Prompted by a post in another thread, I do not see a trinity.
Matt 28:19
"Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"
ALL baptising post the Gospels was carried out in the name of Jesus. Paul and Peter also instructed this method.
Were they all wrong and failed to carry out the Lords instructions - every time!?
Please read the above text again carefully - and see that "Jesus" IS the given name of the Farther, the son and the Holy Spirit. The only name given for salvation, by which men can be saved.
Three offices, NOT three Gods - that is paganism.
EDIT: Nowhere in scripture is the "eternal son" mentioned
Originally posted by divegeesterfinally... a fresh perspective. the 4 of us have been playing ping pong long enough. tag yer it.
Prompted by a post in another thread, I do not see a trinity.
Matt 28:19
"Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"
ALL baptising post the Gospels was carried out in the name of Jesus. Paul and Peter also instructed this method.
Were they all wrong and failed to c ...[text shortened]... hree Gods - that is paganism.
EDIT: Nowhere in scripture is the "eternal son" mentioned
Into what and WHO are the believers baptized.
They are baptized into the ONE NAME. What is the name? The name is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
It did not say NAMES (plural) but "into the name". Strictly speaking then the name is Father - Son - Holy Spirit
Too many people take this as a ritualistic formula. It is not a charge to pronounce something at baptism.
It would be just as scriptural to baptize someone saying that
"We baptize you into the death of Christ" for the Bible says that we who believe have all been baptized into His death.
It would be just as scriptural to declare at baptism "We baptize you into the One Body" for the NT says that all the believers were baptized into one Body. So that is also a perfectly scriptural announcement.
It would be equally biblical to declare "We now baptize you into Christ" for the New Testament says as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. So the disciples could say "We baptize you into Christ" or "We baptize you into Jesus".
We could also declare "We baptize you into the one Spirit" because the New Testament says that the believers have been baptized into one Spirit.
Whether we say "Into Christ" or "into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" or "into the death of Christ" or "into the one Spirit" or "into the Body of Christ" all are acceptable pronouncments if done in faith.
Do not get hung up on a specific formula to speak.
We could also say "WE baptize you into the Triune God" for the NAME of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" is certainly the Triune God.
Dividing churches over what to pronounce at a baptism is a trick of God's enemy. It is foolish to divide over this. And the book of Acts just reveals the to baptize upon the name of Jesus, or in the name of Jesus is to baptize them into the Triune God if it is really the Person of Jesus in whom they have believed.
Originally posted by jaywillCome off it J! Please read my post again and look at what the disiples actually did and said.
Into what and WHO are the believers baptized.
They are baptized into the ONE NAME. What is the name? The name is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
It did not say NAMES (plural) but [b]"into the name". Strictly speaking then the name is Father - Son - Holy Spirit
Too many people take this as a ritualistic formula. It is not a God if it is really the Person of Jesus in whom they have believed.[/b]
Of course there is no plurality - he is ONE. It is about faith yes, but it's also about Truth. The doctrine of trinity (3 Gods) IS pagan in origin.
The revalation of who Jesus is, is a blessing and given by God - "Who do you say that I am?" The trinity doctrine detracts from this.
Why is what I see in scirpture a "hang-up", when I've simply and clearly laid it out for you, using the disiples deeds and words as concrete examples and evidence?
Originally posted by divegeesteryou had better be careful my friend, we live in desperate times, Jaywill shall hand you over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh in respect of your heresy. But i agree with Deucer, it is refreshing to hear anothers perspective on it.
Come off it J! Please read my post again and look at what the disiples actually did and said.
Of course there is no plurality - he is ONE. It is about faith yes, but it's also about Truth. The doctrine of trinity (3 Gods) IS pagan in origin.
The revalation of who Jesus is, is a blessing and given by God - "Who do you say that I am?" The trinit ...[text shortened]... laid it out for you, using the disiples deeds and words as concrete examples and evidence?
"The son shall hand over all things to the Father”. The office of son-ship shall end, it's work will be done.
"Unto us a King is born and his NAME (singular personage) shall be Prince of Peace, Everlasting Father, Wonderful Councillor".
Jesus is the name given for all three offices/manifestations of the living God, in this current dispensation. His name is the given route to God; it qualifies our recognition of and identification with the mocked and sacrificed one who is now glorified.
Robbie, I have little to say in terms of fresh perspective I'm afraid. But despite my wretched condition I will stand up for this truth. I shall return to the pits that is the general forum shortly, fear not 😉
Originally posted by divegeesterdo not worry my friend, we shall send Deucer into the dark depths of the general forum to preach to those wicked spirit forces in eternal bonds of dense darkness, you know the routine, Sietse, huck hound etc tec tec. 🙂
"The son shall hand over all things to the Father”. The office of son-ship shall end, it's work will be done.
"Unto us a King is born and his NAME (singular personage) shall be Prince of Peace, Everlasting Father, Wonderful Councillor".
Jesus is the name given for all three offices/manifestations of the living God, in this current dispensation. for this truth. I shall return to the pits that is the general forum shortly, fear not 😉
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI can see him on his box from here...no wait he's gone down under the stones again
do not worry my friend, we shall send Deucer into the dark depths of the general forum to preach to those wicked spirit forces in eternal bonds of dense darkness, you know the routine, Sietse, huck hound etc tec tec. 🙂
Originally posted by divegeester===============================
Come off it J! Please read my post again and look at what the disiples actually did and said.
Of course there is no plurality - he is ONE. It is about faith yes, but it's also about Truth. The doctrine of trinity (3 Gods) IS pagan in origin.
