There is only one true church

[RedFan]

EVERY Christian scholar knows and understands that the Nicaean Creed upheld the long-standing teaching of The Church concerning the Trinity. It, in part, says;

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,

As one Trinitarian to another, @Marymog, I hope you will allow a slight correction. The Nicene Creed as originally formulated did not mention anything about the Holy Spirit being "the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son." That was a later addition.

Because it collects 170 witnesses to the creed, the gold standard for recovery of the original Greek text is Dossetti's Il Simbolo di Nicea e di Costantinopoli. Here is R.P.C. Hanson's translation of it into English, found in The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988):

“We believe in one God Father Almighty Maker of all things seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten as only-begotten of the Father, that is of the substance (ousia) of the Father, God of God, Light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into existence, both things on heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and became man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit.

"But those who say ‘There was a time when he did not exist,’ and ‘Before being begotten he did not exist,’ and that he came into being from non-existence, or who allege that the Son of God is of another hypostasis or ousia, or is alterable or changeable, these the Catholic and Apostolic Church condemns.”

 

[Marymog]

A catholic church would be a church that has voluntarily submitted to papal authority yes? You would be hard pressed to prove that the Celtic church, even beyond the time Augustine visited Britain, was at any time submitted to papal authority. That came later. Much later. And it wasn't voluntary. Arranged marriages, war and bloodshed, forced takeover of property, and threats were the Catholic methods of discipling the Celtic people and converting them to, well... Catholicism. Not Christianity. They were already that. Read d'Aubigne's History of the Reformation for more insight. Even beyond the 10th century, b the Celtic church in Wales was resisting the imposition of papal authority and doctrine. For example, the Celtic church for over 1000 years continued to honour the Bible sabbath, despite protestations from papal emissaries and monks and the pressures from Anglo Saxon pagan armies.

Hey Brakelite,

This post about the Celtic church and your theory that they did not submit to papal authority etc got me doing a lot of research the last several weeks. I started off with the book you mentioned by d'Aubigne's. There was no or very scant evidence in it that supports what you said. I learned that d'Aubigne was VERY anti-Catholic and his "history" books reflected that. I, like any good researcher, relied on multiple other sources to flesh out the facts.

Historians have gotten away from the idea that there was a "Celtic Church". They mostly call what was happening at that time Insular Christianity. The "Celtic churches" outside the major cities at the time had their own little tribes and regional teachings/practices but in general they adhered to the Catholic Churches doctrines. That's the Readers Digest version of what I learned.

So some of the things you said in this post are generally TRUE and others are not. I suspect that when you get your "history" from an anti-Catholic "historian" your views will be skewed.

Thanks for inspiring me to research something I didn't know about..........Mary

 

[Marymog]

As one Trinitarian to another, @Marymog, I hope you will allow a slight correction. The Nicene Creed as originally formulated did not mention anything about the Holy Spirit being "the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son." That was a later addition.

Because it collects 170 witnesses to the creed, the gold standard for recovery of the original Greek text is Dossetti's Il Simbolo di Nicea e di Costantinopoli. Here is R.P.C. Hanson's translation of it into English, found in The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988):

“We believe in one God Father Almighty Maker of all things seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten as only-begotten of the Father, that is of the substance (ousia) of the Father, God of God, Light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into existence, both things on heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and became man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit.

"But those who say ‘There was a time when he did not exist,’ and ‘Before being begotten he did not exist,’ and that he came into being from non-existence, or who allege that the Son of God is of another hypostasis or ousia, or is alterable or changeable, these the Catholic and Apostolic Church condemns.”

Thanks Redfan,

I learned something thanks to you....You are right about the addition/change/clarification from Nicaea to Constantinople. It does not change the FACT that The Church has always taught the Trinity.

So I am adding @Keiw to our conversation so that they can see that technically I did not get the history of the Nicaean Creed/Trinity teaching correct even though the Holy Ghost is mentioned in the original creed with the intent to recognize it as part of the Trinity.

 

[RedFan]

Thanks Redfan,

I learned something thanks to you....You are right about the addition/change/clarification from Nicaea to Constantinople. It does not change the FACT that The Church has always taught the Trinity.

