What exactly does a Trinitarian believe. Is it that they will see three divine beings when they get to heaven? Someone please explain to me, in detail, what it is that they believe. I'm abit confused. Yes I'm a new born Apostolic, so I have never really heard of this Trinitarian belief.
The internet is filled with web-site after web-site trying to convince those who are gulliable that the One God of the Old Testament is really three Gods. But, obeying their creeds and confessions they balk at the obvious conclusion of their pagan theories and say they are forbidden to call these three *separate* persons each a God. But does not their creed say: GOD from GOD and VERY GOD from VERY GOD? God from God is certainly more than one God.
The trick used by trinitarians to try and prove three Gods are three persons, is their use of segmentalism. They will take segments of Scripture, segments of a text, segments of an incident, out of the context of the whole Bible, and try to make them say what the entire Bible refutes. It is said that heresy in its first generation crawls, in the next walks, and in the next runs.
This characterizes the pagan trinity heresy of Nicaea where after birth it crawled back to the different regions and became law; Jerome was then hired to interpolate and incorporated such language into the Vulgate where it was next walked all over Europe by the Monks and interpolationist scribes; and then Priests and Preachers ran to all the world to pollute it before the Lord could reach the masses with his message of truth and salvation by the few persecuted and dicimated remaining Monarchist.
Rome and her daughters have persecuted Monarchist, tortured, multilated, and confiscated their homes and property. They have murdered those who would not recant the monotheism of the Scriptures. And, out of respect for that righteous blood, a true Monarchian will never conceed to trinitarianism, Papalism, or Creeds which were used as their law and authority to kill our people, and allow descendents of such to parade upon our platforms and speak behind our Pulpits. And, only the dead can forgive this injustice against their faith in Jesus Christ as their God and Saviour!
Do not ask us to deny their faith and call them in retrospect heritics and a cult. TRUE MONARCHIANS WILL NOT DO IT EVEN IF YOU KILL US! Yes we have had a few traitors who have run to the trinitarians. Yes we have some who came in among us and went out again to embrace the trinity Creeds. Yes, they call us a cult, but look where they went, ...to Rome or one of her daughters? Should we have expected anything less than their wanting to take part and accept the blood guilt of the precious saints among whom these could never fit because of their lust for LIBERIALISM? The Monarchians does have its list of shameful persons, it starts with Judas, and descends down today among people of like character (self-will above personal sacrifice).
There are these and other attacks upon Oneness Apostolics who hold to the Monarchian doctrine of One God. Just because someone makes a claim that the trinity of three Gods is true, and just because Papal Rome and her Protestant daughters are the One Catholic Church based upon that confession, DOES NOT MAKE THEM RIGHT IN THEOLOGY or IDEALOGY.
However they paint the trinity doctrine and however it is pedaled and packaged, it is a false doctrine and is a pagan heresy. You may stay in the trinity and embrace Catholicism, that is a choice, but to call Apostolics a cult because we have rejected one of the BIGGEST cults and her daughters is unfounded.
Abuse us if you will, but to us there is one God, and as Jesus said in Revelation 1:8, he is the LORD GOD. That is our faith and if you want to judge and condemn us for our faith, we are proud to be persecuted, denied, and and hated for the name of Jesus Christ.
The three branches of the Catholic Church that grew out of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, are the Eastern orthodox Greek Catholic Church, The Roman Catholic Church, and Protestant Catholic Churches. The one identifying doctrine that makes all of these Catholic, is the mystery of the trinity doctrine and trinity baptism. This is the cult captivity of millions. The difference between the true Church that began at Jerusalem and the Catholic Nico-Latins is the Oneness Monarchian Message.
Few realize that the trinity doctrine that was adopted at the Council of Nicaea and thereafter molded into several Creeds (click creeds to go read), descends from Mystery Babylon via Greek philosophy in Plato's theories, and from Jewish Gnosticism, not from the Bible. Yet the Catholics all teach, that if a person does not believe in the trinity doctrine of Mystery Babylon, that person can not be saved. According to them, you and I can not be saved unless we believe Greek philosophy and Jewish Gnosticism that has reinterpreted God different from how God identified himself. This is wrong. Jesus did not ordain philosophers or Gnostic mystics, he ordained Apostles to be the authorities of Church doctrine. One great difference between the Arians, the Trinity-arians, Greek Plato philosophy, Mystery Babylon, and the true Apostolic Christians, is the Oneness Monarchian Message.
All Pagan religions from the time of Babylon, have adopted in one form or another a trinity doctrine or a triad or trinity of gods. In Babylon it was Nimrod, Semiramas, and Tammuz; In Egypt it was Osiris, Isis, and Horus; within Israel pagan gnosticism it was Kether, Hokhmah, and Binah; In Plato's philosophy it was the Unknown Father, Nous/Logos, and the world soul. But in Old Testament Judaism there was only One God, a numerical ONE. The difference between paganism and God's people has always been the Oneness Monarchian Message reinforced by the First Commandment that prohibits any theory of a plurality.
In our study, we will use a few verses to give a flavor of the One God message, and then give a lot of quotes concerning the trinity message. The true Apostolic Church rejects all the decrees and creeds of the Councils. For this reason we reject the trinity doctrine because it is not in the Bible but in the Creeds of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Our Creed of One God is plainly in the Bible, the Oneness Message.
What God Says About His Oneness
EXO 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
ISA 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
ISA 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
ISA 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me.
ISA 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
REV 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
The cult that arose in Babylon and spread its cult tentacles throughout the world was trinitarian (Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop). At first, this doctrine was merely humanism, man making himself god. The first humanism trinity of record to be setup and worshiped as gods, was that of Nimrod, Simeramus, and Tammuz. These are in the Old Testament in the Canaanite language identified as Baal, Ashtoreth, and Tammuz. At the dispersion of the people at the Tower of Babel, this trinity doctrine of humanism was spread all over the world. Each religion of all the pagan religions held two common traits: 1.) A trinity of gods and; 2.) These were in a form of human gods.
These consisted of a man (sacred husband-king), a woman (sacred wife-queen), and a sacred child (son-prince). In Mystery Babylon, the entire body of religious beliefs about God, good and evil, morals, and worship, were reinterpreted with a spiritualist view that we now call mysticism or the left hand path of the cult. In most instances everything contained in the ancient orthodox faith of the Patriarchs was reversed, reinterpreted, or corrupted.
In witchcraft today, the prayers, rituals, and teachings are reversed. Thus, in witchcraft the trinity doctrine is the central theme against which stands the original doctrine of one supreme God (the Monarchy). The singular Eloah for God as in Genesis 1:1 was reinterpreted in Babylon and replaced with the plural Elohim to enhance and help establish the idea of a plurality in the word God.
To prove the singular is the intent of one-God in Genesis 1:1 the verb is singular which identifies the subject as being singular. Although trinitarians do not like it and say the Jews are telling lies, the ancient Godly Israelites always understood God to be one person, a numerical ONE and not three. They understood the plural Elohim to speak of the majesty of intensity and his attributes of power. And for any trinitarian to say the plural means *GODS*, then let them translate it that way and see what a mess they make of the Scriptures. Even staunch trinitarians know this would be a pollution and sacrilege. The great schema: Hear O Israel the LORD our God is one LORD, settles the argument. But within Mystery Babylon the skilled scribes of the occult would not be so easily exposed and rebuked by Jewish doctrine. No, they would live by the reinterpretations of Nimrod and his gnosticism and impregnate the world with his doctrines. And thus we have Ministers and people today who believe in the trinitarian doctrine of Mystery Babylon and don't know it is a philosophy of man and not a true doctrine of God.
Within Nimrod's Mystery Babylon eventually came the philosophy that the trinity was a unity of persons whose perfect agreement upon all things, made them one. They were one in agreement and this mutual consent merged into the idea of the one unity of essence. The trinity in unity doctrine was thus stated in the cult as the one essence or nature of the three. As it relates to Nimrod, Simeramus, and Tammuz, they were one in essence, the essence being identified as human gods. When these human gods became deified, it was accepted these three gods were in reality reincarnated avatars or spiritual guides.
