Originally posted by Rajk999Your reply to my post on the Alpha and the Omega I don't count as a reply. But you raise these issues which you say I have not addressed.
How much of this was made clear by Christ and how much of this particular doctrine did the disciples and apostles know at the time?
Why are you avoiding this question?
Paul did not preach this doctrine to the early churches. So clearly it did not form part of his preaching missions which Christ sent him on. Is that correct?
Do you intend to read my reply? Or do you intend to not to want to because of its possible long length? If you intend not to read it because it is too long, please don't try to refute it then. Just honestly say - "This reply was too long."
I don't promise you all only "25 words or less" explanations of involved issues. Fair enough ?
==================================
How much of this was made clear by Christ and how much of this particular doctrine did the disciples and apostles know at the time?
=================================
Short answer.
The word Trinity was not used by Paul. But all that Paul wrote contributed to ground to arrive at such a theological word.
In the following passage Paul uses interchangeably the following titles:
"The Spirit of God"
"The Spirit of Christ"
"Christ"
"The Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead" (Romans 8:9-11)
Each "Person" is said to be indwelling the Christians audience of his letter. Therefore his concept was that experiencially and subjectively they could detect no difference between these "Persons".
"But you are not in the flesh but, in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you." (Romans 8:9-11)
When attacks against the Person of Christ occured in the ancient church history, the wise brothers said in essence -
"Wait a minute. In our experience, just as the Apostle Paul taught, to have the Spirit of God is to have the Spirit of Christ. And to have the Spirit of Christ is to have Christ Himself. God, Christ, and the Spirit of God or the Spirit of Christ are certainly undivided. "
Not to weary your reading ability then, I'll stop short here.
1 edit
==============================
Why are you avoiding this question?
================================
No avoidance.
If I take the time to write a long answer don't you avoid reading my reply.
=====================================
Paul did not preach this doctrine to the early churches. So clearly it did not form part of his preaching missions which Christ sent him on. Is that correct?
==================================
I just showed you that in Paul's thinking and teaching there was no way to detect any difference between:
The Spirit of God
The Spirit of Christ
Christ Himself
The Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead.
See Romans 8:9-11
Listen, "The Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead" IS Christ in that passage.
Each is said to be indwelling the believers. In fact in Romans 8 Christ is both "at the right hand of God" (v.34) AND "Christ ... in you" (v.10)
The "Spirit of God" (v.9) which no doubt is the Holy Spirit, is "Christ" (v.10).
The titles are used interchangeably. So in the subjectivce experience of those born again, they could not detect any separation between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit of God. So they saw this and compared it with their own experience, and coined the term Trinity and "Triune God"
Those are terms which the New Testament did not use but the truth of their meaning as the "three - one" God is quite evident. Not only is it evident in Paul's epistles but in the Gospels and elsewhere as well.
The Father the Son and the Spirit were distinct but not separated.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethe translations that you cited earlier are suspect. The sahidic coptic gospels are copies of the original greek texts, and are not accurate. They do not meet the canonical test and are thusly Apocryphal. If you continue to use these fruadulent texts as your source for argument, how can any of us take you seriously? Show me in the King james version, or the nsrv or even the niv where it says the same thing you are trying to say.
perhaps you can point it out, for i myself cannot find it, nor can i find where you have pointed it out, so please, if you cannot or will not or are unable to, you will continue to be what you are proving to be, a slanderer and a compete charlatan, so make with the reddies! deucer! where has moffat and russell or anyone else added to the sahdic coptic text, so as to alter its meaning, i want to hear you say it!
I've answered your question, now answer mine about false prophecies and the election of the 144,000 ending in 1935.
John 1 (Today's New International Version)
John 1
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all people. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome [a] it.