So I am adding @Keiw to our conversation so that they can see that technically I did not get the history of the Nicaean Creed/Trinity teaching correct even though the Holy Ghost is mentioned in the original creed with the intent to recognize it as part of the Trinity.

I think Tertullian -- more than century before Nicaea -- may have been the first to use "Trinity." Philip Schaff: ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library There are lots of references to the Church Fathers' "binitarian" view, i.e., on the Divinity of Christ. Very little on the Holy Spirit.

Michael Partyka's analysis is worth a look: https://staycatholic.com/were-the-early-church-fathers-trinitarian/

 

[Keiw]

Hey Keiw,

Did you look at the link I provided? If you had, you would see that you are wrong and that the Apostolic Fathers did speak of the Trinity. As a matter of FACT an Apostolic Father used the word Trinity in 181AD. If you knew your Christian history, you would know that.

The Nicaean Creed was formulated by The Church to identify conformity of beliefs among Christians. EVERY Christian scholar knows and understands that the Nicaean Creed upheld the long-standing teaching of The Church concerning the Trinity. It, in part, says;

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,

Your OPINION that at The Church "added" the Holy Spirit to the godhead at The Council of Constantinople in 381AD shows your lack of knowledge about your own Christian history AND how Church Councils work. At that Council The Church reaffirmed and defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit in response to the heretical teaching of the Macedonians who denied the divinity of the Spirit.

Keeping it real with facts instead of opinions............Mary

100% fact=In the 2nd century, a man named Tertullian was considering the possibility of God being a trinity. That means the Abrahamic God= a single being God=YHVH(Jehovah) was still being served by those professing to be christian.
One cannot always believe words from others. Eve made that mistake.

 

[Keiw]

Thanks Redfan,

I learned something thanks to you....You are right about the addition/change/clarification from Nicaea to Constantinople. It does not change the FACT that The Church has always taught the Trinity.

So I am adding @Keiw to our conversation so that they can see that technically I did not get the history of the Nicaean Creed/Trinity teaching correct even though the Holy Ghost is mentioned in the original creed with the intent to recognize it as part of the Trinity.

They are wrong-Jesus is not the same substance as the Father-He is the Fathers image(Col 1:15) an image is NEVER the real thing. Jesus was a perfect mortal while on earth.

 

[RedFan]

Jesus was a perfect mortal while on earth.

And what about before then? What was he then?

 

[Brakelite]

When the Judaizers in Antioch were confusing the Gentile believers, Paul and Silas went to Jerusalem to seek counsel from the Apostles. After much discussion about what was required of the Gentile believers, the Apostles penned a letter, which stated the following:
“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.”

No further aspects of the Mosaic Law and NO Sabbath requirement. This is because they understood that this was ALL fulfilled in Christ.
When you understand that the Sabbat points to Jesus, it’s not difficult to grasp.

The very FIRST mention of the Sabbath in ALL of Scripture is when the Israelites are in the desert Ex 16:23-30. God commands them to take a day of rest and eat what they gathered.

WHAT did they gather? Jesus tells us about that in John 6:
John 6:31-34
“Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”

Read CAREFULLY what Jesus says next . . .
John 6:35
Jesus said to them, “I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

HE is the entire reason for the Sabbath – and He FULFILLED it with His death and resurrection.
- It was INSTITUTED for the eating of the Bread from Heaven (Manna).
- It was FULFILLED by the eating of the Br4ad of Life (Jesus).

This is why the NT Church gathered on the LORD’S Day – the FIRST day of the week (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10) - and NOT on the Sabbath which has been fulfilled.

And this is ALSO why the Apostles did NOT impose the Law on Gentile Christians as we read in their letter in Acts 15:23-29.

Romes Challenge

www.romeschallenge.com

 

[Brakelite]

Hey Brakelite,

This post about the Celtic church and your theory that they did not submit to papal authority etc got me doing a lot of research the last several weeks. I started off with the book you mentioned by d'Aubigne's. There was no or very scant evidence in it that supports what you said. I learned that d'Aubigne was VERY anti-Catholic and his "history" books reflected that. I, like any good researcher, relied on multiple other sources to flesh out the facts.

