# Trinity is humanity's Father/Son Image!



## Artfuldodger (Aug 20, 2018)

I've been thinking about the Father and Son image that humanity was made of. I think that without that image, there is no Trinity regardless of how one views the Trinity. I hate to leave the Holy Spirit out so maybe we can work that persona into that image as well.

Can we even see humanity without the Father and Son image or relationship? Maybe part of humanity's purpose is to see that image and become as close to it as we can. Perhaps this is where the Holy Spirit comes in. To help us see that image.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 20, 2018)

The eternally begotten Son also became flesh(humanity). True His main purpose was as the Messiah but also to show us the image of His Father. He came to show us His Father's glory. He was the image of His Father. If you saw Jesus, you saw God.

In that respect, the Son became flesh to show humanity, God. Maybe to show humanity that that unity can be done. Not exactly like the Father and Son but something pretty close.

Again his main purpose was to make it possible for humanity to do this by Redemption but in a way he showed us it was possible for a human to do this.

To show us what humanity is suppose to look like.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 20, 2018)

Jesus was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. He was the Word that became flesh. In a way he was human before he actually became human. He was a Son before he actually became human.
God was a Father before His Son had a human Mother. Jesus was a Son before he had a human Mother.

Humanity has always been a part of that Word or plan of God. Humanity was made in that image. We are made in the image of the Trinity.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 20, 2018)

With that mindset....... Adam was supposed to represent God's image/character/etc to the world. Yet he failed to do so and never could because he sinned. Jesus however did represent God to the world, so much so that he was credited with being the exact representation of his image. Jesus is said to be the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. But think about that. 2 things.... Did God plan for Adam to sin. Thus the plan all along, that poor Adam was just as Pharoah. Was Jesus actually slain [in the plan] before the foundation of the world at the fall of man? Was "the foundation of the world" or the fall of man first? Point being, Jesus was not actually slain in reality until he was 30+ years old. But it is spoken in terms of "fact" pointing back to a promise. These promises spoken of as fact from the OT are getting so messed up. The word became flesh is no different than slain before the foundation. He was no more slain before he was born than he existed before he was born


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 20, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> With that mindset....... Adam was supposed to represent God's image/character/etc to the world. Yet he failed to do so and never could because he sinned. Jesus however did represent God to the world, so much so that he was credited with being the exact representation of his image. Jesus is said to be the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. But think about that. 2 things.... Did God plan for Adam to sin. Thus the plan all along, that poor Adam was just as Pharoah. Was Jesus actually slain [in the plan] before the foundation of the world at the fall of man? Was "the foundation of the world" or the fall of man first? Point being, Jesus was not actually slain in reality until he was 30+ years old. But it is spoken in terms of "fact" pointing back to a promise. These promises spoken of as fact from the OT are getting so messed up. The word became flesh is no different than slain before the foundation. He was no more slain before he was born than he existed before he was born



I understand that he was slain before the foundation and was the eternally begotten Son could be viewed as only prophesy or promises.
Like you said everything was created in 7 days.
The Son and the Lamb slain were added to this Creation in time.

They were taken from Word and inserted into time. Still though in Word it already existed. The Son was and the Lamb was.

Does that really change anything about the Father and Son relationship already existing or that the Lamb was already slain?

That image was already in Word and we were Created in that image.
It's a part of who humanity would become.

I would say yes God did plan for Adam to sin. Adam was just like Pharoah in that respect. Otherwise there would have been no need for a Lamb slain before the foundation.

There would have been no need for a Son and with no Son, no Father either.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 20, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> With that mindset....... Adam was supposed to represent God's image/character/etc to the world. Yet he failed to do so and never could because he sinned. Jesus however did represent God to the world, so much so that he was credited with being the exact representation of his image. Jesus is said to be the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. But think about that. 2 things.... Did God plan for Adam to sin. Thus the plan all along, that poor Adam was just as Pharoah. Was Jesus actually slain [in the plan] before the foundation of the world at the fall of man? Was "the foundation of the world" or the fall of man first? Point being, Jesus was not actually slain in reality until he was 30+ years old. But it is spoken in terms of "fact" pointing back to a promise. These promises spoken of as fact from the OT are getting so messed up. The word became flesh is no different than slain before the foundation. He was no more slain before he was born than he existed before he was born


I guess you are looking at it as there was no Son already and there was no Lamb slain already. Then and only then, after Adam failed the Son and the Lamb became a part of God's plan."From the foundation" could have been after Adam sinned?

Weren't they at least present in Word? So the moment Adam sinned God had a plan to send his Son that he didn't have yet? But at that moment in time, in Word, he had a Son.
At that very moment the Word was with God but more in a sense like at that very moment the Lamb was slain but only in Word?


----------



## Israel (Aug 20, 2018)

_It is_ the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings _is_ to search out a matter.

The way of slaying the being of only child...is to have more.
But no matter how may children may follow, none other is ever the first born. But, someone is last.
Make every effort to find the joy in that.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 20, 2018)

Israel said:


> _It is_ the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings _is_ to search out a matter.
> 
> The way of slaying the being of only child...is to have more.
> But no matter how may children may follow, none other is ever the first born. But, someone is last.
> Make every effort to find the joy in that.



Ours is becoming children by adoption.
Ephesians 1:5
For He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in His presence. In love 6he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will--

Weird but this was "before" the foundation of the world. Would this prove that the Jesus already existed? Maybe but only in Word.

Makes me wonder how much difference it makes. Really. If the Son already existed in Spirit or Word. If the Word only became the Son when he became human. If the Son was eternally subservient or if he became that way when he became a human.
The Lamb being slain at the foundation of the world or the Lamb being slain on the cross much later.

I mean it's a fun topic and all. It's definitely worth researching and debating, etc. But if God works beyond the extremes of time then perhaps we are all wasting our time trying to picture this concept in our human minds.

Regardless of that aspect of it, I still think humanity's mirror is somehow related to the Father and Son relationship.
Otherwise we could never be adopted as God's children before the foundation of the world.
No Father, no adoption. No Jesus, no adoption through him.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 20, 2018)

What Father and Son image came first? Does humanity mirror the Father and Son in Heaven or does that heavenly relation of Father and Son mirror humanity?

In other words which came first? If humanity, the heavenly Father and Son are just mirrors of Creation. Like God made man and after Adam sinned thought he'd get into the humanity game.

Like at that point God decides to use a human analogy of Father and Son instead of the other way around.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 21, 2018)

I will share a link to the explanation of two concepts of the use of signs or words in scripture. You might like it.

One view forms concepts within time and limited space and this is how humans who are bound by these use or employ words even in the spiritual realm. The other view of the use of signs or words is the formation of concepts possible to God who is not bound in expression or  in the use of sign and communication by time or space but rather He is unbound by eternity or the eternal.

https://christianity.stackexchange....e-been-slain-before-the-creation-of-the-world


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 21, 2018)

1 John 5: 11

And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

So Art I think that since scripture seems to have been written within and in the signs of man, in the languages man uses, in order to communicate with man, prayer  on the other hand might just be a better venue to the questions posed by your recent concerns on the nature of God.  In Christ we do not pray as the world prays, we are not bound by its signs or in the conventions we ordinarily use them,  but we pray within the eternal and within the cultures and signs of our kingdom.


Maybe praying in tongues( with its absence of worldly signs) is really not that odd after all...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 21, 2018)

gordon 2 said:


> I will share a link to the explanation of two concepts of the use of signs or words in scripture. You might like it.
> 
> One view forms concepts out of time and limited space and this is how humans who are bound by these use or employ words even in the spiritual realm. The other view of the use of signs or words is the formation of concepts possible to God who is not bound in expression or  in the use of sign and communication by time or space but rather He is unbound by eternity or the eternal.
> 
> https://christianity.stackexchange....e-been-slain-before-the-creation-of-the-world



From reading that link if Jesus wasn't slain before the creation, the glory he had with the Father as a Son may not have been so either.

Just one take I know there are many more. I still see the Father and Son as being more than a concept used that man understands.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 21, 2018)

gordon 2 said:


> https://christianity.stackexchange....e-been-slain-before-the-creation-of-the-world





> answered Feb 16 '15 at 15:05
> https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/5256/radz-matthew-brown
> Radz Matthew Brown
> …  In time, it is long past; in eternity, it forever occurs.....When any Christian dies, he passes from the realm of time and space into timelessness, into the NOW of God...



Having read the entire link, I'm guessing that a debate between this fellow and myself, on this issue, would be over before you coffee got cold.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 21, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Having read the entire link, I'm guessing that a debate between this fellow and myself, on this issue, would be over before you coffee got cold.




Radz Matthew Brown
…  In time, it is long past; in eternity, it forever occurs.....When any Christian dies, he passes from the realm of time and space into timelessness, into the NOW of God...         

