The Problem with 2 Peter 1:1

[Marymog]

What could be more clear?

What could be more clear: Non Trinitarian Faith Groups That Reject the Trinity (learnreligions.com) The doctrine of the Trinity is central to most Christian denominations and faith groups, although not all. The term Trinity is not found in the Bible, and the concept is not easy to grasp or explain. Yet most conservative, evangelical Bible scholars agree that the Trinity doctrine is clearly expressed within Scripture.

What Christian denominations do not believe in Trinity? (philosophy-question.com) To summarize, of the fifty largest Christian denominations on Wikipedia's “List of Christian denominations by number of members”, only three do not believe in the Trinity. They are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, and United Pentecostal Church International.

 

[Marymog]

i am not a proponent of RCC but a true 'wayward son' according to the Harlot.

With that said: God has revealed Himself in Scripture and it is a Mystery that cannot be unlocked by the intellect alone.

Thus, the LORD said HE will send the Helper/Comforter who is the Holy Spirit = the Spirit of Truth.

The Holy Spirit is only given to His Blood washed Born-Again Children.

God/Elohim/Yhwh is 3 and always will be.

But not because RCC says so.

So you agree with The Catholic Church when it fits what YOU believe but disagree with The Catholic Church when it doesn't teach what you believe?

Well, I guess that will always make YOU right and The Church will always be wrong.

 

[GEN2REV]

HAHAHAHAHA - you got me laughing = "general plurality with angels"

HAHAHAHAHA - you got me laughing = "Trinity the Foundation of Scripture communicated from the Beginning...firmly established in Genesis and confirmed in the Gospel."

It's on every page of the Bible, isn't it?!!

At least you've got a plethora of famous, big name, pastors and preachers today to scratch your itchy ears.

Can't prove your beliefs with Scripture, but you can sure pally-up with the majority of modern mainstream Christians and have a big laugh.

Good for you.

Your Christian life is easy and pleasant. All down hill and marching with the crowd on the wide and friendly road.

Good times.

 

[tigger 2]

We were supposed to find any evidence of the identity of God (not a mention of the word "trinity") in the writing of 1 Clement.
Here it is:
The writing of Clement of Rome (c. 96 A. D.) to the Corinthians (1 Clement) is:
“the earliest and most valuable surviving example of Christian literature outside the New Testament” and “was widely known and held in very great esteem by the early Church. It was publicly read in numerous churches, and regarded as being almost on a level with the inspired scriptures.” - pp. 17, 22, Early Christian Writings, Staniforth, Dorset Press, New York.

Clement, St., Pope of Rome (ca. 92-101) .... St. Clement is looked upon as the first of the ‘Apostolic Fathers.’ - p. 177, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945.

So what did this famous Apostolic Father tell us about the essential knowledge of God?
[In the early days of Christianity] one believed in the Father, in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but no tie was available to unite them together. They were mentioned separately. Prayers were addressed, for example, to the Father who ‘alone,’ according to Clement of Rome, ‘was God.’ - Revue d’ Histoire et de Litterature Religieuses (Review of History and of Religious Literature), May-June, 1906, pp. 222, 223.

Yes, Clement of Rome wrote:
“[Grant unto us, Lord {Jehovah, Father}] that we may set our hope on Thy Name {Jehovah - Ps. 83:18, KJV, Ex. 3:15, NEB, LB, MLB} which is the primal source of all creation ... that we may know thee, who alone abides Highest in the lofty, Holy in the holy ... Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and the sheep of Thy pasture.” - 59:2-4, The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot and Harmer, noted trinitarian scholars. [Information in special brackets { } added by me.]

“Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.” - 42:1, 2, Lightfoot & Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers.
..................................................

“The formulation ‘One God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.

“Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world, but nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father.” - p. 110, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.

 

[PinSeeker]

PinSeeker: I would say the same to you, Pierac. Except in a more polite, tactful, graceful way. Peace to you, my friend.
I don't want you to be polite...

I... don't care.