Originally posted by duecersorry but now you are wasting my time, they are wholly acceptable, not in the least apocryphal, are older and more complete than anything else we have, and thus as a consequence portray the actual thoughts of Christians living much closer to the time of Christ. The reason that you do not like nor accept them, is because the completely and utterly refutes your pagan doctrine, and like many nominal 'christians', would rather adhere to something that is evidently complete garbage in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
the translations that you cited earlier are suspect. The sahidic coptic gospels are copies of the original greek texts, and are not accurate. They do not meet the canonical test and are thusly Apocryphal. If you continue to use these fruadulent texts as your source for argument, how can any of us take you seriously? Show me in the King james version, or the n ...[text shortened]... uestion, now answer mine about false prophecies and the election of the 144,000 ending in 1935.
and no you have not answered the question, where did moffat and Russell or anyone else add to the meaning of scripture as in the case of the sahidic optic text, which carries the definite article and clearly shows that it was never intended to be the word was God, but a god, or a divine being. and until you do, i will consider you a slanderer and a charlatan and a time waster.
Originally posted by duecerthere are zillions of translations which state what you are saying, it does not in the slightest mean that they are correct, for the sahidic coptic text, is much older and founded on earlier Greek models, and clearly shows what the true meaning was for Christians, before your beloved blasphemous adoption of pagan ideas took place.
John 1 (Contemporary English Version)
John 1
The Word of Life
1In the beginning was the one
who is called the Word.
The Word was with God
and was truly God.
2From the very beginning
the Word was with God.
Had enough Robbie? I could go on all day busting you up.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethe same may be said of you, you do not like the King James version because it does not fit in with your preconcieved theological argument. On this we must absolutley disagree. My arguments are strong, and easily verified. Yet you still reufse to answer my very simple questions about 1935 and 1975 as they pertain to false prophets. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending I didn't ask them won't make them go away and won't make my point untrue. You follow false prophets...what does the bible say about that?
sorry but now you are wasting my time, they are wholly acceptable, not in the least apocryphal, are older and more complete than anything else we have, and thus as a consequence portray the actual thoughts of Christians living much closer to the time of Christ. The reason that you do not like nor accept them, is because the completely and utterly ref ...[text shortened]... ne being. and until you do, i will consider you a slanderer and a charlatan and a time waster.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehow can they be older when they were copied from the greek?
there are zillions of translations which state what you are saying, it does not in the slightest mean that they are correct, for the sahidic coptic text, is much older and founded on earlier Greek models, and clearly shows what the true meaning was for Christians, before your beloved blasphemous adoption of pagan ideas took place.
Originally posted by sumydid================================
Taken at face value, to me the Bible shows Jesus as both divine [Godly] and the Son of God.
I mean, come on... how is it that, according to the Bible, Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God, but, they are one and the same?
Taken at face value, to me the Bible shows Jesus as both divine [Godly] and the Son of God.
I mean, come on... how is it that, according to the Bible, Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God, but, they are one and the same?
==================================
Jesus is said to be at the right hand of God interceding for the Christians (Romans 8:34). And in the same chapter He is "Christ ... in you" (v.10)
Christ is at the right hand of God and Christ is within those who receive Christ into their hearts. He can do this BECAUSE --- "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
To impart God as divine life to man Jesus Christ was transfigured into a "life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
When you think of the Trinity it is good to think in terms of God going through a kind of process by which He can come into man to indwell man.
This is a short post and therefore it does not deal with all the questions related to Christ being the "life giving Spirit" indwelling the believers.
1 edit
Originally posted by duecersorry i am still waiting to see where moffat and russell or anyone else changed the meaning of the text in accordance with the coptic text, until you are able to provide a reference, do not bother me, for i do not want to listen to or read any more of your unfounded unsubstantiated lies and slander, you remain a charlatan and i will henceforth ignore your posts.
the same may be said of you, you do not like the King James version because it does not fit in with your preconcieved theological argument. On this we must absolutley disagree. My arguments are strong, and easily verified. Yet you still reufse to answer my very simple questions about 1935 and 1975 as they pertain to false prophets. Sticking your head in the s d won't make my point untrue. You follow false prophets...what does the bible say about that?