I think there is a member on here that believes one does this. I guess it's possible when one dies. To travel beyond time past the return of Christ. 
Maybe a lot of what we can't define is how things are in time vs the out of time experience of God's spiritual world.

I can't say that i have committed to this concept but I can visualize it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 21, 2018)

gordon 2 said:


> I will share a link to the explanation of two concepts of the use of signs or words in scripture. You might like it.
> 
> One view forms concepts within time and limited space and this is how humans who are bound by these use or employ words even in the spiritual realm. The other view of the use of signs or words is the formation of concepts possible to God who is not bound in expression or  in the use of sign and communication by time or space but rather He is unbound by eternity or the eternal.
> 
> https://christianity.stackexchange....e-been-slain-before-the-creation-of-the-world



We had briefly discussed this from the link.

Quote from the link;
                                                                                                          The question says "before the foundation of the world." But the Biblical text says "from the foundation of the world." The two are not the same.                    – Lee Woofenden Jul 21 '15 at 16:23

@LeeWoofenden's comment is why this would be better on BH.SE. As he notes, the NIV text says "*from* the foundation of the world." This could mean before, or it could mean as a result of the creation of the world (that is -  as a result of Adam and Eve's transgression)

I guess what they may be saying is that it was "from the Foundation" in that it was the moment in time of Adam's sin, not "before the Foundation" that the Lamb was slain.

The passage I chose was;

Ephesians 1:5-6
For He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in His presence. In love,6 he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will--

This definitely says "before the foundation" and "through Jesus Christ."

I can see it both ways. From an in time and out of time perspective.

I would think it has to be one or the other for both concepts though. The Son pre-existing and the Lamb slain before time. Those two concepts have to be explained the same way.

Either just in Word only or actually already eternally generated.


----------



## Israel (Aug 22, 2018)

The mind of man muses. Your wife, my wife...all wives know this "in the earth".
She speaks to you...and knows, your mind is elsewhere. Oh, you listen...as best you can at times, and you may have even graduated to that place where you have learned that _hearing _her in singleness of attention is both your greatest service to her, and her greatest known pleasure.

But such is not easily learned, simple as it is. Interests in a man are easily divided. He _seems to be able _(in wrong understanding) to be invested in several things, _at once_. (But that wheel bearing is beginning to make noise, that rifle is not sighted properly for hunting season, that leak over the second bedroom...is getting worse...or "I wonder how much pie is left?")

As you _are her head_...she is your body. Your body tells you things, shows you things...about itself. And it is showing things...about _yourself, _being_ uninterruptively _connected_._

Treat your body cavalierly, and in time it will show its response in failing you. Lack heed to its signals, that _only the head is given to rightly discern, _and find calamity. Likewise...over indulge the body, and find no less calamity.

Were it not for a man being given to know his head, all is chaos. All must surrender to earthen gravity. Not all of the body's pleadings...are righteous. Many are quite...unrighteous. Not all of the body's seeming demands require attention to its own satisfying resolution. Sometimes the body must be told "there are matters of concern exceeding these you present". Happy is the man who can say this _in discernment of his body, _without reviling, for he has learned it from his head. Happier still is the head that finds no place in its body for rebellion against such discipline. And happy is the body when all taint of rebellion is excised by such discipline, it finds...health.

_All_ is matter of right attention. To come to see the great difference, indeed, _all the difference_ between being watched, and being _watched over. O! The Lord sees!_

Indeed.

Were we given to only know the former and restricted to it, all manner of concupiscence _must arise_. For _no man can bear such staring, no, none, _without the seeking of _his own _relief and release from such terror, and terrible unflinching.(Children "play" _at this game_, men _in prison _play the same...but with shanks) Every man...fails this contest and test. He will give himself to occupy a place that "is not" of his _own mind's_ manufacture.

Watched...or watched over?

But the latter _cannot be entered_ without knowledge of the former.

"I will show you whom you should fear..."

Knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men.

God...is fully invested "from the foundation". There is no hope in getting Him to blink or wink, or somehow "look away"...or see not. He has, in that sense, abandoned all other attentions. He has poured Himself completely into a place that once sought only relief from Him. And such unrighteousness...was borne...in patient giving of food and drink to enemies. Bread and wine, day in, day out to the enemy's sustaining. From the beginning.

Jesus opens eyes.  To being first watched..._the knowing of man. _But gives entrance _through His own body, _to the being of _watched over._

And needed not that any should testify of man: for _he knew_ what was in man.

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

What is of the body, is of the body.

And only that body is, can, and _must _put on immortality.

All things are simple that lead to ease. But easiness never leads to simplicity, nor ease.


----------



## Madman (Aug 30, 2018)

St. Thomas Aquinas fine tunes the discussion by pointing to "being made in the image" image insinuates likeness but not the other way round.  He also notes that image is not perfect image.  Finally Aquinas uses a lingustic distinction based on the Latin Vulgate denoting that man is made to the image of God, denoting a later perfected state, rather than in the image of God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 30, 2018)

Madman said:


> St. Thomas Aquinas fine tunes the discussion by pointing to "being made in the image" image insinuates likeness but not the other way round.  He also notes that image is not perfect image.  Finally Aquinas uses a lingustic distinction based on the Latin Vulgate denoting that man is made to the image of God, denoting a later perfected state, rather than in the image of God.



How does Aquinas see the image or likeness Jesus to the Father?

Colossians 1:15
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

I could see it as the Son becoming visual for us to see God when he became human but the Son already existed before then. Did the Son "become" the image of the invisible God?


----------



## Madman (Aug 30, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> How does Aquinas see the image or likeness Jesus to the Father?
> 
> Colossians 1:15
> The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
> ...


The church sees Christ as the image we are to become.
"If you have seen me you have seen the Father" 
Some believe we will never see the Father, only Christ.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 31, 2018)

If... when the anti christ comes on the scene, an  impostor, posing as Jesus.... why then is it a shocker when he later claims to be God? It would seem that if he were posing as the Christ of today's Christians, that he would not need to claim to be God but rather be assumed to be God? The Christ of today's Christians has already claimed to be God. Hmmmm


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 31, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> If... when the anti christ comes on the scene, an  impostor, posing as Jesus.... why then is it a shocker when he later claims to be God? It would seem that if he were posing as the Christ of today's Christians, that he would not need to claim to be God but rather be assumed to be God? The Christ of today's Christians has already claimed to be God. Hmmmm



Has the Christ of today claimed to be God or have they claimed he is God?

I would  agree that when he comes and claims to be Jesus, the ones who believe that would also believe he is God under the Trinitarian or Oneness belief.

Does scripture say he will claim to be Christ at first and then later claim to be God? If so then that would dispute the Trinity and Oneness belief.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 31, 2018)

Will the anti-Christ claim to be Christ or God?  I have read that he is against Christ and that he will claim to be God but does scripture say he will claim to be Christ? Perhaps the Messiah of Israel?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 1, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Will the anti-Christ claim to be Christ or God?  I have read that he is against Christ and that he will claim to be God but does scripture say he will claim to be Christ? Perhaps the Messiah of Israel?


It is my understanding that he is an imposter Christ. The word "Anti" Christ has more to do with the word Christ than people know. Trinitarians by nature are antichrist. They don't believe he is the Christ, they believe he is God. The word Christ means "anointed by God". But they believe he is God rather than anointed by God.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 1, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> It is my understanding that he is an imposter Christ. I will look into it.


As of now, we have two Christs. One that claims to be God and one that does not. Two beliefs, Paul said, "I promised you to one husband, as a pure virgin"


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 1, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Will the anti-Christ claim to be Christ or God?  I have read that he is against Christ and that he will claim to be God but does scripture say he will claim to be Christ? Perhaps the Messiah of Israel?


The antichrist, I believe this is correct, the bible makes no mention of Jesus during the antichrist's time other than, paraphrase, that the real Jesus eventually comes on the scene after the church, the harlot, has ran off, been deceived, become damaged goods, by the imposter Jesus. She being bethrothed to Jesus, was deceived by the imposter Jesus, and now the real Jesus comes on the scene and throws both her and the antichrist into the lake of fire. Something like that


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 1, 2018)

Google 3 antichrists. Many actually think that Trump is the third antichrist. LOL. Why, because of the three mentioned in the "anti" group. I used to read this and think it was an evil copy of the trinity, meant to decieve trinitarians. I no longer believe this. I think it is the trinity. Not literal, but  The beast came out of the sea at 325 ad, the second beast, trin HS,  in the 400's when the HS became a third person.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 1, 2018)

The harlot on seven hills..... Google 7 hills. It's Rome. Hmmmm The Roman Cathiloc church is the source of the original trinity


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 1, 2018)

We know that Matthew originally said "go baptize in my name" but it was later changed to a three part baptismal formula, Father, Son and HS. 666, the mark. We study and go on and on about every biblical topic here at Woodys. Going into extreme great detail and debate..... Why is it then that no one studies or discusses the verses we have regarding the antichrist, the harlot, the mark, etc.?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 1, 2018)

The ten horns on his head. LOL. CARM discussion forum has subforums for every religion. It will have Muslim in a forum, Islam, etc. But for the Christian belief, LOL, it used to have 10 forums within the Christian forum. LOL, until I pointed out it was 10 horns. It used to have 10, like baptist, methodist, etc. But after pointing it out, they could not leave it that way, so they have added several more, like home churches. LOL, they dug into non denominations to change that. But count the denominations of the Trinitarians and see what you come up with.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 1, 2018)

In summary, the antichrist is thought of as a slick willy, one whom is like a dynamic politician whom is given a voice, whom uses it and is wooed by the world. The world including many Jews, will fall for his charm and he will take power where he will rule, crushing his opposition, and punishing those whom do not accept his claiming to be God. However, the scriptures tell us that the antichrist is already at work.... And that many antichrists have already gone out into the world..... So, is the antichrist a literal person, or is it possibly a belief. What if... Jesus, the real Jesus, never claimed to be God, but a large following decided that he did claim to be God. 