It was taught that these three deceased gods were in fact not only once human but were actually sparks of the cosmic soul of one essence. This is interpreted within the occult as the one. This is interpreted as saying that the cosmos is God and man is a microcosm of the cosmos, in reincarnation. The idea of their karma is the perfecting of the soul and merging back into the unity and perfection of the one. This is alleged to rule all human affairs. Thus the zodiac becomes the rule of the one god of the cosmos upon and charting the human purpose.
Within this occult mysticism, the spirits within Nimrod, Simeramus, and Tammuz were the real essence of the cosmos that made their trinity family a unique fullness of the one pluralistic cosmos. The next step in the formation of the trinity in unity concept, was to teach the idea of emanation. The doctrine of emanation is the pantheistic concept behind the teachings of evolution, all things emanate and evolve from the one source and are a part of the whole in unity and of the same substance.
The idea of emanation of a primary God making of himself another God by subdividing his person as an amoeba splits in half to form another like being, is purely pagan. From Genesis 1:1 and the words: *In the beginning God,* we have the idea of a singular God and there being none else. It is true that the Hebrew word Elohim from which we get the word *God* is a plural word. But that does not mean there are plural Gods.
From ancient time Mystery Babylon has tried to make God what he is not. The ancient Godly Jews would have never dreamed of their being more than one God. They were prohibited by the first Commandment of having a pluralistic concept or view. It was from within this revelation, in contradiction to the surrounding religions of Pagan trinitarians, that Israel worship the One LORD of the Old Testament, chanting : *Hear O Israel, the LORD our GOD is ONE LORD.*
The plural use of *us* as in let *us* make man; Let *u*s go down; were interpreted by the Jews to be God speaking to his angels. It was only after the Council of Nicaea that the Catholics fled to these verses in order to find Scriptural support and excuse for adopting Plato's trinity in unity doctrine that he borrowed from Mystery Babylon.
The doctrinal position formulated at Nicaea was that if a theory does not conform to the Scriptures, then the Scriptures must be reinterpreted to conform to the theory.
Theory was then based upon spiritualizing or bending toward mysticism and philosophy for its support of the great Mystery of Babylon. Except they drop the word Babylon and say only that the trinity is a great MYSTERY that no one can understand. The world is deceived to believe the trinity should be left to mystics and philosophers to interpret, exactly as they did in ancient Mystery Babylon.
The next shoe to drop is to inhibit the human mind from examining the theory, by claiming no one can understand it, it must be accepted by faith. Or as one Minister once said: "If you try to understand the trinity you will lose your mind, but if you don't believe it you will lose your soul." This from a man who preached salvation by faith and then said: "O, by the way, if you don't believe in the trinity you can never be saved." .
The purpose of this lesson, is to acquaint individuals with the side of the cult doctrine of the trinity that their Church will never tell them. The side that book writers try to exclude from their reference materials.
This one doctrine makes the Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodist, Pentecostals, Episcopals, Charismatics, Presbyterians, Armstrongites, and several more groups and cults, ALL ONE PEOPLE in their basic statement of faith. And the statement to which they subscribe is the doctrine of the trinity however they explain it. Of course the Jehovah's Witnesses deny the trinity as taught by Rome but they have their own trinity of God the Father, the Archangel Jesus-Michael, and the Archangel Lucifer-Devil.
As the Nicaea trinity has two brothers in the trinity, so the Jehovah's Witnesses have a two-brother trinity of Jesus and the devil. Today the Nicaea trinitarians deny the two-brother doctrine, of Jesus and the Holy Spirit being brothers. But what else could the doctrine teach: The Father begets the son, the Holy Spirit proceeds (emanates from) the Father and the Son, hence the Holy Spirit is of the Father and a brother to the Son, or else, the Holy Spirit is the Son of the Father and the Son. God is not the author of confusion.
The clear teaching of the Old Testament is that there is one God, undivided as to his person and that he made man in his IMAGE and in his LIKENESS. That we are all ONE PERSON having a three-fold composition of body, soul, and spirit, but still ONE PERSON, is the exact picture of God. Our soul is manifest in a body. God is manifest in a body. God is one. Jesus is God by virtue of his dual nature. God in Christ; the Father in the Son; Emmanuel God with us; The LORD who ye seek shall come to his Temple; In that day, they shall say this is our God, we have waited for him.
If Jesus is not God, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last, then he is not God at all. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God. Not one God in unity or three Gods or even three persons, but ONE GOD. *When ye have seen me ye have seen the Father.* Who is antichrist but he that denieth the Father and the Son (It does not say believe in the Father separate from the Son). When a person confesses that the Father and the Son are the same God in manifestation, they are called heretics by the Catholic Church and Protestant Catholics.
But we believe John 1:1 against all gnosticism however it raises a protest:
In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with GOD and the WORD was GOD (John 1:1).
Should we rephrase this to suit trinitarians who teach that the WORD is the second person of the trinity who was with God the Father, the first person of the trinity, here is what we would get by changing the word God to Father like they want:
In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with the FATHER and the WORD was the FATHER!
Wow! ...now, how can they deny what they make the verse to say? By this change in their own language, the Word and the Father are the same God exactly what we are teaching here.
http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/trinity.html
Jesus Messieh Fellowship
Light To The Nations
The Trinity Doctrine Is Pagan
By Pastor G. Reckart, Pastor
Quote from: Somnic on July 22, 2008, 10:15:23 PM
What exactly does a Trinitarian believe. Is it that they will see three divine beings when they get to heaven? Someone please explain to me, in detail, what it is that they believe. I'm abit confused. Yes I'm a new born Apostolic, so I have never really heard of this Trinitarian belief.
Depends on the trinitarian..
Some believe three persons, some three Gods, some just believe One God but baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
some sprinkle baptise, and some dont baptise at all.
THE CONFUSION -- by Don Barnett
In short, Trinitarianism and Monarchianism have both conflicted and
overlapped in their doctrines. The picture is confusing because the term
"Trinity" did not mean to Tertullian what it meant to Athanasius, and to him
it did not mean what it did to Augustine. Calvin's concept was not the same
as Luther's neither was it identical to Augustine's. Even today there are
several concepts under the heading of "Trinity" -- many even holding Oneness
views and denying three persons in the Godhead. Athanasius, whose name is
identified with the Nicean Creed of the Trinity, not only admits confusion of
the subject, but makes Modalistic statements contrary to Trinitarianism, such
as:
"THE DIVINITY OF THE FATHER IS IDENTICAL WITH THAT OF THE SON": AND EVEN
THAT THE SON'S DIVINITY IS THE FATHER'S DIVINITY. "THE SON", HE ARGUES, "IS
OF COURSE OTHER THAN THE FATHER AS OFFSPRING, BUT AS GOD HE IS ONE AND THE
SAME. THE GODHEAD IS A UNIQUE, INDIVISIBLE MONAD." [20]
Some are arguing that Christians should keep the term "Trinity" but return
to the biblical, Monarchian view of God. Some feel that they are caught in
the wedge of tradition on the one side, and the Scriptures on the other side -
and they are. The majority of non-scholars today are quite ignorant about the
entire subject. Most ministers graduate from Bible Schools, parroting
Trinitarianism, but know little about its history and problems -- few have
examined the other side; they attack it on the grounds that they have been
warned against it. The terms "Oneness," "Monarchianism," and "Sabellianism"
have not only erroneously been termed the "Jesus Only" doctrine, but have
become known as the devil's lie and heresy -- whereas Trinitarianism is the
deviate. It is even common to hear or read that Monarchianism denied the Holy
Trinity -- as though the doctrine of the Trinity was the established doctrine
when Monarchianism was invented. The truth, as shown by history, is that the
Trinity doctrine, when formulated, denied Monarchianism, which came first.
