fact that at the Council in Carthage in 397 (A.D.) the Catholic Church accepted 73 books as being inspired shows how far they had already strayed from knowing what the truth was, if they were having trouble telling an inspired book from a non inspired book.
Gosh, this is arrogant.
I hear, "I can't defend anything I'm saying, so my answer is 'gee, everyone can just tell that what I believe is true,' and those councils 1500 years ago must sure be full of error, because they couldn't tell that what I believe is true."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by wmscott, posted 01-31-2005 5:41 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by wmscott, posted 02-05-2005 7:52 AM truthlover has replied

Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 287 of 300 (183082)
02-04-2005 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by wmscott
01-17-2005 3:02 PM


Re: Jesus did not need a divine dual nature to access God, Moses did just fine without it
quote:
1) he has a separate / distinct will and personality.
2) he is of Dual Nature (man and God).
........We also both agree on your first point, which is surprising since most Trinitarians would not, I am impressed.
The Trinity doctrine -unless I was grossly misled for 18 years of my life- teaches that God is one being consisting of three 'persons' each with their own, distinct will and behaviour. Those three 'persons' all work together in unison and their wills coincide, not because of coercion or subjugation, but because of unity and love. By 'person' we are referring not to a physical being, but to a distinct and separate personality. The Trinity doctrine states that Jesus is such a distinct 'person', but he is part of the one God, not a separate god. So, I can't understand why you think that most Trinitarians would deny Jesus a separate / distinct will and personality.
wmscott writes:
The dual nature doctrine is wrong anyway since Jesus was fully human while on earth, but we will get into that a little later.
A lot of people misunderstand the Hypostatic Union (Dual Nature) doctrine. The doctrine doesn't claim that Jesus wasn't fully human, as you seem to believe. It states that Jesus was (is) fully human and fully God. Both natures co-exist in one 'person'.
wmscott writes:
But as you stated yourself, he has a distinct will and personality which makes him a separate being from Jehovah
No, not necessarily. Even in human terms, this reasoning is faulty. Have you heard of 'multiple personality' psychiatric disorders ?
wmscott writes:
In acting as mediator, Jesus did what Moses did, which he could not do if he was part of God.
I keep repeating -and you keep ignoring- that Jesus was part of God and also a man. As a man, he could do whatever Moses did. Furthermore, Jesus's role as a mediator extended and superceded that of Moses, as Jesus mediated a new, extended covenant that replaced the old one.
wmscott writes:
Which is required under Paul's definition of a mediator. According to Paul, Jesus to be the mediator, had to be separate enough from God that they could not be called one person which Paul said god is.
No....Paul states -correctly- that a mediator is between two parties, while a promise relies on only one party for its fulfillment, the one who makes it (in this case, God). So the promise given by God does not require a mediator or another party in order to be fulfilled, it's entirely down to God, who made it, therefore it is assured. Paul is showing the weakness of the Law against the promise, he's not implying that 'Jesus to be the mediator, had to be separate enough from God',
wmscott writes:
The wrath of God came upon Jesus? Mankind are subject to God's wrath because of our inherited sin, (Ephesians 2:3) "we were naturally children of wrath even as the rest." but Jesus as a man was free of inherited sin and was thus not under the wrath of God.
Ok, maybe my wording was a bit OTT . I meant that he had to suffer the punishment of God as a surrogate. I think you got the gist of it, anyway.
wmscott writes:
Moses was a Mediator and he foreshadowed Christ, and he was not divine so Jesus didn't need to be divine to be a Mediator.
Moses mediated a different covenant that Jesus. The old covenant didn't require any redemptive action on behalf of the mediator. Moses was not required to take God's punishment upon him in order to redeem the Israelites. You can't use the logic that 'if Moses didn't need to be divine then neither did Jesus', as the requirements on their respective covenants were very different.
wmscott writes:
Jesus did not need a divine dual nature to access God, Moses did just fine without it.
Again, you're comparing apples to oranges.The covenant that Jesus mediated required a lot more on the part of the mediator.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by wmscott, posted 01-17-2005 3:02 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by wmscott, posted 02-05-2005 7:57 AM Legend has replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 288 of 300 (183106)
02-04-2005 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by wmscott
01-31-2005 5:41 PM