LOL, hypothetical, all the Christian denominations gave their power, elected one man as representative,  Joel olsteen, to be the antichrist. LOL, just kidding. But you get the point how the ten horns give their authority. I still believe that the antichrist will not be a physical person, but rather a belief of who Jesus is. Possibly a representative of the belief? But the context is that the antichrist [belief] stole Jesus identity. Which was seemingly easy to do as the bride grew weary of waiting his return. Imagine his rage to return to find his betrothed is with another man. [hypothetical]. As Paul said " I promised you to one husband, as a pure bride....."


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 1, 2018)

Check the greek, the "wound" on the head of the antichrist  does not give indication to the greek original. The greek original 100% shows death, that he was raised from the dead.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 1, 2018)

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

Understand that the mark, or any mark, seal, etc, has to do with what you believe.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 1, 2018)

This topic is not discussed often.... however, it would seem that it would be? A good starting point is to either believe it's an evil copy of the trinity...or the trinity. The beast, dragon and second beast, notice how they parallel with the Father, Son and HS. Giving power, the image, the fatal wound, etc. I have no issue with believing it's an evil copy, posing as the true. This is a legitimate belief. However, it needs to be recognized as such


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 1, 2018)

Jesus doesn't claim to be God but the anti-Christ does.
That's interesting, I'll have to think about that one a bit.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 1, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Jesus doesn't claim to be God but the anti-Christ does.
> That's interesting, I'll have to think about that one a bit.


Trins say that Jesus did make that claim


----------



## Madman (Sep 1, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Jesus doesn't claim to be God but the anti-Christ does.
> That's interesting, I'll have to think about that one a bit.


The Jewish authorities of the day thought he made the claim.  The had him crucified for making the claim.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 2, 2018)

Madman said:


> The Jewish authorities of the day thought he made the claim.  The had him crucified for making the claim.



John 5:18
For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Jesus was calling God his own Father. In the eyes of the Jews, that meant he was saying he was God. They misunderstood that Jesus was performing the works of God his Father. To Jesus, God was his Father. If God was doing sabbath works, the Son(human) image of God was doing sabbath works.

John 5:19
So Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does.

Jesus tried to explain it and set them straight but they couldn't fathom a Son of God that was just a Son and not his Father. To them God was a Oneness so if there was a Son then he'd have to be his Father.

Jesus tries to tell them that God is his Father and he is only the Son. That his work is that of his Father. That he is only the image of God. That he is only here to present his Father's glory. To teach his Father's Kingdom.

To Jesus, his Father was God and is God. Anytime Jesus said or says God, he means "Father." Anytime he said or says Father, he means "God." They are one in the same to Jesus.
Jesus, being the Son is that image.

He may have convinced them of this but Jesus even claiming to be God's Son was enough for them. Even though he said he was doing the works of his Father. He even told them they were sons of God.
Jesus said "just believe the works." Just the works should let you know it's from the Father.

Jesus realized it wasn't blasphemy;

John 10:36
why do you call it blasphemy when I say, 'I am the Son of God'? After all, the Father set me apart and sent me into the world.

Regardless of whether they thought he was God or the Son of God didn't matter to the Jews. They considered even being his Son blasphemy even though Jesus tried to tell them it wasn't.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 3, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> John 5:18
> For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
> 
> Jesus was calling God his own Father. In the eyes of the Jews, that meant he was saying he was God. They misunderstood that Jesus was calling God his Father. To Jesus, God was his Father.
> ...


When he said the works I do show that I am from the Father..... this was a referral to Moses. Jesus being a prophet likened to Moses.... was sent. "This is how they will know" Moses was given miraculous powers so that people would know he was sent by God. As one had said, "when the prophet comes, will he do greater works than this", implying that no one would, thus this must be him. In hindsight, we don't grasp the times. They were waiting, faithfully, that God would send his promised messiah, that he would keep his "word". Only, they were not sure because they expected a living leader, not a man cursed on a tree. And... there is the offensiveness of what Jesus had to say that divided them.


----------



## Madman (Sep 3, 2018)

5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he was in the form of God,
    did not regard equality with God
    as something to be exploited,
7 but emptied himself,
    taking the form of a slave,
    being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
8     he humbled himself
    and became obedient to the point of death—
    even death on a cross.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 3, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> John 5:18
> For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
> 
> Jesus was calling God his own Father. In the eyes of the Jews, that meant he was saying he was God. They misunderstood that Jesus was calling God his Father. To Jesus, God was his Father.
> ...


If I go out and buy a harley, buy leather chaps, get a tatoo, etc.... I maketh myself a biker. If If I do the works that only God can do, it does not mean that I am God, nor that Jesus "maketh himself God, but rather as he explained, that it proves he was sent by God, that the works they see were not his own


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 3, 2018)

Calling God his father, making himself equal with God is merely an OT fact of society. The Father ran his estate until a time when he basically retired and gave the authority of the family farm/business/ direct family members and slaves over to his firstborn son. Thus making himself equal to his Father, as his father had done. But not in the same time period. At differing time periods, his father is equal to his father who is equal to his father who is..... It was not considered a real claim of equal to God..., just a use of his words to inflict harm as you often see in this day from the democrats against the republicans


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 3, 2018)

Jesus said that, "no one has seen the Father," _*and*_ he also said that if they saw him they had indeed seen the Father!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 3, 2018)

Madman said:


> 5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
> 6 who, though he was in the form of God,
> did not regard equality with God
> as something to be exploited,
> ...


 
When did Christ "empty himself and humble himself before the Father? When did he become obedient?

I would assume it had to be before the Father sent him as explained in John 3:16. Before his incarnation. Before he changed forms or morphed.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 3, 2018)

Madman said:


> 5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
> 6 who, though he was in the form of God,
> did not regard equality with God
> as something to be exploited,
> ...


This is the most misunderstood verse I know of. Context being to be like Christ in humility in giving of oneself for others..... Jesus being made in the image of God, AS ALL MEN ARE, did not consider equality with God as something to be had, AS EVE HAD DONE, but humbled himself, realizing than man/himself included,  was made to serve God rather than rival God, AS EVE COVETED, he humbled himself and became the ultimate servant, obedient even to the point of death on a cross, therefore, God was pleased and therefore, God highly exalted him, giving him a name above all others, that at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow. 
Modern day interpretations miss that we are all made in God's image, they miss the original sin that man inherited. They miss how every man called to be a leader of God's people set themselves up as a God on earth, having the people serve them rather than them serve the people. Jesus however, did not take the route of milking his position to gain, wealth, power, women and fame. But rather went to the cross in obedience, having faith that God would "not let his prophet see decay". They miss how Jesus realized that man was made to serve, not rival God. Eve wanted to be like God, his rival in glory, but Jesus realized that man was made to serve rather than rival, thus he humbled himself...... And in reward, God in turn gave him that very thing which he did not pursue.   Check the greek, "form" should have been image as we all are


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 3, 2018)

"being found as a man"... ponder over this. Modern interpretations gloss over this. They know that God did not find himself as a man, as if in,  surprise. It referrers to a realization of Jesus. What, that he was God? No, that man was not meant to rival God. This is how we will know the real Jesus in the end times. Jesus would never claim to be God, thus rival him. Miss this context..... and you have missed the entire context of the scriptures


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 3, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Jesus said that, "no one has seen the Father," _*and*_ he also said that if they saw him they had indeed seen the Father!


Sadly as "the body of Christ", we can not fulfill our purpose of being able to say, if you have seen me you have seen Jesus. We have failed. But this is the context of "if you have seen me you have seen the Father." And note, why would he say the Father, not God.  The son is not the Father in the triune god. And where is the HS"


----------



## Madman (Sep 3, 2018)

John 5:18 For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 3, 2018)

Madman said:


> John 5:18 For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.


