Can One Be Christian and Not Believe In The Trinity?

[GodsGrace]

-------

if we could take a look at something




please consider - - - referring to John 8:42 – - where Jesus says three things about his identity.

the Greek word ἀπό - Apo =means - “ off ” of - away from something -- off away from .. also - Apo =mean can also describe - (out) of - from, denoting separation, departure,


- ἀπό / Apo - is contained in the Greek word - ἀπόόστολος / Apostle


Apostle means = " sending off or - " sending away from " sent off, out, away from .


the Greek word does not generally mean because of or for reason of, nor - because of.


ἀπό = simply means = " off - of - away from - off - out away from. This Greek word is used 649 total times in the manuscripts,

here is how it is applied in the manuscripts in meaning

Mat 8:30 - And there was a good way off - ἀπό / Apo
Mat 26:58 + Mar 14:54 ..... - followed him afar off - ἀπό / Apo
Mat 27:55 + Mrk 15:40 - beholding afar off - ἀπό / Apo
Luk 16:23 - seeth Abraham afar off - ἀπό / Apo
Rev 18:10 + Rev 18:15 + Rev 18:17 - Standing afar off - ἀπό / Apo​

Why does Greeek clarify anything??
Do the NT translators not know what they were doing?

You listed several words a a definition.
How do we know which word to pick?

Members on these forums choose the word that most meet with thier momentary requirement.
Or the one they agree with most to support thier understanding of theology/doctrine.

So, you might be agreeing with me or not.
Difficult to tell.
A statement would have been preferred.

does not the message clarify that Jesus did not for come for off himself - He was not sent away out away from himself and that he came out of the God - for it was out of the God that he came out from - and came not for of himself ?

Is this what I said??
I don't believe so.

this is the way i always understood this passage to say, hey !
I came out of God and did not come of myself and i did not send myself either.
He sent me.​

I could agree with this.

I agree that his coming was to provide the atonement but I don't understand why this specific passage would be necessarily be an explanation of the exemption of himself regarding the atonement.​

Don't really know what you mean by the above.

are these a set of statements, reasons, or details designed to clarify something about the atonement ?
i believe we both are correct .​

Were we speaking about the atonement?
I thought we were spseaking about the Trinity.

The basic question is: Is Jesus a created being or did he always exist.

I do apologize, I was gone a few days and may have missed something here.

 

[Adventageous]

...
3. the majority of Christians i see here in this forum seem to submit a narrative or a standard of faith that the Son was always on the right hand of God ...

The sanctuary on earth was patterned after the original one in Heaven (3rd) (Exo. 25:9,40; Num. 8:4; 1 Chr. 28:12,19; Eze. 43:10; Heb. 8:1-2,5 KJB). In the Holy Place thereof, is the Table of shewbread, and it has two stacks of bread, seated there. One place for the Father (by Whom Jesus lives by every word of; Jhn. 6:57a), and once place, to the right of the Father's place, for the Son (by Whom we are to live by every word of; Jhn. 6:57b). This table of Shewbread was situated on the sides of the North (Exo. 26:35; Isa. 14:13 KJB), the place for the eternal throne (and crowned with gold as for Kings; Exo. 25:24 KJB) of Deity in the Holy Place.

Jhn. 6:62 "... ascend up where he [the Son of man; Jesus] was before"​

The Son of the Father was not merely in the 3rd Heaven previously (Jhn. 1:15,30; 8:24,58 KJB), but was in a specific place, in highest glory with the Father (Jhn. 17:5 KJB), thereof, near to the Father's own person (Jhn. 1:18 KJB), always at the right hand of the Father, as the Father's "fellow" (Zec. 13:7 KJB), seated on the eternal throne of Deity.

