Hiddenthings
Well-Known Member
As long as you remain humble and open to learning when your erroneous beliefs are pointed out, there is still hope.
Can One Be Christian and Not Believe In The Trinity?
- Thread starter GodsGrace
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
too funny.
What is rather acutally hillarious is that YOU are using the bible that those of the CREEDS compiled.
But you don't trust those of the creeds or the Apostolic Fathers.
too funny, were it not so sad.
You don't even understand where your faith/religion comes from.
TrevorHL
Active Member
- Jul 17, 2024
- 617
- 174
- 43
- 82
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
Greetings again GodsGrace,
Kind regards
Trevor
What particular book of the NT necessitated for its authenticity the endorsement of various 2nd and 3rd Century ECFs? Start by considering Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and The Acts. It is like asking someone Is this really a Pearl of Great Price?
Kind regards
Trevor
What do you mean by WHAT BOOK?
WHAT BOOk was around in the first century?
NONE.
Letters were circulating and those that FOLLOWED the Apostles,,,
IOW, the Apostolic Fathers were writing and teaching.
A NT did not always exist.
It's the Apostolic Fathers that established canon and decided which letters were going to make it into the NT.
Your question makes no sense since the NT did not exist yet in the 2nd century.
But here is what Paul told Timothy:
1 Timothy 2:1-2
1You therefore, my [a]son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
2 The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful [b]people who will be able to teach others also.
TrevorHL
Active Member
- Jul 17, 2024
- 617
- 174
- 43
- 82
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
Greetings again GodsGrace,
Btw, do you believe the Cherubim and Seraphim were literal beings or symbolic?
Kind regards
Trevor
Perhaps my use of the word "book" is ambiguous, to you at least, but let us use the word "manuscript". But I suggest you are avoiding the question and the obvious (hilarious?). Starting with Matthew which would have been copied and distributed many times in the 1st century and treasured by the many Christian communities. Did the ecf's have to endorse what is sometimes called the Sermon on the Mount chapters 5-7? Have you ever read such extraordinary teaching elsewhere? Yes, there are always some detractors, but as one of our speakers once said concerning some statement that someone in the 3rd Century invented Jesus and his teaching: "I would like to meet the man who invented this teaching - he must have been a wonderful man". I also like Matthew 11:25-30 and consider it profound.
Btw, do you believe the Cherubim and Seraphim were literal beings or symbolic?
Kind regards
Trevor
So by WHOM were the manuscripts assembled? (call them what you will-the incorrect term you used is of no consequence to the topic)
Were ONLY those of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John circulating?
Did some determination have to made as to which books would be included in the CANON os Scripture?
What about the letters?
Were only the letters in the NT being circulated or were there more?
YES..
The Early Church Fathers had to endorse whether or not the Sermon on the Mount was SCRIPTURE.
THEY picked which gospels went into the NT.
The gospel of Thomas did not qualify.
THEY had to pick which letters went into the NT.
I'm sorry that some did not qualify.
The Epistle of Barnaas/Ignatius's writings.
The Didache.
It would have resolved many of the debates on these Forums by those that do not know church history.
And WHERE did I state that the sermon on the Mount was invented by someone in the 3rd century?
Maybe some ignorant person re church history stated this...
certainly not me.
Please do not insinuate that this is what I believe.
And, as I've stated, angels do not interest me beyond the fact that they exist and have different roles.
Last edited:
Authenticity was kind of related to it, but the real point the early church and early church fathers were considering was common usage among orthodox churches and the orthodoxy of the text - whether it is inspired and in line with other already accepted writings. Also, its usefulness for the common/catholic church.
If by authenticity you mean whether we are certain about the authors of each writing, then we are not. Some may even be pseudonymous and for example the letter to Hebrews has no known author at all. And the authorship situation in the Old Testament is even more uncertain.
There is no clear single key or rule by which you can judge if some writing belongs to the canon or not. It was rather an organic development in the church that got formalized in its current forms (there are different canons) in later centuries.
Last edited:
TrevorHL
Active Member
- Jul 17, 2024
- 617
- 174
- 43
- 82
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
Greetings again GodsGrace,
Kind regards
Trevor
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the English term that is usually used. My KJV Bible has near the beginning "Contents - The Names and Order of the Books of the Bible" and it lists the 66 Books of the Bible. My Interlinear RV/KJV is similar, but gives an Index for the OT and another Index for the NT in between Malachi and Matthew. The OT Index states "The Names and Order of all the Books of the Old Testament". My ESV is a bit different and has "The Books of the Bible in Alphabetical Order" and the first of these is Acts on page 778.
Luke seems to indicate that there were other accounts but as a thorough going historian he claimed to be accurate, and this is also evident in his account in The Acts. For example William Ramsey has a chapter on the accuracy of the detail of The Acts. Matthew is unique as he is the only Apostle apart from the Gospel of John who records the Life of Jesus and apart from direct inspiration they are both a first hand account and need no ecf endorsement.