See Post 41. Notice that the word equal is present...... Meaning that this was there deduction, not his claim


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 3, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> This is the most misunderstood verse I know of. Context being to be like Christ in humility in giving of oneself for others..... Jesus being made in the image of God, AS ALL MEN ARE, did not consider equality with God as something to be had, AS EVE HAD DONE, but humbled himself, realizing than man/himself included,  was made to serve God rather than rival God, AS EVE COVETED, he humbled himself and became the ultimate servant, obedient even to the point of death on a cross, therefore, God was pleased and therefore, God highly exalted him, giving him a name above all others, that at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow.
> Modern day interpretations miss that we are all made in God's image, they miss the original sin that man inherited. They miss how every man called to be a leader of God's people set themselves up as a God on earth, having the people serve them rather than them serve the people. Jesus however, did not take the route of milking his position to gain, wealth, power, women and fame. But rather went to the cross in obedience, having faith that God would "not let his prophet see decay". They miss how Jesus realized that man was made to serve, not rival God. Eve wanted to be like God, his rival in glory, but Jesus realized that man was made to serve rather than rival, thus he humbled himself...... And in reward, God in turn gave him that very thing which he did not pursue.   Check the greek, "form" should have been image as we all are



I can see that. It's like Jesus was the perfect servant. The perfect human image. Jesus told the Jews when they were accusing him of being God something about ye are all gods?
He was trying to explain that they too were made in that image.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 3, 2018)

Picking up the account in John 10:33, the Jews told Jesus; we are stoning you because "You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God.”

Jesus tells them to recall scripture where God said you are gods.
Jesus telling them if God called them gods to whom the word came?" If this very Word is now among you? The Jews were chosen to receive the scripture and the Word.

Then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 3, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Picking up the account in John 10:33, the Jews told Jesus; we are stoning you because "You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God.”
> 
> Jesus tells them to recall scripture where God said you are gods.
> Jesus telling them if he called them gods to whom the word came?" If this very Word is now among you? The Jews were chosen to receive the scripture and the Word.
> ...


That is a bad translation. "Declare" implies he said so. "Maketh" is the proper translation. And it fits the text because the context is that he was doing miracles. The entire miracle aspect was not to show off, but to prove he was sent, as the scriptures had said he would. Hmmmm, declare is almost corrupt. The greek in no way implies this.  Here is the proper translation. "because you, a man, maketh yourself God". Maketh implies this is their deduction, not his claim


----------



## Madman (Sep 3, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hmmmm The Roman Cathiloc church is the source of the original trinity


What year did that happen?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 3, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> That is a bad translation. "Declare" implies he said so. "Maketh" is the proper translation. And it fits the text because the context is that he was doing miracles. The entire miracle aspect was not to show off, but to prove he was sent, as the scriptures had said he would. Hmmmm, declare is almost corrupt. The greek in no way implies this.  Here is the proper translation. "because you, a man, maketh yourself God". Maketh implies this is their deduction, not his claim



Regardless of the translation it was the Jew's deduction and not Jesus' claim. His claim was that he was the Son of God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 3, 2018)

Madman said:


> What year did that happen?



Wasn't it formalized in the fourth century? Oneness was formalized in 1914.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 3, 2018)

Madman said:


> What year did that happen?


Not sure, but all the Trinitarian churches are limbs and the "Roman" catholic church is the trunk


----------



## Madman (Sep 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Not sure, but all the Trinitarian churches are limbs and the "Roman" catholic church is the trunk


You have a right to your own opinion but not your own facts.  Get back to me when you have the answer.


----------



## Madman (Sep 4, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Wasn't it formalized in the fourth century? Oneness was formalized in 1914.


If that is correct, I'm waiting for 1gr8bldr, then there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic church. The world wide church was still together and formulating the language on how to describe it's doctrine.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 4, 2018)

Madman said:


> If that is correct, I'm waiting for 1gr8bldr, then there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic church. The world wide church was still together and formulating the language on how to describe it's doctrine.



I always thought the Roman Catholic Church was this "world" Church. That the others split from the Roman Catholic or "world" Church.

Was the first major split the East-West Schism of 1054 the start of the actual Roman Catholic Church?

It all sounds pretty Roman to me from the get-go. From the Council of Nicea. Constantine organized this council. From what I gather Constantine wasn't even a Christian then. That he didn't convert until his deathbed. That could be speculation as we may not know.

It's kind of sad to think that a lot of what every Christian believes came from a council started by a man that may not have been a Christian.
That he may have did it for political reasons realizing Christianity was the most believed religion in his country.

Not that he voted in that first council but he did preside over it. I could assume that even if he wasn't Christian, God could still call on him to organize this first council.
Realizing that he would have his effectual calling later in life. I would think a future Christian is always a Christian, he just doesn't know it yet.


----------



## Madman (Sep 4, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I always thought the Roman Catholic Church was this "world" Church. That the others split from the Roman Catholic or "world" Church.
> 
> Was the first major split the East-West Schism of 1054 the start of the actual Roman Catholic Church?
> 
> ...



It is evident from 1gr8bldr you need to be very careful as to where you get you info.

The councils were called to combat heresy in the church.  Constantine wanted the church in the East, Constantinople, and the church in the West, Rome, to be in union on the doctrines and called a meeting of ALL the Church's bishops to decide on the Arian heresy.

The schism of 1054, I would argue, was the "Church" setting the church at Rome out until it got it's act together.  Everyone loves to throw rocks at the Roman Catholics because Protestantism has taught that they are the "Great Satan", when in reality they are clueless what Rome believes.  I don't hear any of them going after the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Coptic Church, or the Russian Church, or the Scotch Anglican Church.  

The Council of Nicaea was called to combat the very heresy that 1gr8bldr is tauting.  The word homoousios was used, claiming the Jesus and the Father ore of one essence. 

Ignorance can cause great messes.

P.S. I am not Roman Catholic, and they are not the Great Satan.


----------



## Madman (Sep 4, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Not that he voted in that first council but he did preside over it. I could assume that even if he wasn't Christian, God could still call on him to organize this first council.
> Realizing that he would have his effectual calling later in life. I would think a future Christian is always a Christian, he just doesn't know it yet.


Constantine called the council of Nicaea but he did not preside over it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 4, 2018)

Madman said:


> It is evident from 1gr8bldr you need to be very careful as to where you get you info.
> 
> The councils were called to combat heresy in the church.  Constantine wanted the church in the East, Constantinople, and the church in the West, Rome, to be in union on the doctrines and called a meeting of ALL the Church's bishops to decide on the Arian heresy.
> 
> ...



I would also agree that the Catholic Church is as much Christian as any Protestant Church. I don't believe all Protestant Churches feel or believe that the Catholic Church is Satan.

That being said were not these councils held in Rome? If that wasn't the beginnings of the Catholic what was? Put a date on it for me.

Reading on the internet, which I know isn't the gospel;
"According to Catholic teaching, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ."

My assumption, and I may be wrong, was that the Catholic Church have always thought of themselves as the "world" Church of which the first Church has always been. That the other branches later split from this original Catholic Church.

But I guess we are debating over the starting date of the "Roman" Catholic Church.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 4, 2018)

Madman said:


> Constantine called the council of Nicaea but he did not preside over it.



Did he preside over the opening session?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 4, 2018)

1 John 2:22-23
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son.23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.


----------



## Madman (Sep 4, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Did he preside over the opening session?


according to some records he just gave opening remarks, pursuant to his position.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 4, 2018)

The trinity in it's exact wording that we have today was first taught by a man named Valentinus. Before the council of Nicea. However, the church officials had labeled him a knostic in all the early church writings. Thus the trinitarian church of today refuses to acknowledge him as the father of there faith. It was not formalized into a creed until the forth century.


----------



## Madman (Sep 4, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I would also agree that the Catholic Church is as much Christian as any Protestant Church. I don't believe all Protestant Churches feel or believe that the Catholic Church is Satan.



I agree, but many do.



Artfuldodger said:


> That being said were not these councils held in Rome? If that wasn't the beginnings of the Catholic what was? Put a date on it for me.



From the beginning the church spread over the known world and language, local customs, etc. entered into the worship and how that should best be manifest in a given region.

For instance the Coptic church walked out on one of the councils because they believed the council was speaking inappropriately about St. Cyril.  In reality it was misunderstanding because of language. 

There were many struggles over the centuries, but 1054 may be the easiest place to put a pin.  The east and west split at the Great Schism.  

The West claimed "Catholicity" and the East claimed "Orthodoxy"

Many of us are still all members of the catholic church because we adhere to the teachings and traditions, such as the Trinity, that were given to the Apostles by Christ.



Artfuldodger said:


> Reading on the internet, which I know isn't the gospel;
> "According to Catholic teaching, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ."



"Catholic" means universal or a better definition is "according to the whole".  At one time the entire church was "according to the whole". Yes the Church "Catholic" was started by Christ and his followers.  That has been maintained for 2100 years.