Isa_6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.​

​

1Co_2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.​

​

Jas_2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.​

​

Psa_24:7 Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in.​

Psa_24:8 Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle.​

Psa_24:9 Lift up your heads, O ye gates; even lift them up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in.​

Psa_24:10 Who is this King of glory? The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory. Selah.​

​

Joh 12:37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:​

Joh 12:38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?​

Joh 12:39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,​

Joh 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.​

Joh 12:41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.​

​

Isa 6:9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.​

Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.​

It is one of the reasons Jesus, the Son of the Father is also called the "arm" of the LORD (JEHOVAH, the Ancient of Days, the Father), since the Son is ever at the Father's "right hand".

Exo_15:6 Thy right hand, O LORD, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O LORD, hath dashed in pieces the enemy.​

​

Psa_17:7 Shew thy marvellous lovingkindness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them which put their trust in thee from those that rise up against them.​

​

Psa_98:1 A Psalm. O sing unto the LORD a new song; for he hath done marvellous things: his right hand, and his holy arm, hath gotten him the victory.​

​

Psa 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.​

Psa 110:5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.​

​

Pro 8:30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;​

 

[Seeding Loving]

Jhn. 6:62 "... ascend up where he [the Son of man; Jesus] was before"

i do understand exactly what you are saying, these are beautiful passages of the hope we have in Jesus the Anointing who has redeemed his people and in Love and respect i reply in saying this..............

I agree with everything you say " Adventageous "

please consider the possibility that Jesus is not at all referring here to his flesh nature that was inhabited by the Spirit Of Holy - of the Father,

yes, he would ascend to heaven exactly where he was before

but is he saying that he would ascend as exactly how he was before - was he before = as a human, son born of a woman. ?


this passage you mention in " Joh 6:62 " = was in the context of eating the spiritual manna

here are few highlights of the context..

:53 ........Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood ........... ..........
:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven:

(^) :62 ......ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.


in conclusion, i agree with you but please remember - lest we forget

regardless of what one may believe about this, can we agree =- that Jesus will not be returning back to heaven in the same condition or manifestation as how he had existed here on earth - nor as how he was when he was previously in heaven ... ?


just because he is going back to the location he came from does not mean he will be going back as how he existed before he was born on earth nor as how existed here on earth..

Jesus who previously existed in the bosom of Father was manifested as a man and came down to earth and God LOWERED Himself and took on the role or morph or the form of a MAN

and LOWERED HIMSELF as a man - - - to be a servant of God -... This is not who HE PREVIOUSLY always WAS and not whom he always will be ... he will be given authority he had not previously possessed !

the Anointing Spirit of God is manifesting adapting, changing, morphing, forming, being made lower, humbled, submissive, obedient and CHANGING HIS ATTITUDE - changing his REPUTATION, STATUS, RANK - being suddenly made, fashioned SUDDENLY FINDING HIMSELF made as the form of a man - with human flesh - - made in the likeness of sinful flesh.



i believe that it would be good to reconsider " Jhn. 6:62 " to be understood as a spiritual application and not strictly flesh and blood as a proclamation of eternal pre-existing sonship

what are your thoughts. ? - thanks for the wonderful communications and please keep me in your prayers

 

[Seeding Loving]

You listed several words a a definition.
How do we know which word to pick?

basicaly the Greek word ἀπό - Apo =means -....

“ off ” of - away from something -- off away from .. also - Apo =mean can also describe - (out) of - from, denoting separation, departure,


here are three examples to understand exactly what this word means and how it is used in the manuscripts


Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people " ἀπό - Apo = from _ " their sins.

" ἀπό - Apo = from _ of " their sins.


also................................

Joh 7:28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know hence I am: and I am not come “ ἀπό - Apo of “ myself,

I am not come “ ἀπό - Apo of “ myself,

also................................


Joh 7:28 - I am not come “ ἀπό - Apo / of - “ myself,

Joh 12:49 + For I have not spoken “ ἀπό - Apo / of - “ myself;

Joh 8:42 …..; ……neither came I “ ἀπό - Apo / of - “ myself; but he sent me.


