"Matthew Johnson" <matthew_member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> schreef in bericht
news:B10A6647-69E7-EE7E-4EA2-925635E1CDD2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> In article <45A488E6-61EC-A50A-1221-1675FD20DE5B@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Menno =
van
> Barneveld says...
>>
>
> [snip]
>
>>The used arguments are not always clear to me in respect to the subject.
>>This is the reason of posting this item, how to teach the gospel.
>
> So you say here, but how can anyone "teach the gospel" when spreading s=
uch
> slanderous misinformation as you just did?
This is not what I say. Sorry if my words gave that impression.
Quote:
>Especially since the doctrine of the Trinity was not formally stated
>until many years later.
But when it was "formally stated", it was made clear: it was stated
the way it was stated _precisely_ to preserve what had _always_ been
the true teaching of Christianity. And that true teaching is what the
thief on the cross somehow wondrously came to believe.
End of quote.
Jesus never taught the Trinity. How then could the thief on the cross
instandly understand and believe this church dogma
that bishops quarreled about for centuries?
This is a very unclear argumentation, if not impossible.
>
>>We can know that the early churchfathers had some reason to bring in th=
eir
>>own idees into the teaching.
>
> That is NOT what they were doing. They were following Paul's example of
> "being
> all things to all men" (1 Cor 19:22).
I think you ment an other verse, because this one was not in my bible.
But Jesus told us that we are in this world but not from this world.
This was for Paul also. He stated that he kept to the gospel and that he =
did
not change it in his teachings.
So changing the writings of the apostles revealed from the
holy spirit was not conform Paul.
Never the less, the Johannine Comma was inserted on purpose.
The same holds for Matthew the verses 5:20,30,47, 9:34, 12:47, 17:21, 18:=
11,
Mark 1:2-3 and 16:8 behind 'efobounto gar' and 16:9-20.
Or do you think these were all copiing mistakes? Impossible.
The dogma of the trinity was not in the apostolic confession.
Would it not have been a big mistake to leave it out if the trinity alrea=
dy
existed at that time?
It has such im****tant implications.
If you fill in for God the Father, for Jesus and for the holy spirit the
Trinity then:
The Trinity lets itselve descend from heaven to make Mary pregnant from
itselve,
it lets itselve being baptized and then lets itselve descend itselve from
heaven like
a pigeon on itselve. It lets itselve say it is me that is my beloved son,
in whom I am well pleased.
And so on. Christianity makes itselve impossible, and a l.o.l. for others.
Imagine that God who stays free from sinns, lets Himselve being crucified
and after three days resurrects Himselve from the death. Of course He can.
Then this would be no proof that ordinary people could do the same.
It takes away the evidence that ordinairy people who are not godly can
be resurrected, get eternal life and go to heaven.
So the trinity did not exist when the first apostolic confession of faith
was made.
But Origenes already wanted to bring the gospel in accordance of the Gree=
k
philosophy to silence the critics, may be the critic in his own spirit.
He used the idee that Jesus Christ was already present in the proces of
creation. Otherwise he could not have been the logos of all creation.
This idee was the root of all evil in concern of the trinity dogma.
Then Constantine forced a decission in favor of the Holy Trinity as a rul=
e
for all Christians in his empire.
And the bishops bowed for Constantine in Nicea.
>
>> Because of that the New Testament became=3D20
>>corrupted not only with copiing mistakes, but also by fraudulous
added=3D=
20
>>verses.
>>The best example is the addition in 1 John 5:7-8 to promote the dogma o=
f =3D
>>the=3D20
>>Holy Trinity.
>>Erasmus at first in his edition of the Greek NT left the addition
out,=3D=
20
>>because the older manuscript did not have it. But for a later edition t=
he=3D
>>=3D20
>>RCC forced him to put it back into the text.
>
> This is blatantly false! On the contrary: it was the Catholic Alcuin wh=
o
> first
> _removed_ the "Johannine Comma" centuries before Erasmus.
>
> Also, he added it back in only because he lost a rash bet.
