1. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    05 Jan '12 18:583 edits
    This is an honest and OPEN QUESTION. And that means to me I am willing to be shown EITHER WAY on the issue.

    I was acccused of hijacking a thread. Fine. I'll stay out of that thread and start another.

    I'll start with this explanation about my one contributing post which I suppose was the "hijacking" post.

    Jaywill, I think you are missing the point.

    An essential truth the way I interpret the meaning from the OP is one which is a matter of life and death, ie if that belief is missing from the doctrine of the believer then that believer is doomed when Christ returns to judge us.



    It is arguable that a doctrine of the Trinity is not essential. But how can we say that for salvation Father - Son - Holy Spirit is not essential ?

    It seems that maybe your objection is about doctrine whereas my contribution concerns the reality of Father-Son-Holy Spirit.


    Is it your opinion that a believer must understand your concept of the Triune God otherwise that believer is doomed?


    I don't think that "doomed" or not "doomed" is the only angle from which one can approach the Bible. The "eternal purpose" of God has meaning in itself apart from saving man from "doom".

    Having said that, of course the fall of man and the subsequent operation of salvation from estrangment from God because of that fall is an essential truth of the Bible.

    But is it essential to that that the Father sent the Son?
    But is it essential to that that the Son is the Redeemer from said "doom".

    Is it essential to that that we cannot HAVE the Son or the Father apart from the Holy Spirit ?

    Those are actual QUESTIONS. I will entertain any reasonable explanation that Father-Son-Holy Spirit are not to be thought as essential to the Bible's revelation. But you'll have to put forth some effort to convince me.


    To me essential truths are laid down by Christ and Paul.[/b]


    Okay. Who is CHRIST anyway ?

    If you answer "Well Christ is the Son of God" then you are practically there already in admitting that the Father and the Son are essential to the Bible and certainly to Paul's teaching.

    Am I right ?

    Who then IS Christ ? I think Christ is important because He is the Son of the Father.


    And dont tell me that its complicated or difficult or complex. If it is in your mind all these things then you have lost the essence and spirit of the teachings of Christ and Paul and you are in fact lost.


    I do admit that there is the "milk" of the word of God. And there is the "meat" of it. I do not disagree that there are the basic and foundational matters.

    Is Father - Son - Holy Spirit as God not apart of those basics? I think it is arguable.

    Let's consider that if Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, (I think he did), what would he mention as the foundations of the Christian faith ?

    "Therefore leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us be brought on to maturity, not laying again a FOUNDATION of repentance from dead works and of faith in God, of the teaching of baptisms and of the laying on of hands, of the resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment.

    And this we will do if God permits. For it is impossible for those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit and have tasted the powers of the age to come, and yet have fallen away ... etc. etc." (Hebrews 6:1-7a)


    These are words concerning the FOUNDATION (ie. ESSENTIALS) at least of the Christian Gospel. Do you agree ?

    Christ is mentioned - the Son.
    Faith in God is mentioned - certainly that indicates the Father.
    And EXPERIENCE is mentioned. That is PARTAKING or PARTICIPATING IN in a subjective and EXPERIENCIAL manner. For this Holy Spirit is mentioned - "those ... who have tasted of the heavenly gift and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit."

    Since in the FOUNDATION matters Father - Son - Holy Spirit are mentioned, maybe the Triune God, the Trinity at least as revelation IS ESSENTIAL TRUTH of the Bible.

    Think maybe ?


    The teachings and gospel of Christ and Paul are both simple to understand and easy to do if we approach Christ with the right heart and mind.


    I don't feel to disagree with this. But eventually those who are saved need something more.

    Is it only for thier individual spirituality that the whole Bible is given ?
    Is it only for the most elementary and individualistic rescue that the Bible is given ?

    How about the climax of the whole Bible. There is a BRIDE for Christ the Son. There is a TEMPLE - a TABERNACLE for God. And there is a river of water of life as the Holy Spirit flowing throughout this COLLECTIVE - this corporate entity the New Jerusalem.

    Without a vision the people run wild, says Proverbs.

    Don't we also need a essential visions as to where this whole matter of God's plan and working is HEADED ? Is that essential at least eventually ?

    Generally speaking, do you think coming to the grand final climax of the 66 books of the Bible one can see what to the whole revelation of God is essential and crucial ?
  2. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    05 Jan '12 19:031 edit
    Originally posted by jaywill
    This is an OPENED QUESTION. And that means to me I am willing to be shown EITHER WAY on the issue.

    I was acccused of hijacking a thread. Fine. I'll stay out of that thread and start another.

    I'll start with this explanation about my one contributing post which I suppose was the "hijacking" post.