The three main words that are mostly accurate for the way the manuscripts are written in Greek in using the Greek word - “ ἀπό - Apo
these three words are all three perfectly applicable for all of the New Testament manuscript wording format / - Syntax:

From - correct, perfect definition and correct meaning - - Syntax: for all passages
Of - correct, perfect definition and correct meaning - - Syntax: for all passages
Off - correct, perfect definition and correct meaning - - Syntax: for all passages

Here is a tally of a total, - and a fairly accurate tally - the word “ ἀπό - Apo - as used in the - King James Translation

Apo used as the word “ From " - 381 times in the translation

Apo used the word “ Of " 175 times in the translation

Apo used the word “ Off " 9 times in the translation


Here below the translators begin to add new creative ways to use the word according to how they translate and arrange their translated wording.,….

Apo used the word “ Since 10 times
Apo used the word “ For 10 times
Apo used the word “ At 11 times
Apo used the word “ By 9 times
Apo used the word “ Hereafter 3 times
Apo used the word “ Henceforth 3 times
Apo used the word “ Before 3 times
Apo used the word “ With 3 times
Apo used the word “ Ago 2 times
Apo used the word “ Out Of 1 time
Apo used the word “ Now 1 time
Apo used the word “ Away 1 time

This word exists in the Greek manuscripts - a total of 649 total times
they make use of the manuscript word ---- a total of 622 total times.... in translation.

The other - 27 total times they ignore it, or do not use it in their method of the translation process

- 27 total times - it just did not apply in the way the translators rearranged and re modified the sentence structure and wording and as the word simply did not fit in the modern way the translation was rendered.

The way the manuscripts were written in their originality , these three words could have perfectly been used in every single verse had the translators worded the translation in the Syntax of the ancient Greek wording - - Syntax: is = The arrangement of words, phrases, and clauses.

1. From
2. Of
3. Off

As modern English developed the way words were expressed and the motion and direction of sentences were changed from the ancient languages. The Translators wanted to suddenly modernize a 2000 year old manuscript and simply did not have uses for many, many original Greek words in the entirety of the Bible Manuscript and either modified their meaning to fit with the translated structure - or simply deleted or ignored them altogether.

sometimes things need to be re translated and re-worded in thousands of different translations or versions just to understand a simple sentence in ancient Greek.

I believe this is because of doctrinal conformity or universal community expectations and demand of the reader who more than likely would not flock in such great number to a ancient rendering in its simple originality that leaves no room whatsoever for any deviation or alteration of the original transmitted meaning and message.

 

[GodsGrace]

basicaly the Greek word ἀπό - Apo =means -....

“ off ” of - away from something -- off away from .. also - Apo =mean can also describe - (out) of - from, denoting separation, departure,


here are three examples to understand exactly what this word means and how it is used in the manuscripts


Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people " ἀπό - Apo = from _ " their sins.

" ἀπό - Apo = from _ of " their sins.


also................................

Joh 7:28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know hence I am: and I am not come “ ἀπό - Apo of “ myself,

I am not come “ ἀπό - Apo of “ myself,

also................................


Joh 7:28 - I am not come “ ἀπό - Apo / of - “ myself,

Joh 12:49 + For I have not spoken “ ἀπό - Apo / of - “ myself;

Joh 8:42 …..; ……neither came I “ ἀπό - Apo / of - “ myself; but he sent me.


The three main words that are mostly accurate for the way the manuscripts are written in Greek in using the Greek word - “ ἀπό - Apo
these three words are all three perfectly applicable for all of the New Testament manuscript wording format / - Syntax:

From - correct, perfect definition and correct meaning - - Syntax: for all passages
Of - correct, perfect definition and correct meaning - - Syntax: for all passages
Off - correct, perfect definition and correct meaning - - Syntax: for all passages

Here is a tally of a total, - and a fairly accurate tally - the word “ ἀπό - Apo - as used in the - King James Translation

Apo used as the word “ From " - 381 times in the translation

Apo used the word “ Of " 175 times in the translation

Apo used the word “ Off " 9 times in the translation


Here below the translators begin to add new creative ways to use the word according to how they translate and arrange their translated wording.,….

