Biblical Support v Explicit Biblical Teaching
- Thread starter Wrangler
- 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!
So what type of teaching do you like?
A explicit biblical teaching of all the surrounding context in accordance to the single scripture?
A quick doctrinal supported scripture that is explained yet not with the surrounding context?
(Me personally like to be taught or talked to about the scriptures and explained to what is going on for the most part).
A explicit biblical teaching of all the surrounding context in accordance to the single scripture?
A quick doctrinal supported scripture that is explained yet not with the surrounding context?
(Me personally like to be taught or talked to about the scriptures and explained to what is going on for the most part).
Not really an answer to my question but what follows shows you do not realize the difference between merely being supported, like seeing faces in inanimate objects from explicitly taught.
You are simply wrong about this as a matter of fact. There is no scriptural verse that says anything like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - and if you do not belief this, you cannot be saved.
Why do you ignore those explicit proofs your insisting Jesus was not divine is wholly,holy, refuted by God himself?
Again, there are no explicit proofs you claim exist. See The Case Against the Trinity.
So what type of teaching do you like?
A explicit biblical teaching of all the surrounding context in accordance to the single scripture?
A quick doctrinal supported scripture that is explained yet not with the surrounding context?
(Me personally like to be taught or talked to about the scriptures and explained to what is going on for the most part).
Great question! I like to differentiate between reasonable degrees of confidence. For instance, compare and contrast what various Christian denominations hold in common compared to their doctrinal differences. My guess is what is in common is more likely explicitly taught.
Now, there is nothing wrong with having doctrine based on things 'supported' but as an Eastern Orthodox friend of mine admitted, you can support anything using the Bible. So, it's important to know the ground you stand on. When it is firm and when you are going out on a limb. Soul Sleep is one example. Where do you stand on this doctrine?
That is a great point. Sola Scriptura is a latin phrase. So, one should not expect to see it in Hebrew or Greek text, right? Having said that, I think this is supportive. How about you?
And so you cancel the word of God in order to hand down your own tradition.
Mark 7:13 (NLT)
Yes, it really was the answer to your question.
Furthermore, your now tossing out the trinity argument is explicit evidence indicating you are not able to deal with the prior subjects you've assailed and been corrected on.
Now you wish to discuss the Trinity ? OK.
The Trinity doctrine was never a teaching of Jesus. In fact, the very verse that explicitly refutes your argument against Christ and his divine nature, explicitly revokes the Trinity doctrine.
"I and my father are one" John 10:30
And 100 other verses that show when they had seen Jesus the apostles and others were seeing God.
What Does the Bible Say About If Youve Seen Me Youve Seen The Father?
God is not three separate and distinct person's. The titles men apply make it appear that way when misunderstanding context and the word, that was God, and that word became flesh and dwelt among us.
"No trinitarian doctrine is explicitly taught in the Old Testament. Sophisticated trinitarians grant this, holding that the doctrine was revealed by God only later, in New Testament times (c.50-c.100) and/or in the Patristic era (c. 100-800)..... " Trinity > History of Trinitarian Doctrines (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The Surprising Origins of the Trinity Doctrine
"The teaching of the three Cappadocian theologians "made it possible for the Council of Constantinople (381) to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture" (The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, "God," p. 568)........ "
"The teaching of the three Cappadocian theologians "made it possible for the Council of Constantinople (381) to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture" (The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, "God," p. 568)........ "
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
You've practiced what is revealed in Mark 7:13 with great passion.
Sad.
Scripture alone does appear in scripture. Using the Latin to dismiss that fact is not good. Because one must know The Word gave life to the words in scripture.
And we are saved by Christ alone, who was The Word made flesh. God alone, his word alone.
Comparative scriptures: NET version & Mounce Interlinear Greek
2 timothy 3 NET,MOUNCE - Ministry in the Last Days - But - Bible Gateway
2 Timothy 3:
16 Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
Scripture =
γραφή
(graphē)
Strong: G1124
GK: G1210
a writing; in NT the Holy Scriptures, the Jewish Scriptures, or Books of the Old Testament, Mt. 21:42; Jn. 5:39, et al.; by synec. doctrines, declarations, oracles, or promises contained in the sacred books, Mt. 22:29; Mk. 12:24, et al.; spc. a prophecy, Mt. 26:54; Mk. 14:49; Lk. 4:21; 24:27, 32; with the addition of προφητική, Rom. 16:26; of τῶν προφητῶν, Mt. 26:56
Riverwalker
Active Member
I realize that you reject the triune nature of God (from your sig). The most basic aspect of our belief...and being bereft of the simple basis of Christianity, I think you really have no place or purpose to try and define for us...the truth
Maybe their identifying as Unitarian in their profile will better help in understanding their errant exegesis?
I would think it depends on how we define the word trinty.the word is not found in the bible. Two reprsents the work of one. The Father in a greater position having power to strenthen the Son of man Jesus.The Son of man Jesus submiting to that power of a loving authority as the lesser position . Two is the witness of God .
I understand your position as absent from Scripture as an explicit teaching suit is.
I’m sure we’d agree on the explicit teaching in the Bible like we need to have faith in Jesus to take away our sins, that we should forgive others as our subs are forgiven and as Jesus said, most importantly to love God with your all.