No wonder people are confused, neither knowing what they affirm nor what
they are against -- blindly following Catholic tradition, and labelling the
teachings of the Apostles: "heresy" and "a cult"!.
I have heard many variations of the "Trinity". I have heard the one where people believe that they will see three divine beings when they get to heaven. I have heard one where people believe that there are three gods in one supreme being. I have heard that there are three persons. And most recently I have heard of the Trinity as in one God but with three roles, and those three roles labled as the Trinity.
The last one is more along the lines that we believe. One God with three caracteristics, being the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. But just saying believing in the "Trinity" is wrong may not be wrong, if its the last one stated. If you hear someone believing in the "Trinity", ask them first what it is they believe. It may be that they believe in the same one God with three roles as we do. Just saying that someone believes in the "Trinity" doesn't automatically mean they believe in more than one Godhead.
Just my $0.2
as for myself i chose not to be called or even associated with trinitarian if for nothing else but to keep the confusion down. i choose apostolic because trinity was considered as idolatry in the days of the apostles. i think it was paul who was looking at all the memorials to different gods that were built and found one to the un-known god, singular! i dont have to have multiple gods, just God. Just Jesus!.
In short, Trinitarianism and Monarchianism have both conflicted and
overlapped in their doctrines. The picture is confusing because the term
"Trinity" did not mean to Tertullian what it meant to Athanasius, and to him
it did not mean what it did to Augustine. Calvin's concept was not the same
as Luther's neither was it identical to Augustine's. Even today there are
several concepts under the heading of "Trinity" -- many even holding Oneness
views and denying three persons in the Godhead. Athanasius, whose name is
identified with the Nicean Creed of the Trinity, not only admits confusion of
the subject, but makes Modalistic statements contrary to Trinitarianism.
I belong to an Apostolic church. I went there because I felt God pushing me in that direction. To me there is only One God. And i have always thought this. I praise him and worship him at least twice a day (usually more). My best friend is a Pentecostal, and believe in the "Trinity" of One God with three roles, with those roles labled as the "Trinity". To me that is fine, and I have no problem with it. To me, thats exactly what I believe. There is One God, but God does play three roles. He is the Father, the Son, and he is the Holy Ghost. The bible states this many times. Since there are three characteristics of God, and "Trinity" does mean three, then I see no problem referring to his roles/characteristics as the "Trinity".
The problem is that most people, when they hear the word "Trinity", they automatically associate it with the multiple godheads. When this is not the case all the time. I find this topic very confusing sometimes, and it frustrates me. ???
yep!! and thats why i leave the trinity out! it is well understood God has different charecteristics, but he is still God. why try to force the trinity thing?
example that i know youve herd but here goes: you are a son and a father and a husband. if i were to call you by name i would say," hay somnic". not, "hay father son husband!"
Oh i'm not tryin gto force it. I guess really I'm trying to understand it. :smirk:
Yosoemite,
If you want me to read your posts and take you seriously, don't involve reckart's writtings on here, He is too full of himself and the persecuted messiah complex to be taken seriously. I don't know anyone who takes him seriously in any form or fashion.
There are better proponents of the oneness to be quoted that don't spit out venom every time they even breath.
Cohen G. Reckart....Servant of the Holy Blood. ;)
Gotta agree with nwlife on this one, Yo. Just seeing where your source came from takes away any credibility it might otherwise have.
Quote from: [{(nwlife)}] on July 23, 2008, 07:08:31 AM
Yosoemite,
If you want me to read your posts and take you seriously, don't involve reckart's writtings on here, He is too full of himself and the persecuted messiah complex to be taken seriously. I don't know anyone who takes him seriously in any form or fashion.
There are better proponents of the oneness to be quoted that don't spit out venom every time they even breath.
Quote from: bishopnl on July 23, 2008, 01:31:27 PM
Cohen G. Reckart....Servant of the Holy Blood. ;)
Gotta agree with nwlife on this one, Yo. Just seeing where your source came from takes away any credibility it might otherwise have.
whether i am taken seriously or not is up to you!! makes no nevermind to me.
where is reckart wrong? where is what i posted wrong?
hmmmmm! thought i was posting don barnet!! that is who i gave credit to anyway!!
ok i went and checked. some was of reckart. but still what was wrong with what i posted? i read it and didnt find anything myself.
Quote from: Somnic on July 23, 2008, 03:59:05 AM
I have heard many variations of the "Trinity". I have heard the one where people believe that they will see three divine beings when they get to heaven. I have heard one where people believe that there are three gods in one supreme being. I have heard that there are three persons. And most recently I have heard of the Trinity as in one God but with three roles, and those three roles labled as the Trinity.
The last one is more along the lines that we believe. One God with three caracteristics, being the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. But just saying believing in the "Trinity" is wrong may not be wrong, if its the last one stated. If you hear someone believing in the "Trinity", ask them first what it is they believe. It may be that they believe in the same one God with three roles as we do. Just saying that someone believes in the "Trinity" doesn't automatically mean they believe in more than one Godhead.
Just my $0.2
Sounds to me like you've got the right approach.
Yosemite,
1. Reckart has no credibility among the oneness ranks.
2. It's not the info posted but the spirit in which reckart writes his articles.
He attacks anything that doesn't line up exactly with what he thinks. he will force his members to be rebaptized if the person who baptized them has ever sinned once in their life. He thinks he is the last day apostle for the world.
So thus if you want to use his stuff, it makes me question the possibility that you *might* be in a similar frame of mind. there are several writers that present the info that reckart presents, but in a whole lot better attitude.
I used to hang around a couple ministers like reckart about 12 years ago or so, and it still affects me to this day. When I used their material, little by little without realizing it, I started to become like them. And needlesstosay it was something I didn't like. If I even sense anything remotely like what I sensed around them, I retreat from that person in a heartbeat. And Reckart is a person that spews everything with venom, just like the 2 I used to hang around with.
In closing, Yosemite, You don't seem to be anything remotely near what reckart is (or was in his innocent days) but if you wish to use his stuff, go ahead,-----
but it will be the end of any conversation between you and me.
Quote from: [{(nwlife)}] on July 23, 2008, 02:22:19 PM
Yosemite,
1. Reckart has no credibility among the oneness ranks.
2. It's not the info posted but the spirit in which reckart writes his articles.
He attacks anything that doesn't line up exactly with what he thinks. he will force his members to be rebaptized if the person who baptized them has ever sinned once in their life. He thinks he is the last day apostle for the world.
So thus if you want to use his stuff, it makes me question the possibility that you *might* be in a similar frame of mind. there are several writers that present the info that reckart presents, but in a whole lot better attitude.
I used to hang around a couple ministers like reckart about 12 years ago or so, and it still affects me to this day. When I used their material, little by little without realizing it, I started to become like them. And needlesstosay it was something I didn't like. If I even sense anything remotely like what I sensed around them, I retreat from that person in a heartbeat. And Reckart is a person that spews everything with venom, just like the 2 I used to hang around with.
In closing, Yosemite, You don't seem to be anything remotely near what reckart is (or was in his innocent days) but if you wish to use his stuff, go ahead,-----
but it will be the end of any conversation between you and me.
i can only be me. i use teachings of which i feel are acceptable to the subject. i dont know of reckart and his full beleifs, but what i posted of him i feel to be acceptable to what the topic was. hmmm! the topic was not of or about me it was the subject matter in question. so, now if what i posted was wrong explain to me and somnic what is in err. keep in mind we are not talking of reckart or his full beleif.
1. i search not for credability from you, but the scriptures. scripture tells me God uses all for glory to him.
2. i posted this in the spirit of help. i cant help what nature it was written in, only that it was lineing up with the topic at hand.
from time to time i may post some of reckart if i feel it is right and lines up.
in closing nwlife, hope you dont feel as though you have to avoid me because of who i post. i dont blame you if you avoid me if i post of an untruth, but dont blame me for who i post from if the subject lines up, I'm not Reckart.