Apo used the word “ Since 10 times
Apo used the word “ For 10 times
Apo used the word “ At 11 times
Apo used the word “ By 9 times
Apo used the word “ Hereafter 3 times
Apo used the word “ Henceforth 3 times
Apo used the word “ Before 3 times
Apo used the word “ With 3 times
Apo used the word “ Ago 2 times
Apo used the word “ Out Of 1 time
Apo used the word “ Now 1 time
Apo used the word “ Away 1 time

This word exists in the Greek manuscripts - a total of 649 total times
they make use of the manuscript word ---- a total of 622 total times.... in translation.

The other - 27 total times they ignore it, or do not use it in their method of the translation process

- 27 total times - it just did not apply in the way the translators rearranged and re modified the sentence structure and wording and as the word simply did not fit in the modern way the translation was rendered.

The way the manuscripts were written in their originality , these three words could have perfectly been used in every single verse had the translators worded the translation in the Syntax of the ancient Greek wording - - Syntax: is = The arrangement of words, phrases, and clauses.

1. From
2. Of
3. Off

As modern English developed the way words were expressed and the motion and direction of sentences were changed from the ancient languages. The Translators wanted to suddenly modernize a 2000 year old manuscript and simply did not have uses for many, many original Greek words in the entirety of the Bible Manuscript and either modified their meaning to fit with the translated structure - or simply deleted or ignored them altogether.

sometimes things need to be re translated and re-worded in thousands of different translations or versions just to understand a simple sentence in ancient Greek.

I believe this is because of doctrinal conformity or universal community expectations and demand of the reader who more than likely would not flock in such great number to a ancient rendering in its simple originality that leaves no room whatsoever for any deviation or alteration of the original transmitted meaning and message.

Your last 3 paragraphs would have sufficed.
In a very limited sense I agree that some versions of the bible reflect doctrine.
On the whole, I'd say that we can trust the translators and the bible must be read as a whole and not verse by vese
let alone word by word.

I cannot think of one word in the NT that would change its meaning.
I'd ask if you know one but I fear getting another post on a Greek lesson.

You did NOT reply to my question however.

Youì seem to be very interested in the Greek language and not so much on doctrine taught by Christianity.
I may be wrong about this.

My question was:
Do you believe Jesus is a created being?

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again GodsGrace,

My question was:
Do you believe Jesus is a created being?

Yes, as per true Christianity:.
Hebrews 2:6–9 (KJV): 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[GodsGrace]

Greetings again GodsGrace,

Yes, as per true Christianity:.
Hebrews 2:6–9 (KJV): 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Kind regards
Trevor

Trevor
I refuse to debate this with another Christian.
Christians are supposed to believe that Jesus is NOT created,
but has always existed as the 2nd Person of the Trinity.

Which is what this thread was about.

And, yeah, I would NEVER use Hebrews to show that Jesus did not exist before He became the baby Jesus that was born to Mary.

Here's why:

Hebrews 1:1-3

1God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,

2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

3And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.



1. God made the world through His Son.
The Son was pre-existant.

2. Jesus is the EXACT representation of God's NATURE.
Only God can have the nature of God.

3. Jesus upholds all things by His power.
Only God can have this power.


And consider this:

Hebrews 11:24-26
. 24By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter,
25choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, 26considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward.


Why does the writer of Hebrews state that MOSES considered the disapproval of Jesus if Jesus did not exist yet?

 

[Seeding Loving]

My question was:
Do you believe Jesus is a created being?

I believe that the Scriptures describes the eternal existence of Jesus as - the Anointing Spirit of God and as the eternal word of God

Jesus is to be honored and worshiped as the creator himself in the very same way as we worship and serve the Father - Jesus is the image of the invisible spirit of the Father manifested in flesh.