>
> Why can't you take the bother to lean the real history before you sprea=
d
> information hostile to the Church and Fathers?
>
Sorry if I was wrong with that Erasmus was not the first one.
It does not change the fact that the Johannine Comma does not belong
into the text and that it was put in by a churchfather.
>
>>God is not a trinity.
>
> But of course He is. That _is_ what John 1:1-18 and Mat 28:19 are about.
>
It is not stated in these verses. That is what you interprete in them.
Mat 28:19 =CF=80=CE=BF=CF=81=CE=B5=CF=85=CE=B8=CE=B5=CE=BD=CF=84=CE=B5=CF=
=82 =CE=BF=CF=85=CE=BD
=CE=BC=CE=B1=CE=B8=CE=B7=CF=84=CE=B5=CF=85=CF=83=CE=
=B1=CF=84=CE=B5 =CF=80=CE=B1=CE=BD=CF=84=CE=B1 =CF=84=CE=B1
=CE=B5=CE=B8=CE=
=BD=CE=B7 =CE=B2=CE=B1=CF=80=CF=84=CE=B9=CF=83=CE=B1=CE=BD=CF=84=CE=B5=CF=
=82
=CE=B1=CF=85=CF=84=CE=BF=CF=85=CF=82 =CE=B5=CE=B9=CF=82 =CF=84=CE=BF
=CE=BF=
=CE=BD=CE=BF=CE=BC=CE=B1 =CF=84=CE=BF=CF=85
=CF=80=CE=B1=CF=84=CF=81=CE=BF=
=CF=82 =CE=BA=CE=B1=CE=B9 =CF=84=CE=BF=CF=85 =CF=85=CE=B9=CE=BF=CF=85 =CE=
=BA=CE=B1=CE=B9 =CF=84=CE=BF=CF=85 =CE=B1=CE=B3=CE=B9=CE=BF=CF=85
=CF=80=CE=
=BD=CE=B5=CF=85=CE=BC=CE=B1=CF=84=CE=BF=CF=82
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the nam=
e
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (RSV)
does not say they are three in one, a holy trinity.
>>Jesus taught me that he was born as a man, a human
>>being, from the virgin Mary, due to the action of the holy spirit.
>
> And what do you suppose this 'action' _is_?
>
The holy spirit created the very first fruit
from which Jesus grew up out of cells of Mary.
>>But when he was baptized by John the Baptist (Matthew 3:16-17) he went =
up=3D
>>=3D20
>>immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he =
sa=3D
>>w=3D20
>>the spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo,=
a=3D
>>=3D20
>>voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved son, with whom I am well=
=3D20
>>pleased."
>>This holy spirit made Jesus Christ godly.
>
> Newsflash: the Spirit did this long before Mat 3:16-17.
Proof?
>
>> So before Mary became pregnant=3D20
>>from Jesus he did not exist.
>
> That does not follow. What is worse, it _clearly_ contradicts John 1:1-=
3,
> which
> prove Him to be co-eternal with the Father.
>
John 1:1-4
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word =
was
God.
2 He was in the beginning with God;
3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made
that was made.
4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
You see, not a word about Jesus, the Christ or the Son of Man.
And Jesus said that he spoke the words of the Father. So the word was wit=
h
the Father and was the Father.
Also behind verse 4 nothing is stated that Jesus Christ already existed
before Mary became pregnant of him.
>
>
Now I reach my final argument. You disreguarded what I wrote,
that Jesus Christ revealed this to me.
You can check this out in two ways.
1. You can ask our lord Jesus Christ if it is true, because he stated:
Ask and you shall be given.
2. You can ask me some work that I did for our lord, for he stated:
At the fruits one knows the tree.
> --=20
> ------------------------------
> Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
> Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
> (Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
>
>
> ((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a
> moderator. )))
> ((( Read http://srcbs.org
for details about this group BEFORE you
> st. )))
With my lord I jump over a wall.
Menno van Barneveld.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a
moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org
for details about this group BEFORE you post.
)))
|