Re: the scriptural evidence is that the Bible canon was known and completed with the writ
I had to cut off my earlier reply, which I was almost done with, because a worker in our cafe cut off a small portion of her thumb and needed to be taken to our nurse. Ouch.
I am old fashioned, so I tend to believe books over web sites, but I will have to keep my eyes open for more information on this point.
I prefer primary sources to secondary sources. Show me the actual writing; don't just tell me what they said.
There is a web site, Early Church Fathers - Christian Classics Ethereal Library , where you can see the writings of the early church fathers, word for word and carefully edited, in the translation produced by the Church of England (Edinburgh edition) in the late 19th century.
If you go to Philip Schaff: NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library and scroll down to chapter three, you can read what he wrote, and you won't have to rely on anyone's word.
Again, though, even if he did agree with the same 66 books, he's a 4th century writer. You've got to push the envelope back about 200 years.
I spent a few years reading all the writings of the 2nd century church. I read them myself. I read most of the 3rd century writings, and the 2nd century writings I read repeatedly. The fathers from those centuries had never heard of the idea of a "Bible," in which there was an exact set of books to be followed. They did know there were some undisputed books, several that were accepted by some and not by others, and many more that were read by this church or that church.
Well, gotta go again. Buying a car for the family...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by wmscott, posted 01-31-2005 5:41 PM wmscott has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 289 of 300 (183240)
02-05-2005 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by truthlover
02-04-2005 10:37 AM


Discernment of inspired utterances
Dear Truthlover;
First off, thanks for noting 1 Cor 14:37; that is a good verse to use, I will make a note of it.
when you reject the Protestants and their forefathers, the Roman Catholics, and most of the RC predecessors back to the 3rd century or so, because you lose the basis for that Protestant Bible.
Isn't God the basis for the Bible? Now as to the Protestant selection of Bible books, or rather their rejection of non-inspired books that the Catholic Church has included in their Bible versions, the reason they rejected those books was because they could tell that they were not inspired. Even the Catholic Church today agrees that those books are not inspired, so I don't see the point of your whole argument. I mean it is a "no brainer" that the excluded books are not part of God's word. I don't understand what you are trying to say or what your point is. Just because you agree with a person on one point, doesn't mean you need to agree with them on other points. Being right on one or some points, doesn't mean you are correct on all points, thinking so would be a logical fallacy.
[The early Christians through the power of the holy spirit knew what was part of the inspired Word of God as soon as they read it.]-Did they? How interesting! How do you know this?
Look at what it states at 1 Corinthians 12:7-10 " there is given through the spirit . . . discernment of inspired utterances ," One of the gifts of the holy spirit was the ability to miraculously tell whether or not a person was speaking or writing under the influence of the holy spirit. The early followers of Christ had miraculous gifts or powers of the holy spirit we do not have today, they could heal, raise the dead and other miraculous things. These gifts of the holy spirit were given to the apostles by Jesus and they in turn could give them to others through the laying on of hands.
Acts 8:9-19 "Simon, who, prior to this, had been practicing magical arts and amazing the nation of Samaria, . . . would pay attention to him and say: "This man is the Power of God, which can be called Great." . . . But when they believed Philip, who was declaring the good news . . . Simon himself also became a believer, . . . and he was amazed at beholding signs and great powerful works taking place. When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they dispatched Peter and John to them; and these went down and prayed for them to get holy spirit. For it had not yet fallen upon any one of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they went laying their hands upon them, and they began to receive holy spirit. Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the hands of the apostles the spirit was given, he offered them money, saying: "Give me also this authority, that anyone upon whom I lay my hands may receive holy spirit."
Notice that while Philip could do miracles, he couldn't give that ability to others, it was only when Peter and John came and laid their hands on them, that they received the power of the holy spirit to do miracles. Simon's offer was rejected of course, because you can't buy what God has given, and this gift was limited to the apostles. The result of this limitation was that once the apostles died off, no one else was able to receive the holy spirit in the way of being able to do miracles. Once those who had been given the gift by the apostles died, the gifts would end. Paul referred to this at. 1 Corinthians 13:8-12. "But whether there are [gifts of] prophesying, they will be done away with; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will be done away with. For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially; but when that which is complete arrives, that which is partial will be done away with. When I was a babe, I used to speak as a babe, to think as a babe, to reason as a babe; but now that I have become a man, I have done away with the [traits] of a babe. For at present we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face to face. At present I know partially, but then I shall know accurately even as I am accurately known." That is what Paul was talking about, as those who had the gifts died, the gifts would come to a end, they had served their purpose. They would no longer be needed to identify the Christian congregation as having God's backing, for once they had the complete 'knowledge' and 'prophesy' in the form of the complete word of God, the Bible, this would show what was Truth and who had or has God's backing.