Historians have gotten away from the idea that there was a "Celtic Church". They mostly call what was happening at that time Insular Christianity. The "Celtic churches" outside the major cities at the time had their own little tribes and regional teachings/practices but in general they adhered to the Catholic Churches doctrines. That's the Readers Digest version of what I learned.

So some of the things you said in this post are generally TRUE and others are not. I suspect that when you get your "history" from an anti-Catholic "historian" your views will be skewed.

Thanks for inspiring me to research something I didn't know about..........Mary

Readers Digest? I think you could do a lot better than that.

 

[Marymog]

Readers Digest? I think you could do a lot better than that.

Your sarcasm aside I, unlike you, didn't obtain my "Celtic church" history from an anti-Catholic historian to learn the real history of the "Celtic church". I researched multiple, reliable and unbiased historians. You should try it sometime and put your sarcasm and degrading quips in the trash. I think you can do a lot better than that.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

100% fact=In the 2nd century, a man named Tertullian was considering the possibility of God being a trinity. That means the Abrahamic God= a single being God=YHVH(Jehovah) was still being served by those professing to be christian.
One cannot always believe words from others. Eve made that mistake.

I agree Keiw: One cannot always believe words from others. Who are the "others" you believe? And why do your men's teachings (Donald) trump the teachings of Tertullian?

"Considering the possibility of God being a trinity"? confused He wasn't considering the possibility; he flat out said it in his writings when he used the word "Trinity".

I can't take you serious anymore when you can't even be serious about known FACTS.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

I think Tertullian -- more than century before Nicaea -- may have been the first to use "Trinity." Philip Schaff: ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library There are lots of references to the Church Fathers' "binitarian" view, i.e., on the Divinity of Christ. Very little on the Holy Spirit.

Michael Partyka's analysis is worth a look: https://staycatholic.com/were-the-early-church-fathers-trinitarian/

Hey RedFan,​

Thanks for challenging me to think and do research. Here are some Church Fathers BEFORE Tertullian referencing the Holy Spirit and alluding to the Trinity:

Justin Martyr "We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. (151AD)​

Theophilus of Antioch “It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom” (A.D. 181).​

Irenaeus “For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit” (A.D. 189).​

I am not sure what you meant by there is "very little on the Holy Spirit" when it is very clear that there isn't. Also, we must take into consideration that these are writings that we, 1,900 years later, KNOW about. How many more are there that we don't know about in regards to the early Church teaching on the Trinity?

Respectfully, Mary

PS: Is this a banned topic on CB? I know that we are only talking about the history of the teaching of the Trinity, but I wonder if we are even allowed to do that

 

[Marymog]

They are wrong-Jesus is not the same substance as the Father-He is the Fathers image(Col 1:15) an image is NEVER the real thing. Jesus was a perfect mortal while on earth.

One cannot always believe words from others. Whose words are you relying on Keiw to call someone else wrong?

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Thanks for challenging me to think and do research. Here are some Church Fathers BEFORE Tertullian referencing the Holy Spirit and alluding to the Trinity:

Justin Martyr "We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. (151AD)​

Theophilus of Antioch “It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom” (A.D. 181).​

7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. [8] And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

A lot to think about in that.

“…for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. (151AD)” ​

Do I understand correctly
First place) God, the Father
Second place) the Son
Third place) the Spirit of prophecy

Which is “the Spirit” and “the Water” and “the Blood”? Can those also be put inFirst, Second, and Third place…is what I’m asking? What order would those be in?

By what I read the Testimony of Jesus Christ is the Spirit of Prophecy. also Wisdom which comes down from above and is given of God and not men…is The Spirit born from above, which is first peaceable, easily to be intreated…not the wisdom handed down of men. Then Jesus said He would have given the Living Water…where none would thirst again if he was asked, for He had the Living Water to give to those who asked.