God through Jesus the Anointing, - created all things - as the word
God in Jesus the Anointing, - created all things - as the word
God by Jesus the Anointing, - created all things - as the word
God for Jesus the Anointing - created all things - as the word

all creation was made by Jesus - he is almighty God



I DO BELEIVE THE BIBLE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT


1. That word was made flesh - that flesh was created and the man called Jesus here on earth is not eternal as = pre - existing

AND I DO BELEIVE
that God is manifesting his invisible Spirit of Holy through Jesus the Anointing - as the son of God and son of man -
called as a son = only because he is born as a son of a woman.

as where Melchizedek - for example - could never be called a son of God as Jesus was a son born as a son, to Mary


I DO BELEIVE

2. That word was made flesh - that the son born here on earth is not eternal as in = pre - existing eternal son of God


I DO BELEIVE

3. The Spirit of the Son is eternal and pre - existing and is the Spirit of God himself

for example the role of the son Jesus is - a mediator, priest, redeemer, a third party between God and man - a priest just as Melchizedek -
​

Jesus the son is nothing more than that, he can do nothing of his own will - I worship the Eternal Spirit of the Father in Jesus, through Jesus - the Anointing Spirit of God - the word of God.

and not the bones, flesh and blood and fluid and organs of the Son .
​

as Christians I believe that we all agree that we worship the Eternal Spirit of the Anointing in Jesus the Anointing and we are thankful for sacrificed bones, flesh and blood and fluid and organs that he gave as a ransom sacrifice for our sins.

The Son as the image

εἰκών - eikōn / i-kone' - THE ICON

the Son is the likeness, that is, (literally) a statue, a profile, or (figuratively) a representation, a resemblance: -

an image.

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: :16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: :17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.



also

the Scripture says in - 1Co 10:4 describing the pre- existence of " Christ " - the Anointing and the word

:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them:

and that Rock was Christ / the Anointing

​

The Same Christ / Anointing Eternal Word that was in the Men and Women of God in the Old Testament

when we look upon the Son we are looking upon the image, representation and manifestation of the Anointing spirit of the Eternal father who has given eternal life to the resurrected son of God who is the fullness of the deity of God .


Here in - 1Pe 1:2,

The “ SPIRIT OF GOD HIMSELF “ - has sanctified the blood of Jesus Christ unto obedience and the blood of the Holy Spirit has been showered and sprinkled literally as Jesus himself - “ The Anointing “

Gods very own blood has redeemed us through the eternal spirit as the fulfillment - meaning = the completion, accomplishment, performance, achievement, - of God’s divinity to mankind through the Son.

 

[GodsGrace]

I believe that the Scriptures describes the eternal existence of Jesus as - the Anointing Spirit of God and as the eternal word of God

Jesus is to be honored and worshiped as the creator himself in the very same way as we worship and serve the Father - Jesus is the image of the invisible spirit of the Father manifested in flesh.

God through Jesus the Anointing, - created all things - as the word
God in Jesus the Anointing, - created all things - as the word
God by Jesus the Anointing, - created all things - as the word
God for Jesus the Anointing - created all things - as the word

all creation was made by Jesus - he is almighty God



I DO BELEIVE THE BIBLE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT


1. That word was made flesh - that flesh was created and the man called Jesus here on earth is not eternal as = pre - existing

AND I DO BELEIVE
that God is manifesting his invisible Spirit of Holy through Jesus the Anointing - as the son of God and son of man -
called as a son = only because he is born as a son of a woman.

as where Melchizedek - for example - could never be called a son of God as Jesus was a son born as a son, to Mary


I DO BELEIVE

2. That word was made flesh - that the son born here on earth is not eternal as in = pre - existing eternal son of God


I DO BELEIVE

3. The Spirit of the Son is eternal and pre - existing and is the Spirit of God himself

for example the role of the son Jesus is - a mediator, priest, redeemer, a third party between God and man - a priest just as Melchizedek -
​

Jesus the son is nothing more than that, - I worship the Eternal Spirit of the Father in Jesus, through Jesus

and not the bones, flesh and blood and fluid and organs of the Son .
​

as Christians I believe that we all agree that we worship the Eternal Spirit of the Anointing in Jesus the Anointing and we are thankful for sacrificed bones, flesh and blood and fluid and organs that he gave as a ransom sacrifice for our sins.