I want you to show me how I'm wrong in my understanding of Psa 110:1!

I think you don't want that at all. It seems quite obvious to me that you are firmly entrenched and now just want to argue. Aside from that, though, I don't remember (maybe because this conversation has been so disjointed and drawn out) you ever discussing Psalm 110, so I'm not sure of your understanding of Psalm 110.

Stop trying to make people feel better...

LOL!

One of us is wrong...

Well, if we differ on things, the only possibilities are that one of us is wrong or that both of us are wrong. The only thing we can say, really, in that case, is that we are not both right. But again, I'm not sure of your understanding of Psalm 110. I think that we would agree that the Father is talking to the Son, there in verse 1, and that Christ is David's Lord. Beyond that, again, I'm not sure what your understanding is.

On a slightly different note, I did look back a few pages in this thread, though, and saw this little exchange between us:

PinSeeker: "Yes, certainly, because 'He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being' (John 1:2-4) Certainly He knew the Creator, because He, along with the Father and the Spirit, is Him. They had perfect fellowship from all eternity (past and future).

Pierac: Again spoken as a Child.... "He was in the beginning with God" Sorry PinSeeker but God has no beginning!!! Let that sink in!!!​

So, you're response here makes no sense. I wholeheartedly agree that God has no beginning; He is self-existing, from everlasting (eternity past) to everlasting (eternity future). And I am saying (as John, in John 1, is saying) that in the beginning ~ which, in referring to the beginning, he is taking us back to Genesis 1 and the creation of the world... that beginning... Jesus was with the Father. Jesus also is eternal, and has no beginning (and no end). Now, I'm not sure if this is what you are getting at or not, and at this point quite frankly don't really care; God's truth it is.

I believe it's you!

Like I said, it remains to be seen, at least to me, whether we differ or not regarding Psalm 110.

Show/teach me differently!!!

You don't want that at all, Pierac. But maybe the Holy Spirit will. He's the only one Who really can. I can only impart, as Paul says:

"So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit Who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual."

If you want to have a graceful chat regarding Psalm 110, let me know.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Marymog]

We were supposed to find any evidence of the identity of God (not a mention of the word "trinity") in the writing of 1 Clement.
Here it is:
The writing of Clement of Rome (c. 96 A. D.) to the Corinthians (1 Clement) is:
“the earliest and most valuable surviving example of Christian literature outside the New Testament” and “was widely known and held in very great esteem by the early Church. It was publicly read in numerous churches, and regarded as being almost on a level with the inspired scriptures.” - pp. 17, 22, Early Christian Writings, Staniforth, Dorset Press, New York.

Clement, St., Pope of Rome (ca. 92-101) .... St. Clement is looked upon as the first of the ‘Apostolic Fathers.’ - p. 177, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945.

So what did this famous Apostolic Father tell us about the essential knowledge of God?
[In the early days of Christianity] one believed in the Father, in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but no tie was available to unite them together. They were mentioned separately. Prayers were addressed, for example, to the Father who ‘alone,’ according to Clement of Rome, ‘was God.’ - Revue d’ Histoire et de Litterature Religieuses (Review of History and of Religious Literature), May-June, 1906, pp. 222, 223.

Yes, Clement of Rome wrote:
“[Grant unto us, Lord {Jehovah, Father}] that we may set our hope on Thy Name {Jehovah - Ps. 83:18, KJV, Ex. 3:15, NEB, LB, MLB} which is the primal source of all creation ... that we may know thee, who alone abides Highest in the lofty, Holy in the holy ... Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and the sheep of Thy pasture.” - 59:2-4, The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot and Harmer, noted trinitarian scholars. [Information in special brackets { } added by me.]

“Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.” - 42:1, 2, Lightfoot & Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers.

Hey Tigger,

Who we were supposed to find a mention or suggestion of the "trinity" in the writing of 1 Clement?

 

[Illuminator]

“The formulation ‘One God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century... blah, blah, blah.
Please note, that these are not my comments; they are not the WT comments, they are trinitarian comments.