Personally I would not stack them in places but have them on the same line …equally. For they all agree where it’s hard to distinguish them apart. for example :
God the Father, the Son, and New Jerusalem.
New Jerusalem which is above and Free, The Free Woman’s Law of Kindness which gives birth to the Son of Light and thereafter bears more Fruit, Children of God, the Father who gives His increase. All of the same Spirit. When the Word says the Son thought it not robbery to be “equal” with God the Father. Imo we turn that into something it is not. To me it means the Son thought of it not as thievery to lay down His life for the poor but Willing did so …not hopeless as if some strange thing had come upon Him but that it was as honor to be equal with God in as the Father is Long-suffering so is the Son long suffering. To me key is “He thought it not robbery” to be “as God” …I don’t hear “call me God” because I desire the role of “equal” as men desire “equal” standing …but instead the Son thought or held the perspective that “no man takes My life from Me” it’s not as robbery to stand “equally” beside God the Father in Victory over sin. That may not make sense…but to me it’s a moot point to debate “as equal unto God the Father” when our desires of “equal” only thinks of highest heights of a position, rather than in a shared, as One, Will.

 

[Marymog]

7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. [8] And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

A lot to think about in that.

“…for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. (151AD)” ​

Do I understand correctly
First place) God, the Father
Second place) the Son
Third place) the Spirit of prophecy

Which is “the Spirit” and “the Water” and “the Blood”? Can those also be put inFirst, Second, and Third place…is what I’m asking? What order would those be in?

By what I read the Testimony of Jesus Christ is the Spirit of Prophecy. also Wisdom which comes down from above and is given of God and not men…is The Spirit born from above, which is first peaceable, easily to be intreated…not the wisdom handed down of men. Then Jesus said He would have given the Living Water…where none would thirst again if he was asked, for He had the Living Water to give to those who asked.

Personally I would not stack them in places but have them on the same line …equally. For they all agree where it’s hard to distinguish them apart. for example :
God the Father, the Son, and New Jerusalem.
New Jerusalem which is above and Free, The Free Woman’s Law of Kindness which gives birth to the Son of Light and thereafter bears more Fruit, Children of God, the Father who gives His increase. All of the same Spirit. When the Word says the Son thought it not robbery to be “equal” with God the Father. Imo we turn that into something it is not. To me it means the Son thought of it not as thievery to lay down His life for the poor but Willing did so …not hopeless as if some strange thing had come upon Him but that it was as honor to be equal with God in as the Father is Long-suffering so is the Son long suffering. To me key is “He thought it not robbery” to be “as God” …I don’t hear “call me God” because I desire the role of “equal” as men desire “equal” standing …but instead the Son thought or held the perspective that “no man takes My life from Me” it’s not as robbery to stand “equally” beside God the Father in Victory over sin. That may not make sense…but to me it’s a moot point to debate “as equal unto God the Father” when our desires of “equal” only thinks of highest heights of a position, rather than in a shared, as One, Will.

7 Refers to testifying about the true humanity of Christ and His crucifixion. The three witnesses affirm the significance of Christ’s atoning death, which the secessionists apparently denied. In the Bible, two or three witnesses are required to validate testimony (e.g., Deut 17:6; 19:15; Matt 18:16; 2 Cor 13:1; Heb 10:28). According to John, the Spirit of God—along with the water and the blood (likely referring to Christ’s baptism and death)—bear witness to Christ’s incarnation, which led to His sacrifice for sinful humanity. 5:8 Throughout this letter, John identifies the Spirit as a testifier that confirms the truth (see 1 John 3:24; 4:2, 13). Some Bible translations, such as the King James Version, insert an additional clause between v. 7 and 5:8 (indicated by italics): “For there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three who bear witness in earth, the spirit and the water and the blood; and these three are one.” This clause emphasizes the oneness of God, as Father, Word (Jesus), and Spirit. This Trinitarian formula, called the Johannine Comma, is evident elsewhere in the NT, but it is stated explicitly in this addition. It is included in only four Greek manuscripts dating between the 14th and 18th centuries; it also is noted in the margin of five additional manuscripts, added in each case by a much later editorial hand. This means that it does not appear until the second millennium in any Greek manuscripts. Johannine Comma AYBD With regard to Jesus’ identity

 

[Marymog]

Romes Challenge

www.romeschallenge.com

Sabbatarians challenge from Scripture:

John 20:1
Acts 20:7
1 Corinthians 16:2
Revelation 1:10

Sabbatarians ignore (twist) Scripture.