Artfuldodger said:


> My assumption, and I may be wrong, was that the Catholic Church have always thought of themselves as the "world" Church of which the first Church has always been. That the other branches later split from this original Catholic Church.
> 
> But I guess we are debating over the starting date of the "Roman" Catholic Church.



I agree, the Roman Catholic Church believes Peter to be the first Pope to whom were given the keys to the kingdom, yada, yada, yada.  I will not argue with some of that history, but there are some other things that prevent me from being Roman.


----------



## Madman (Sep 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> The trinity in it's exact wording that we have today was first taught by a man named Valentinus. Before the council of Nicea.


Might want to do further research on that statement.  It simply is not true.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 4, 2018)

Madman said:


> Might want to do further research on that statement.  It simply is not true.


 That's not how it works.... If it's not true, then you will need to show where I am wrong. I will be glad to show my source.... But google works to


----------



## Madman (Sep 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> That's not how it works.... If it's not true, then you will need to show where I am wrong. I will be glad to show my source.... But google works to


Can't prove a negative. It was your statement of fact, yours for the proving.  I do know that some 'oneness" folks have tried to use him but little can be found of his writings.  None of the church father's writing on hereseies give him credit for what you claim.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> That's not how it works.... If it's not true, then you will need to show where I am wrong. I will be glad to show my source.... But google works to


I have studied volumes of early church writings. The The opposition writings were mostly burned after Constatine made it a crime to have any unauthorized writings. But we can tell what the opposition believed by the self proclaimed "orthodox" rebuttals. I have only studied up to the forth century. After the fourth century, it's no longer interesting to me. Polycarp, those type, what they believed, what others tried to force into academia, that interest me. Valentinus's name and specifically what he believed was brought up at the council of nicea in an effort to belittle Arius by means of association. Just as the democrats are doing to anybody associated with Trump, however we have no real knowledge of to what extent Arius knew Valentinus. They specificallly spelled out what it is that he believed as if appalled over it. It is exactly the wording used in the trinity today.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 4, 2018)

Madman said:


> Can't prove a negative. It was your statement of fact, yours for the proving.  I do know that some 'oneness" folks have tried to use him but little can be found of his writings.  None of the church father's writing on hereseies give him credit for what you claim.


I would have thought you would at least google it to see if it has any merit? If you do, you will find much on this


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 4, 2018)

This from a google search, because I have no idea where to find this from 10 years ago studies.  Wiki
"Valentinus's name came up in the Arian disputes in the fourth century when Marcellus of Ancyra, a staunch opponent of Arianism, denounced the belief in God existing in three _hypostases_ as heretical. Marcellus, who believed Father and Son to be one and the same, attacked his opponents by attempting to link them to Valentinus:
Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God... These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato.[11]"​


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 4, 2018)

*The irony is that when Tertullian first used the word “trinity” in his earliest Catholic writings, this term was used in reference to Gnostic doctrine. Tertullian actually described this doctrine with the words “Valentinian trinity” (in Latin: trinitas Valentiniana [8]). Hence the first mention of the trinity in ecclesiastical literature actually refers to an idea that belonged to the Valentinian Gnostics. Here is an example from Tertullian’s Treatise on the Soul:
“[The heretics] deny that nature is susceptible to any change, in order that they may be able to establish their three-fold theory, or ‘trinity,’ (“trinitas”) in all its characteristics as to the several natures, because ‘a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, nor a corrupt tree, good fruit; and nobody gathers figs of thorns, nor grapes of brambles’.”  (Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul, 21)
Tertullian’s description of the Gnostic “trinity” shows no connection with the three persons but instead refers to a doctrine of three natures. What Tertullian actually describes is a Gnostic doctrine which maintains that the universe is comprised of three fundamental substances or natures, which are identified as spirit, soul and matter (ibid., pg. 202; see below). Tertullian here accuses the Gnostics of teaching that the three natures are not subject to change, which he construes to mean that there is no hope for salvation, because the soul’s nature can’t change. Of course he has misstated the Valentinian doctrine; which maintains that the soul is in fact subject to change, i.e. redemption. It is the natures of spirit and matter which are not subject to change. Tertullian correctly reports this doctrine in his later treatise Against Valentinians, 25, where he admits that the soul (animal) “oscillates between the material and the spiritual, and is sure to fall at last on the side to which it has mainly gravitated.” (ibid., pg. 515f.) What Tertullian half-hazardly describes is the “trinity” which was the central tenet of ancient Gnostic tradition, and which provided the structure by which Gnostics defined their concepts of the universe, theology, christology and human nature (see below).
Whether or not the “orthodox” Trinity was actually inspired by the Gnostics we can never know for sure. But it is interesting to see the way that the word “trinity” crept into Tertullian’s writing. He first mentioned this word in reference to Gnostic doctrine and jargon (“trinitas”). But later Tertullian began using the word in reference to his own doctrine (Against Praxeas). And it is a fact that Tertullian was the first known Christian to begin articulating the concept of a “trinity” doctrine that “orthodox” Christians would recognize—as compared with the “trinity” of Valentinus.*

*Here is the link, and lots of other sources have the same  https://ogdoas.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/on-the-gnostic-trinity/*


----------



## Madman (Sep 5, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> *The irony is that when Tertullian first used the word “trinity” in his earliest Catholic writings, this term was used in reference to Gnostic doctrine. Tertullian actually described this doctrine with the words “Valentinian trinity” (in Latin: trinitas Valentiniana [8]). Hence the first mention of the trinity in ecclesiastical literature actually refers to an idea that belonged to the Valentinian Gnostics. Here is an example from Tertullian’s Treatise on the Soul:
> “[The heretics] deny that nature is susceptible to any change, in order that they may be able to establish their three-fold theory, or ‘trinity,’ (“trinitas”) in all its characteristics as to the several natures, because ‘a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, nor a corrupt tree, good fruit; and nobody gathers figs of thorns, nor grapes of brambles’.”  (Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul, 21)
> Tertullian’s description of the Gnostic “trinity” shows no connection with the three persons but instead refers to a doctrine of three natures. What Tertullian actually describes is a Gnostic doctrine which maintains that the universe is comprised of three fundamental substances or natures, which are identified as spirit, soul and matter (ibid., pg. 202; see below). Tertullian here accuses the Gnostics of teaching that the three natures are not subject to change, which he construes to mean that there is no hope for salvation, because the soul’s nature can’t change. Of course he has misstated the Valentinian doctrine; which maintains that the soul is in fact subject to change, i.e. redemption. It is the natures of spirit and matter which are not subject to change. Tertullian correctly reports this doctrine in his later treatise Against Valentinians, 25, where he admits that the soul (animal) “oscillates between the material and the spiritual, and is sure to fall at last on the side to which it has mainly gravitated.” (ibid., pg. 515f.) What Tertullian half-hazardly describes is the “trinity” which was the central tenet of ancient Gnostic tradition, and which provided the structure by which Gnostics defined their concepts of the universe, theology, christology and human nature (see below).
> Whether or not the “orthodox” Trinity was actually inspired by the Gnostics we can never know for sure. But it is interesting to see the way that the word “trinity” crept into Tertullian’s writing. He first mentioned this word in reference to Gnostic doctrine and jargon (“trinitas”). But later Tertullian began using the word in reference to his own doctrine (Against Praxeas). And it is a fact that Tertullian was the first known Christian to begin articulating the concept of a “trinity” doctrine that “orthodox” Christians would recognize—as compared with the “trinity” of Valentinus.*
> ...


And here-in lies the problem with "Google theology" or "google science" or google anything else.  From your link above. See the underlined at the bottom.


* I believe Marcellus is basically twisting the facts in order to smear the followers of Arius [2]. ..........  The problem here is that Marcellus is stretching the truth when he states that Valentinus’s concept of “Three Natures” is connected with the notion of “three subsistent entities and three persons—father, son and holy spirit.” The fact is, no other historical witness makes this claim about Valentinus; and there is no evidence in any Gnostic text that shows a connection of this sort. Gnostic texts do contain infrequent and obscure references to the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” as I have shown above. But again there is no evidence either in Catholic or Gnostic sources that there was a prevailing theological system in Gnostic tradition that revolved around the phrase “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Much to the contrary, the historic evidence available shows that the “trinity” of Valentinus, and of the Gnostics, referred to something entirely different and unique.*

My point?  Marcellus was trying to discredit the followers of Arius by linking them to the gnostic Valentinus, but no such connection existed.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 5, 2018)

Madman said:


> And here-in lies the problem with "Google theology" or "google science" or google anything else.  From your link above. See the underlined at the bottom.
> 
> 
> * I believe Marcellus is basically twisting the facts in order to smear the followers of Arius [2]. ..........  The problem here is that Marcellus is stretching the truth when he states that Valentinus’s concept of “Three Natures” is connected with the notion of “three subsistent entities and three persons—father, son and holy spirit.” The fact is, no other historical witness makes this claim about Valentinus; and there is no evidence in any Gnostic text that shows a connection of this sort. Gnostic texts do contain infrequent and obscure references to the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” as I have shown above. But again there is no evidence either in Catholic or Gnostic sources that there was a prevailing theological system in Gnostic tradition that revolved around the phrase “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Much to the contrary, the historic evidence available shows that the “trinity” of Valentinus, and of the Gnostics, referred to something entirely different and unique.*
> ...