The Son as the image

εἰκών - eikōn / i-kone' - THE ICON

the Son is the likeness, that is, (literally) a statue, a profile, or (figuratively) a representation, a resemblance: -

an image.

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: :16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: :17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.



also

the Scripture says in - 1Co 10:4 describing the pre- existence of " Christ " - the Anointing and the word

:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them:

and that Rock was Christ / the Anointing

​

The Same Christ / Anointing Eternal Word that was in the Men and Women of God in the Old Testament

when we look upon the Son we are looking upon the image, representation and manifestation of the Anointing spirit of the Eternal father who has given eternal life to the resurrected son of God who is the fullness of the deity of God .


Here in - 1Pe 1:2,

The ““ SPIRIT OF GOD HIMSELF ““ - has sanctified the blood of Jesus Christ unto obedience and the blood of the Holy Spirit has been showered and sprinkled literally as Jesus himself - ““ The Anointing ““

Gods very own blood has redeemed us through the eternal spirit as the fulfillment - meaning = the completion, accomplishment, performance, achievement, - of God’s divinity to mankind through the Son.

Are you of the Bahai faith?

 

[Seeding Loving]

Are you of the Bahai faith?

Perhaps some random things in all religions could seem to agree, coincide or even align with core teachings and elements within the Bible but one thing is certain and that is that the Bible does not agree nor coincide nor even align with core teachings of other religions.

including the Bahai Faith

The Bahai Faith teaches that divine Educators such as Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad have existed throughout history to guide human advancement.


the Jesus described within the Bible may agree, coincide or even align with some random things in Bahai Faith but the Jesus of the Bahai Faith is not the same Jesus, Anointing, The Son Of God -

the word made flesh.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again GodsGrace,

I refuse to debate this with another Christian.
Christians are supposed to believe that Jesus is NOT created,
but has always existed as the 2nd Person of the Trinity.
Which is what this thread was about.

That's fine. I was not trying to debate the subject as we have already had sufficient discussion on our differences. I could not resist responding to your standard statement and question. I suggest that this thread has run its repetitive course even though your latest interchange with @Seeding Loving is a bit different.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[GodsGrace]

Greetings again GodsGrace,

That's fine. I was not trying to debate the subject as we have already had sufficient discussion on our differences. I could not resist responding to your standard statement and question. I suggest that this thread has run its repetitive course even though your latest interchange with @Seeding Loving is a bit different.

Kind regards
Trevor

Agreed on all.

And I've come to the conclusion that Protestantism is ruining the Christian religion.
I say religion....whether or not one has faith is a personal matter.

The ideas that some are coming up with are most distressing.
Brand new ideas, never taught by the Christian church.

Maybe we need a Protestant Pope?
or some kind of heirarchy type umbrella that will keep HERESIES out of the church...
just like the early church kept out heresies by having a heirarchal system.

I cannot be Catholic due to doctrinal problems that are serious, at least to me,
and I'm finding serious problems with Protestantism.

It is no longer what it was meant to be at the beginning of the reformation.
Your belief system is a perfect example...but we've been through this.

Just thought I'd mention it...not that I care to debate this..
Debating with other Christians about Christian tenets that are not accepted is becoming rather tiring.


We should all believe the same as to core Christian doctrine/tenets.