Quote from: titushome on July 23, 2008, 01:58:10 PM
Quote from: Somnic on July 23, 2008, 03:59:05 AM
I have heard many variations of the "Trinity". I have heard the one where people believe that they will see three divine beings when they get to heaven. I have heard one where people believe that there are three gods in one supreme being. I have heard that there are three persons. And most recently I have heard of the Trinity as in one God but with three roles, and those three roles labled as the Trinity.
The last one is more along the lines that we believe. One God with three caracteristics, being the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. But just saying believing in the "Trinity" is wrong may not be wrong, if its the last one stated. If you hear someone believing in the "Trinity", ask them first what it is they believe. It may be that they believe in the same one God with three roles as we do. Just saying that someone believes in the "Trinity" doesn't automatically mean they believe in more than one Godhead.
Just my $0.2
Sounds to me like you've got the right approach.
** Ditto**
Just don't worry about it and you won't be confused. Stick with the Lord's explanation to you.
Yo,
Here are my thoughts. I wouldn't go ask Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass for info on responsible journalism, even though they've been journalists before. But their reputation, in my opinion, discredits everything they might have to say.
I feel the same way about Reckart. The article you posted contains not just biblical exegesis, but historical anecdotes and information. I'm familiar with some of it anyway, but I wouldn't take Reckart's word for anything, whether it be biblical exegesis or historical record.
Quote from: bishopnl on July 23, 2008, 03:01:37 PM
Yo,
Here are my thoughts. I wouldn't go ask Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass for info on responsible journalism, even though they've been journalists before. But their reputation, in my opinion, discredits everything they might have to say.
I feel the same way about Reckart. The article you posted contains not just biblical exegesis, but historical anecdotes and information. I'm familiar with some of it anyway, but I wouldn't take Reckart's word for anything, whether it be biblical exegesis or historical record.
listen, what i posted i feel to be of truth, but i will listen to any explanation that will lead to a better understanding. I dont know jayson or stephen. is what i posted wrong??!! from my studies the historical anecdotes line up and i dont even know what an exegesis is. again we are talking of trinity not reckart or yosemite.
Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site
Should You Believe in the Trinity?
How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?
AT THIS point you might ask: 'If the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching, how did it become a doctrine of Christendom?' Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E.
That is not totally correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead.
Constantine's Role at Nicaea
FOR many years, there had been much opposition on Biblical grounds to the developing idea that Jesus was God. To try to solve the dispute, Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea. About 300, a fraction of the total, actually attended.
Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The Early Church: "Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; . . . his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians."
What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, 'of one substance with the Father' . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination."
'Fourth century Trinitarianism was a deviation from early Christian teaching.' —The Encyclopedia Americana
Hence, Constantine's role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. "Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology," says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain.
None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the holy spirit. If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time?
Further Development
AFTER Nicaea, debates on the subject continued for decades. Those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even came back into favor for a time. But later Emperor Theodosius decided against them. He established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. to clarify the formula.
That council agreed to place the holy spirit on the same level as God and Christ. For the first time, Christendom's Trinity began to come into focus.
Yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds. The Encyclopedia Americana notes: "The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology."
The Athanasian Creed
Norway. Trinity (Father, Son, holy spirit), c. 13th century C.E.
THE Trinity was defined more fully in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius was a clergyman who supported Constantine at Nicaea. The creed that bears his name declares: "We worship one God in Trinity . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God."
Well-informed scholars agree, however, that Athanasius did not compose this creed. The New Encyclopædia Britannica comments: "The creed was unknown to the Eastern Church until the 12th century. Since the 17th century, scholars have generally agreed that the Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius (died 373) but was probably composed in southern France during the 5th century. . . . The creed's influence seems to have been primarily in southern France and Spain in the 6th and 7th centuries. It was used in the liturgy of the church in Germany in the 9th century and somewhat later in Rome."
So it took centuries from the time of Christ for the Trinity to become widely accepted in Christendom. And in all of this, what guided the decisions? Was it the Word of God, or was it clerical and political considerations? In Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins answers: "The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics."
Apostasy Foretold
THIS disreputable history of the Trinity fits in with what Jesus and his apostles foretold would follow their time. They said that there would be an apostasy, a deviation, a falling away from true worship until Christ's return, when true worship would be restored before God's day of destruction of this system of things.
"The Triad of the Great Gods" Many centuries before the time of Christ, there were triads, or trinities, of gods in ancient Babylonia and Assyria. The French "Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology" notes one such triad in that Mesopotamian area: "The universe was divided into three regions each of which became the domain of a god. Anu's share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods."
Regarding that "day," the apostle Paul said: "It will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed." (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7) Later, he foretold: "When I have gone fierce wolves will invade you and will have no mercy on the flock. Even from your own ranks there will be men coming forward with a travesty of the truth on their lips to induce the disciples to follow them." (Acts 20:29, 30, JB) Other disciples of Jesus also wrote of this apostasy with its 'lawless' clergy class.—See, for example, 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1-3; Jude 3, 4.
Paul also wrote: "The time is sure to come when, far from being content with sound teaching, people will be avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes; and then, instead of listening to the truth, they will turn to myths."—2 Timothy 4:3, 4, JB.
Jesus himself explained what was behind this falling away from true worship. He said that he had sowed good seeds but that the enemy, Satan, would oversow the field with weeds. So along with the first blades of wheat, the weeds appeared also. Thus, a deviation from pure Christianity was to be expected until the harvest, when Christ would set matters right. (Matthew 13:24-43) The Encyclopedia Americana comments: "Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." Where, then, did this deviation originate?—1 Timothy 1:6.
What Influenced It
India. Triune Hindu godhead, c. 7th century C.E.
THROUGHOUT the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity.
Historian Will Durant observed: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity." And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: "The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology."
France. Trinity, c. 14th century C.E. (1)
Thus, in Alexandria, Egypt, churchmen of the late third and early fourth centuries, such as Athanasius, reflected this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence spread, so that Morenz considers "Alexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity."
In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."
Italy. Trinity, c. 15th century C.E. (2)
A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity "is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith." And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: "The origin of the [trinity] is entirely pagan."
That is why, in the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings wrote: "In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality," which is "triadically represented." What does the Greek philosopher Plato have to do with the Trinity?
Platonism
PLATO, it is thought, lived from 428 to 347 before Christ. While he did not teach the Trinity in its present form, his philosophies paved the way for it. Later, philosophical movements that included triadic beliefs sprang up, and these were influenced by Plato's ideas of God and nature.
Germany. Trinity, 20th century C.E.
The French Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (New Universal Dictionary) says of Plato's influence: "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge shows the influence of this Greek philosophy: "The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied."
The Church of the First Three Centuries says: "The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers."
By the end of the third century C.E., "Christianity" and the new Platonic philosophies became inseparably united. As Adolf Harnack states in Outlines of the History of Dogma, church doctrine became "firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians."
The church claimed that its new doctrines were based on the Bible. But Harnack says: "In reality it legitimized in its midst the Hellenic speculation, the superstitious views and customs of pagan mystery-worship."
In the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity: "We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists."
Thus, in the fourth century C.E., the apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles came into full bloom. Development of the Trinity was just one evidence of this. The apostate churches also began embracing other pagan ideas, such as hellfire, immortality of the soul, and idolatry. Spiritually speaking, Christendom had entered its foretold dark ages, dominated by a growing "man of lawlessness" clergy class.—2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7.
Hindu Trinity The book "The Symbolism of Hindu Gods and Rituals" says regarding a Hindu trinity that existed centuries before Christ: "Siva is one of the gods of the Trinity. He is said to be the god of destruction. The other two gods are Brahma, the god of creation and Vishnu, the god of maintenance. . . . To indicate that these three processes are one and the same the three gods are combined in one form."—Published by A. Parthasarathy, Bombay.
Why Did God's Prophets Not Teach It?
WHY, for thousands of years, did none of God's prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the latest, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the "central doctrine" of faith?