As I have already stated, ANYONE, even today, can see if the teaching is unique and Divinely given and inspired. Your ecf's authority is redundant and was sometimes misplaced as there was some debate of whether to endorse the Book of Revelation as it seemed to speak against the RCC.
I do not have much respect for the Early Church Fathers. They were not inspired. Many were the start of the Apostasy.
The only bit of interest to me with the weird videos that you posted that claimed nine different types of active, living Angels, was in the second video. I have listened to many talks on Isaiah 6 and the second video gives the covering of the face and feet are evidence of the modesty of the Seraphim in the presence of God. I have heard this suggestion with the face but this is the first time that I have heard this suggestion concerning the feet, and I disagree with these views of both the face and feet. Most of the rest of the videos were in my estimation pure rubbish, despite the RCC Priest's authoritative manner and exposition and hint that he was continuing on with true Church tradition. Possibly this reflects your background and respect for the RCC and especially the ecfS.
Kind regards
Trevor
Jesus Christ , the Son of God is our savior and we follow Him and keep His commandments as told to us in the New Testament .
That should cover it .
The Jehova Witnesses follow Jesus and His commands.
The Mormons follow Jesus and His commands.
Are they of the Christian religion?
When man adds his OWN commands there in lies the problem . If man adds his own commands that are contradictory to the Commands of Jesus are they really followers , I say no .
And how can we decide who is changing and who is following? That is where the ecumenical creeds and the apostolic church come into play.
soberxp
Well-Known Member
I ONLY following what I study from the Bible.
Do not label me at any of the denomination.
We only follow the Jesus Christ,no matter what if he is man or God.
Is Jesus Christ a man?
Yes or No.
Is Jesus Christ a God?
Yes or No
matthew 5:37
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Is Jesus Christ a man and son of God?
Yes or No.
Is Jesus Christ a God and son of God?
Yes or No
Last edited:
Adventageous
Well-Known Member
They actually do not. Their position is made clear by their own documents.
WTS / JW essentially relegate the Ten Commandments to the 'old covenant' (which they are not).
The LDS (Mormon) claim to keep the Ten Commandments, but alter the 4th, from the 7th day to that of the first day.
They borrow from the Bible, but include other materials, such as for the WTS / JW it is the "discreet slave" of the WTS, and leadership, and for the LDS it is their leadership, presidency (prophet), quorum of 70 elders, and other works, such as the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine & Covenants, Book of Abraham, etc.
soberxp
Well-Known Member
creeds
Only teaches That Jesus Christ is our Lord never told us he is our God.
If you think that any word about Lord is God, then how many Lord are there in Europe?
Not talking about adding commands.
You didn't reply to the question at hand !
Are JWs Christian?
Are Mormons Christian?
Why or why not?
The reason I started this thread is because some are presenting themselves as CHRISTIAN but do not follow what actually makes a person CHRISTIAN...which would be Christian tenets.
It's like this:
Let's say your name is Anthony.
This name has come to define you.
When persons speak about Anthony,,,they're speaking about YOU.
Now, some come along and tell you that your name will remain Anthony BUT they want to change some important things about YOU. Do they have the right/authority to do this? To change YOU?
So the main questions are these:
1. Can Christianity, as a religion, be defined?
2. Was it defined and when?
3. By who?
Also, the following formal statement might be of help:
"A CHRISTIAN" is someone who has sincerely surrendered ownership of their life to Jesus Christ as a faith response to His Gospel. Period. A newer Christian can therefore theoretically be wrong about practically every doctrine - to be later corrected by the Holy Spirit as the Christian grows in knowledge and faith.
By contrast, Christianity (the belief system) is defined by adherence to certain, fundamental, doctrines; namely, the Eternal Deity of Christ, the Divine Authority of Christian Scripture, the Virgin Birth of Christ, the Vicarious sacrifice of Christ on a Roman Cross, and the Bodily Resurrection of Christ.
Anyone can label themselves in any manner they choose. But that approach to words has no logical utility. We use words to communicate ideas. Using words without established definitions makes communication (and the search for truth) inefficient. doctrines that separate Christianity from other beliefs and ideologies. A ministry group is not "CHRISTIAN" if it fails to ascribe to these doctrines. This is not a matter of judgement, but of basic definition.
Last edited:
You could believe that Jesus is not God.
Just don't call yourself a CHRSITIAN.
A CHRISTIAN MUST believe that Jesus is God.
This is the NUMBER ONE TENET of the Christian religion.
There is no ecumenical creed saying we must keep the 10 commandments, what to do with Sabbath etc. So, this is not what defines Christianity.
But in the early church writings and in the New Testament, the teaching of the first church is quite obvious. The first church did not kept Sabbath in any meaningful way, except for maybe some few Jewish Christians churches.
NayborBear
Active Member
Good response!
The 10 commandments are practiced, in one way or another, as a teaching of every religion.
It is a teaching and not a tenet of the Christian religion.
I sure do wish more persons would understand what defines a Christian.
- Status
Similar threads