I bring this up to show that they had abilities through the holy spirit that we do not have today. Using this gift of the spirit to "discernment of inspired" they could tell instantly whether or not something was inspired by God. John warned the congregations to use this ability and not to accept anything without checking it first. (1 John 4:1) " do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world. we request of YOU not to be quickly shaken from YOUR reason nor to be excited either through an inspired expression or through a verbal message or through a letter as though from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. Let no one seduce YOU in any manner, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first"
Back before the NT was written, how would you test an inspired expression? Today we can compare such things to what the Bible teaches and any conflict with scripture will reveal the expression to be of man and not God. But without having the Bible as a guide, they needed the gift of the spirit to know what was from God and what was not. Having the gifts of the spirit, the early congregation recognized the Bible books as being part of the inspired word of God as soon as they read them. They would also have rejected all the non inspired books, since they knew they were not inspired. So according to Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 they would have complete 'knowledge' before the gifts would be done away with, since any one whom the apostles could have laid their hands on, would have been dead well before 200 AD, the congregations had to have the complete Bible available before then. The last book of the Bible to be written, 3 John, was written in 98 AD. So the congregations easily had the complete Bible or complete 'knowledge' before those who had received the gifts of the spirit died off.
So if it were true that the early Christians just knew what was inspired and what wasn't, it's rather odd, don't you think, that they don't agree on what was inspired and what wasn't.
Look at the dates, the lists are from after when the gifts had ended or those who had them were very few. Once those with the gifts were gone, non inspired books and teachings began to enter the congregations. But even without the gifts, using the complete Bible, many were able to discern what was inspired and what was not, and made lists. Not all have the same depth of understanding, so not all were correct. This is just what was to be expected with the ending of the gifts and the coming of the foretold apostasy.
You say that the 66 books chosen by the 4th century church you say is corrupt is the Word of God. You have no reason that has anything to with a word from God for saying so. That's bizarre.
Are you referring to the Council in Carthage in 397 AD? How could the 4th century church have chosen 66 books when at the council they accepted 73 books as being inspired? I don't see how they can get the credit for shifting the chaff from the wheat when they had yet to remove what had been added.
this mysterious book you have apparently been referring to without telling me. Does this book have a name?
I use quite a number of books and references, the one you are referring to is, ""All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial" published by the Watch Society. I highly recommend the book to any one looking to up hold the Bible as being the inspired word of God.
On your second post;
I checked out your link, very good, I found it interesting and am thinking of reading the books the web site is quoting from. I liked what Polycarp stated "For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures," ( Philip Schaff: ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library ) who certainly seemed to be referring to a well defined Bible canon. Since he is believed to have been directly taught by one of the apostles, he may have had the 'gifts of the spirit' and if he had the gift of the discernment of inspired utterances, he knew what Sacred Scripture was and what was not. (two 'ifs' here) Many of the later writers lived too late to have received the gifts, and with the apostasy that was going on in the christian church at the time, it is not surprising many of them didn't know what was inspired and what was not.
Hope the car buying worked out well.
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson
This message has been edited by wmscott, 02-06-2005 08:05 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by truthlover, posted 02-04-2005 10:37 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by truthlover, posted 02-06-2005 2:57 AM wmscott has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 290 of 300 (183241)
02-05-2005 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Legend
02-04-2005 12:03 PM