Are Christians to believe that centuries after Christ and after having inspired the writing of the Bible, God would back the formulation of a doctrine that was unknown to his servants for thousands of years, one that is an "inscrutable mystery" "beyond the grasp of human reason," one that admittedly had a pagan background and was "largely a matter of church politics"?
The testimony of history is clear: The Trinity teaching is a deviation from the truth, an apostatizing from it.
( i have plenty more in which i can share.) -yo
Yo,
Your sources are the official website of the Jehovah's Witnesses and Cohen G. Reckart?
Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair are reporters who fabricated and/or plagiarized stories for The New Republic and the New York Times, respectively. Just as I wouldn't take their word about anything concerning journalism seriously, I wouldn't take Cohen G. Reckarts word concerning historical or biblical facts seriously either. Post them all you want...I'm just saying that people who have any familiarity with Reckart or the Jehovah's Witnesses aren't going to put too much stock in lengthy articles from such sources.
I'm also a bit confused.
You post Reckarts article rejecting the Trinity, which has this to say about the Jehovah's Witnesses: "Of course the Jehovah's Witnesses deny the trinity as taught by Rome but they have their own trinity of God the Father, the Archangel Jesus-Michael, and the Archangel Lucifer-Devil."
Then you turn around and post an article from the Jehovah's Witnesses website. ???
Here's my :twocents:. Take some time to gather some articles from real Apostolic authors who have real research and treat the issue in a respectable, scholarly fashion. Maybe something by David Bernard, or Jason Dulles, or something like that. Just random cutting and pasting of articles debating the validity of the Trinity is going to produce some fuzzy results...such as one of your sources discrediting the other source.
hahahahaha!! that was my point. glad you got it!! does it matter who the message comes from? as long as the message is right, it is fine with me.
i did not go into the fullness of jehova's witness. i just posted history facts that were backed up with dictionaries, dates and events not a religious conversion to jehova's witness. (which i know to be wrong and they have their own idolatry thing going on.)
but isnt it funny that the jahovah's witnesses go to such a length to dis-prove trinity and then turn around and beleive in their own set of trinity gods. i dont beleive in them or the later day saints(who write their own bible), but that doesnt mean they have their historical records wrong in the dates provided.
Here are some resources that you might start with:
Trinity-history (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/trinhistory.htm)
A study on the development of the Trinity by Jason Dulles.
Link (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/index.htm#proper)
This is a link to a whole host of articles written by Apostolic authors that probably have more validity than Reckart's article. Not too mention, all of their sources, regarding historical anecdotes, quotes, etc. are usually sourced. Very important to retaining credibility.
Quote from: yosemite on July 23, 2008, 04:39:10 PM
hahahahaha!! that was my point. glad you got it!! does it matter who the message comes from? as long as the message is right, it is fine with me.
i did not go into the fullness of jehova's witness. i just posted history facts that were backed up with dictionaries, dates and events not a religious conversion to jehova's witness.
I'm sorry, I disagree. Reckart and the Jehovah's Witnesses are both frequently in error. Would you attend a Trinitarian church if you felt that 85% of the messages preached in their pulpits were in line with Bible?
So why use such a resource to validate your point? Do you think that Benny Hinn is a valid resource? Because I consider your sources to be about as valid.
Quote from: bishopnl on July 23, 2008, 04:54:58 PM
Quote from: yosemite on July 23, 2008, 04:39:10 PM
hahahahaha!! that was my point. glad you got it!! does it matter who the message comes from? as long as the message is right, it is fine with me.
i did not go into the fullness of jehova's witness. i just posted history facts that were backed up with dictionaries, dates and events not a religious conversion to jehova's witness.
I'm sorry, I disagree. Reckart and the Jehovah's Witnesses are both frequently in error. Would you attend a Trinitarian church if you felt that 85% of the messages preached in their pulpits were in line with Bible?
So why use such a resource to validate your point? Do you think that Benny Hinn is a valid resource? Because I consider your sources to be about as valid.
the bible is its own source and if ya dont line up, your in err. history on the other hand is across the board. if man knows anything it would be the history of men-(not of MAN -creation). would i sit in on a trinitarian church? no. that does not mean that i cant research history of men through whomever i chose.
that is why i have so many sources of history!! i search them all!! most line up great some faulter. regardless, all tell me the same thing about trinity!! all men are subject to err! that is why i want two or more witnesses. tada!!
Quote from: bishopnl on July 23, 2008, 04:54:58 PM
Quote from: yosemite on July 23, 2008, 04:39:10 PM
hahahahaha!! that was my point. glad you got it!! does it matter who the message comes from? as long as the message is right, it is fine with me.
i did not go into the fullness of jehova's witness. i just posted history facts that were backed up with dictionaries, dates and events not a religious conversion to jehova's witness.
I'm sorry, I disagree. Reckart and the Jehovah's Witnesses are both frequently in error. Would you attend a Trinitarian church if you felt that 85% of the messages preached in their pulpits were in line with Bible?
So why use such a resource to validate your point? Do you think that Benny Hinn is a valid resource? Because I consider your sources to be about as valid.
I dont agree with every preacher I hear... and probably only 85% no matter where your at, match up w/the bible... lol...
okay, I am Pentecostal Holiness... Apostolics classify us as "Trinitarians" or "Trinity" - like some of our people classify them as "Jesus Onlys" - Growing up I 'never' heard the words 'trinity' or anything till I met some apostolics at school, and they said I was trinity and i was like "No Im Not!" lol... I had never heard of that, so appearantly... it must be an apostolic word they have made up for us... and I can Boldly say, I have NEVER in my life, met a person that believes in Three Gods, or anything like that at all... - We Believe God is the Father, and Jesus is his son (manifest in the flesh) and the Holyghost is the spirit of God, we believe all three manifest Differently, but all these three are one... - We believe thier different and the same... if that makes sense - However, we baptise the way Jesus said to in the name of the Father Son and the Holyghost.
i also have jason dulle in my history archives but avoided posting him in my last posts to prove a point.
Quote from: EricShane on July 23, 2008, 05:38:15 PM
- We believe thier different and the same... if that makes sense - However, we baptise the way Jesus said to in the name of the Father Son and the Holyghost.
and this may be the reason yall are classified as being trinity!! name one who was baptised in this manner after acts2:38. remember the 12 in acts who had to be re-baptised?
Quotethe bible is its own source and if ya dont line up, your in err. history on the other hand is across the board. if man knows anything it would be the history of men-(not of MAN -creation). would i sit in on a trinitarian church? no. that does not mean that i cant research history of men through whomever i chose.
that is why i have so many sources of history!! i search them all!! most line up great some faulter. regardless, all tell me the same thing about trinity!! all men are subject to err! that is why i want two or more witnesses. tada!!
OK. Use whatever sources you like.
And I'll ignore them b/c I think your sources are contradictory and not credible. ;)
QuoteI dont agree with every preacher I hear... and probably only 85% no matter where your at, match up w/the bible... lol...
If 15% of teaching is at odds with scripture, I wouldn't stay for the other 85%. We're not talking a few minor differences in opinion. I don't listen to (x) percentage of truth that comes from Reckart or the JW's, because there is a substantial percentage that is blatantly at odds with scripture. Period.
IF the argument here is that sources no longer matter, you'd be hard pressed to find one academic or scholar who would agree.
Quote from: bishopnl on July 23, 2008, 06:25:57 PM
Quotethe bible is its own source and if ya dont line up, your in err. history on the other hand is across the board. if man knows anything it would be the history of men-(not of MAN -creation). would i sit in on a trinitarian church? no. that does not mean that i cant research history of men through whomever i chose.
that is why i have so many sources of history!! i search them all!! most line up great some faulter. regardless, all tell me the same thing about trinity!! all men are subject to err! that is why i want two or more witnesses. tada!!
OK. Use whatever sources you like.
And I'll ignore them b/c I think your sources are contradictory and not credible. ;)
QuoteI dont agree with every preacher I hear... and probably only 85% no matter where your at, match up w/the bible... lol...