No, they are LIES BY OMISSION by the Watch Tower Society. Instead of just dropping your dishonest arguments, you ignore my evidence and put a lying misquote in your signature.

What they left out to deliberately misrepresent the source and deceive you:

"Question of Continuity and Elemental Trinitarianism: From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. Triadic Consciousness in the Primitive Revelation. The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the 2d-century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead. ... From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived. ... If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p299-300)
Catholic Encyclopedia's and Dictionaries
see also CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity

That's just ONE LIE BY OMMISION, there are several more misquotes that expose the WTS as dishonest LIARS.

 

[DavidB]

OMG...You are just like @tigger 2

DO NOT partially quote what I provided. Quote ALL OF IT: While it can hardly be said that there is at present any unanimous agreement on the subject, the best modern criticism favors the authenticity of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius. Even such eminent non-Catholic critics as Zahn, Lightfoot, and Harnack hold this view. Perhaps the best evidence of their authenticity is to be found in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, which mentions each of them by name.

Stop being sooooo dishonest.....

Did you notice that I did not call you dishonest or ignorant for contradicting your own quote?

Did you notice the quotation marks and the … this time? That is to make it obvious it is a partial quote. That is a standard accepted practice. I quoted what made my point with no distortion whatsoever. You just don’t like having it pointed out to you.

I am pretty new here but have years of experience trying to reason with people on another forum. I am not going to follow you and those here like you into typical keyboard name calling and insults.

“For a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, showing restraint when wronged, instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed.”
2 Tim 2:24, 25

 

[DavidB]

Oh goodnesss David.....You are wearing me out kiddo.

Soooooooooooooooo you reject what the men who were students of the Apostles wrote but you accept what other men say WHO NEVER MET THE APOSTLES????????? You believe that the students of the Apostles wrote "twisted things" but the men YOU agree with didn't write twisted things???? That's your solution to make YOU right????

Do you realize how non-sensical that sounds?

Sooooooooooo what criteria do you use to determine that the students of the Apostles "twisted things" but YOUR MEN didn't???? What is your litmus test???

Do I sound young. I’m 68. You must be really old to refer to me as “kiddo.”

Is it ok with you if I just quote “kiddo” without quoting your entire comment?

 

[DavidB]

Dear dear David,

They are NOT controversial. A majority of Christianity, Christian denominations, preachers, teachers and the average I only go to Church on Sunday Christians believe and accept the Trinity doctrine. YOU and your ilk are in a very small minority. That does not make controversy. That makes a heresy.

Heresy? That word was used for centuries to justify killing and burning people at the stake by both Protestants and Catholics. How did Christians go from being persecuted to being the persecutors? It is obvious it is that neither group were true Christians. A tree is identified by its fruitage. One should carefully examine their beliefs using God’s Word to see why they behaved in such a Satanic way.

 

[DavidB]

No, it is not only little ol' Marymog that thinks that. A MAJORITY of Christians think that. Why do you reject it?

Logic? Thinking ability? Love for God and his Word? A willingness to search for the truth regardless of popularity?

 

[Marymog]

Logic? Thinking ability? Love for God and his Word? A willingness to search for the truth regardless of popularity?

You reject the thinking ability and logic of the majority of the greatest Christian minds and accept the logic and thinking ability of your men. It is not a matter of popularity. It is a matter of the Truth. And you have been given it. Now, you are free....John 8:32

 

[Marymog]

Heresy? That word was used for centuries to justify killing and burning people at the stake by both Protestants and Catholics. How did Christians go from being persecuted to being the persecutors? It is obvious it is that neither group were true Christians. A tree is identified by its fruitage. One should carefully examine their beliefs using God’s Word to see why they behaved in such a Satanic way.

Arius, the original Trinity denying heretic of which you follow, was not killed for his heresy. He allegedly died of a bowel problem.

God did not condone the killings for heresy. That was a work of Satan.