    [quote] Jaywill, I think you are missing the poi e what to the whole revelation of God is essential and crucial ?
    the trinity is extra biblical, a product of Neoplatonic metaphysics.

    The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit
    doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers
    intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our
    God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several
    centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . .
    the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”
    —(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

    The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’
    was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its
    profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this
    formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the
    Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a
    mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299

    In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and
    Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led
    from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism
    did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it
    was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

    According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a
    rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the
    rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or
    divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s
    [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all
    the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p.
    1467.

    John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons
    within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are
    G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The
    trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms
    and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by
    some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.
  3. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    05 Jan '12 19:10
    Let me ask you a question Robbie.

    Is this passage an ESSENTIAL of the Bible truth in your view ?

    Psalm 35:22-24a "You have seen, O Jehovah; do not be silent. O Lord, do not be far from me. Awake, and stir Yourself for my cause, For my claim, O my God and my Lord. Vindicate me according to Your righteousness, O Jehovah my God;"

    Would you think that this selected passage contains ESSENTIAL truth of the Bible ?

    Yes?
    No?
  4. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    05 Jan '12 19:211 edit
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Let me ask you a question Robbie.

    Is this passage an ESSENTIAL of the Bible truth in your view ?

    [b]Psalm 35:22-24a "You have seen, O Jehovah; do not be silent. O Lord, do not be far from me. Awake, and stir Yourself for my cause, For my claim, O my God and my Lord. Vindicate me according to Your righteousness, O Jehovah my God;"


    Would ...[text shortened]... ou think that this selected passage contains ESSENTIAL truth of the Bible ?

    Yes?
    No?[/b]
    what is written in the Bible Jaywill and what is attempted to be inferred from what is
    written are entirely two different things. If a trinitarian were to state, that yes, the
    trinity is not an explicit doctrine, that its merely an inference then that would be fine.

    Naturally the verse is important although without examining it's context, i cannot state
    why or what lessons can be drawn from it.
  5. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    05 Jan '12 19:291 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    what is written in the Bible Jaywill and what is attempted to be inferred from what is
    written are entirely two different things. If a trinitarian were to state, that yes, the
    trinity is not an explicit doctrine, that its merely an inference then that would be fine.

    Naturally the verse is important although without examining it's context, i cannot state
    why or what lessons can be drawn from it.
    Naturally the verse is important although without examining it's context, i cannot state why or what lessons can be drawn from it.


    I will take this to mean that you (with a little caution) basically accept the passage of Psalm 35:23-24 as representative of essential biblical truth.

    Is that a fair assumption ?
  6. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    05 Jan '12 19:341 edit
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Naturally the verse is important although without examining it's context, i cannot state why or what lessons can be drawn from it.


    I will take this to mean that you (with a little caution) basically accept the passage of [b]Psalm 35:23-24
    as representative of essential biblical truth.

    Is that a fair assumption ?[/b]
    yes its representative of an essential Biblical truth, that being, as the verse states, that
    we are 'judged' or 'vindicated', as your translation puts it, in comparison, to Gods
    righteousness. This is an essential Biblical truth.
  7. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    05 Jan '12 19:493 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    yes its representative of an essential Biblical truth, that being, as the verse states, that
    we are 'judged' or 'vindicated', as your translation puts it, in comparison, to Gods
    righteousness. This is an essential Biblical truth.
    yes its representative of an essential Biblical truth, that being, as the verse states, that we are 'judged' or 'vindicated', as your translation puts it, in comparison, to Gods righteousness. This is an essential Biblical truth.



    Thankyou.

    Now notice in this "essential truth" passage the Psalmists confesses - " ... O my God and my Lord..." (v.23)

    Ie. Jehovah is the Psalmist's vindicating God and his Lord.

    Why then should we not also consider the apostle Thomas' confession of Jesus being his Lord and God too?

    John 20:27,28 - "Then He [Jesus] said to Thomas, Bring your finger here and see My hands, and bring your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.

    Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God! "


    If the Psalmist confesses that Jehovah is his God and his Lord, and that is an essential truth why is it not the case when Thomas, one of the 12 disciples of Jesus, also confesses that Jesus Christ is his Lord and his God, and it is not essential ?


    John 20:27,28 is as essential as Psalm 35:23,24 . And whether you like the words/phrase or not Trinity or Triune God entered into the vocabulary of the Christian Church to express discussion of these essential revelations.