If 15% of teaching is at odds with scripture, I wouldn't stay for the other 85%. We're not talking a few minor differences in opinion. I don't listen to (x) percentage of truth that comes from Reckart or the JW's, because there is a substantial percentage that is blatantly at odds with scripture. Period.
IF the argument here is that sources no longer matter, you'd be hard pressed to find one academic or scholar who would agree.
if you want to disregard history, that is your choice! i for one will stay with history no matter the source for what i have found is a general acknowledgement that certain things have happened at certain time no matter who done the research.
in history as well as the bible you have to have witnesses. in this case all agree to the conclusion i was making and has no bearing on the source.
now back to my question without regard to source. was what i posted wrong in its content. do you beleive the events around the trinity actually happened? or are you only up for bebate (stirring the pot so to speak).
besides the sources i used did not contrsdict one another in context of history, just religion, in which i did not get into. i just went to the history side of what each have produced.
Yo:
Here is just one quick "contradiction" between your two sources.
Reckart says: "Few realize that the trinity doctrine that was adopted at the Council of Nicaea..."
While the JW says: "None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity"
Further, Reckart's article is almost completely unsourced, which should eliminate it as a serious scholarly source.
I'm not disregarding history. I am a history major. I do contend that just because someone throws out a fact every now and then doesn't make them an expert...especially when it is a FACT that they are teaching false doctrine. Using JW as a primary source regarding the Trinity is like Iran criticizing North Korea for it's nuclear weapons program.
I'm sorry, but I won't take Reckart's word for ANYTHING. He is correct in some of his particulars, but so what? When setting about to teach what you see as an Apostolic truth, why would you disregard more scholarly (and more Christlike) sources in favor of sites that teach false or perverted doctrine?
Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site
Should You Believe in the Trinity?
How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?
AT THIS point you might ask: 'If the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching, how did it become a doctrine of Christendom?' Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E.
That is not totally correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead.
both of my soures have agreed to this point. the doctrine is not what i was after but the history, in which i gave two examples of the broad board that seem to have come up with the same thing.hmmmmm! remember what i said about two or more witnesses!
Quote from: Somnic on July 23, 2008, 04:52:54 AM
I find this topic very confusing sometimes, and it frustrates me. ???
Somnic:
First off, welcome to GP! :great:
Secondly, and with tears in my eyes, I can tell you that coming to the understanding of what we refer to as the "
oneness of God" is the most incredible experiences and revelations you will ever have. I remember the first time I really "saw" how
ONE God is!! I about did cartwheels down the hall of my house!!! :lol: And always remember that it comes "
line upon line, precept upon precept" and will likely continue your whole lifetime; for only when we see Him face to face will we
then know Him as He knows us. :clap2:
I say the above to say: don't let the confusion beat you or get to you to where you give up studying about and seeking revelation from God about not only "
what" He is (Father, Son, HS, healer, provider, redeemer, etc), but "
WHO" He is (Jesus Christ). There are times these days that I still read passages and say "I just don't get it", but then I get a picture of the most absolute truth of God's word --
"....the Lord is One" --- and
WHO embodies that One God, and the confusion disappears as I see the One who was born in a manger and who died for me being
the same One who said "Let there be light!". And, I don't always get the revelation of whatever is baffling me, but I know that if He wants me to see it and I am seeking the answer that He will provide it according to His will and purpose.
Learn about the basics of Oneness. As bishopnl said, David Bernard's books are good. Jason Dulle's writings have kept me company many nights, too! :grin: Learn about the development of the trinity and what "true" trinitarianism teaches. Maybe most importantly -- give GOD time. He won't force feed you and has a plan to reveal incredible truths to you over time, as long as you keep seeking.
God bless you on your journey! And be sure to let us know when He gives you those "
WOW!" moments in the future!!! :thumbsup2:
Quoteboth of my soures have agreed to this point.
One says Nicea established a trinitarian doctrine, one says it didn't.
I'm not going to waste time arguing with you over your source material. I recommend for serious pursuit of truth, that one avoid both Reckart and the Jehovah's Witnesses. I admit that it's disturbing that in one's haste to "refute" Trinitarian doctrine, someone would use such sources, but that's your perogative.
I agree with OGIA in that Somnic should continue to seek truth, and in that search, prayerfully consider the source of information. Turning to one false doctrine to disprove another is the blind leading the blind. They both fall into a ditch.
reading ogia's post kinda gave me a wow moment. wish we could stay on the topic at hand and not go through this sources deal.
as a matter of fact i dont want to be a part of the pot stirring. :surrender:
Quote from: bishopnl on July 23, 2008, 08:41:11 PM
Quoteboth of my soures have agreed to this point.
One says Nicea established a trinitarian doctrine, one says it didn't.
I'm not going to waste time arguing with you over your source material. I recommend for serious pursuit of truth, that one avoid both Reckart and the Jehovah's Witnesses. I admit that it's disturbing that in one's haste to "refute" Trinitarian doctrine, someone would use such sources, but that's your perogative.
I agree with OGIA in that Somnic should continue to seek truth, and in that search, prayerfully consider the source of information. Turning to one false doctrine to disprove another is the blind leading the blind. They both fall into a ditch.
i have repeatedly asked to get back to subject and you have refused and now you say i'm blind leading the blind when i have asked what was wrong in my post time after time. you have never yet said what was wrong just gave some college history thing like that makes you superior to the subject. you havent even read to see what you were talking of when you gave an example, you just threw something down. i have also continually said i was not in search of doctrine but history! ha! done
Ok, Yo. I'm not in the mood to argue with you about it. It disturbs me, but so does 90% of what I read on forums that are labeled Apostolic, so that's nothing new. :-?
hahahaha! you mean to tell me you remain when there is ten percent lacking. LOLhahahaha
That's because I pity some of you. :smirk2:
Nate.. I'll enjoy reading your replies again! haha
Quote from: OGIA on July 23, 2008, 08:30:05 PM
Quote from: Somnic on July 23, 2008, 04:52:54 AM
I find this topic very confusing sometimes, and it frustrates me. ???
Somnic:
First off, welcome to GP! :great:
Secondly, and with tears in my eyes, I can tell you that coming to the understanding of what we refer to as the "oneness of God" is the most incredible experiences and revelations you will ever have. I remember the first time I really "saw" how ONE God is!! I about did cartwheels down the hall of my house!!! :lol: And always remember that it comes "line upon line, precept upon precept" and will likely continue your whole lifetime; for only when we see Him face to face will we then know Him as He knows us. :clap2:
I say the above to say: don't let the confusion beat you or get to you to where you give up studying about and seeking revelation from God about not only "what" He is (Father, Son, HS, healer, provider, redeemer, etc), but "WHO" He is (Jesus Christ). There are times these days that I still read passages and say "I just don't get it", but then I get a picture of the most absolute truth of God's word -- "....the Lord is One" --- and WHO embodies that One God, and the confusion disappears as I see the One who was born in a manger and who died for me being the same One who said "Let there be light!". And, I don't always get the revelation of whatever is baffling me, but I know that if He wants me to see it and I am seeking the answer that He will provide it according to His will and purpose.
Learn about the basics of Oneness. As bishopnl said, David Bernard's books are good. Jason Dulle's writings have kept me company many nights, too! :grin: Learn about the development of the trinity and what "true" trinitarianism teaches. Maybe most importantly -- give GOD time. He won't force feed you and has a plan to reveal incredible truths to you over time, as long as you keep seeking.
God bless you on your journey! And be sure to let us know when He gives you those "WOW!" moments in the future!!! :thumbsup2:
Well I believe in "Oneness" and always will, and I do have a WOW moment to tell you about. The night of the day I recieved the Holy Ghost, I was reading the bible. While reading it I recieved three visions. Each one was the same. It was me standing on a pullpit preaching to my church. I know that god has a plan for me and I am seeking that path. But part of that is learning what is what and studying the bible. I made this thread to better understand the "Trinity". I didn't make this thread so two people could agrue over who has better resources.