The Trinity doctrine is clearly made out of silly putty,
Dear Legend;
The Trinity doctrine -unless I was grossly misled for 18 years of my life- teaches that God is one being consisting of three 'persons' each with their own, distinct will and behaviour. Those three 'persons' all work together in unison and their wills coincide, not because of coercion or subjugation, but because of unity and love. By 'person' we are referring not to a physical being, but to a distinct and separate personality. The Trinity doctrine states that Jesus is such a distinct 'person', but he is part of the one God, not a separate god. So, I can't understand why you think that most Trinitarians would deny Jesus a separate / distinct will and personality.
The notes you sent me stated on the Trinity.
"None is a separate personality from the personal life of God ... each is
an externally existing mode of the Being of God, and not a separate centre
of consciousness and self determination; the one God thinking, willing and
acting in one of his eternal spheres of thought, volition and activity...
none is a divine individual but the indivisible Godhead subsisting and
operating in one of the essential relations of his tri-personallife".
Apparently the person who wrote the notes is not the same person who has been leading you. I find in talking to Trinitarians a very wide divergence of belief. The Trinity doctrine is clearly made out of silly putty, and is twisted and pulled into different shapes by different people. Even when talking to the same person, the doctrine some times changes shape during the course of the discussion. The Trinity is a very ambiguous concept. The reason for that is that there is no point of reference, the doctrine is not explained in scripture so everybody is free to make things up, which is how it came into being in the first place. A scriptural doctrine would be clearly defined by scripture and there would not be any ambiguity, every point would be defined by a scripture. This clear conflict between you and your notes on the very basis of what the Trinity is, highlights this complete lack of scriptural support.
You didn't answer my question, since you agree that Jehovah and Jesus have distinct wills, and your notes say they don't. Do you agree that the Trinity described in your notes is in conflict with the Bible?
I see that you stated that "Jesus is . . . not a separate god." But the Bible does refer to Jesus as a god separate from Jehovah God. John 1:18 "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him." In this verse the first 'God' with the capital 'G" refers to Jehovah God and the second "god" refers to Jesus Christ. Of course the use of the term 'god' in respect to Jesus is in the lesser sense, since only Jehovah is 'God' in the absolute use of the word. In harmony with this Isaiah 9:6-7 states "For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. To the abundance of the princely rule and to peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom in order to establish it firmly and to sustain it by means of justice and by means of righteousness, from now on and to time indefinite. The very zeal of Jehovah of armies will do this." Jesus is called mighty god, and Jehovah is the one that will put him in power, showing that he is still under his Father authority which is why he is not called almighty god, since only Jehovah is almighty and Jesus hence is only mighty instead of almighty. So not only does the Bible call Jesus a god when not referring to Jehovah, it calls Jesus a mighty god. So Jesus is a separate god. Now if he was equal to god, as the Trinity doctrine demands, then you would have two almighty gods which is an impossible since only one being could be said to be almighty or the word loses it's meaning, and you would be in direct conflict with all the Bible verses which clearly state that there is only one true "God" in the almighty or absolute sense of the word.
So as I see it, you have to jettison the idea that Jesus is equal to Jehovah God, for if he is equal, then you have two Almighty gods when the Bible is very clear that there is only one.
A lot of people misunderstand the Hypostatic Union (Dual Nature) doctrine. The doctrine doesn't claim that Jesus wasn't fully human, as you seem to believe. It states that Jesus was (is) fully human and fully God. Both natures co-exist in one 'person'.
Exodus 33:20 ""You are not able to see my face, because no man may see me and yet live." If man is to weak to see God and live, it is clearly impossible for a man to be God and live. The Bible is clear that God is not a man and not a son of man, of which Jesus was both when he was on earth.
Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man that he should tell lies, Neither a son of mankind that he should feel regret." So Jesus could not be a man and be God while he was on earth. Jesus while he was in heaven was is a mighty god, being in the same form as God, but when he came to earth, he emptied himself of his form like God and came to be a man.
Philippians 2:5-7 "Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave's form and came to be in the likeness of men."
While Jesus was on earth he was not a mighty god and certainly not almighty God, he was a man. Notice also that the verse is teaching us about humility, how Jesus even when he was in heaven didn't try to be equal to God, but instead humbled himself and became a man.
Have you heard of 'multiple personality' psychiatric disorders ?
Now you are referring to 'psychiatric disorders' to explain the Trinity view of God? Don't you think that puts God in a bad light? If it isn't healthy or normal for us, why would it be a good thing for God in who's image we are made? This Trinity explanation of God makes him sound like he needs therapy, acting out roles in three separate personalities. God is many things, but he isn't nuts. (James 1:17)"with him there is not a variation of the turning of the shadow." So it is impossible for God to have more than one personality.
[(Galatians 3:20) "Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one."]- Paul is showing the weakness of the Law against the promise, he's not implying that 'Jesus to be the mediator, had to be separate enough from God',
Paul in the first part states that "there is no mediator where only one person", he then states that God is "only one", so God as one person could not be his own mediator. So God could not be Christ whom Paul said was the mediator between man and God. The only way to solve this paradox, is that Jesus is not Jehovah, they have to be two for one to be the mediator for the other.
Moses mediated a different covenant that Jesus. The old covenant didn't require any redemptive action on behalf of the mediator. Moses was not required to take God's punishment upon him in order to redeem the Israelites. You can't use the logic that 'if Moses didn't need to be divine then neither did Jesus', as the requirements on their respective covenants were very different.
My point was that the mediation that Jesus did, a man like Moses did, the sacrifice that Jesus offered, that Moses could not do. Now what did the sacrifice require? What did Adam lose that had to be offered? Adam wasn't God or even in the form of God, but he was more than Moses was. Adam was perfect, a perfect sinless man. That was what Jesus had to be to offer a corresponding ransom. 1 Timothy 2:5-6 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all." What he was on earth, equalled what Adam was before he sinned, a perfect human man. Nothing more, nothing less or it would not have been a corresponding ransom. That is why Jesus is called the last Adam. "The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." (1 Corinthians 15:45)
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Legend, posted 02-04-2005 12:03 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Mike_King, posted 02-05-2005 1:12 PM wmscott has replied
 Message 292 by Legend, posted 02-05-2005 1:33 PM wmscott has replied