Sabbatarians challenge from Christian history:

The Didache
The Epistle of Barnabas
Ignatius of Antioch
Justin Martyr


Sabbatarians ignore the writings of the men who lived closest to the time of Christ and instead choose to listen to men who lived 1,600 years later.

That is why Sabbatarians make up such a small percentage of Christianity because neither Scripture nor Christian history is on their side and most people are not easily fooled.

With that said I know the facts I have just presented will not change your mind. But my goal was not to change your mind.....It is to reveal the Truth: John 8:32

 

[BreadOfLife]

I asked you about Paul's letter to Timothy, not his letter to Thessalonika (which we have already beaten to death). And I didn't ask Second Peter's opinion. The question is, what did Paul have in mind when using the word graphē in 2 Tim. 3:16. Clearly, the OT. Not his own writings. Not letters yet to be penned.

You are one of the most dishonest people I’ve debated on this forum.
I already cleared this up in my last post.

Paul doesn’t mention “Scripture” - and he wasn’t talking about the OT. He emphatically says, “Letter of OURS”.
Their Letters, having been inspired by the Hoy Spirit, are what became the New Testament.

Your "denial" game has gotten rather boring . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

It was Paul and Barnabas who went to Jerusalem in front of the apostles and elders( governing body) about the matter of circumcision.
Jesus meant by obeying him is the result for those at John 6:35.
FEW understand the Lords supper, Because 99% are taught by blind guides.
A fact of the Lords supper= Luke 22:29-30--A covenant made to only those who will sit on thrones.= The little flock( Luke 12:32) not the great crowd( Rev 7:9)--The little flock=144,000 bought from the earth( Rev 14:3) these are the anointed bride of Christ-these will rule as kings and priests alongside of Jesus on thrones( Rev 1:6, Rev 20:6)
Paul warned all are not worthy to partake of the emblems( 1Cor 11:27-29)= a major sin for the great crowd to partake)= The great crowd of other sheep( John 10:16) who are not of that fold.---- (fold= the little flock) only these will sit on thrones.

Paul was talking about those who are not worthy of receiving the Lord in the Eucharist because of their sins.

1 Cor. 11:27-29
So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. EVERYONE ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

Just as the Manna was available to ALL of the Israelites who followed the Lord’s prescription - the Eucharist is available to EVERYONE in the congregation, provided they have examined themselves (confessed).

 

[BreadOfLife]

So long as they didn't eat food sacrificed to idols, and they didn't drink blood, they were good to go? What about adultery? Murder? How about having sex with your neighbours sheep?
Please explain why the Laodicean church council several hundred years later found it necessary to propose a law against Sabbath keepers?

They were no longer bound to the ceremonial aspects of the law.

There were lawss pertaining to morals, which are timeless. There were laws pertaining to cleanliness, laws pertaining to ceremony which are NOT binding on Christians.

The Church never “abandoned” the Sabbath. It merely recognized the Lord’s Day as the Sabbath because it is the day of our rebirth.

YOU can continue to celebrate the SHADOWS.
WE will celebrate the REALITY (Col. 2:16, 17) . . .

 

[RedFan]

You are one of the most dishonest people I’ve debated on this forum.
I already cleared this up in my last post.

Paul doesn’t mention “Scripture” - and he wasn’t talking about the OT. He emphatically says, “Letter of OURS”.
Their Letters, having been inspired by the Hoy Spirit, are what became the New Testament.

Your "denial" game has gotten rather boring . . .

I'm just not understanding your continual reference to a letter other than the sole letter I THOUGHT we were discussing: 2 Tim. 3:16, where Paul DOES mention graphē (= Scripture). Can you please focus on Second Timothy and nothing else for a moment? What did Paul mean by graphē here? I say the OT. How could it be anything else?