If what Yo posted is false doctrine, then please post the right one so I may continue on with my studies and knowledge of the "Truth". I came here because I thought it might be easier to get, i dunno, maybe a few links to point me in the right direction, or a few authors I should read up on.
Yo and bishonl, I believe we are all supposed to be united in one belief. We are not here to argue amongst eachother. Settle your differences in PMs because I really don't want to read you two agruing over who is right and who is wrong. I seek Truth, not drama.
Quote from: Somnic on July 24, 2008, 04:03:21 AM
Quote from: OGIA on July 23, 2008, 08:30:05 PM
Quote from: Somnic on July 23, 2008, 04:52:54 AM
I find this topic very confusing sometimes, and it frustrates me. ???
Somnic:
First off, welcome to GP! :great:
Secondly, and with tears in my eyes, I can tell you that coming to the understanding of what we refer to as the "oneness of God" is the most incredible experiences and revelations you will ever have. I remember the first time I really "saw" how ONE God is!! I about did cartwheels down the hall of my house!!! :lol: And always remember that it comes "line upon line, precept upon precept" and will likely continue your whole lifetime; for only when we see Him face to face will we then know Him as He knows us. :clap2:
I say the above to say: don't let the confusion beat you or get to you to where you give up studying about and seeking revelation from God about not only "what" He is (Father, Son, HS, healer, provider, redeemer, etc), but "WHO" He is (Jesus Christ). There are times these days that I still read passages and say "I just don't get it", but then I get a picture of the most absolute truth of God's word -- "....the Lord is One" --- and WHO embodies that One God, and the confusion disappears as I see the One who was born in a manger and who died for me being the same One who said "Let there be light!". And, I don't always get the revelation of whatever is baffling me, but I know that if He wants me to see it and I am seeking the answer that He will provide it according to His will and purpose.
Learn about the basics of Oneness. As bishopnl said, David Bernard's books are good. Jason Dulle's writings have kept me company many nights, too! :grin: Learn about the development of the trinity and what "true" trinitarianism teaches. Maybe most importantly -- give GOD time. He won't force feed you and has a plan to reveal incredible truths to you over time, as long as you keep seeking.
God bless you on your journey! And be sure to let us know when He gives you those "WOW!" moments in the future!!! :thumbsup2:
Well I believe in "Oneness" and always will, and I do have a WOW moment to tell you about. The night of the day I recieved the Holy Ghost, I was reading the bible. While reading it I recieved three visions. Each one was the same. It was me standing on a pullpit preaching to my church. I know that god has a plan for me and I am seeking that path. But part of that is learning what is what and studying the bible. I made this thread to better understand the "Trinity". I didn't make this thread so two people could agrue over who has better resources.
If what Yo posted is false doctrine, then please post the right one so I may continue on with my studies and knowledge of the "Truth". I came here because I thought it might be easier to get, i dunno, maybe a few links to point me in the right direction, or a few authors I should read up on.
Yo and bishonl, I believe we are all supposed to be united in one belief. We are not here to argue amongst eachother. Settle your differences in PMs because I really don't want to read you two agruing over who is right and who is wrong. I seek Truth, not drama.
amen For real - parties involved please PM each other... understanding Trinity/Oneness stuff is hard enough to comprehend or understand than to have people bickering about how what they believe is better...
and back to Trinity beliefs...
I dont understand, oneness nor trinity... - I told Elona recently I believe in Oneness and Trinity... Im somewhere in the middle... I believe in both, so pray to one and a half Gods I guess... lol...
a true story : When I was very young, and didnt understand anything... I didnt know 'who' to pray to... Jesus or God, so I would pray "Dear Jesus, Or God... Whichever one of you can hear me..." lol... Now that im Older its even worse... "Dear Jesus, God, Yeshuaw, Jehova, and Etc." - lol... But the good thing is, that God knows the Intents of the Heart, God sees the heart and knows when a person is sincere - I could be Wrong for believing Jesus is Gods son... I could be led astray by some false Doctrine and Die lost... Same way with oneness... I dont know... I pray things out for myself, I dont take into consideration what other people have to say... I seek it out myself... and in the end, all I find is "I love Jesus, God and all of the above"
Jesus is Gods son, in flesh. But God is Jesus also in manifest. You see, Jesus plays two roles. The "Son" in "flesh" and the "Father" in "Spirit". I can understand how it can be confusing. There are several scriptures that tell you that Jesus is God. I will list two below. There are more, but these two I know right off hand.
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;...
Quote from: Somnic on July 24, 2008, 05:20:51 AM
Jesus is Gods son, in flesh. But God is Jesus also in manifest. You see, Jesus plays two roles. The "Son" in "flesh" and the "Father" in "Spirit". I can understand how it can be confusing. There are several scriptures that tell you that Jesus is God. I will list two below. There are more, but these two I know right off hand.
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;...
exactly! - But, does that mean... everyone is Pure In heart? because Every eye shall behold Jesus but only the pure in heart shall see God... - or does it mean, only the pure in heart will see God, in Jesus... or something... I duno... its all confusing...
Sometimes the bible says something that is a medafore for something and other times its to be read as it is. In this case its not a medafore. Its to be taken as it says.
The Bible says that we are to do all things in His name. So when you pray, just say "Jesus" and you've said it all. The fullness of the godhead is in Jesus. It's all in Him.
QuoteThe next shoe to drop is to inhibit the human mind from examining the theory, by claiming no one can understand it, it must be accepted by faith.
This reminded me of something I was thinking about today. It was in response to how confused people are when it comes to the godhead, who the Father is, who Jesus is, etc. (If the Holy Ghost is the father of Jesus, as it says in Matthew, and Jesus is the father of creation and the heavenly Father, what is the Father the father of? Seems like there's nothing left for Him to be the father of. Unless He's the father of the Holy Ghost, which would make Him Jesus' grandfather. lol) My thought was that if it's in the Bible it's meant for us to understand, otherwise it wouldn't be in the Bible at all. I understand that some are too carnal or blind to see it. Perhaps lack of sincerity. Who knows? But the truth can and will be revealed to any and all who sincerely hunger for it.
Sorry. I don't really have much to add at the moment to the whole explanation-of-the-trinity thing. Who could understand such nonsense anyway? I've read the Athanasian Creed (seems like I've still got it in a box somewhere) and it doesn't make a lick of sense.
Quote from: Somnic on July 24, 2008, 04:03:21 AM
I do have a WOW moment to tell you about. The night of the day I recieved the Holy Ghost, I was reading the bible. While reading it I recieved three visions. Each one was the same. It was me standing on a pullpit preaching to my church. I know that god has a plan for me and I am seeking that path. But part of that is learning what is what and studying the bible.
So true! I pray the diligence of your search will produce much fruit for God's Kingdom!!
Quote
I didn't make this thread so two people could agrue over who has better resources.
Well, that's the nature of internet forums....even Christian ones. I've done it (gotten off topic and argued) and will probably do it again. You gotta learn (I'm still learning) to ignore some stuff and tolerate other stuff. ;)
Quote
I made this thread to better understand the "Trinity".
I came here because I thought it might be easier to get, i dunno, maybe a few links to point me in the right direction, or a few authors I should read up on.
Bishopnl gave two wonderful links. Did you get to look at them? Also, Bro. David Bernard's book "The Oneness of God" is online: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/one-Top.htm
Those three resources should keep you busy for a while. Plus, God will open other doors as you keep studying. Check with your pastor and see what books and resources he has and suggests, too (maybe first?). God bless!
QuoteBishopnl gave two wonderful links. Did you get to look at them? Also, Bro. David Bernard's book "The Oneness of God" is online: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/one-Top.htm
Thank you. Internet discussion forums are about discussion. My contribution is that I don't feel it's wise to go to places like the official website of the Jehovah's Witnesses for a better understanding of the Trinity. You might find some truth there--but you are also going to find a lot of error. Thus, I posted links that are what I feel are better sites that won't compound confusion.