Mike_King
Inactive Member


Message 291 of 300 (183279)
02-05-2005 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by wmscott
02-05-2005 7:57 AM


Re: The Trinity doctrine is clearly made out of silly putty,
Hi Wm Scott Anderson
You have had my notes on the teaching of the Godhead/Trinity as well, but your standpoint will always state that Jesus is a lesser god, because of the way the New World Translation twists what was actually written all the way through. This is why the doctrine of Trinity came about, because Christians recognised there was only one God and if Jesus was right about his claims directly and indirectly being God in human form, there you have a problem.
I have two questions for you, from John 1 V 1, how many gods are there? How did you get on with those notes from me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by wmscott, posted 02-05-2005 7:57 AM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by wmscott, posted 02-06-2005 8:08 AM Mike_King has not replied

Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 292 of 300 (183284)
02-05-2005 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by wmscott
02-05-2005 7:57 AM


Re: The Trinity doctrine is clearly made out of silly putty,
wmscott writes:
The notes you sent me stated on the Trinity.
???!!
I never sent you any notes! I think you got me confused with someone else (presumably Mr King).
wmscott writes:
Now you are referring to 'psychiatric disorders' to explain the Trinity view of God? Don't you think that puts God in a bad light?
I was just pointing out that your reasoning of 'separate personality = separate being' is not valid even when applied to humans, let alone God!

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by wmscott, posted 02-05-2005 7:57 AM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by wmscott, posted 02-06-2005 8:10 AM Legend has not replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 293 of 300 (183397)
02-06-2005 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by jar
02-01-2005 6:34 PM


Re: the scriptural evidence is that the Bible canon was known and completed with the
I want to get this question in to you before we hit 300 on this thread:
Far from saying that Paul's epistles were scripture, this is another example of the differentiation going on between Peter and Paul. Peter is saying that you cannot interpret on your own. That only someone taught and steady can really understand the message. This is yet another example of the divergence of the two systems of Christianity, the tightly held, centralized system of Peter and the revolutionary system of Paul. Instead of showing acceptance it is indicating discord.
I can see that you MIGHT interpret what Peter said this way. I don't think history backs you up, though. In the earliest post-Biblical writings, one can detect some clear differences--not important, in my opinion, but notable, including form of leadership--between John's churches and Paul's. There does not seem to be any post-Biblical conflict between Peter & Paul are Peter & Paul's churches.
Not only that, judging from other things you write, it seems very unlikely that you would think it was Peter who wrote 2 Peter.
I'm not sure where you get this divergence. Can you help me understand why you're saying that?
By the way, I would understand that passage in 2 Peter to refer to gnostics in the church, as far as "those who are unlearned and unstable."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by jar, posted 02-01-2005 6:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by jar, posted 02-06-2005 9:45 AM truthlover has not replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 294 of 300 (183400)
02-06-2005 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by wmscott
02-05-2005 7:52 AM