Think this through....Was it by means of association or by means of belief that Marcellus hoped to smear the Arian belief????  It was by belief.... We know that the Arians were not considering the HS to be a third coequal person. So technically they were not linked. It had nothing to do with "Tri"   but had everything to do with multiple natures. Whether 2, 3 or 4. Marcellus believed the Father and Son to be one. Arius believed the Father to be a different nature than the son. The word nature...invites debate in itself, so don't read to much into that. So, the difference in Marcellus and Arius  was actually Jesus is God, one nature, or Jesus and the Father are one, but 2 natures. Arius used verses like "the Father is greater than I" to make his case. ... Back to the point..... Once this is realized, it becomes apparent that Marcellus would have no motivation to make up a tri nature theology of Valentinus because it did not even apply to Arius. It had only to do with "natures".


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 5, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Think this through....Was it by means of association or by means of belief that Marcellus hoped to smear the Arian belief????  It was by belief.... We know that the Arians were not considering the HS to be a third coequal person. So technically they were not linked. It had nothing to do with "Tri"   but had everything to do with multiple natures. Whether 2, 3 or 4. Marcellus believed the Father and Son to be one. Arius believed the Father to be a different nature than the son. The word nature...invites debate in itself, so don't read to much into that. So, the difference in Marcellus and Arius  was actually Jesus is God, one nature, or Jesus and the Father are one, but 2 natures. Arius used verses like "the Father is greater than I" to make his case. ... Back to the point..... Once this is realized, it becomes apparent that Marcellus would have no motivation to make up a tri nature theology of Valentinus because it did not even apply to Arius. It had only to do with "natures".


 I realize a debate exists over whether Valentinus actually had this doctrine. Did Marcellus misunderstand? Had beliefs blended together later to cause Marcellus to misunderstand. Possible. We will never know. Or, just as possible, that it did come from Valentinous and since he was labeled a knostic by the early church, trinitarians of today debate this, seeking  to discredit this statement by Marcellous because they don't want a Knostic as the Father of their faith? I don't know. All I can do in this age is take it at face value. However, it would make an interesting study to go back through all the writings of that day, that remain... and look for evidence of either side. But that degree of study is behind me these days


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 5, 2018)

Madman, I don't know your belief on this... Do you think the trinity came from Tertillian? Or later? I'm not sure where your coming from. ? You stated I need to do more research. As if some better evidence exists. I'll say that I stated "I don't know" [when this happened] because trinitarian wording was tossed around in the days of Tertillian, but was not debated at the nicene council, was highly debated in the early 400's and was put in the creeds hardly ever challenged again at 4?? , dang, I can't remember. Point is that it's all up for debate. So for me, it's not etched in stone. I don't know. Been about 10 years ago since I studied all this. I shoot from the hip rather than going back to documents that I no longer recall. My points I can usually google as a short cut to find what I am trying to recall.


----------



## Madman (Sep 5, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> I realize a debate exists over whether Valentinus actually had this doctrine. Did Marcellus misunderstand? Had beliefs blended together later to cause Marcellus to misunderstand. Possible. We will never know. Or, just as possible, that it did come from Valentinous and since he was labeled a knostic by the early church, trinitarians of today debate this, seeking  to discredit this statement by Marcellous because they don't want a Knostic as the Father of their faith? I don't know. All I can do in this age is take it at face value. However, it would make an interesting study to go back through all the writings of that day, that remain... and look for evidence of either side. But that degree of study is behind me these days



You claimed Trinitarian doctrine originated with Valentinus, I claimed foul that no historical evidence exists to support your claim.  You have still failed to support your claim.  

Apparently the Trinitarian despute was settled early on and the "One in essence, three in persons" theology held.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 5, 2018)

Madman said:


> Might want to do further research on that statement.  It simply is not true.


 I hope you can agree that it is a debatable statement. The "research" does support the debate. Your statement ,  "simply not true",  unless your saying Tertillian was the first, would just be your opinion on which side of the debate you landed on. Funny how all this spurred from my statement about the "Roman Catholic church" in regards to the 7 hills. Might have been better if I had said the early church "at Rome". I make no distinction over the Catholic church from a baptist church or other. I lump everybody together whom are trinitarian. So I don't adhere to the Catholic church as satan as was mentioned here. Actually, this was the first time I ever heard of that.


----------



## Madman (Sep 5, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Madman, I don't know your belief on this... Do you think the trinity came from Tertillian? Or later? I'm not sure where your coming from. ? You stated I need to do more research. As if some better evidence exists. I'll say that I stated "I don't know" [when this happened] because trinitarian wording was tossed around in the days of Tertillian, but was not debated at the nicene council, was highly debated in the early 400's and was put in the creeds hardly ever challenged again at 4?? , dang, I can't remember. Point is that it's all up for debate. So for me, it's not etched in stone. I don't know. Been about 10 years ago since I studied all this. I shoot from the hip rather than going back to documents that I no longer recall. My points I can usually google as a short cut to find what I am trying to recall.


I don't follow any single person, I believe that the church opperates best as a body lead by the Holy Spirit.  The last time this happened was with the 7th ecumenical council, everything else is just a Hodge podge of individual ideas.  
I believe there is evidence of early church teaching that needed no definition until centuries later, especially once heresies  started anew.  An example of this is infant baptism.  There was not much discussion until some time in the 4th century when Tertullian claims infants should not be baptised.  From that we know that infants were being baptised and Tertullian did not like it.  The church continued to baptize infants.

  Language had to be developed to describe beliefs and teachings.
Hypostais vs. ousia for example.  

In short, I yield to the decisions of the 7 ecuminical council's.

How about you? Where do you stand?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 5, 2018)

Madman said:


> You claimed Trinitarian doctrine originated with Valentinus, I claimed foul that no historical evidence exists to support your claim.  You have still failed to support your claim.
> 
> Apparently the Trinitarian despute was settled early on and the "One in essence, three in persons" theology held.





Madman said:


> I don't follow any single person, I believe that the church opperates best as a body lead by the Holy Spirit.  The last time this happened was with the 7th ecumenical council, everything else is just a Hodge podge of individual ideas.
> I believe there is evidence of early church teaching that needed no definition until centuries later, especially once heresies  started anew.  An example of this is infant baptism.  There was not much discussion until some time in the 4th century when Tertullian claims infants should not be baptised.  From that we know that infants were being baptised and Tertullian did not like it.  The church continued to baptize infants.
> 
> Language had to be developed to describe beliefs and teachings.
> ...


Well, there is no belief system that I am associated with. My trinitarian upbringing in a baptist church was very hard to deprogram myself from. I studied the early church to see what it was they believed, to ponder over the rebuttals to see what the opposition was etc. Interesting was how writers tried to force their beliefs back into academia as if to validate their current belief. Polycarp for example, was said to have said as he was dying his belief of God as who,  yet he was in the middle of an arena of thousands of screaming people so we know that this writer was lying to try to validate his own  belief. It however does not mean that Polycarp did not believe this, only that he, not Polycarp, was trying to force a doctrine into academia. And I concede that Marcellus or other  falsely quoting   Marcellous  may have been trying to manipulate church history. But since I can't go back into history to investigate, I take it at face value, with a question mark beside it


----------



## Madman (Sep 5, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Well, there is no belief system that I am associated with. My trinitarian upbringing in a baptist church was very hard to deprogram myself from. I studied the early church to see what it was they believed, to ponder over the rebuttals to see what the opposition was etc. Interesting was how writers tried to force their beliefs back into academia as if to validate their current belief. Polycarp for example, was said to have said as he was dying his belief of God as who,  yet he was in the middle of an arena of thousands of screaming people so we know that this writer was lying to try to validate his own  belief. It however does not mean that Polycarp did not believe this, only that he, not Polycarp, was trying to force a doctrine into academia. And I concede that Marcellus or other  falsely quoting   Marcellous  may have been trying to manipulate church history. But since I can't go back into history to investigate, I take it at face value, with a question mark beside it



As I said; I do not follow any of the early church writers where they stray from original church doctrine, I believe the body is better when it spoke as a whole, with an amen.

So you left the Baptist church? And where have you ended up?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 5, 2018)

Madman said:


> As I said; I do not follow any of the early church writers where they stray from original church doctrine, I believe the body is better when it spoke as a whole, with an amen.
> 
> So you left the Baptist church? And where have you ended up?



The way you see it is these men, these councils got everything right. That they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. They debated things other men tried to change from the "truth" and stayed with the "truth."