And while on that note, I'm going to state something clearly. Discussion forums are for discussion. Not everyone here is always going to agree. I don't always take part in the Bible discussion forum, although I do read in here frequently. But it gets tiresome to constantly read people bemoaning back and forth discussion that occurs on some of these threads--and I refer not just to this thread, but all the threads in general. People may not always agree with you, but that doesn't mean that they are just "quibbling" while you are "defending the truth" or whatever. As OGIA said...if you find some discussion unhelpful, ignore it.
Quote from: bishopnl on July 24, 2008, 01:29:42 PM
My contribution is that I don't feel it's wise to go to places like the official website of the Jehovah's Witnesses for a better understanding of the Trinity.
The fact of the matter is, someone who is looking for Truth will find it no matter where you look - even in material prepared by Jehovah's Witnesses, or Mormons, even Muslims or Buddhists!
I once read a "Christian" book, the premise of which is that Christians ought to watch popular movies, seek out the threads of Truth therein, then use that knowledge to witness to their non-Christian friends who have seen the same movies. Problem is, most of the movies the book offered as examples were horrible - full of all kinds of garbage people of God do not need to watch.
My point is this: it's
far better to seek
pure Truth. If we have to wade through falsehoods and filth in order to obtain the nuggets of Truth, then we're wasting our time.
QuoteMy point is this: it's far better to seek pure Truth. If we have to wade through falsehoods and filth in order to obtain the nuggets of Truth, then we're wasting our time.
:thumbsup2:
That's all I was trying to say. Thank you for stating it much better than I could have. It's not anything personal. We all want Truth!
Quote from: OGIA on July 24, 2008, 11:02:17 AM
Quote from: Somnic on July 24, 2008, 04:03:21 AM
I do have a WOW moment to tell you about. The night of the day I recieved the Holy Ghost, I was reading the bible. While reading it I recieved three visions. Each one was the same. It was me standing on a pullpit preaching to my church. I know that god has a plan for me and I am seeking that path. But part of that is learning what is what and studying the bible.
So true! I pray the diligence of your search will produce much fruit for God's Kingdom!!
Quote
I didn't make this thread so two people could argue over who has better resources.
Well, that's the nature of internet forums....even Christian ones. I've done it (gotten off topic and argued) and will probably do it again. You gotta learn (I'm still learning) to ignore some stuff and tolerate other stuff. ;)
Quote
I made this thread to better understand the "Trinity".
I came here because I thought it might be easier to get, i dunno, maybe a few links to point me in the right direction, or a few authors I should read up on.
Bishopnl gave two wonderful links. Did you get to look at them? Also, Bro. David Bernard's book "The Oneness of God" is online: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/one-Top.htm
Those three resources should keep you busy for a while. Plus, God will open other doors as you keep studying. Check with your pastor and see what books and resources he has and suggests, too (maybe first?). God bless!
Yes I saw the links bishopnl posted and will be reading them over. Also I would like to thank you For your link and book reference also. Thanks to both of you. I sincerely mean that. Sorry I went on a rampage there. I was looking for answers, but was getting two people arguing over sources of info. It can be frustrating, but in the end...if you get some sources that lead you more toward the "Truth", it can all be worth it.
Quote from: titushome on July 24, 2008, 01:44:08 PM
The fact of the matter is, someone who is looking for Truth will find it no matter where you look - even in material prepared by Jehovah's Witnesses, or Mormons, even Muslims or Buddhists!
:thumbsup2: my point exactly!! if you ask benny hen or jesse jackson or jason dulles or al sharpton or pres. bush who won the civil war they would all have the same answer but draw different conclusions as to why it started and ended. but the fact of the matter is the south won the war!! hahahaha. :laughhard:
I just saw this thread and I'm skipping over some posts, especially the long ones, I just wanted to comment that I have read literature by Trinitarians and have had several discussions via e-mail and other discussion boards and I found that they don't all explain the Trinity the same way, but most of them do not agree with this:
QuoteMy best friend is a Pentecostal, and believe in the "Trinity" of One God with three roles, with those roles labled as the "Trinity".
They usually insist that if I don't acknowledge three distinct "persons," I am not a true Christian, but I have some difficulty in getting them to define what a "person" is. They want to define "person" by what a person does, not what a person actually is. They usually insist they believe in one God, but that there are three divine persons "within" the one God. They don't want to acknowledge that three distinct persons, each being God, really is three Gods.
One of my cousins I have talked to recently says there is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, she did not say they were separate persons.
Here's what I don't get. Trinitarians claim to believe in one God, but I can't tell you how many times (including within the last week) I've seen or heard them talk about "God and Jesus". I get this puzzled look on my face and I'm like, "What?". If Jesus is God, then why do they say "God and Jesus" or talk about how they pray to God and then Jesus will whatever, whatever? I don't get it.
If you ask them if Jesus is God, most will say yes. (Saw someone at citydata.com recently say flat out that Jesus is not God. Weird.) But in conversation and in prayer, they always distinguish between the two. So when they say "God and Jesus", which person of the godhead is God supposed to be? Obviously not the Son. So why not say "Father and Jesus" or "Holy Ghost and Jesus"? I don't know. Just seems really confusing to me. I'm glad to know that all I have to say is "Jesus" and I've said it all.
Quote from: Niki on July 27, 2008, 08:56:36 AM
I'm glad to know that all I have to say is "Jesus" and I've said it all.
True dat. :thumbsup2:
:beret:
Quote from: Niki on July 27, 2008, 08:56:36 AM
Here's what I don't get. Trinitarians claim to believe in one God, but I can't tell you how many times (including within the last week) I've seen or heard them talk about "God and Jesus". I get this puzzled look on my face and I'm like, "What?". If Jesus is God, then why do they say "God and Jesus" or talk about how they pray to God and then Jesus will whatever, whatever? I don't get it.
Well, Jesus did speak of the Father as distinct from Himself. And there are many references in the NT letters of the apostles that distinguish between the Father and the Son.
That's not to say that trinitarian theology is correct - only that the confusion is understandable.
Quote from: Somnic on July 22, 2008, 10:15:23 PM
What exactly does a Trinitarian believe. Is it that they will see three divine beings when they get to heaven? Someone please explain to me, in detail, what it is that they believe. I'm abit confused. Yes I'm a new born Apostolic, so I have never really heard of this Trinitarian belief.
Ok, I too skipped over some of these posts so I hope I am not repeating anything. Here are the basics that I have found in studying the trinity: Trinitarians believe God exists in 3 separate "persons" but are one in "unity" as in a family of three separate persons are one family unit. Apostolics believe God exists in three separate "manifestations" that all make up one whole God. You could compare it to yourself in that you have a body, soul and spirit that all make up you. Your body, soul and spirit do not exist in three separate persons all apart from eachother. From what I have observed, Apostolics don't use the term "trinity" because it is associated with the trinitarian belief. Rather, the term Godhead is used. Collosians chapter 2 summed it up for me.
did ya ever find out what the trinity was or what they beleive? it was not my intent on getting such a go on the sources, but to start you on the path of history of the trinity and the different views of the variety of teachings. there are many churches but only one truth. i think it is nessasary to know the false and why it is false rather than just have someone say here is what is truth. it eliminates wonder.
While traveling recently, I listened to a radio call-in show featuring a very prominent trinitarian. Someone called in to ask how they should deal with a relative whom they referred to as "oneness" in their belief of the Godhead. He was emphatic in his response that "Oneness Pentecostals" emphasize the "three manifestations" of the Godhead, but he believed in "three distinct persons" that combined, were God - coexistent and coeternal.
Consider 1 Timothy 3:14-16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
If Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, the two are inseparable...
hahahaha hank hanograph!! "the bible non-answer man". when i am on the road, i listen to him quite a bit and i also argue with him while i drive! well... he keeps me awake...at the very least.
he doesn't hold a very high opinion of apostolic folk. he says we are cultists and border line on blasphemous rhetoric.
good post doogie!