Re: Discernment of inspired utterances
Let me get two responses at once, so we delay hitting 300 posts in this thread by just a little.
Yes it sounds like we agree on those points, but do you still believe in some form of a Trinity, or are you non-trinitarian?
I believe in some form of a trinity. The Nicene form. I think the Nicene Creed describes the beliefs of the fathers and the Scriptures quite well. Things only changed after Nicea.
How does thinking that Jesus was referred to as Jehovah fit in with your beliefs? For that certainly sounds Trinitarian to me.
I really try not to fit things into my beliefs. I try to fit my beliefs into what's true. Jesus was referred to as Jehovah. No matter what my beliefs are, that's what's true, so my beliefs better fit into that.
Y'shua being referred to as Yahweh in the Old Covenant writings really doesn't affect anything that I believe, as far as I can tell.
Isn't God the basis for the Bible?
Are you not catching that this is the question I'm asking? You think God is the basis for those 66 books being chosen to be in the Bible. I, on the other hand, don't think God ever wanted a specific set of books chosen to be banded together into one book. I think that was done by a mostly fallen church, which had formalized everything else, too, and had become an almost lifeless shell.
Before the 4th century, there was no closed canon. There was no one book that was a collection of books. There were many books, and it was possible for each local church to be in possession of a different set of books. Some books, like most of Paul's letters, would have been found in all churches, all over the Roman empire, and others, like the Shepherd of Hermas, for example, would have been accepted as Scripture in very few.
discernment of inspired utterances ,
I'm not positive of what you're referring to here. I assume you're referring to "discernment of spirits" in 1 Cor 12:10. The word is "pneuma" there, and there's no reason to translate it as "inspired utterances." Even if there was, why would that refer to books to be collected into a canon? Books, if they are inspired, are inspired writings, not utterances. The context of 1 Cor chs. 12-14 would indicate a reference to prophecies uttered in a gathering, if it really said "inspired utterances." But it doesn't. It says "discernment of spirits."
There's no reason to read "the ability to figure out which books belong in the Bible" into 1 Cor 12, because there was no "Bible" in those days. There were many books; they were all separate; and no one had the thought that they should be carefully chosen and put into one book.
I don't understand what you are trying to say or what your point is.
Does any of the above help?
Just because you are convinced it is obvious that there ought to be a Bible doesn't mean you are right.
I mean it is a "no brainer" that the excluded books are not part of God's word.
This is why I think you're not understanding me. It is not a "no brainer." The excluded books are only excluded from your Bible, not everyone's. The Assyrian Orthodox Church of the East, which has congregations even in the US, excludes more books than you do. The Orthodox churches, among the most populous churches in the world (they're the "Roman Catholics" of the eastern world), have more books than even the 73 of the Roman Catholics. The Ethiopian Orthodox church (the "Catholics" of Ethiopia, and the state religion) has 1 Enoch in their Bible.
It's not a "no brainer." It is the Orthodox church that has history backing them up, not you! The early Christians can be shown clearly to have the same varying canon that the Orthodox churches have, and they can be shown to be familiar with books that the Orthodox churches use, but you and the Protestants don't.
Btw, you're going to have to show me that the Catholic church agrees that their 7 apocryphal books are not inspired. I'm having trouble believing that.
Once those with the gifts were gone, non inspired books and teachings began to enter the congregations. But even without the gifts, using the complete Bible, many were able to discern what was inspired and what was not, and made lists. Not all have the same depth of understanding, so not all were correct. This is just what was to be expected with the ending of the gifts and the coming of the foretold apostasy.
What an interesting story you have made up here, without bothering to mention that you have now backed completely off what you originally said.
Perhaps you could try saying, "Okay, truthlover, I was wrong about the lists. I said that they backed me up, and you've proven they don't. So let me attempt to hold onto what I believe by making a new wild guess, which is that the early church did use the 66 books I use, but later believers were more apostate and started getting the list wrong."
If you were that honest about what you are doing, then I could help you there, too. There's strong evidence that even the writers of Scripture didn't use the same books you do, because of references to Jannes and Jambres (a writing available in that day) and the sawing of Isaiah in two (which comes from the martyrdom of Isaiah), and the direct quote from 1 Enoch that's in Jude, as well as Y'shua's description of Hades (Luke 16), which is pulled exactly out of 1 Enoch as well.
There's just no reason to believe that those 66 books were anyone's "Bible" until the 4th century. What happened is clear. Many books were in circulation among the Jews, and the Christians began to add their own writings to the Scriptures. Some churches had writings that others didn't, as the Roman empire is pretty large and there was no mass media in those days, and so their canons didn't match exactly. That didn't matter, because they weren't interested in compiling a "Bible," anyway.
Over time, the church got a lot more theological and quite a bit less spiritual, and eventually Constantine was able to get almost all the overseers of the churches together in one place. At that point, they tried to define and crystallize everything, because they were fighting about everything. The 4th century is a pretty embarassing century for Christianity. In fact, it begins a series of extremely embarassing centuries.
Either way, that progression is the source of the 66 books you use. Personally, I think your organization, to be consistent, needs to drop the use of those 66 books and adopt a flexible attitude on which books are inspired, because the 66 books were decreed by a church that I agree was quite corrupt, and the early church had a flexible attitude on which books were inspired.
Are you referring to the Council in Carthage in 397 AD?
I'm referring to Cyril's list. The issue isn't 73 or 66 books. There's a lot more Christians in this world than the Roman Catholics, the Protestants, and y'all. The rest of them use neither 73 or 66. The lists prior to the 4th century don't match the 73 or the 66.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by wmscott, posted 02-05-2005 7:52 AM wmscott has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Phat, posted 02-06-2005 4:13 AM truthlover has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 295 of 300 (183417)
02-06-2005 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by truthlover
02-06-2005 2:57 AM