They discussed infant baptism and stayed with infant baptism because it was the truth. They discussed the Trinity and stayed with that belief because it was the truth. They discussed mother Mary and her role and stayed with the Holy Spirit inspired truth that she was the Mother of God. They studied the Eucharist and stayed with the truth which was the blood and bread were actually Jesus' flesh and blood.

They studied the correct beliefs on works, redemption, and confession and since they stayed with the truth, they didn't veer from the original beliefs of the first Christians.

You believe that all the first Christians were experts on doctrine. They even had St. Paul and St. Peter as teachers. They should have got it right. That other men came around later and created heresies. That these councils of men were to put a stop to these heresies and stay with the truth that the Church had right all along.

So in this belief, these councils didn't actually decide the correct beliefs and books of the Bible, they just revealed the correct truth that the early Christians knew all along.

In other words, your guys(the councils, the Catholic Church, etc.) got everything right. In fact they had to, they were inspired by God.
They were just convening to rid the world of heretics and in the process choosing which books to make Canon.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 5, 2018)

If this early Church truth was so strong and well defined in beliefs and believed by all? How could a few heretics change it? It's like all the apostles and prophets died and we were really left with just grace and faith.

Sure God provided saints and bishops in the early churches. Soon Paul himself was gone.

I guess what I'm trying to picture is this strong early church of perfect doctrine that slowly got changed by heretics. I would think these early heretics were men of God and not Satan. They probably meant well but just had different beliefs about things.

I'm just not sure how "defined" all of the beliefs were in the early church. Maybe as men became more educated, scholars and teachers looked deeper into Christianity's doctrine.

Maybe everything wasn't "settled" in the early church. Maybe these councils came around because Constantine wanted to put aside all the differences he saw within Christianity.

Then there  it the mystery of the voting at the councils. Why would God require or use a council of men to decide on something as important as the eternal destiny of one's soul?
I just can't see God doing that. To me it's like man got together and decided the fate of each man's soul based on whether you believe they got it all right at these councils.

I think that in the early church one only had to believe in the Father and the Son. That God loved the world so much he sent His Son.

1 John 2:22-23
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son.23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

Then later a council convened and tried to convey the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a way for man to understand. I don't think they did a very good job explaining it.

Now we have all these churches, denominations, Protestants, and 2 or 3 Catholic like Churches. All because each one has figured out the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Trinity, Oneness, Election, Free Will, OSAS, Predestination, Baptism, Communion, and the list goes on and on.

We were tasked with spreading the Gospel. I feel we have failed.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 5, 2018)

Madman said:


> As I said; I do not follow any of the early church writers where they stray from original church doctrine, I believe the body is better when it spoke as a whole, with an amen.
> 
> So you left the Baptist church? And where have you ended up?


On one hand, I find your view refreshing, because you don't seem to need to force your belief into church history. Lots of forum responders would try their best to make it work. On the other hand, how could it be the "gospel first entrusted to the saints". No need to explain.  I currently have no church fellowship, scattered, because my beliefs don't resemble any that I know. I believe their is one God Almighty, that the HS is just another NT word for the spirit of God.  That Jesus is the firstborn son of God by adoption, not literal, that Joseph was his real father.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 5, 2018)

The Catholic Church makes it appear that they are the ones that got it all right. That they just stuck with the original beliefs of the early church.

That eventually men developed different beliefs from these original, correct beliefs. I can see this in the Great Protest but what about in the early Church?
Did men develop "different" beliefs? Was there even enough knowledge at that time about all of this stuff for there to be a deep set of explanations?
Man had scripture sure. Man had teachers. Man had Churches. But did they have the early church fathers? The scholars, the men who studied manuscripts up and down, back and forth.

I'm still not convinced that all of the early church fathers and councils of men stuck with what the early church believed. I think there was a lot more going on that just picking out the heretics and heresy.

Maybe they studied things too deeply to the point of adding or taking away from what scripture actually said. There is just some of their decisions on things that aren't actually scriptural.

I think that Martin Luther figured this out and exposed it. That it wasn't all original early church dogma. That some doctrine was added to and embellished.

That just because the whole world church believed it so, did not make it the Gospel.

"Mercy there was grace and grace was free"


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 5, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> On one hand, I find your view refreshing, because you don't seem to need to force your belief into church history. Lots of forum responders would try their best to make it work. On the other hand, how could it be the "gospel first entrusted to the saints". No need to explain.  I currently have no church fellowship, scattered, because my beliefs don't resemble any that I know. I believe their is one God Almighty, that the HS is just another NT word for the spirit of God.  That Jesus is the firstborn son of God by adoption, not literal, that Joseph was his real father.



I would add that I don't think that makes you a heretic. I don't think the Oneness view makes them heretics. I don't think the Catholic view on Mary being the Mother of God makes them heretics. I don't believe their works based salvation makes them heretics. 
I don't think a free will or election belief makes one a heretic. I don't believe infant baptism makes one a heretic.

Actually a lot of those beliefs are based on our own indoctrination. It's not like we are all doing the work of Satan just because we have different beliefs.
Just because the whole world believes something doesn't make it right. We can look at the Catholic Church and see that. If it was "all" right there would have been no Protest. 
If Luther himself got it "all" right there would not be so many Protestant denominations.

I'm not saying we can all be right but maybe we're not all wrong either.


----------



## Madman (Sep 5, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> The way you see it is these men, these councils got everything right. That they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. They debated things other men tried to change from the "truth" and stayed with the "truth."
> 
> They discussed infant baptism and stayed with infant baptism because it was the truth. They discussed the Trinity and stayed with that belief because it was the truth. They discussed mother Mary and her role and stayed with the Holy Spirit inspired truth that she was the Mother of God. They studied the Eucharist and stayed with the truth which was the blood and bread were actually Jesus' flesh and blood.
> 
> ...




Well Close.  The councils were made up of hundreds of men from all of Christendom.  They spent months praying, arguing, etc., etc., etc., in an attempt to "get it right".  This was an immense responsibility and I believe they ALL took it very seriously, even those we call heretics.  They too were trying to explain the traditions in a manner that could be understood.

The heretics were alive and well while Paul was writing what came to be the Epistles.  

The teachings of Christ to the Apostles, the Apostles to the church had to be maintained in some manner.  Language needed to be developed so that later generations and speakers of other languages needed to have the teaching passed on.  There was no canon of scripture, various letters were being read in different parts of the world.  Somehow the letters that became the canon of Holy Scripture had to be agreed upon.  That alone is a fascinating study.


----------



## Madman (Sep 5, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> On one hand, I find your view refreshing, because you don't seem to need to force your belief into church history. Lots of forum responders would try their best to make it work. On the other hand, how could it be the "gospel first entrusted to the saints". No need to explain.  I currently have no church fellowship, scattered, because my beliefs don't resemble any that I know. I believe their is one God Almighty, that the HS is just another NT word for the spirit of God.  That Jesus is the firstborn son of God by adoption, not literal, that Joseph was his real father.



"God sent his only begotten son to the end that all who believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life".   

In the end, if I am saved it is all God, if I am not, it is all me.  Christ is the only answer. 

I need the church, she dispenses the graces of God, she allows me be quiet and worship, she is the ark in this world, she teaches, and strengthens, she is where Christ placed me for earthly care.

I yield to her ancient teachings and love her beauty as Christ's bride. Brother I would invite you home, back to the Holy Bride of Christ.

No matter the ultimate end; 

Go on your way into the world in peace….
Be of good courage; Hold fast that which is good;
Render no man evil for evil; Strengthen the faint hearted;
Support the weak; Help and cheer the sick; Honor all men; 
Love and serve the Lord;
And the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of 
God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with us 
all evermore.


----------



## Madman (Sep 5, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I would add that I don't think that makes you a heretic. I don't think the Oneness view makes them heretics. I don't think the Catholic view on Mary being the Mother of God makes them heretics. I don't believe their works based salvation makes them heretics.
> I don't think a free will or election belief makes one a heretic. I don't believe infant baptism makes one a heretic.
> 
> Actually a lot of those beliefs are based on our own indoctrination. It's not like we are all doing the work of Satan just because we have different beliefs.
> ...




Salvation belongs to the Lord. I have no say in that.  It is Christ that saves us, not the Roman Catholics, or the Baptists, or the Methodists, or the Anglicans.  

Even within the church "catholic" many different views can be held and still not considered heretical.  i.e. old earth/young earth, or literal 7 day creation vs. creation evolution.  The "Church" never needed to make a statement on those and other topics so they didn't.

Another point should be made that a protestant, so long as they have never been part of the "catholic" church, can not be a heretic.  They have no way of knowing what the church taught or teaches.