    If you disagree, then on what basis is Thomas's confession NOT essential, yet David's is ??
  8. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    05 Jan '12 19:54
    What is essential in worshipping God and having a relationship with him and that would include him listening to our prayers, would not only be to worship him with truth but when we are speaking of him to others we must correctly know him and what the truths of him are.
    No one on this planet would want anyone to speak of ourselves in an untruthful and unfactual way. God is no different and if we're not he will not let us have that relationship with him and will not listen or answer our prayers.
    The trinity is not truth and is groosly misrepresentive of God's being and nature.

    John 4:23-24
    Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)

    23 God is Spirit. Those who worship him must do so in spirit and in a true way.'

    I have no idea how many but the words "true" & "truth" are in the bible hundreds if not thousands of times.
    It must be extremely important to God and history has proved it's extremely important to God.
  9. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    05 Jan '12 19:555 edits
    Originally posted by jaywill
    because its an inference, one can easily state that Thomas is referring to two distinct
    entities, one can even state that he is not addressing Christ at all, he is merely
    exclaiming, as people do now, 'Oh my God', does that mean when people see
    something extraordinary and exclaim, 'Oh my God', that the person they are
    addressing really is God, no it does not, you have no way of essentially knowing what
    Thomas was referring to, that is why and thus you are not expressing any essential
    truth, but an inference.
  10. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    05 Jan '12 20:065 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    because its an inference, one can easily state that Thomas is referring to two distinct
    entities, one can even state that he is not addressing Christ at all, he is merely
    exclaiming, as people do now, 'Oh my God', does that mean when people see
    something extraordinary and exclaim, 'oh my God', that the person they are
    addressing really is God, ...[text shortened]... ing to, that is why and thus you are not expressing any essential
    truth, but an inference.
    because its an inference, one can easily state that Thomas is referring to two distinct
    entities, one can even state that he is not addressing Christ al all, he is merely
    exclaiming, as people do now, 'Oh my God', does that mean when people see
    something extraordinary and exclaim, 'oh my God', that the person they are
    addressing really is God, no it does not, you have no way of essentially knowing what Thomas was referring to, that is why and thus you are not expressing any essential


    You are arguing that David is of course NOT refering to two entitites when he says " ... O my God and my Lord ". No inference there. No lifting up the name of God in vain there.

    But for Thomas to say to Jesus ... ie. "Thomas ANSWERED AND SAID TO HIM" ... "My Lord and my God" is inference and lifting up the name of God in vain, ie. "Oh my God! O God!" in the modern vanacular.

    Your distinction is 100% arbitrary and enfluenced by your indoctrination to deny the incarnation of God in the man Jesus.

    We do not see Jesus in any way, correct, adjust, clarify, rebuke Thomas, or reinterpret his disciple's confession. Rather we see Jesus AFFIRM it.

    "Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." (v.29)


    Believed WHAT ? Believed that Jesus Christ is also our Lord and our God in resurrection.
  11. Standard memberRajk999
    Enjoying
    On the Beach
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    170571
    05 Jan '12 20:11
    Originally posted by jaywill
    This is an honest and OPEN QUESTION. And that means to me I am willing to be shown EITHER WAY on the issue.

    I was acccused of hijacking a thread. Fine. I'll stay out of that thread and start another.

    I'll start with this explanation about my one contributing post which I suppose was the "hijacking" post.

    [quote] Jaywill, I think you are missin ...[text shortened]... e what to the whole revelation of God is essential and crucial ?
    Nobody said .. ".. that for salvation Father - Son - Holy Spirit is not essential ? "
    You made that up.

    Your mistake Jaywill is that you are allowing your PhD knowledge to influcence your basic knowledge of what Christ expects from the least of us... THE LEAST OF THE HUMAN RACE , can still inherit the kingdom of God, even though they cannot understand your complex analysis of the trinity.

    The essential teachings are from the teachings of Christ. Christ never once taught the doctrine of the Trinity or Triune God. Christ referred to God as his Father. God referred to Christ as His Son.

    If you 'need something more' than what Christ taught, then that cannot be essential teachings. We all study the Bible. I read the Bible and study it all the time, and Im sure you do as well, but I would not expect Christ to judge others by my knowledge neither yours. The minimum doctrines and beliefs that Christ is expecting us to have is clearly stated in the Bible.
  12. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    05 Jan '12 20:16
    The use of the word Lord or LORD does not always refer to Jesus or his father. Here Joshua is speaking to an angel that had been sent by God. He used the word "Lord" when speaking to him but he knew this was not God himself.

    Joshua 5:13-15
    Amplified Bible (AMP)

    13 When Joshua was by Jericho, he looked up, and behold, a Man stood near him with His drawn sword in His hand. And Joshua went to Him and said to Him, Are you for us or for our adversaries?