Last thoughts before we close at 300...
Hey, Guys! I kinda jumped back in on this thread, so I am only attempting to trace the discussion from post#286. I will say that you, truthlover, does impress me with your studies!
TL writes:
A closed canon is a quite modern idea. The early church didn't have a closed canon. Those kind of decisions didn't happen until the 4th century, when the church had already become part of the government and was formalizing everything.
I guess that I would say that truth is an absolute and is confirmed by the Holy Spirit within me. Just because someone even quotes scripture at me to back up what they say, I let my own thinking and reasoning process, confirmed OR corrected by the Holy Spirit, to be my basis of agreement or disagreement. (I don't know a lot about early church history, but I did add the founding church fathers link to my favorites)
wmscott writes:
But as you stated yourself, he has a distinct will and personality which makes him a separate being from Jehovah
Jesus may have had a distinct will apart from God in his human nature, but He nonetheless was always prompted to obey the will of the Father. This prompting was from the Holy Spirit. What made Jesus different from you or I is that He had no sin nature, and thus was always able to overcome any urge(coming from Satan) to achieve His own will. I will give the Witness arguments one thing: They destroy any hint of oneness pentacostalism. Jesus IS One with God, yet Jesus is NOT God the Father. He is distinct yet not apart. Distinct yet not seperate.
truthlover writes:
I spent a few years reading all the writings of the 2nd century church. I read them myself. I read most of the 3rd century writings, and the 2nd century writings I read repeatedly. The fathers from those centuries had never heard of the idea of a "Bible," in which there was an exact set of books to be followed. They did know there were some undisputed books, several that were accepted by some and not by others, and many more that were read by this church or that church.
Interesting! If I were to catagorize you, I would say that you are more Eastern Orthodox than you are Protestant. I won't put you in a box, however. I have a friend who once was Roman Catholic, got "saved" at a Protestant Church that turned out to be a cult, (nonetheless the salvation was a real awakening for him) turned to Eastern Orthodox belief and then later saw the flaws in THAT...so now he and his wife are again Roman Catholics..(plus Holy Spirit, of course! )
Wm Scott, after reading your recent posts, I have more respect for you! You are actually thinking and learning along with the rest of us! You simply MUST consider to allow some non-watchtower literature to inspire you, however! We ALL can still learn something!
wmscott writes:
The last book of the Bible to be written, 3 John, was written in 98 AD. So the congregations easily had the complete Bible or complete 'knowledge' before those who had received the gifts of the spirit died off.
Well, if I had an entire set of encyclopedias, I would have complete worldly knowledge in those books, yet I Myself would not have the knowledge of the books. Just because I study the Bible does not make me think higher of myself than I ought. I believe that the Spirit still works through some at times to edify the body. Biblical inspiration is not all mere word for word knowledge. Biblical inspiration is love in action.
Truthlover reminds us of this as he goes about doing good in his community while talking to us.
wmscott writes:
Once those with the gifts were gone, non inspired books and teachings began to enter the congregations.
Well, wm, I will agree that most of the TBN hyperfundie crowd is trying to sell us a false show of spirituality. I will not as yet profess to believe that the gifts from the Holy Spirit are no longer, however. I have experienced too much!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by truthlover, posted 02-06-2005 2:57 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by truthlover, posted 02-06-2005 8:48 PM Phat has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 296 of 300 (183450)
02-06-2005 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Mike_King
02-05-2005 1:12 PM