The tree of anti-trinitarism has produced little fruit. A bitter fruit that is rejected by most when they taste it. The fruit of the tree of the Trinity has produced much fruit for Him. He has won.

Keeping it real....Mary

 

[Marymog]

Do I sound young. I’m 68. You must be really old to refer to me as “kiddo.”

Is it ok with you if I just quote “kiddo” without quoting your entire comment?

I can't hear you so I don't know if you "sound young". But you write as a child that has not yet learned what has been taught and accepted for 2,000 years. Also, I am younger than you!

The problem is not quoting. The problem you have is not quoting in context....as I previously showed you!

 

[tigger 2]

@tigger 2 is being a bit dishonest in his post. Tigger only quotes parts of his reference (Catholic Encyclopedia - “St. Ignatius of Antioch”) and leaves out the part that doesn't fit his narrative. He then adds a quote from anti-trinitarian 'scholar' and unitarian, Alvan Lamson. Furthermore the quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967 I can't verify, but I will take his word on it and address it also.

Here is what Tigger quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia: “Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form.”

Here is what Tigger "accidently" left off from that quote. The very last line: "The spurious letters in this recension are those that purport to be from Ignatius.' The article then lists the "spurious letters" of which the Letter to the Ephesians is not listed. The Epistle to the Ephesians is considered by scholars as one of the seven authentic letters written by Ignatius.

Here is what Tigger didn't quote from his source: While it can hardly be said that there is at present any unanimous agreement on the subject, the best modern criticism favors the authenticity of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius. Even such eminent non-Catholic critics as Zahn, Lightfoot, and Harnack hold this view. Perhaps the best evidence of their authenticity is to be found in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, which mentions each of them by name.

Here is the full chapter (18) from which I previously quoted to support the Trinity doctrine: Let my spirit be counted as nothing for the sake of the cross, which is a stumbling-block to those that do not believe, but to us salvation and life eternal. Where is the wise man? Where the disputer? Where is the boasting of those who are styled prudent? For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.

In regards to New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967. The Catholic Church has never denied that the Trinity doctrine came into being later. It is true that the Apostolic Fathers and ECF's never remotely approached such a mentality or perspective in regards to the Trinity doctrine. They were writing about the Trinity, they just didn't have a 'word' for it or it wasn't 'defined' by The Church for several years. That doesn't mean it was created out of whole clothe by The Church.

@Aunty Jane "liked" Tiggers post even though it was a deceptive post. I look forward to anything @Illuminator or @BreadOfLife has to add.

Keeping it real....Mary

marymog wrote: "tigger 2 is being a bit dishonest in his post. Tigger only quotes parts of his reference (Catholic Encyclopedia - “St. Ignatius of Antioch”) and leaves out the part that doesn't fit his narrative. He then adds a quote from anti-trinitarian 'scholar' and unitarian, Alvan Lamson."

It is an oft-used trinitarian device to claim that someone has dishonestly quoted by stopping at a point that clearly answers the point without proceeding to the excuses and opinions which follow. Of course a trinitarian source will attempt to defend the trinity.

If Lamson was truly a unitarian, I apologize for calling him trinitarian and will change my studies to reflect that. To deny that he was an influential writer and imply that, not being trinitarian, he must be a liar is unfair.

marymog wrote: "Here is what Tigger quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia: “Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form.” [Bolding is mine]

The emphasized part says it all.

marymog wrote: "Here is what Tigger "accidently" left off from that quote. The very last line: "The spurious letters in this recension are those that purport to be from Ignatius.' The article then lists the "spurious letters" of which the Letter to the Ephesians is not listed. The Epistle to the Ephesians is considered by scholars as one of the seven authentic letters written by Ignatius."

Spurious simply means the originals were not written by Ignatius. It does not mean that those considered "authentic" were not changed so much by later copyists that they are not trustworthy.

marymog wrote: "Here is the full chapter (18) from which I previously quoted to support the Trinity doctrine: Let my spirit be counted as nothing for the sake of the cross, which is a stumbling-block to those that do not believe, but to us salvation and life eternal. Where is the wise man? Where the disputer? Where is the boasting of those who are styled prudent? For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water."