 

[GodsGrace]

Perhaps some random things in all religions could seem to agree, coincide or even align with core teachings and elements within the Bible but one thing is certain and that is that the Bible does not agree nor coincide nor even align with core teachings of other religions.

including the Bahai Faith

The Bahai Faith teaches that divine Educators such as Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad have existed throughout history to guide human advancement.


the Jesus described within the Bible may agree, coincide or even align with some random things in Bahai Faith but the Jesus of the Bahai Faith is not the same Jesus, Anointing, The Son Of God -

the word made flesh.

I asked because sometimes you sound very Christian,
and other times you seem to depart somehow, in a way which I can't really explain.

It might be the language you use.

Seems that we Protestants can't even use the same language..
And so it goes.

Will reply t oyour posts later....no time now.

 

[HealthyShape]

Agreed on all.

And I've come to the conclusion that Protestantism is ruining the Christian religion.
I say religion....whether or not one has faith is a personal matter.

The ideas that some are coming up with are most distressing.
Brand new ideas, never taught by the Christian church.

Maybe we need a Protestant Pope?
or some kind of heirarchy type umbrella that will keep HERESIES out of the church...
just like the early church kept out heresies by having a heirarchal system.

I cannot be Catholic due to doctrinal problems that are serious, at least to me,
and I'm finding serious problems with Protestantism.

It is no longer what it was meant to be at the beginning of the reformation.
Your belief system is a perfect example...but we've been through this.

Just thought I'd mention it...not that I care to debate this..
Debating with other Christians about Christian tenets that are not accepted is becoming rather tiring.


We should all believe the same as to core Christian doctrine/tenets.

I would not call them protestants. Protestants would be Lutherans, Reformed churches etc.

Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons and all kind of individual "just Bible reading" people without any church are not protestants and some are not even Christians.

 

[Lambano]

Maybe we need a Protestant Pope?
or some kind of heirarchy type umbrella that will keep HERESIES out of the church...
just like the early church kept out heresies by having a heirarchal system.

I cannot be Catholic due to doctrinal problems that are serious, at least to me,
and I'm finding serious problems with Protestantism.

It is no longer what it was meant to be at the beginning of the reformation.
Your belief system is a perfect example...but we've been through this.

The Reformation happened because the sheep found they couldn't trust their shepherds. If you can't trust your leaders, you have a theological power vacuum that's going to get filled by something, whether it's charismatic leaders or "every man did what was right in his own eyes". (Judges 21:25). The Reformers knew that, and Sola Scriptura was an attempt to put a stake in the ground that we could trust, but that effectively devolved into Judges 21:25, depending on every leader's and every man's and every woman's interpretation of scripture and which verses and which books they prioritize.

Which is pretty much the history of Protestantism. And pretty much what you see here.

 

[GodsGrace]

I would not call them protestants. Protestants would be Lutherans, Reformed churches etc.

Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons and all kind of individual "just Bible reading" people without any church are not protestants and some are not even Christians.

I was thinking about this a lot today.
Maybe the problem is these non-denominational churches?
Some guy comes up with some new idea, has charisma, and starts up his own church.

Maybe the mainline churches should be doing some complaining?
Would that be negation of freedom of religion?
Or would it be the unificaiton of what CHRISTIAN means under some umbrella?
Yeah. Been thinking of umbrellas lately.

The reason I started this thread is because we have all sorts of persons with all sorts of beliefs calling themselves
Christian. Does this bother only me? YOU were one of the top supporters of my statements on this thread.
Some were downright upset at my claim that they were not Christian (which some are not)....stating that all that is needed is belief in Jesus. Muslims believe in jesus.

Maybe we're just more exposed to ideas on these Forums?

 

[GodsGrace]

The Reformation happened because the sheep found they couldn't trust their shepherds. If you can't trust your leaders, you have a theological power vacuum that's going to get filled by something, whether it's charismatic leaders or "every man did what was right in his own eyes". (Judges 21:25). The Reformers knew that, and Sola Scriptura was an attempt to put a stake in the ground that we could trust, but that effectively devolved into Judges 21:25, depending on every leader's and every man's and every woman's interpretation of scripture and which verses and which books they prioritize.