Re: The Trinity doctrine is clearly made out of silly putty,
Dear Mike King;
How did you get on with those notes from me?
Thanks for resending the e-mail, it did the trick and I was able to read it. I was not impressed by the way they presented and tried to support the Trinity, you have been doing a better job in your posts than they did. They even made honest but dumb statements like, "We must heap paradox upon paradox." one of the definitions of a paradox is; "A self-contradictory statement that at first seems true", and that certainly fits what they were doing! They also said in regard to the Bible; "When searching these documents for clues to an understanding of the Godhead we must remember that we can make verses say anything we want to if we are not careful." which is of course stock and trade for trying to support the Trinity. They did just that with Mat 28:19 "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit," which was the cornerstone of their argument, I mean if that is the best support for the Trinity in the Bible, the doctrine truly hangs on nothing. They even used the "I AM" argument, which is totally without any merit, just take a look at my posts to 'Truthlover" on this and you can see what I mean.
They also followed the usual Trinitarian tactic of changing history, claiming that a undefined Trinity was believed in, and then the heresy of non Trinitarianism came along which forced the Church to define the doctrine and that took a very long time. Which is of course nonsense. They claim that- "What is so striking about the New Testament teaching about the Godhead is that the belief and declaration that God is both one and yet triune, took place without a struggle or controversy among the Jewish people who had held, for centuries, an uncompromising faith of one God alone." It is strikingly impossible, if the Trinity is anything it is controversial and complex, it never happened because the Trinity came along later and caused the controversies.
The earliest mention they made of anything starting to resemble the Trinity from christian sources was Iranaeus [c 175-195 AD] (Am I reading those dates right? They are citing a teenager as a scholar?) Which is suppose to prove the early existence of a undefined Trinity belief. Now according to their whole premise, non Trinitarianism didn't come along until much later. The problem is that Justin Martyr, [died 165? AD] stated that Jesus was an angel, created by God, which blows their whole argument out of the water. For if Justin Martyr and others like Polycarp (69?-155? AD) were non-Trinitarians, the lack of an early controversy over the Trinity can mean only one thing, the Trinity wasn't an issue because it wasn't yet a common belief among Christians. The inescapable conclusion is that the earliest Christians were non-Trinitarians, they believed that Jesus was created by God and was a lesser separate being.
I did find your notes very valuable for giving a better and more through definition of what the Trinity is and what it is not. I found the following quote very informative.
"None is a separate personality from the personal life of God ... each is
an externally existing mode of the Being of God, and not a separate centre
of consciousness and self determination; the one God thinking, willing and
acting in one of his eternal spheres of thought, volition and activity...
none is a divine individual but the indivisible Godhead subsisting and
operating in one of the essential relations of his tri-personallife".
your standpoint will always state that Jesus is a lesser god, because of the way the New World Translation twists what was actually written
People like to make this claim, but they never are able to back it up, because it isn't true. The NWT doesn't twist or mistranslate the Bible, frequently other translations have the same wording used in the verses that people tend to challangen. If you wish to make a case on this point you will need to challenge speicfic wording in whatever verses you have in mind. The NWT is my favorite translation, but is not the only one that I use, so I am not limited by any one translation's wording.
the doctrine of Trinity came about, because Christians recognised there was only one God and if Jesus was right about his claims directly and indirectly being God in human form, there you have a problem.
Could you post what verses you are referring to, I would like to see where Jesus suppositly directly claimed to be God Almighty. Jesus never made such a claim.
from John 1 V 1, how many gods are there?
Two, Jehovah God Almighty and Jesus Christ the only begotten god. (v 18)
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Mike_King, posted 02-05-2005 1:12 PM Mike_King has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 297 of 300 (183451)
02-06-2005 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Legend
02-05-2005 1:33 PM


Re: The Trinity doctrine is clearly made out of silly putty,
Dear Legend;
I never sent you any notes! I think you got me confused with someone else (presumably Mr King).
You are right, I apologize for my mistake, I got my wires crossed.
[referring to 'psychiatric disorders' to explain the Trinity]-I was just pointing out that your reasoning of 'separate personality = separate being' is not valid even when applied to humans, let alone God!
'psychiatric disorders' are disorders, they are not healthy nor a desirable condition, people with such conditions are nuts. The different personalities are basically a lie or act, since it really is the same person. If one of the personalities commits a crime, they send the whole bunch to jail and not just one, because in reality there is just one person. And since it still is just one person it doesn't solve the problem with Galatians 3:20 "Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one." Paul in the first part states that "there is no mediator where only one person", he then states that God is "only one", so God as one person could not be his own mediator. So God could not be Christ whom Paul said was the mediator between man and God. The only way to solve this paradox, is that Jesus is not Jehovah, they have to be two for one to be the mediator for the other.
Sincerely yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Legend, posted 02-05-2005 1:33 PM Legend has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 298 of 300 (183478)
02-06-2005 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by truthlover
02-06-2005 2:06 AM


Re: the scriptural evidence is that the Bible canon was known and completed with the
First, let me say that no I don't think that Peter wrote Peter.
I'm not sure where you get this divergence. Can you help me understand why you're saying that?
I fear that would take this way OT and we wouldn't have time for discussion. My point thopugh revolves around the early church, the resultant church and the history. I think I have a thread around here talking about just that. Let's find it and continue there.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by truthlover, posted 02-06-2005 2:06 AM truthlover has not replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 299 of 300 (183593)
02-06-2005 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Phat
02-06-2005 4:13 AM


Re: Last thoughts before we close at 300...
Interesting! If I were to catagorize you, I would say that you are more Eastern Orthodox than you are Protestant. I won't put you in a box, however.
Hard to do, anyway. The box I'm in can be found at Error 404 (Not Found)!!1.
We're not very Eastern Orthodox, I think. We would consider Watchman Nee our most recent predecessor, though our American village will never be quite like his Chinese churches due to pretty major cultural differences.
I read your posts here and there. You're a bit of an enigma to me, too! I'll ask you more about yourself in a different thread sometime; this one's at closing time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Phat, posted 02-06-2005 4:13 AM Phat has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 300 (183596)
02-06-2005 9:12 PM


And so on that note, it's time to close.
There are several interesting side threads opening up here and I hope they will generate follow on topics.
Thanks to all the participants.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024