    14 And He said, No [neither], but as Prince of the Lord's host have I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped, and said to Him, What says my Lord to His servant?

    15 And the Prince of the Lord's host said to Joshua, [a]Loose your shoes from off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy. And Joshua did so.
  13. Wat?
    Joined
    16 Aug '05
    Moves
    76863
    05 Jan '12 20:22
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    Nobody said .. ".. that for salvation Father - Son - Holy Spirit is not essential ? "
    You made that up.

    Your mistake Jaywill is that you are allowing your PhD knowledge to influcence your basic knowledge of what Christ expects from the least of us... THE LEAST OF THE HUMAN RACE , can still inherit the kingdom of God, even though they cannot und ...[text shortened]... um doctrines and beliefs that Christ is expecting us to have is clearly stated in the Bible.
    The Bible does not contradict itself, DOES IT?

    ...Jesus even confirms this in all that he says and teaches (Mk 12:29-30). ...

    We cannot conclude from this that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are independent Gods, because the Bible ... "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" (John 14:11)

    I don't believe for one iota of a second that a Father can be a Son simoultaneoulsy, and a mother a virgin at the birth of her child..... but isn't all of this a part of the 'trinity' of wonderous beings?

    -m. 😉
  14. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    05 Jan '12 20:262 edits
    Originally posted by jaywill
    [quote] because its an inference, one can easily state that Thomas is referring to two distinct
    entities, one can even state that he is not addressing Christ al all, he is merely
    exclaiming, as people do now, 'Oh my God', does that mean when people see
    something extraordinary and exclaim, 'oh my God', that the person they are
    addressing really is God WHAT ? Believed that Jesus Christ is also our Lord and our God in resurrection.
    Again this type of reasoning demonstrates a particular tactic of the trinitarian, that of
    taking a single verse, out of the context of the Bible, in its entirety and attempting to
    assign values based upon a religious bias. What is the essential truth in this verse
    Jaywill,

    “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God",

    spoken by Jesus Christ.
  15. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    05 Jan '12 20:292 edits
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    Nobody said .. ".. that for salvation Father - Son - Holy Spirit is not essential ? "
    You made that up.

    Your mistake Jaywill is that you are allowing your PhD knowledge to influcence your basic knowledge of what Christ expects from the least of us... THE LEAST OF THE HUMAN RACE , can still inherit the kingdom of God, even though they cannot und um doctrines and beliefs that Christ is expecting us to have is clearly stated in the Bible.
    Nobody said .. ".. that for salvation Father - Son - Holy Spirit is not essential ? "
    You made that up.

    Your mistake Jaywill is that you are allowing your PhD knowledge to influcence your basic knowledge of what Christ expects from the least of us... THE LEAST OF THE HUMAN RACE , can still inherit the kingdom of God, even though they cannot understand your complex analysis of the trinity.



    Of course whosoever believes may enter into the kingdom of God.


    The essential teachings are from the teachings of Christ. Christ never once taught the doctrine of the Trinity or Triune God. Christ referred to God as his Father. God referred to Christ as His Son.


    Oh.

    But wait a minute. When Jesus said "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me does His works." (John 14:10)

    Isn't that Jesus saying that the Father lives in the Son and the Son lives in the Father ? Isn't that affirming the co-inherance of Father and Son in one another ?

    Are you SURE Jesus didn't teach a revelation of a Father - Son - Holy Spirit God ?


    If you 'need something more' than what Christ taught, then that cannot be essential teachings.



    Was this something in ADDITION to what Christ taught ? Was this something MORE ?

    "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me ? The words that I say to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Fathero who abides in Me does His works.

    Believe in Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; but if not, believe because of the works themselves."


    Was this something in ADDITION to the teaching of Jesus ? Or was this the teaching of Jesus proper ?


    We all study the Bible. I read the Bible and study it all the time, and Im sure you do as well, but I would not expect Christ to judge others by my knowledge neither yours. The minimum doctrines and beliefs that Christ is expecting us to have is clearly stated in the Bible.


    For bare and basic salvation, I have to agree, confess Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, as Paul specifically taught in Romans 10:9,10.

    I am not trying to make the door of salvation very very skinny because of deep biblical doctrines.

    I respected what I thought was the intention of some posters in that thread on the ESSENTIALS of the Bible. And I left that thread. I submitted to what I perceived was a fellowshipped and perhaps organized effort to get unbelievers down to the rock bottom basics of the Bible's revelation.

    But I came over here to get out of your way. Over HERE now, when the new believer ASKS me how God raised Christ from the dead, is it OK if I tell her about the Father and the Son ?
Back to Top