Which is pretty much the history of Protestantism. And pretty much what you see here.

I always said that the reformation was necessary....
but it's caused problems too.
Just like everything I guess.

 

[HealthyShape]

I was thinking about this a lot today.
Maybe the problem is these non-denominational churches?
Some guy comes up with some new idea, has charisma, and starts up his own church.

Maybe the mainline churches should be doing some complaining?
Would that be negation of freedom of religion?
Or would it be the unificaiton of what CHRISTIAN means under some umbrella?
Yeah. Been thinking of umbrellas lately.

The reason I started this thread is because we have all sorts of persons with all sorts of beliefs calling themselves
Christian. Does this bother only me? YOU were one of the top supporters of my statements on this thread.
Some were downright upset at my claim that they were not Christian (which some are not)....stating that all that is needed is belief in Jesus. Muslims believe in jesus.

Maybe we're just more exposed to ideas on these Forums?

Yes, I think it is just the internet bubble. This website specially tolerates all kinds of nonsense to have the label "Christian" and does not ban people who constantly break the rules of correct Christian behavior ("satan calling", flaming, goading and similar).

I guess all the people who were banned from more popular Christian forums concentrate here. So it looks more catastrophic than it is in real life, here.

When I visit various churches physically, I do not see these issues, there. Internet groups frequently attract all kinds of extremists (who frequently do not even have any real church), so I would not judge the state of Christianity based on them. How many people login here regularly, 50? It is nothing representative.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again GodsGrace and Greetings HealthyShape,

Maybe we need a Protestant Pope?
or some kind of heirarchy type umbrella that will keep HERESIES out of the church...
just like the early church kept out heresies by having a heirarchal system.

I suggest that would be a complete failure starting with the variety of beliefs even in the main Protestant Churches. Your main suggested qualification, the subject of the Trinity, is far from clear Apostolic teaching but was only consolidated in the third and fourth centuries by the Apostate Catholic Church..

It is no longer what it was meant to be at the beginning of the reformation.
Your belief system is a perfect example...but we've been through this.

I suggest that my belief system is a perfect or near perfect example of what it is meant to be, a group of individuals applying themselves to a sincere and careful study of the Word of God, disregarding or laying aside where necessary the traditions of the Apostate Church.

all kind of individual "just Bible reading" people without any church are not protestants and some are not even Christians.

I am strongly in favour of the concept of individual study of the Scriptures. My favourite series of classes was a home study class on Isaiah with a number of senior members considering a chapter at a time and the class open for discussion to all the members. The history of this group was outside an established Church, or meeting, partly due to some differences of beliefs, but mainly a love of considering the Word of God on a personal basis. With my oldest sister's encouragement and transport in my youth I attended these classes at a time when my life was in disarray. Many of these attendees formed their own meeting and some time later I joined their meeting. Although I have now relocated to a regional area, I consider that that particular meeting is the most successful of all the meetings in my fellowship in the Sydney area. Their love of the Word is still very apparent even though that older generation have now been given rest waiting for the near return of Jesus and the resurrection.

I joined one of the eight meetings in my area where I consider the same love of the Word is manifested and has been their affectionate espousal in their original formation and conduct since.

I guess all the people who were banned from more popular Christian forums concentrate here. So it looks more catastrophic than it is in real life, here.

Perhaps. I have been banned from a number of forums because I do not accept the Trinity. I am not banned from my original and favourite forum that I joined over 20 years ago, but there seems to be some technical problem and my computer fails to work, even though others can still post there. My favourite post on Psalm 1 is still available on that forum. They are tolerant of differing opinions, even though they list my fellowship under the category of a cult. They allow discussion in other areas.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[HealthyShape]

I am strongly in favour of the concept of individual study of the Scriptures.

You may be. But that does not make you a Protestant or a Christian. Bible is free to access and even an atheist can study it.