By contrast OSAS is over 190 pages now with Biblical verses supporting both sides.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
The Trinity...the formula...there are greater more pertinent arguments.
Whether you believe in the three Gods in one person formula or the three Gods in a union that is a Godhead, neither denies the deity of any of the three.
Considering that the human comprehension of either formula, is going to be lacking because we are not going to be able to express that in any language.
The debates that you are going to see on this forum are going to be repeats of debates that existed during the early Christian period.
What the Ecumenical Councils debated on was as much political as it was religious. The final ruling being more of a way of stopping the arguments, with the goal being to unify the Church. That is why the decision was forced on people so harshly.
The early Apostle's Creeds still show the division of beliefs regarding the Trinity.
Whether you believe in the three Gods in one person formula or the three Gods in a union that is a Godhead, neither denies the deity of any of the three.
Considering that the human comprehension of either formula, is going to be lacking because we are not going to be able to express that in any language.
The debates that you are going to see on this forum are going to be repeats of debates that existed during the early Christian period.
What the Ecumenical Councils debated on was as much political as it was religious. The final ruling being more of a way of stopping the arguments, with the goal being to unify the Church. That is why the decision was forced on people so harshly.
The early Apostle's Creeds still show the division of beliefs regarding the Trinity.
Except for the fact there are not three . There is only one . There has only ever been one.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Yes I understand the concept...it just does not work out along the storyline.
Yahweh...Father...Almighty...creator of heaven......1
Yeshua....Son of Yahweh...Savior of Mankind........2
Holy Spirit the comforter and guide.....................3
Now if you add these up and you come up with anything but 3....you have failed math class.
You have to go to summer school and study. Try it again next year.
The error in your thinking is you see God as a math formula because you are trapped by labels that seek to frame eternal unfathomable power into a human construct . One that failed the moment "person's" entered in.
The truth of the immaterial that is spirit is right there in Genesis.
What divides the church on earth? That what your post examples, and all others, including mine, in every forum on the net. And off line world wide. That even surpasses what we believe is our love of God.
Our ego that leads us to believe our view of God is the right one. And in so doing, we make the eternal power conform to our image and preferred likeness of it.
Which is why we argue. Because in so doing we've made the incorporeal personal. And that which is different in perspective is presumed wrong, and offensive to our confidence in our station.
It's a human condition that imagines the "I" is sustained and bolstered by what it can identify and defend as, personal and "mine".
We live in our own world decorated with our preferred illusions that make us what we are. Transistory, self-centered, and right.
Self-centered, you say? That's not Christian.
Really?
Here we are, discussing, arguing, confronting one another, in mannerly form and sometimes not, over the subject of an invisible eternal incorporeal power that we believe has nothing better to do with its time than obsess over where or not we , created by its power from its essence, make it happy with our behaviors that, because we believe what we read, made us fallen and lacking in capacity to accomplish that .
And humility?
Ah, that's illusion too.
Because we in the human race believe eternity loves us best.
And what is best? That brings the conflict anew. Denominationalism, non-denominational, etc...
The peace of God? With so many minds envisioning what that is and means to "I"?
With so many of us holding to our ideals.
Peace in chaos. It's the human condition.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
I understand that if it does not make sense....then it is of God. What you are assuming is that God is to stupid to communicate.
There is no argument here. I have explained that it is not worth that. The one God formula simply is contradictory to everything that shows how Christ the Son interacted with His Father in all four Gospels. Still God bless you and believe whatever you want and carry on smartly.
Thinking about what you had said here for a moment: (Grailhunter) - Hope you do not mind my comment because what you said had made me think of these two scriptures one which is about God and dealing with confusion.
Thought about this scripture:
So if something does not make sense doesn't mean it is because of God
~ If God is not the author of confusion. Must just be something as human beings we have not come to learn, or understand ~
and believe that the spirit believers are given is the spirit of truth/holy spirit/spirit of Christ/Kingdom of Heaven, that dwells with-in believers that is able to help in understanding spiritual things that come from the bible.
I understand that if it does not make sense....then it is of God.
Thought about this scripture:
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 1 Corinthians 14:33.
So if something does not make sense doesn't mean it is because of God
~ If God is not the author of confusion. Must just be something as human beings we have not come to learn, or understand ~
and believe that the spirit believers are given is the spirit of truth/holy spirit/spirit of Christ/Kingdom of Heaven, that dwells with-in believers that is able to help in understanding spiritual things that come from the bible.
NLT 1 Corinthians 2:10
But it was to us that God revealed these things by his Spirit. For his Spirit searches out everything and shows us God’s deep secrets.
BSB 1 Corinthians 2:10
But God has revealed it to us by the Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.
But it was to us that God revealed these things by his Spirit. For his Spirit searches out everything and shows us God’s deep secrets.
BSB 1 Corinthians 2:10
But God has revealed it to us by the Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.
You are over eager to insinuate insult. I never ever implied God is stupid. You may wish to search yourself for seeing God that way when my words never came close to saying that.
"God" is an inclusive label not unique to Christianity.
Spirit, that is deemed holy, created all that exists. Of and from itself
Immanuel was no exception. Which is why Immanuel was the name foreordained to call the son Mary birthed to life. That all who heard that name would know, God was with them.
The Word made flesh.
Btw, Tri-Theism is pagan, polytheism.
Last edited:
Similar threads