The revalation of who Jesus is, is a blessing and given by God - "Who do you say that I am?" The trinit laid it out for you, using the disiples deeds and words as concrete examples and evidence?
Come off it J! Please read my post again and look at what the disiples actually did and said.
===============================
I do need to read it again because my post was not really all in response to yours. But before I go back and read it again, let me respond to you here.
==================================
Of course there is no plurality - he is ONE. It is about faith yes, but it's also about Truth. The doctrine of trinity (3 Gods) IS pagan in origin.
======================================
What you discribe I would call Tritheism, the belief in THREE Gods. I don't think of "three Gods" when I think of the word Trinity or Triune God.
============================
The revalation of who Jesus is, is a blessing and given by God - "Who do you say that I am?" The trinity doctrine detracts from this.
===============================
If you mean that TRITHEISM destracts from the revelation of Who Jesus is, I would agree. Once again, I am not a tritheist. Some Christians may subconsciously think of three Gods when they think of Trinity. Many of us do not.
So trithesism is on one extreme of misunderstanding. On the other extreme, from the other side is modalism.
The tritheist leans towards there being three Gods. The modalist says that there is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ... BUT ... they are not in existence at the same time simultaneously. So they teach that these were MODES that God passed through.
Rather than argue about definitions of terms, it is very good simply to point out what the Scriptures teach. We have on one hand the Father, Son, and Spirit simultaneously in existence at the same time. But on the other hand we do have verses like John1:14 -"the Word became flesh" and (1 Cor. 15:45) - "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit"
So you do have one ____ of the three _____ becoming the Other.
Human language is limited to express such a profound revelation. We may borrow words like Persons, ie, three Persons of God. But this cannot be pressed too far for three Persons would easily lead to an understanding of three Gods. But the Bible is clear that there is only one God.
So we have to be cautious not to press the side of THREE _____ too far. And on the other hand we cannot press the matter of ONE ____ too far either.
I leave the blank line "_____________" to express that human language fails me to discribe this mysterious nature of God. He is Three as One and One as Three. When you press me and say:
"Three WHAT? One WHAT?" I don't know what else to say. Theologians speak of hypostasis and other terms. But it is mysterious.
And anyone who scoffs at this revelation saying "My dear fellow, there is nothing myterious here. It is all quite plain and obvious" is fooling themselves.
If you read the New Testament and believe it, I think you have to admit that there are some mysterious matters presented there. And before I thought of that the Apostle Paul already told us of "the MYSTERY of the faith".
====================================
Why is what I see in scirpture a "hang-up", when I've simply and clearly laid it out for you, using the disiples deeds and words as concrete examples and evidence?
===============================
I came down on you too hard. Sorry. My post was kind of directed in a general way. That is a not too good habit that I need to break and speak to people's posts specifically.
My apologies.
Originally posted by jaywillCan you explain, in a short version, Matt 12:31,32? It appears here that you can sin against the son and be forgiven, but you can not be forgiven if you sin against the Holy spirit? How can that be if they are they same and equal?
[b]===============================
Come off it J! Please read my post again and look at what the disiples actually did and said.
===============================
I do need to read it again because my post was not really all in response to yours. But before I go back and read it again, let me respond to you here.
======================= ...[text shortened]... eed to break and speak to people's posts specifically.
My apologies.
Originally posted by galveston75==================================
Can you explain, in a short version, Matt 12:31,32? It appears here that you can sin against the son and be forgiven, but you can not be forgiven if you sin against the Holy spirit? How can that be if they are they same and equal?
Can you explain, in a short version, Matt 12:31,32? It appears here that you can sin against the son and be forgiven, but you can not be forgiven if you sin against the Holy spirit? How can that be if they are they same and equal?
===================================
That is a good question. And I will think on it and study it.
At the moment I have to go somewhere and I need time to explore the matter.
However, I DO notice that a sin against the Holy Spirit there, is considered MORE serious than a sin against the Son.
So we can deduce from that a MINIMUM realization that to the Son of God, the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit was on a very high level of sacredness, dignity, honor, holiness.
Now compare that with the belief that the Holy Spirit is just an impersonal force.
So while I don't have a ready answer for you this moment, I CAN say that such a passage does not at all argue for Russell's concept that the Holy Spirit is just a "thing" a force and NOT a "Person" who can be blasphemed.
Originally posted by galveston75Probably not, but I'll have a go anyway.
Can you explain, in a short version, Matt 12:31,32? It appears here that you can sin against the son and be forgiven, but you can not be forgiven if you sin against the Holy spirit? How can that be if they are they same and equal?
My view is that the office of son-ship is subordinate to the office of Father and Spirit, there is so much scripture and theme to support this I can't begin to detail.
I believe there are depths of sin, rather than types of sin. What i mean is that 'to him who is given much, much will be expected', and to him whom much is revealed, much will be demanded.
Jesus is a sacrificial offering; his purpose was to take whatever (anything) that we or the enemy can throw. The spirit is intimate, dividing bone and marrow, spirit and soul; this revelation is not about mercy it's about relationship and marriage.
I can't explain the differential better than this, but I believe there is one my friend.
Originally posted by divegeesterWhich is why Muslims don't usually accept the Trinity.
Prompted by a post in another thread, I do not see a trinity.
Matt 28:19
"Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"
ALL baptising post the Gospels was carried out in the name of Jesus. Paul and Peter also instructed this method.
Were they all wrong and failed to c ...[text shortened]... hree Gods - that is paganism.
EDIT: Nowhere in scripture is the "eternal son" mentioned