Many views of the catholic church and the Roman Catholic church are just not correct.

we all believe Salvation belongs to the Lord.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 6, 2018)

Madman said:


> Salvation belongs to the Lord. I have no say in that.  It is Christ that saves us, not the Roman Catholics, or the Baptists, or the Methodists, or the Anglicans.
> 
> Even within the church "catholic" many different views can be held and still not considered heretical.  i.e. old earth/young earth, or literal 7 day creation vs. creation evolution.  The "Church" never needed to make a statement on those and other topics so they didn't.
> 
> ...



What were some of those protestant groups that never were a part of the catholic Church? I thought that catholic meant universal and was the early church?
I don't understand why they would not be heretic. They would have to have left before the first Council of Nicea. That was the beginning of exposing the heretics. 

Luther believed Salvation belongs to the Lord. I think the main part of what he was against within the Church was man's involvement in the salvation of man. 
He believed salvation was by faith and grace alone. I think he thought the Church was saying one could "earn" their way into Salvation. 

I still don't see the difference of being heretical concerning when one left the universal church.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 6, 2018)

Madman said:


> Salvation belongs to the Lord. I have no say in that.  It is Christ that saves us, not the Roman Catholics, or the Baptists, or the Methodists, or the Anglicans.
> 
> Even within the church "catholic" many different views can be held and still not considered heretical.  i.e. old earth/young earth, or literal 7 day creation vs. creation evolution.  The "Church" never needed to make a statement on those and other topics so they didn't.
> 
> ...



Well I guess back then they never thought of evolution. They never had birth control pills. They never had robots.
Why did the councils stop? It seems like one would be needed every 100 years to decide on things that happen over time that were never addressed within scripture such as what I mentioned.

Why couldn't a group of men have a council today and it be operated by divine Holy Spirit indwelling? Did the Holy Spirit divide after the last council it didn't need any more councils?

When the other churches approved of the birth control pill the Catholic Church still opposed it. I'm assuming that there was some type of council. I'm sure they were lead by the Holy Spirit in this opposition.
Maybe the difference I'm looking for is Scriptural Doctrine as it pertains to social changes. Then again I guess the Church used scripture to back up their opposition to the pill.

Yet since this happened after the last council, being for the pill wasn't heretical?


----------



## Madman (Sep 6, 2018)

I have some answers in here that may not be 100% correct in as much as I am not Roman Catholic, but I am catholic in the definition of "according to the one" and my denomination closely resembles the Roman and Eastern Church.



Artfuldodger said:


> Well I guess back then they never thought of evolution. They never had birth control pills. They never had robots.
> Why did the councils stop? It seems like one would be needed every 100 years to decide on things that happen over time that were never addressed within scripture such as what I mentioned.



there were divisions in the church, geographical, caused by the Muslim take over of land, politics, hurt feelings, etc.  The Eastern Church and the Western Church still held separate councils, i.e. The Council of Trent.  As I stated before, unless the church speaks with one voice it is difficult for me to see the results as "all encompassing".  I will say much headway has been made in the last 100 years to see a reunification of the catholic church, but it most likely will not happen in our life time.



Artfuldodger said:


> Why couldn't a group of men have a council today and it be operated by divine Holy Spirit indwelling?


PRIDE.  There are still differences in doctrine that need to be agreed upon.



Artfuldodger said:


> When the other churches approved of the birth control pill the Catholic Church still opposed it. I'm assuming that there was some type of council. I'm sure they were lead by the Holy Spirit in this opposition.
> Maybe the difference I'm looking for is Scriptural Doctrine as it pertains to social changes. Then again I guess the Church used scripture to back up their opposition to the pill.



I do believe the Roman Catholic Church has been on the forefront of this discussion.  See the 1968,  landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), by Pope Paul VI, which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

When it comes to catholic doctrine don't forget that we also believe the traditions that were passed down from the apostles need to be observed and upheld. We have been given a "reasonable" faith so how do we keep the intellect involved?  For instance, when asked "What is the purpose of intercourse"? Scripture says that it is to bring forth Godly children. In other words, what is the "is-ness" of sex? To produce children, so why would the Christian want to introduce something to prevent that?

Vasectomies? The church sees that as a mutilation of what God has created, now you do not have to agree with that but it is a teaching of the church.

There are many church teachings that are for our spiritual, physical, and emotional benefit.  If we choose not to follow them we will not be excommunicated but the church has told us it is not the purpose of our creation and not good for us.

There is a lot of info on this topic PM me and i'll send you some things to read and listen too.  Make up your own mind.


----------



## Madman (Sep 6, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> What were some of those protestant groups that never were a part of the catholic Church? I thought that catholic meant universal and was the early church?
> I don't understand why they would not be heretic. They would have to have left before the first Council of Nicea. That was the beginning of exposing the heretics.
> 
> Luther believed Salvation belongs to the Lord. I think the main part of what he was against within the Church was man's involvement in the salvation of man.
> ...



You can read the councils and see some early heretics, Arius would be one. Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, would be examples of reformation heretics.  They knew the teaching of the church and chose to oppose them.

My in-laws attend the Christian Church and are as Christian as anyone I know, they would not be considered heretics because they can not be held accountable for what they have never been taught.


----------



## Madman (Sep 6, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> What were some of those protestant groups that never were a part of the catholic Church? I thought that catholic meant universal and was the early church?


 Typically catholic refers to a Christian denomination that traces it's origin to the apostles, and has maintained the teachings of our Lord as passed down through the apostles succession by the laying on of hands. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)





Artfuldodger said:


> Luther believed Salvation belongs to the Lord. I think the main part of what he was against within the Church was man's involvement in the salvation of man.


I believe Luther was disenchanted by the corruption that had developed and saw the need to "reform" it.  Did not work out so well.  What has been named the Reformation I call a schism.



Artfuldodger said:


> He believed salvation was by faith and grace alone. I think he thought the Church was saying one could "earn" their way into Salvation.



Yes and the Holy Scriptures got in the way of that, that is the reason he removed the Book of James from his Bible.  Salvation is by Grace, however we have a response to that Grace, that is all the church is saying.  That is a very good teaching.  It is a difficult one for some people to here.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 6, 2018)

Madman said:


> Typically catholic refers to a Christian denomination that traces it's origin to the apostles, and has maintained the teachings of our Lord as passed down through the apostles succession by the laying on of hands. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
> 
> I believe Luther was disenchanted by the corruption that had developed and saw the need to "reform" it.  Did not work out so well.  What has been named the Reformation I call a schism.
> 
> Yes and the Holy Scriptures got in the way of that, that is the reason he removed the Book of James from his Bible.  Salvation is by Grace, however we have a response to that Grace, that is all the church is saying.  That is a very good teaching.  It is a difficult one for some people to here.



I think a lot of why people feel about a certain group is because they don't really know that particular group. I can see some of what you are saying and also some of what 1gr8bldr is as well.

Thanks for hanging in here and giving us some insight to all we have been discussing. We're all remaining pretty civilized in this discussion and the others as well.


----------



## Madman (Sep 6, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> When the other churches approved of the birth control pill the Catholic Church still opposed it. I'm assuming that there was some type of council. I'm sure they were lead by the Holy Spirit in this opposition.
> Maybe the difference I'm looking for is Scriptural Doctrine as it pertains to social changes. Then again I guess the Church used scripture to back up their opposition to the pill.



You made an excellent point here.  There was a time when almost every denomination frowned on the use of contraception because it interfered with the way God had made us male and female.  Over time most protestant denominations changed their view on this topic but the catholic church held firm.  If everyone would read Humanae Vitae  they would see the catholic churches view on natural family planning is good.  There are also many scientific studies on what contraceptive medications have done to women and men.


----------



## Israel (Sep 7, 2018)

Apostolic succession is not an issue.
What was, is, and remains in all falsehood is that at any given time there remain only one apostle in the earth appointed by the chief apostle of the faith, Jesus Christ.

There's much to this, just as no local assembly has to itself "one" pastor/elder/shepherd. The notion of "associate pastors", "head" pastors, assistant pastors et al, remain also as false.

The church is to have in herself the example of mutually submitted authority in demonstration specifically to this understanding

"Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is seated, the first speaker should hold his peace.…"

This not only indicates that there is full expectation of prophets being provided in each local assembly, but such working amongst those of such calling that there is a recognition in spirit of revelation received by another in which the first speaker, aware of such, makes way. This "making way" for one another is a potent demonstration of submission and brings about the growth in love that edifies the body.

Those who will only see or say that this can be nothing but an invitation to chaos have not yet appreciated the Lord's order.

Paul submitted his revelation to his brothers of like calling.

And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Much of what has been perceived as set in order, has indeed been nothing but the chaos of the world infiltrating with its "head cheese" model, CEO, wrongly oriented pyramid with a so called_ laity_ in support of a _clergy._

This will not continue unaddressed.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 7, 2018)

Even Paul had meetings with Peter and James. I think they were focusing on some false teachers as well as some Jew vs Gentile things.


----------



## Madman (Sep 7, 2018)

Israel and Art.  I started a new thread under Christianity & Judaism so as not to hijack this thread.

Apostles is the name.


----------