As we previously pointed out in the ANF, Ch. 18, there are two columns. The left column is called either the short version or the long version (they aren't labelled). The right column is (short or long) another version. Your translation is from the left column, but the righthand version says: "For the Son of God...." So, if I were of the ilk which makes personal accusations, I could say someone is lying here. But I don't believe you are. Someone obviously did centuries ago, however.

{To be continued as soon as I am able)

 

[Marymog]

Did you notice that I did not call you dishonest or ignorant for contradicting your own quote?

Did you notice the quotation marks and the … this time? That is to make it obvious it is a partial quote. That is a standard accepted practice. I quoted what made my point with no distortion whatsoever. You just don’t like having it pointed out to you.

I am pretty new here but have years of experience trying to reason with people on another forum. I am not going to follow you and those here like you into typical keyboard name calling and insults.

“For a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, showing restraint when wronged, instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed.”
2 Tim 2:24, 25

Hi david,

I did not contradict my own quote. I quoted something and then you quoted part of it (out of context) and then I corrected you. I made it clear that there is NOT a unanimous agreement on the subject of the Trinity. I am the one who quoted that. You are the one who quoted it incompletely and out of context. Why did you do that?

No, I did not notice the quotation marks and the "this time". Perhaps you can point that out to me. I cant find it.

Your years of experience have been in vain. You are not very good at reasoning with people. But you are good at quoting them out of context.

I am not asking you to follow me.....that's silly and something I never asked you to do. I am asking you to read ALL of Scripture AND learn your own Christian history instead reading the FEW men who write opposite of Scripture in regard to the Trinity. Perhaps this is why you have trouble reasoning with people. You follow unreasonable men.

 

[Marymog]

If Lamson was truly a unitarian, I apologize for calling him trinitarian and will change my studies to reflect that. To deny that he was an influential writer and imply that, not being trinitarian, he must be a liar is unfair.

Hey Tigger,

Show me where I denied that Lamson was NOT an influential writer OR where I implied that he must be a liar. If you can provide that evidence I will correct what I have written. I have never heard of him and I can't find him on a list of "influential writers". Can you provide a list of influential writers that has his name on it?

Furthermore, I only pointed out that you provided a quote from an anti-trinity preacher to support your anti-trinity belief.

 

[Marymog]

It is an oft-used trinitarian device to claim that someone has dishonestly quoted by stopping at a point that clearly answers the point without proceeding to the excuses and opinions which follow. Of course a trinitarian source will attempt to defend the trinity.

ditto for anti-trinitarians....back to square one

Or to put it another way: The pot calling the kettle black

 

[Marymog]

marymog wrote: "Here is what Tigger "accidently" left off from that quote. The very last line: "The spurious letters in this recension are those that purport to be from Ignatius.' The article then lists the "spurious letters" of which the Letter to the Ephesians is not listed. The Epistle to the Ephesians is considered by scholars as one of the seven authentic letters written by Ignatius."

Spurious simply means the originals were not written by Ignatius. It does not mean that those considered "authentic" were not changed so much by later copyists that they are not trustworthy.

Hey Tigger,

Give me evidence that Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians is NOT what he wrote and that there were changes to it! You suggested there were changes. I can't find evidence there was!

Respectfully, Mary

 

[Marymog]

As we previously pointed out in the ANF, Ch. 18, there are two columns. The left column is called either the short version or the long version (they aren't labelled). The right column is (short or long) another version. Your translation is from the left column, but the righthand version says: "For the Son of God...." So, if I were of the ilk which makes personal accusations, I could say someone is lying here. But I don't believe you are. Someone obviously did centuries ago, however.

{To be continued as soon as I am able)

Hey Tigger,

I can't find the post that "previously pointed out in the ANF, Ch. 18, there are two columns". Which post was that?

Sincerely, Mary